Variance City of Raleigh WQ0001730 Volume #9

Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kathy Stecker Andrew Pitner Coleen Sullin August 28, 2007 Coleen H. Sullins, Director Division of Water Quality I am hereby designating you as Hearing Officer for a public hearing concerning a variance request from the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106 U). The hearing concerns a variance to corrective action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106G) (Groundwater Classifications and Standards) and the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(d)(2) for the City of Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road. Groundwater containing nitrate in excess of the current state standard has migrated beyond this facility's compliance boundary. A variance granted for this facility will lead to the implementation of a corrective action plan that will apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) at the site. The hearing schedule is as follows: RALEIGH September 5, 2007 7:00P.M. Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street Ground Floor Hearing Room Included with this memorandum is an information packet that contains a memorandum to the Division of Public Health dated June 29, 2007 to Dr. Rick Langley at the Division of Public Health. This memorandum provides a good summary of this proposed variance request. I appreciate your taking the time to conduct this hearing. The staff will be glad to assist you through the proceedings. If you have any questions, feel free to call David Hance at 919-733-5083, extension 587 or contact.Jeff Manning at extension 579. Attachments. cc: Coleen Sullins Meagan Benton Alan Clark Jeff Manning David Hance rfo1flicarolina /Vat11rall!I ----------------------'-------------------North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Internet: www ncwatergualit1•.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone] An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
.treatment land disposal operations at its NRWWTP where disch~ges of groundwater impacted by
nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is
not going to be used for a water supply. In areas near the facility, where the future use of the
groundwater will be for a potable supply, the CORPUD has implemented an active treatment system
designed to more rapidly remove the nitrate from the groundwater. Residents in this area have been
connected to municipal water by CORPUD in the interim.
The CORPUD believes that groundwaters downgradient from the facility are exceeding the current
standard but can be attenuated and restored by passive natural processes in the subsurface. If granted by
the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of corrective
action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .01060). The proposed variance request will not change the required
standard for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It
must be noted that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are . in this
variance request and no other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
Supporting Materials:
The supporting information for this variance request is contained in two reports titled as follows:
• "Corrective Action Variance Application, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, December 1, 2005" and will be referred to in this letter as the
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" and is also referred to as the
variance request;
• "City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, Revised
Corrective Action Plan, ENSR International, December 2005" and will be referred to in this
letter as ''December 2005 Revised Corrective· Action Plan" or "RCAP."
Reasons that a Variance Will not Endanger Public Health and Safety:
The Division of Water Quality requests that the Division of Public Health evaluate the attached
information to support the risk assessment for this proposed variance. Relevant portions of the reports
discussed above are included with this request. In order to meet the requirements in 15A NCAC 2L
.0113, the utility submitted the following supporting information to demonstrate that the v_ariance will
not endanger public health and safety for the following reasons:
1. The permitted operations at this facility (Permit Number WQ000I 730) have been conducted
since 1976 and the CORPUD will be overseeing pe~tted land application operations and
the conditions related to this variance request until the facility is no longer in use, which is
not likely occur for decades to come. The current estimated life of the CORPUD Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant is 30 years.
2. The utility has fully delineated which properties are included in this variance request. The
thirty-five parcels of land included. within this request are listed in Table # 6 of the
2
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" with parcel sizes and land uses
discussed. These properties are shown in Figure# 2 of the variance request.
3. The CORPUD has determined the direction and rate of groundwater flow that would be
affected by granting a variance. Page 1-4 and Page 1-5 of the "December 2005 Revised
Corrective Action Plan" shows that groundwater is generally moving in the direction of the
Neuse River and its tributaries around the site. Page 4 of the request states that the movement
of groundwater through soils and subsurface materials as the site is approximately a rate of
"1.3 square feet per day", which is a relatively low rate of movement for this hydrogeologic
setting.
4. The CORPUD investigated groundwater analytical results from monitoring wells on-site and
these are discussed on Page # 4 and Page # 6 of the variance request. Monitoring well data
for nitrate is shown in Table# 3 for Test Wells (TW) from March 2003 to July 2005. Results
from Monitoring Wells (MW) are found in Table # 4 for nitrate from late 2002 through the
spring of 2004. These tables demonstrate that wells around Fields 50 and 500 consistently
have concentrations of nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per
liter. It is these land application fields that the CORPUD believes have caused significant
impacts to downgradient properties outside of compliance boundaries. Analysis of
groundwater samples from various fields shows exceedences of the Groundwater Qualjty
Standard for nitrate at sixteen fields (Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 100,
201, 500 and 503 which are located near the compliance boundary. Four onsite monitoring
wells and a former water supply well (PW-22) have exceedences of the nitrate standard: The
utility believes that off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater associated with biosolids in the
vicinity of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road does not extend east of Shotwell
Road and Mial Plantation Road. (See Table # 3 and Table # 4 of the December 1, 2005
Corrective Action Variance Application and Figure 3 from the December 2005 Revised
Corrective Action Plan).
5. Table# 1 of the titled "December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows
private well sampling around this facility. The utility has investigated the off-site impacts to
area drinking water wells to meet the criteria of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4). There are no
downgradient water wells that are known to be in use for drinking water supply at this time.
All of these properties are now on the City of Raleigh's public water supply system. Starting
in 2002, the CORPUD conducted sampling of private water supply wells located adjacent to
the facility. Of the thirty-six water supply wells initially sampled, seven showed
concentrations of nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per liter
in 15A NCAC2L .0202. As a result of the initial sampling effort and to evaluate water use
in light of proposing a variance, the utility expanded its monitoring to forty-five properties
and sampled wells on a quarterly basis, There are thirty-nine properties that were served by
thirty-eight water supply wells, of which thirty-seven have been permanently abandoned in
accordance with the state's rules and all of these properties have been connected to the City
of Raleigh Public Water Supply System. The owner of the one property where the well has
not been abandoned is on city water but refused the offer to have the well abandoned.
Analytical data from the monitoring wells located across Beddingfield Creek indicates that
3
migration of nitrate-impacted groundwater under the stream is not likely occurring. (See
Page 5 and Page 6 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application for a
more detailed discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
6. The utility has conducted further analysis of nitrate concentrations from this site to support
its :findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the "December
1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows that the utility has conducted a risk
analysis of the impacts of nitrate to neighboring properties. A discussion of this risk
assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and continues onto Page # 9 of the
request. The CORPUD examined various pathways of exposure using the most sensitive
human receptors to determine the most conservative risk pathway. The exposure pathways
analyzed included a young child exposed to nitrate from water used in a swimming pool, a
child and a teenager wading in surface water near the facility, and the use of groundwater
containing nitrate as a source of irrigation supply. Data analysis of these pathways did not
indicate an unacceptable risk of exposure to the nitrates from the facility. The only pathway
for which risk analysis showed a possible impact was consumption of groundwater.
However, there are no property owners in the vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant that are using groundwater as a source of drinking water where
nitrate exceeds or is predicted to exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 (103). It must be noted that the city will continue to monitor nitrate levels as required
by permit for as long as nitrate concentrations in groundwater are above the 10 milligrams
per liter standard to ensure protection of public health and the environment.
7. The CORPUD has submitted information demonstrating that land application of residuals
from the wastewater treatment process on existing fields that are in use will continue to be an
effective means of addressing these permitted activities. Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the
request discusses land application of nitrate and soils at this facility. The utility has
conducted analytical soil sampling to determine the soil profile for nitrate at the time this
variance was requested. The utility took samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west)
and Field 500 (southeast) and found that nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet
and 8 feet below the ground surface. The implication of this is that nitrates from the
permitted operations are accumulating through mechanisms such as infiltration via slow
water movement through the soil and anion exchange. In addition, Page 7 notes that the site
assessment work by ENSR International considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in
2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to support this variance request. The study
concluded that the nitrogen applied to these field was "adequate to excessive" for crop
production and will support plant life.
8. Table # 5 of the variance request provides surface water analytical results from November
2002 through September 2005. These locations are mapped out on Figure 1 in this variance.
The direction of groundwater flow through this portion of the facility is toward a tributary of
the Neuse River identified in the variance request as Beddingfield Creek. This water body is
classified as Class C NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water). There is no nitrate surface water
standard for this class of surface water. This body of water empties into the Neuse River,
which is classified as Water Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) and the surface water
4
standard for Water Supply V NSW is 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrate levels in nearby surface
water suggests that groundwater discharges to streams and tributaries of the Neuse River,
however, Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River did not exceed the 15A NCAC 2B Surface
Water Standard of 10 ~illigrams per liter. A discussion of surface water sampling and the
implications of results found are located on Page # 6, Page # 8 and Page # 9 of the variance
request.
9. The CORPUD has also investigated the potential for euthrophication of the Neuse River as a
result of granting the variance request. Under certain ambient conditions, additional nitrate in
a surface water body may result in the occurrence of algal blooms that can deteriorate water
quality. Based on the data contained in the variance request, CORPUD has agreed that as a
condition for approval of the variance it will account for this potential impact. The utility has
indicated that it will accept a specification in its wastewater discharge permit to account for
the excess amount of nitrogen estimated to enter the Neuse River from groundwater
discharge. Where the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is exceeded for
nitrate, the CORPUD will be required to count toward its annually-reported amount of
discharged nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by its NRWWTP, but also the
amount of nitrate associated with the groundwater discharge to the Neuse and its tributaries
once the variance is granted. The annual amount of nitrate that computer modeling predicts
will be discharged to the Neuse River via groundwater as a result of violations of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate, will be used as the basis for this determination
subject to actual field measurements and groundwater monitoring. The goal of this effort will
be that CORPUDs wastewater treatment and disposal operations never contribute more
nitrogen to the Neuse River than what is currently allocated under its NPDES discharge
permit. The potential for euthrophication is discussed on Page# 12 and Page# 13 of the
variance request.
10. The utility has provided a listing of property owners, well owners, and former well owners
affected by this variance request as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9). Figure # 2
lists the properties and ownership of them around the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP). Exhibit# 3 of the request also shows which parcels of land are in Wake
County, Johnson County and those that are owned by the State of North Carolina.
Variance Alternatives:
In proposing this variance request, the CORPUD has proposed two alternatives to addressing nitrate
migration outside of its existing compliance boundary and these are as follows:
Alternative # 1 -Corrective Action Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L: Groundwater Extraction and
Enhanced Denitrification along tb.e Compliance Boundary with Discharge to the Neuse River.
Waste Water Treatment Plant:
This alternative would involve the construction of 426 extraction wells installed along portions of
the compliance boundary where the Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate has been exceeded or is
anticipated to be exceeded. Enhanced denitrification involves the injection (pressure or gravity feed) of
5
biodegradable carbon electron donor, such as com syrup or sodium lactate via injection wells to create
in-situ anaerobic zones to denitrify nitrate enriched plumes of groundwater beyond the compliance
boundary. The goal of using this method would be to stimulate the growth of microbes that would use
the nitrate as groundwater passes through these zones from the land application fields.
Alternative # 2 -A Variance Under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 that will Result in Groundwater
Containment in Fields 50 and 500, Discharge to North Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plant or
land application and Long-Term Monitoring of Other Areas:
Based on the best available information, nitrate exceedences have occurred beyond the compliance
boundary for this facility near Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is directed at controlling additional
offsite migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of a limited number of groundwater
extraction wells. If this alternative is applied short-term extraction of groundwater combined with
natural remedial processes or attenuation and degradation in the subsurface will control and break down
nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring will be conducted over the remaining areas of the site where
exceedences of the nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard have occurred at or beyond the compliance
boundary under permit.
Comparing the Effects of Alternative # 1 and Alternative # 2 the Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP):
The following table was developed from the information submitted by the CORPUD in variance
request and shows a comparison of the effect of using either Alternative # I or Alternative # 2 for as
follows:
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE# 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Number ofNew Wells 426 pumping wells around the 22 new groundwater extraction
Constructed entire facility wells installed downgradient from
(Including the construction Field 500
of 195 new injection wells
under
15A NCAC 2C .0200)
Additional Groundwater 128 wells 39 wells
Monitoring (20 monitoring wells, 20 (10 monitoring wells and 29
(Sampling conducted three times injection wells, and 88 extraction wells)
per year for the life of the recovery wells)
project)
6
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE# 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
(Continued) Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Surface Water Sampling 10 locations 2 locations
(Sampling conducted three times
per year for the life of the
project)
Potential Reduction of stream High None
base flow into the Neuse River
Estimated Costs $ 79 Million Dollars $ 9 Million Dollars
(Over the estimated 30 year life
of the facility)
If a variance is not granted, the utility will be required to address nitrate levels outside compliance
boundaries at this site by using Alternative # 1 in the table, which CORPUD believes is the Best
Available Technology (BAT) per 15A NCAC 2L .01060). If Alternative # 1 is applied to its Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant, the bulk of this cost would be in the form of capital costs over a
period of the first three years of the project and represents " .... approximately 30 to 90 percent of its
total capital budget in the next few years. "
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(6) and (7), the applicant has submitted information in this
variance request to support the finding that the cost of applying BAT to this site is a "serious financial
hardship" on CORPUD without an equal or greater public benefit. The permittee does not believe that
any public benefit can be gained through the implementation of a Corrective Action Plan relying on
active remedial technology to cleanup groundwaters outside of permitted boundaries for a majority of
the site. A variance would allow concentration of nitrate to remain at levels near the 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 and allow the processes of natural degradation and attenuation to act upon residual concentrations
at this site. For a more detailed discussion of the economics of both alternatives, of the implementation
of corrective action Alternative# 1, and a variance under Alternative# 2 with application of 15A NCAC
2L .0106(k), see Page 9 through Page 14 of the "December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance
Application."
Request Review and Comment by July 27, 2007:
Please review the attached report and provide David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section with a
recommendation regarding the risk assessment of this variance request. Mr. Hance may be contacted at
733-5083 ( ext. 587) and he is in the Archdale Building Room 625. If you would like to meet with
Aquifer Protection Section staff to further discuss the variance request, particularly regarding technical
aspects of the variance, please contact Mr. Hance to arrange such a meeting.
If possible, the Planning Section would like to receive your recommended response by Friday, July
27, 2007. If you need my assistance please call me at extension 570. Per the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113, variance requests must receive final action by the Environmental Management
7
Commission. Upon receiving your recommendation, this information will be incorporated into the
variance request packet and be forwarded to the Director of the Division of Water Quality for review
pursuant to title 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d). If the Director deems the information to support this variance
request complete, DWQ will proceed to public notice and hearing under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) of the
rule.
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Jeff Manning
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor)
Rick Bolich
David Hance
Dr. Ken Rudo
8
: CORPUD Variance Request: Correction to the last email About t...
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Correction to the last email About the Meeting on August
23rd
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:25:44 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
ah-ha you caught it too! I'll plan to be there on the 23rd of AUGUST
J
David Hance wrote:
Sorry Staffs ...... I made an error in My Last Email ---that is corrected in this new
version of it.
Please delete the previous email --We are meeting on August 23rd.
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
*********************************************************************************.
Hello Everyone:
You will recall that we have been trying to schedule a planning meeting about the City of Raleigh
Variance Request prior to the hearing that will be held in September 2007. I have looked over you
dates that you gave. me and and I have the best time for all of us to meet and discuss this variance.
The Hearing Officers Planning Meeting for the CORPUD Variance Re quest will be held as
follows:
Raleigh
Thursday, August 23, 2007
-@ 1:30PM
Archdale Building (512 North Salisbury Street)
On the 10th Floor --North Carolina Forest Resources -Conference Room (Room 1042A-2)
We have the conference room until the close of business .... However, I do not believe this
meeting will last past 3:30 PM.
The purpose of this meeting is to go over what is needed to assist the hearing officers in
conducting the hearing and preparing for the meeting. It is also to help the Raleigh Regional Office
staff flush out any issues regarding the staff presentation for the variance and to assist them in that
effort. Those attending should be prepared to ask questions or provide any relevant information to
staff and the hearing officers on this variance request. I would think that any issues or questions at
this meeting should be related to:
( 1) The variance process,
8/10/2007 4 :51 PM
: CORPUD Variance Request: Correction to the last email About t...
,f2
1
• • (2) DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section staff presentation,
(3) How to deal with the public that may attend,
( 4) Recommendations from the Division of Public Health on the risk assessment; and/or
(5) Any technical issues related to the request.
Question: Can anyone think of anvthing else that I may have missed?
Note that I have the supporting materials for this variance from the City Of Raleigh and I will
bring that box of items to the meeting --in case we need to refer to those reports. If you have
questions -contact me at 919-733-5083 x. 587 .
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
8/10/2007 4:51 PM
>RPUD Variance Request: Correction to the last email About the M ...
>f2
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Correction to the last email About the Meeting on August 23rd
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:14:07 -0400
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr."<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Sorry Staffs ...... ! made an error in My Last Email ---that is corrected in this new
version of it.
Please delete the previous email ---We are meeting on August 23rd.
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
**********************************************************************************
Hello Everyone:
You will recall that we have been trying to schedule a planning meeting about the City of Raleigh
Variance Request prior to the hearing that will be held in September 2007. I have looked over you dates
that you gave me and and I have the best time for all of us to meet and discuss this variance.
The Hearing Officers Plannin g Meeting for the CORPUD Variance Request will be held as follows:
Ralei gh
Thursday, August 23 , 2007
@ 1:30PM
Archdale Building (512 North Salisbury Street)
On the 10th Floor --North Carolina Forest Resources -Conference Room (Room 1042A-2)
We have the conference room until the close of business .... However, I do not believe this meeting
will last past 3:30 PM.
The purpose of this meeting is to go over what is needed to assist the hearing officers in conducting
the hearing and preparing for the meeting. It is also to help the Raleigh Regional Office staff flush out
any issues regarding the staff presentation for the variance and to assist them in that effort. Those
attending should be prepared to ask questions or provide any relevant information to staff and the
hearing officers on this variance request. I would think that any issues or questions at this meeting
should be related to:
(1) The variance process,
(2) DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section staff presentation,
(3) How to deal with the public that may attend,
(4) Recommendations from the Division of Public Health on the risk assessment; and/or
(5) Any technical issues related to the request.
Question: Can anyone think of anvthing else that I may have missed?
8/10/2007 4 :14 PM
>RPUD Variance Request: Correction to the last email About the M ...
Note that I have the supporting materials for this variance from the City Of Raleigh and I will bring
that box of items to the meeting --in case we need to refer to those reports. If you have questions -
contact me at 919-733-5083 x. 587 .
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
8/10/2007 4 :14 PM
: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of ...
,f2
..
Subjecti Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:55:25 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David, ®
I would like to sit on this meeting if room allows. Times I am not available during the 2 weeks
proposed:
August 15, August 17 am, August 24. djw
David Hance wrote:
Hello DWO Staff:
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance for the City
of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
(CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from our office to the public per
the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper (News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing
Room@7PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers , Ms . Kathy Stecker, that
we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine what our plan will be for that hearing
and to get a clear idea of the work that needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this
proposed variance request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a meeting should be
held either during the week of August 13th though August 17th !!!: the week of August 20th through
August 24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay Zimmerman, myself, and
Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible. If other staff from DWQ want to be at this
meeting as well, we would need to know that. It is req uested of' the DWO -Aquifer Protection
Section Chief'. Ted Bush. that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting .
In order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone's availability during the two weeks so that
we can get a room and make all the arrangements.
Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know what days
and times that you can meet. So far. the da ys and times that I, David Hance, can meet are as
follows:
> Between August 13th through August 17th: Any day or time during that week morning or
afternoon.
8/9/2007 6:33 PM
,: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of...
if2
>> Between August 20th through August 24th: August 20th in the morning only. August 21st
through August 24th any time on those days.
If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or before
9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. One we have a day and time to meet ....... then I
will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building for that. If due to work needs in
regional office we need arrange a conference call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will
need to let me know about that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
Debra J. Watts, Supervisor
Groundwater Protection Unit
Aquifer Protection Section
919-715-6699
8/9/2007 6:33 PM
: CORPUD -hearing officers meeting & your times and days -than ...
>f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD -hearing officers meeting & your times and days -thanks for getting back to
me!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:24:06 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
david hance
*************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
David;
I'm sorry this took so long for me to reply. Here are the times that i am
available:
week of 8/13 -
8/14 in AM, 8/15 in PM, 8/16 all day.
week of 8/20 -
8/20 all day, 8/21 all day, 8/23 all day, and 8/24 in PM. ------
I apologize again for being late; i'm. sure it was Jay"s fault somehow .
rb
David Hance wrote:
*_Hello DWQ Staff:_*
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed
variance for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant (CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has
gone out from our office to the public per the rule and a notice was placed in
the newspaper (News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building
Ground Floor Hearing Room@ 7 PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers,
Ms. Kathy Stecker, that we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to
determine what our plan will be for that hearing and to get a clear idea of the
work that needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this proposed
variance request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that
a meeting should be held either during the week of August 13th though August
17th _*or*_ the week of August 20th through August 24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay
Zimmerman, myself, and Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all
possible. If other staff from DWQ want to be at this meeting as well, we would
need to know that. *_It is requested of the DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section
Chief, Ted Bush, that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this
meeting._*
In order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone's
availability during the two weeks so that we can get a room and make all the
arrangements.
_*Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us
know what days and times that you can meet. * *So far, the days and times that
8/9/2007 4:24 PM
Re: CORPUD -hearing officers meeting & your times and days -than ...
2 of2
I, David Hance, can meet are as follows:*
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during that week
morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th: * August 20th in the morning
_only._ August 21st through August 24th any time on those days.
*/If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or
before 9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. /*One we have a day and time
to meet ....... then I will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale
Building for that. If due to work needs in regional office we need arrange a
conference call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to let me
know about that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/9/2007 4:24
>RPUD Variance: Your availability for a meeting?
,f 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Your availability for a meeting?
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:37:46 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Rick,
A few days back, I sent you and many others are request for days when you will be
available for a meeting about the CORPUD variance with the hearing officers .
Do you have that information for me?
I have everyone else I think.
david hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
8/9/2007 9:38 AM
i<"iublic ·flearing-response
f2
Subject: Re: public hearing-response
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:19:05 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Thanks Mr. Hance. I also got a message from someone else in your office who was trying to address my concerns.
Very impressive! Thanks for your attention and the attention of your office.
Judy
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:01:46 -0400 David Hance <[e-mail]> writes:
Ms. Okamoto,
Receiving a notice does not necessarily mean that your well was affected by substances that migrated offsite.
We have sent this to meet legal requirements that are upon the state.
The public notice was sent to you to meet notice requirements of a variance pursuant to the rule 15A NCAC
2L .0113(e)(l)(E). It is required that the state give notice to adjacent property owners when a variance request
is to given notice of public hearing. {If you want to look at that rule, please go to
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adminlrules/codes statutes.htm, scroll down to the 2L Groundwater Rules and you
will see the entire 2L booklet. Then go to pages 20-22 of that PDF booklet}.
You have been identified by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) as an ( 1) adjacent
property owner, property owner within the proposed area of the variance; or (3) a well owner. That is only the
reason why the DWQ Planning Section sent you a notice.
There has been offsite migration to the southwest of the plant beyond the compliance boundary. According to
the information that staff has, it appears that all the water wells that were contaminated with Nitrate have
either been abandoned per state requirements or are no longer in use as a drinking water supply. City water
was made available by the CORPUD .to these persons, according to information submitted by them.
If you need to discuss the technical aspects of this variance further or what to know how this variance relates
to your property you may contact our field staff that conducted the investigation. You should call or email
Jay Zimmerman at the Raleigh Regional Office 919-791-4200 or Ja [e-mail]. He can help
you with those questions.
As the notice states the public hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 in Raleigh and comments will be
received then from the public. Per requirements of the rule, written comment received from the public before
October 5, 2007 will considered in the hearing record. By sending a notice to you, we are informing you of
this action and are encouraging the interested public to come out to the hearing and make comment as they
wish and/or to send written comments.
If you wish to discuss the public hearing process and schedule, please feel free to contact me, David Hance.
David Hance
Env . Spec.
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*********************************************************************************************
jokamoto@ juno.com wrote:
I Dear Mr. Hance;
8/9/2007 9:17 AM
, oublic JJearing-response .., "
We received a disturbing notice in the mail today titled "Notice of
Variance Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality". It was disturbing in that I could
not understand what it was trying to communicate to me, a local home
owner.
It sounds like our ground water has possibly been polluted by the water
treatment plant. Could you clarify .... could you put that letter into
layman's terms for me?
Judy Okamoto
553-8286
8/9/2007 9: 17 AM
:: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of ...
Jf2
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:32:39 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
David,
The only times I am available are as follows:
8/13 -after lunch
8/20, 21, 23 -all day
8/24 -after lunch
Please advise of a time/place for the conference call. Have you sent Kathy and Andrew copies of the
reports they may need? Let us know if we need to get extra copies. Also, have you heard from Dr.
Rudo?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello DWO Staff:
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance for the City
of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
(CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from our office to the public per
the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper (News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing
Room@7PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms. Kathy Stecker, that
we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine what our plan will be for that hearing
and to get a clear idea of the work that needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this
proposed variance request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a meeting should be
held either during the week of August 13th though August 17th m: the week of August 20th through
August 24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay Zimmerman, myself, and
Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible. If other staff from DWQ want to be at this
meeting as well, we would need to know that. It is rec1 uested of the DWO -A q uifer Protection
Section Chief'. Ted Bush, that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting.
8/10/2007 3:28 P M
Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of...
2 of2
In order to do this, the first ste p is ...... to 2:et everyone's availability during the two weeks so that
we can get a room and make all the arran gements.
Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know what days
and times that you can meet. So far, the da ys and times that I , David Hance. can meet are as
follows:
> Between August 13th through August 17th: Any day or time during that week morning or
afternoon.
>> Between August 20th through August 24th: August 20th in the morning only. August 21st
through August 24th any time on those days.
If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or before
9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. One we have a day and time to meet ....... then I
will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building for that. If due to work needs in
regional office we need arrange a conference call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will
need to let me know about that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
8/10/2007 3:28
~: [Fwd: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWT ...
of3
Subject: Re: [Fwd: 2L Variance RequesU City of Raleigh-CORPUD-NRWWTP: Discussion of the
Newpaper Publication and Mailing of Public Notices for this variance]
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16: 10: 11 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Sorry, I was out of the office for several days and drowning in e-mails on my
return. I did get it but appreciate you sending it again so that I could locate it
easier.
David Hance wrote:
Hi Susan,
I sent this to you on Friday -Aug . 3rd.
Did you get it?
david hance
x. 587
Subject:
2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWTP: Discussion of the Newpaper
Publication and Mailing of Public Notices for this variance
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:20:41 -0400
To:
Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <jeff [e-mail]>, "Ted
L. :Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
Kathy [e-mail], [e-mail], Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, susan.masseng [e-mail]
To:
Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted
L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
Kathy [e-mail], [e-mail], Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hello All:
You will recall that our Division has been working on a groundwater variance
request for the City of Raleigh over the last few months. A public hearing has
been scheduled for September 5, 2007 and·as required in rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113 .
The public hearing will be held in Raleigh in the Archdale Building@ 7 PM that
evening in the Ground Floor Hearing Room.
The notice for the public hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance at the Neuse
River Waste Water Treatment Plant was signed by the Director of DWQ on July
31st. In an attempt to meet the 30 Day requirement to give public notice
pursuant to lSA NCAC 2L .0113, the signed notice was mailed out to various person
described in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e} (1} (A-F} on Friday, August 3, 2007.
_A copy of the public notice was sent to the following organizations and persons:
1. _Newspaper Notice:_ The notice has gone to the News and Observer for
publication of a legal advertisement per requirements of lSA NCAC 2L
.0113(e) (1} (A). I checked with staff at the N & O today and they said the notice
sn12001 5:10 PM
Re: [Fwd: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWT ...
2of3
is ready to go in the paper in the *_Saturday, August 4th_ *edition (Tomorrow).
This will give general notice to the public of the City of Raleigh variance
request and hearing .
2. _Health Officials Notice: The health director at Wake County Health
Department and Terry Pierce at the DEH were sent a copy of the notice per 15A NCAC
2 L .0113(e) (1) (B). A cover letter was sent to the local health director informing
her of the reason for this action.
3. _Local Officials Notice: Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (D) requires notices be
sent to governmental units or units with jurisdiction over the area covered by the
variance. Notices went to the Mayor of Raleigh, City Manager o f Raleigh, Wake
County Manager, and Johnston County Manager. Cover letters went to these persons
describing why they got the notices.
4. _Property Owners Notice: _Property owner notice was given to approximately 124
addresses that the CORPUD included as a part of the variance application and
includes adjacent properties owners. It includes private business, state
properties, and residence near the site. This was done per the requirements of in
15A NCAC 2 L . 0113 ( e) ( 1) ( E) .
In addition, a copy of a notice went to the following persons:
* Division of Water Quality staffs including management in the
Aquifer Protection Section central office and regional offices
and staff in the Surface Water Protection Section. Coleen
Sullins and Charles Wakild got copies too. About 24 notices went
out to these persons on Friday, August 3, 2007.
* H. Dale Crisp of the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
was sent a copy too.
* Carolyn Bachl with the law firm representing the City of Raleigh
was mailed a copy.
* Mr. Dean Neujoks of the Upper Neuse River Keeper"s Alliance had
a copy of the notice mailed to him .
* Linda Culpepper at the Division of Waste Management has
requested that we sent a copy of permits related variances to
them when we give notice of hearings. The DWM now oversees
variances for groundwater cleanup incidents (i.e. spills,
releases, leaks, etc.) .It was agreed at a February 2007 meeting
that we would communicate and share what each agency is doing
with its variance requests.
* A hard copy was dropped off at Kathy Stecker's Office on the 7th
Floor on Friday as well.
*/If there is anyone else who needs a notice of the variance and the public
hearing on September 5, 2007, please let me know and I will send that to them.
_Note that we are required by the rule to send notices to persons who make
requests for them._!*
Copies of the notices and letters that I have sent out have been provided to Jeff
Manning and to Alan Clark and these hardcopies are in the mailing boxes at the
DWQ-Planning Offices. / _Since the variance hearing will receive notice over the
weekend, *Susan Massengale*, the DWQ Public Information Officer for DWQ, has been
provided a copy of the notice and letters related to it with a copy of 15A NCAC
2L.
_/*Attached is a copy of the Public Notice for this variance request that will
appear in the legal section of the News and Observer in the Saturday, August 4,
2007 issue. * / _
_ /
David Hance, Env Spec
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/7/2007 5 : 10
:: c 'wd: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWT ...
of3 sn12001 s:10 PM
e: [Fwd : Rudo letter]---Could you send me this?
>f 1
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Rudo letter]---Could you send me this?
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:00:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
David, if it was a hard copy memo, it should be in my office, and I can
retrie ve when I get in tomorrow. However, if it was a cc to an email,
I was not able to find it in the 5 most recent emails from Jay that I
have access to from home. If it was an older email, and I transferred
to a local folder on my office computer, I can find it tomorrow.
Alan
----Original Message ----
From: [e-mail] t
Date: Aug 7, 2007 15:22
To : "Alan Clark"<[e-mail]>
Subj: [Fwd: Rudo letter]---Could you send me this?
Jay Zimmerman in the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section Raleigh Regional
Office copied you on this memo .
*Q. Could you send it on to me so I can get the attachment for my
variance file?
*
dh
sn120014:26 PM
CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off ...
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:46:44 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Debra
Watts <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, J [e-mail]
David,
Thanks. Here is when I am NOT available during those weeks:
13 morning, 14 morning, 15 all day
20 afternoon, 21 all day
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
*_Hello DWQ Staff: *
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance
for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from
our office to the public per the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper
(News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room@ 7 PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms.
Kathy Stecker, that we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine
what our plan will be for that hearing and to get a clear idea of the work that
needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this proposed variance
request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a
meeting should be held either during the week of August 13th though August 17th
*or* the week of August 20th through August 24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay
Zimmerman, myself, and Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible.
If other staff from DWQ want to be at this meeting as well, we would need to know
that. * It is requested of the DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section Chief, Ted Bush,
that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting ._*
In order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone's availability
during the two weeks so that we can get a room and make all the arrangements.
_*Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know
what days and times that you can meet. * *So far, the days and times that I,
David Hance, can meet are as follows:*
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during that week
morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th: * August 20th in the morning _only._
August 21st through August 24th any time on those days.
*/If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or
before 9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. /*One we have a day and time to
meet ....... then I will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building
for that. If due to work needs in regional office we need arrange a conference
call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to let me know about
8/7/2007 2:20 PM
Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off ...
2 of2
that so we can get that arranged .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Kathy Stecker <Kath [e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
8/7/2007 2:20 Pl
CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off ...
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:45:18 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
I think meeting prior would be a good idea. During the dates mentioned, I'm
currently available the following days:
8/17 -available all day to meet or call
8/21 -afternoon conference call ok
8/23 & 24 -available to meet or call -both days fully open
If it comes to it , I'd also be available all day 8/27, 28, 30, or 31.
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
*_Hello DWQ Staff: *
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance
for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from
our office to the public per the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper
(News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room@ 7 PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms.
Kathy Stecker, that we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine
what our plan will be for that hearing and to get a clear idea of the work that
needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this proposed variance
request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a
meeting should be held either during the week of August 13th though August 17th
*or* the week of August 20th through August 24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay
Zimmerman, myself, and Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible.
If other staff from DWQ want to be at this meeting as well, we would need to know
that. * It is requested of the DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section Chief, Ted Bush,
that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting. *
In order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone's availability
during the two weeks so that we can get a room and make all the arrangements.
*Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know
what days and times that you can meet. * *So far, the days and times that I,
David Hance, can meet are as follows:*
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during that week
morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th: * August 20th in the morning _only._
August 21st through August 24th any time on those days.
*/If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or
before 9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. /*One we have a day and time to
meet ....... then I.will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building
for that. If due to work needs in regional office we need arrange a conference
call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to let me know about
8/7/2007 2:20 PM
Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off..
2 of2
that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Andrew Pitner, P .G. [e-mail]
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
8/7/2007 2:20 p ~
CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off. ..
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:32:39 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
David,
The only times I am available are as follows:
8/13 -after lunch
8/20, 21, 23 -all day
8/24 -after lunch
Please advise of a time/place for the conference call. Have you sent Kathy and Andrew copies of the
reports they may need? Let us know if we need to get extra copies. Also, have you heard from Dr.
Rudo?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello DWO Staff:
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance for the City
of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
(CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from our office to the public per
the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper (News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing
Room@7PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms. Kathy Stecker, that
we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine what our plan will be for that hearing
and to get a clear idea of the work that needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this
proposed variance request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a meeting should be
held either during the week of August 13th though August 17th Q!: the week of A:ugust 20th through
August 24th.
fu addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay Zimmerman, myself, and
Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible. If other staff from DWQ want to be at this
meeting as well, we would need to know that. It is requested of the DWO -Aquifer Protection
Section Chief, Ted Bush, that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting.
fu order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone's availability during the two weeks so that
8/7/2007 2 :21 PM
Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off. ..
2 of2
we can get a room and make all the arrangements.
Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know what days
and times that you can meet. So far , the da sand times that I , David Hance, can meet are as
follows:
> Between August 13th through August 17th: Any day or time during that week morning or
afternoon.
>> Between August 20th through August 24th: August 20th in the morning only. August 21st
through August 24th any time on those days.
If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or before 9:30
AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. One we have a day and time to meet ....... then I will
go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building for that. If due to work needs in regional
office we need arrange a conference call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to
let me know about that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/ Aquifer Protection Section
8/7/2007 2:21 p ~
CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing ofL.
f2
'
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: ''[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 18:53:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>
David, I can tentatively meet as follows:
8/13, 14, 15, 17 (am), 20 (am), 21 (pm), 22 (after 1:30, 23 and 24
(am).
Alan
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during
that week morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th: * August 20th in the
morning _only._ August 21st through August 24th any time on those
days.
----Original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Aug 6, 2007 17:58
To: "kathy stecker"<Kathy [e-mail]>, "Andrew Pitner"<Andrew.
[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<ted.bush@n cmail.net>, "Debra
Watts"<[e-mail]>, "Rick Bolich"<[e-mail]>,
"Jeff Manning"<j [e-mail]>, "Alan Clark"<Alan.Clark@ncmail.
net>, <Jay [e-mail]>
Subj: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
*_Hello DWQ Staff: *
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a
proposed
variance for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse
River Waste Water Treatment Plant (CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of
the
hearing has gone out from our office to the public per the rule and a
notice was placed in the newspaper (News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale
Building Ground Floor Hearing Room@ 7 PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing
officers, Ms. Kathy Stecker, that we hold staff meeting prior to the
public hearing to determine what our plan will be for that hearing
and
to get a clear idea of the work that needs to be done by staff and
the
hearing officers on this proposed variance request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we
believe that a meeting should be held either during the week of
August
13th though August 17th _*or*_ the week of August 20th through August
24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and
Andrew), Jay Zimmerman, myself, and Rick Bolich should be at this
meeting, if at all possible. If other staff from DWQ want to be at
8/7/2007 2 :22 PM
Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off ...
2 of2
this
meeting as well, we would need to know that. *_It is requested of
the
DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section Chief, Ted Bush, that Rick Bolich be
made available to participate at this meeting._*
In order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone's
availability during the two weeks so that we can get a room and make
all
the arrangements.
_*Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section
to
let us know what days and times that you can meet. * *So far, the
days
and times that I, David Hance, can meet are as follows:*
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during
that week morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th: * August 20th in the
morning _only._ August 21st through August 24th any time on those
days.
*/If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from
you
on or before 9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. /*One we have
a
day and time to meet ....... then I will go ahead and schedule a
room
at the Archdale Building for that. If due to work needs in regional
office we need arrange a conference call from the Mooresville Region,
Andrew Pitner will need to let me know about that so we can get that
arranged .
David Hance
DWQ -Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
8/7/2007 2:22 P
CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing off ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:02:48 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David,
Please let me know the time and place of the meeting once it's set up and I'll work
it in to my schedule.
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
*_Hello DWQ Staff: *
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance
for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from
our office to the public per the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper
(News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room@ 7 PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms.
Kathy Stecker, that we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine
what our plan will be for that hearing and to get a clear idea of the work that
needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this proposed variance
request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a
meeting should be held either during the week of August 13th though August 17th
_*or*_ the week of August 20th through August 24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay
Zimmerman, myself, and Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible.
If other staff from DWQ want to be at this meeting as well, we would need to know
that. *_It is requested of the DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section Chief, Ted Bush,
that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting._*
In order to do this, the first step is : ..... to get everyone's availability
during the two weeks so that we can get a room and make all the arrangements.
_*Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know
what days and times that you can meet. * *So far, the days and times that I,
David Hance, can meet are as follows:*
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during that week
morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th:,* August 20th in the .. morning _only._
August 21st through August 24th any time on those days.
*/If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or
before 9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. /*One we have a day and time to
meet ....... then I will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building
for that. If due to work ·needs in regional office we need arrange a conference
call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to let me know about
that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
8/7/2007 2:22 PM
Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request Setting up a hearing off. ..
733-5083 x. 587
2 of2 8/7/2007 2:22 PI
1do letter
Jf 1
Subject: Rudo letter
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date:Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:06:26-0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Alan Clark was copied on the memo so I assume he will forward to you. Let Rick or me
know if you do not get it or he doesn't have it.
Jay
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
8/7/2007 3:20 P M
:: [Fwd:-Re: public hearing-response]
Jf2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: public hearing-response]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:39:31 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
thanks as I have already begun to receive calls
David Hance wrote:
Jay --see this in case you get a call.
davidHance
Subject:
Re: public hearing-response
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:01:46-0400
To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Ms. Okamoto,
Receiving a notice does not necessarily mean that your well was affected by substances that migrated offsite. We
have sent this to meet legal requirements that are upon the state.
The public notice was sent to you to meet notice requirements of a variance pursuant to the rule 15A NCAC 2L
.0l 13(e)(l)(E). It is required that the state give notice to adjacent property owners when a variance request is to
given notice of public hearing. { If you want to look at that rule, please go to
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adminlruleslcodes statutes.htm, scroll down to the 2L Groundwater Rules and you will
see the entire 2L booklet. Then go to pages 20-22 of that PDF booklet}.
You have been identified by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) as an (1) adjacent
property owner, property owner within the proposed area of the variance; or (3) a well owner. That is only the
reason why the DWQ Planning Section sent you a notice.
There has been offsite migration to the southwest of the plant beyond the compliance boundary. According to the
information that staff has, it appears that all the water wells that were contaminated with Nitrate have either been
abandoned per state requirements or are no longer in use as a drinking water supply. City water was made
available by the CORPUD to these persons, according to information submitted by them.
If you need to discuss the technical aspects of this variance further or what to know how this variance relates to
your property you may contact our field staff that conducted the investigation. You should call or email Jay
Zimmerman at the Raleigh Regional Office 919-791-4200 or [e-mail]. He can help you with
those questions.
As the notice states the public hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 in Raleigh and comments will be
received then from the public. Per requirements of the rule, written comment received from the public before
October 5, 2007 will considered in the hearing record. By sending a notice to you, we are informing you of this
action and are encouraging the interested public to come out to the hearing and make comment as they wish and/or
to send written comments.
8/7/2007 3:20 PM
:: [Fwd: Re: public hearing-response]
If you wish to discuss the public hearing process and schedule, please feel free to contact me, David Hance.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*********************************************************************************************
Df2
jokamoto@ juno.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Hance;
We received a disturbing notice in the mail today titled "Notice of
Variance Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality".• It was disturbing in that I could
not understand what it was trying to communicate to me, a local home
owner.
It sounds like our ground water has possibly been polluted by the water
treatment plant. Could you clarify .... could you put that letter into
layman"s terms for me?
Judy Okamoto
553-8286
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
8/7/2007 3:20 PM
: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:46:44 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Debra
Watts <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <Alan. [e-mail]>~ [e-mail]
David,
Thanks. Here is when I am _NOT_ available during those weeks:
13 morning, 14 morning, 15 all day
20 afternoon, 21 all day
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
*_Hello DWQ Staff:_*
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance
for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from
our office to the public per the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper
(News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room@ 7 PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms.
Kathy Stecker, that we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine
what our plan will be for that hearing and to get a clear idea of the work that
needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this proposed variance
request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a
meeting should be held either during the week of August 13th though August 17th
_*or*_ the week of August 20th through August 24th .
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay
Zimmerman, myself, and Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible.
If other staff from DWQ want to be at this meeting as well, we would need to know
that. *_It is requested of the DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section Chief, Ted Bush,
that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting._*
In order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone"s availability
during the two weeks so that we can get a room and make all the arrangements.
_*Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know
what days and times that you can meet. * *So far, the days and times that I,
David Hance, can meet are as follows:*
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during that week
morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th : * August 20th in the morning _only._
August 21st through August 24th any time on those days.
*/If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or
before 9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. /*One we have a day and time to
meet ....... then I will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building
for that. If due to work needs in regional office we need arrange a conference
call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to let me know about
8/10/2007 3 :07 PM
: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of ...
Jf2
that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
8/10/2007 3:07 PM
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FOR CLEANUP AT THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT -NEUSE RIVER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Permit Number WQ000l 730) . ,_ .... . .
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Comnussion. The City of
Raleigh seeks to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) under the l SA NCAC 2L
(Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Grounq~aters ofNorth Carolina) f~r nitrates
that have migrated offsite from its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of
Water Quality regulates land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit -Number
WQ000l 730. Permit conditions and state .groundwater_niles in _ l 5A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as
a cleanup method, even though natural attenuatio,:i with groundwater conta~~nt is appropriate based on
information contained in the variance request and technical review by Division staff. Therefore, a variance is
being sought to ISA NCAC2L. .
The variance affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Waste~ater Treatment Plant
{NRWWTP). The City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) used the land to apply wastewater
treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on numerous fields within its permitted compliance
boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist ofresidential P.rqp~¢es, farmland, commercial, and state--.. -~--·~ --j •.>.,._
owned forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals.
The city is responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has mil!fated o;t;1de the permitted compliance boundary.
This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleif 1rth Carolina in the southeast portion of W ak:e
County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres oflant.. ""ne CORPUD requests that the Environmental
Management Commission grant the following variance t.-. its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the
authority of 1 SA NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the foU ,~:
{l) Allows the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and"tr~atinentof groundwater containing nitrate
that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance botihdaty, as required by ISA NCAC 2L .0106
(d)(2) and applies the requirements of1SANCAC_2L .0106(k). Nitrate associated with the application
of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary surrounding the facility.
Under l SA NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied
to-.··exceederices at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations; unle-ss a variance is
granted under ISA NCAC 2L .0113. The city wan~s to applyJSA NCAC 2L .0106(k) where
discharges· of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into· adj a.cent surface waters,. or onto
~djacent properties where the groundwater is not going.to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implements a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
1
: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of ...
,f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers
meeting/conference call
From: Andrew Pitner <andrew,[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:45:18 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
I think meeting prior would be a good idea. During the dates mentioned, I'm
currently available the following days:
8 I l 7 -available al.l day to meet or call
8/21 -afternoon conference call ok
8/23 & 24 -available to meet or call -both days fully open
If it comes to it, I'd also be available all day 8/27, 28, 30, or 31.
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
*_Hello DWQ Staff:_*
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance
for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from
our office to the public per the rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper
(News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room@ 7 PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms.
Kathy Stecker, that we hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine
what our plan will be for that hearing and to get a clear idea of the work that
needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this proposed variance
request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a
meeting should be held _either_ during the week of August 13th though August 17th
_*or*_ the week of August 20th through August 24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew}, Jay
Zimmerman, myself, and Rick Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible.
If other staff from DWQ want to be at this meeting as well, we would need to know
that. *_It is requested of the DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section Chief, Ted Bush,
that Rick Bolich be made available to participate at this meeting._*
In order to do this, the first step is ...... to get everyone's availability
during the two weeks so that we can get a room and make all the arrangements.
_*Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know
what days and times that you can meet. * *So far, the days and times that I,
David Hance, can meet are as follows:*
*> Between August 13th through August 17th:* Any day or time during that week
morning or afternoon.
*>> Between August 20th through August 24th: * August 20th in the morning _only._
August 21st through August 24th any time on those days.
*/If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or
before 9:30 AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. /*One we have a day and time to
meet ....... then I will go ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building
for that. If due to work needs in regional office we need arrange a conference
call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to let me know about
8/10/2007 3:08 P M
Re: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing of...
2 of2
that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
Andrew Pitner, P.G. [e-mail]
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: ( 704) 663-6040
8/10/2007 3:08
a!: public hearing-response
Subject: Re: public hearing-response
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:01:46 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Ms. Okamoto,
Receiving a notice does not necessarily mean that your well was affected by substances that migrated offsite. We
have sent this to meet legal requirements that are upon the state.
The public notice was sent to you to meet notice requirements of a variance pursuant to the rule 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(l)(E). It is required that the state give notice to adjacent property owners when a variance request is to
given notice of public hearing. {lfyou want to look at that rule, please go to
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adminlrules/codes statutes.htm, scroll down to the 2L Groundwater Rules and you will
see the entire 2L booklet. Then go to pages 20-22 of that PDF booklet}.
You have been identified by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) as an (1) adjacent
property owner, property owner within the proposed area of the variance; or (3) a well owner. That is only the
reason why the DWQ Planning Section sent you a notice.
There has been offsite migration to the southwest of the plant beyond the compliance boundary. According to the
information that staff has, it appears that all the water wells that were contaminated with Nitrate have either been
abandoned per state requirements or are no longer in use as a drinking water supply. City water was made available
by the CORPUD to these persons, according to information submitted by them.
If you need to discuss the technical aspects of this variance further or what to know how this variance relates to
your property you may contact our field staff that conducted the investigation. You should call or email Jay
Zimmerman at the Raleigh Regional Office 919-791-4200 or [e-mail]. He can help you with
those questions.
As the notice states the public hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 in Raleigh and comments will be
received then from the public. Per requirements of the rule, written comment received from the public before
October 5, 2007 will considered in the hearing record. By sending a notice to you, we are informing you of this
action and are encouraging the interested public to come out to the hearing and make comment as they wish and/or
to send written comments.
If you wish to discuss the public hearing process and schedule, please feel free to contact me, David Hance.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*********************************************************************************************
jokamoto@ juno.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Hance ;
We r e c e ived a disturbing notice in the mail today titled "Notice of
Variance Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality". It was disturbing in that I could
not understand what it was trying to communicate to me, a local home
owner.
Sn/2007 2:02 P M
Re: public hearing-response
2 of2
It sounds like our ground water has possibly been polluted by the water
treatment plant. Could you clarify .... could you put that letter into
layman's terms for me?
Judy Okamoto
553-8286
8/7/2007 2:02
ublic hearing
if 1
Subject: public hearing
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:43:36 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Dear Mr. Hance;
We received a disturbing notice in the mail today titled "Notice of
Variance Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality". It was disturbing in that I could
not understand what it was trying to communicate to me, a local home
owner.
It sounds like our ground water has possibly been polluted by the water
treatment plant. Could you clarify .... could you put that letter into
layman"s terms for me?
Judy Okamoto
553-8286
8nt2007 2:03 PM
U>UD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing office ...
f2
Subject: CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing officers meeting/conference
call
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:58:45 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, "Ted L.
Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, J [e-mail]
Hello DWO Staff:
As you know our DWQ-Planning Section has been working on a proposed variance for the City of
Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
(CORPUD-NRWWTP). Public notice of the hearing has gone out from our office to the public per the
rule and a notice was placed in the newspaper (News and Observer) on August 4th.
The hearing will be held on September 5, 2007 at the Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing Room
@7PM.
With this in mind, it has been suggested by one of our hearing officers, Ms. Kathy Stecker, that we
hold staff meeting prior to the public hearing to determine what our plan will be for that hearing and to
get a clear idea of the work that needs to be done by staff and the hearing officers on this proposed
variance request.
I had a conversation with Jeff Manning today on this and we believe that a meeting should be held
either during the week of August 13th though August 17th or the week of August 20th through August
24th.
In addition, it is felt that the hearing officers (Kathy and Andrew), Jay Zimmerman, myself, and Rick
Bolich should be at this meeting, if at all possible. If other staff from DWQ want to be at this meeting as
well, we would need to know that. It is re quested of the DWO -Aq uifer Protection Section Chief,
Ted Bush, that Rick Bolich be made available to partici p ate at this meetin g.
In order to do this , the first ste p is ...... to g et everyone's availability during the two weeks so that we
can get a room and make all the arrangements.
Therefore, please contact me, David Hance at the Planning Section to let us know what days and
times that you can meet So far , the da vs and times that I , David Hance, can meet are as follows:
> Between August 13th through August 17th: Any day or time during that week morning or
afternoon.
>> Between August 20th through August 24th: August 20th in the morning only. August 21st
through August 24th any time on those days.
If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting a response from you on or before 9:30
AM on this Thursday, August 9, 2007. One we have a day and time to meet .. ..... then I will go
8/6/2007 5 :59 PM
CORPUD -NRWWTP Variance Request: Setting up a hearing office ...
2 of2
ahead and schedule a room at the Archdale Building for that. If due to work needs in regional office we
need arrange a conference call from the Mooresville Region, Andrew Pitner will need to let me know
about that so we can get that arranged.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/6/2007 5:59 P
)RPUD Variance Hearing Planning Meeting
Subject: CORPUD Variance Hearing Planning Meeting
.. From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:22:22 -0400
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
I was expressing my opinion to Kathy on the matter of a meeting, how to go about setting it up, and who I think would
be of benefit to the Hearing Officers.
I have not seen Jeff all day. I think he is at a meeting. I went by his office 15 minutes back and he was not in. I will
try to speak with him on this.
I observe that getting a meeting/conference call set up is rather time sensitive since people's calendars do fill up fast
once you are in a new Month. If I cannot get Jeff today, then what I will do is just send an email to Planning Staff &
the DWQ APS ---in addition to the hearing officers. This will get things moving in the right direction.
David Hance
x.587
************************************************************************************************
[e-mail] wrote:
David, thanks for ccing me and Jeff. Had you inquired with him about
the meeting and who should attend?
Alan
----original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Aug 6, 2007 13:07
To: "Kathy Stecker"<[e-mail]>
Cc: "Alan Clark"<[e-mail]>, "Jeff Manning"<jeff.
[e-mail]>
Subj: 2L Variance-CORPUD _NRWWTP: Response about your question on a
hearing officers planning meeting
Yes, we should have a meeting. I think I will get an email out
asking
as to what dates work for us.
I believe you, myself and Andrew Pitner should be there. I do not
know
about anyone else yet. I spoke with Alan Clark on this and he agreed.
I
would think it would also be to our advantage to have Rick Bolich
there
since he worked on the site and Jay Zimmerman from the DWQ-
APS/Raleigh
Regional Office.
I will send an email on this.
If it is on a day that Andrew cannot be in Raleigh, we could arrange
a
conference call with him in the Mooresville Regional Office as a .Plan
B.
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Kathy Stecker wrote:
8/6/2007 3 :23 PM
)RPUD Variance Hearing Planning Meeting
Thanks, David. Will we have an internal planning meeting prior to
the
hearing?
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hello All:
You will recall that our Division has been working on a
groundwater
A
held
variance request for the City of Raleigh over the last few months.
public hearing has been scheduled for September 5, 2007 and as
required in rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The public hearing will be
in Raleigh in the Archdale Building@ 7 PM that evening in the
Ground
Floor Hearing Room.
The notice for the public hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance
at
8/6/2007 3 :23 PM
)RPUD Variance Hearing Planning Meeting
>f7
the
NCAC
the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant was signed by the
Director of DWQ on July 31st. In an attempt to meet the 30 Day
requirement to give public notice pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113,
signed notice was mailed out to various person described in 15A
2L .0113(e) (1) (A-F) on Friday, August 3, 2007.
_A copy of the public notice was sent to the following
organizations
and persons:
1. _Newspaper Notice: The notice has gone to the News and
Observer
for publication of a legal advertisement per requirements of 15A
NCAC
2L .0113{e) (1) (A). I checked with staff at the N & 0 today and
they
said the notice is ready to go in the paper in the *_Saturday,
August
8/6/2007 3:23 PM
)RPUD Variance Hearing Planning Meeting
the
the
to
4th_ *edition (Tomorrow). This will give general notice to the
public of the City of Raleigh variance request and hearing.
2. _Health Officials Notice: The health director at Wake County
Health Department and Terry Pierce at the DEH were sent a copy of
notice per 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (B). A cover letter was sent to
local health director informing her of the reason for this action.
3. _Local Officials Notice: Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (D)
requires notices be sent to governmental units or units with
jurisdiction over the area covered by the variance. Notices went
the Mayor of Raleigh, City Manager of Raleigh, Wake County
Manager,
the
the
and Johnston County Manager. Cover letters went to these persons
describing why they got the notices.
4. _Property Owners Notice: _Property owner notice was given to
approximately 124 addresses that the CORPUD included as a part of
variance application and includes adjacent properties owners. It
includes private business, state properties, and residence near
site. This was done per the requirements of in 15A NCAC 2L
. 0113 (e) (1) (E).
8/6/2007 3:23 PM
)RPUD V. ariance Hearing Planning Meeting
of7
offices
went
_In addition, a copy of a notice went to the following persons:
* Division of Water Quality staffs including management in the
Aquifer Protection Section central office and regional
and staff in the Surface Water Protection Section. Coleen
Sullins and Charles Wakild got copies too . About 24 notices
out to these persons on Friday, August 3, 2007.
* H. Dale Crisp of the City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department
Raleigh
had
meeting
was sent a copy too.
* Carolyn Bachl with the law firm representing the City of
was mailed a copy.
* Mr. Dean Neujoks of the Upper Neuse River Keeper's Alliance
a copy of the notice mailed to him.
* Linda Culpepper at the Division of Waste Management has
requested that we sent a copy of permits related variances to
them when we give notice of hearings. The DWM now oversees
variances for groundwater cleanup incidents (i.e. spills,
releases, leaks, etc.) .It was agreed at a February 2007
that we would communicate and share what each agency is doing
with its variance requests.
* A hard copy was dropped off at Kathy Stecker's Office on the
8/6/2007 3:23 PM
)RPUD Variance Hearing Planning Meeting
Df7
7th
the
are
copy
Floor on Friday as well.
*/If there is anyone else who needs a notice of the variance and
public hearing on September 5, 2007, please let me know and I will
send that to them. _Note that we are required by the rule to send
notices to persons who make requests for them. _!*
Copies of the notices and letters that I have sent out have been
provided to Jeff Manning and to Alan Clark and these hardcopies
in the mailing boxes at the DWQ-Planning Offices. / _Since the
variance hearing will receive notice over the weekend, *Susan
Massengale*, the DWQ Public Information Officer for DWQ, has been
provided a copy of the notice and letters related to it with a
of 15A NCAC 2L.
_/*Attached is a copy of the Public Notice for this variance
request
the
that will appear in the legal section of the News and Observer in
Saturday, August 4, 2007 issue . */
_I
David Hance, Env Spec
DWQ-Planning Section
8/6/2007 3:23 PM
'.ORPUD Variance Hearing Planning Meeting
733-5083 X. 587
)f7 8/6/2007 3:23 PM
, Variance-CORPUD _NRWWTP: Response about your question on ...
;:if2
Subject: 2L V ariance-CORPUD _NRWWTP: Response about your question on a hearing officers
planning meeting
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:07:54 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Yes, we should have a meeting. I think I will get an email out asking as to what
dates work for us.
I believe you, myself and Andrew Pitner should be there. I do not know about anyone
else yet. I spoke with Alan Clark on this and he agreed. I would think it would also
be to our advantage to have Rick Bolich there since he worked on the site and Jay
Zimmerman from the DWQ-APS/Raleigh Regional Office .
I will send an email on this.
If it is on a day that Andrew cannot be in Raleigh, we could arrange a conference
call with him in the Mooresville Regional Office as a Plan B.
david hance
733-5083 x. 587
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Kathy Stecker wrote:
Thanks, David. Will we have an internal planning meeting prior to the hearing?
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hello All:
You will recall that our Division has been working on a groundwater variance
request for the City of Raleigh over the last few months. A public hearing has
been scheduled for September 5, 2007 and as required in rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113 .
The public hearing will be held in Raleigh in the Archdale Building@ 7 PM that
evening in the Ground Floor Hearing Room.
The notice for the public hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance at the Neuse
River Waste Water Treatment Plant was signed by the Director of DWQ on July
31st. In an attempt to meet the 30 Day requirement to give public notice
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113, the signed notice was mailed out to various
person described in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (A-F) on Friday, August 3, 2007.
_A copy of the public notice was sent to the following organizations and
persons:
1. _Newspaper Notice:_ The notice has gone to the News and Observer for
publication of a legal advertisement per requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e) (1) (A). I checked with staff at the N & 0 today and they said the
notice is ready to go in the paper in the *_Saturday, August 4th_ *edition
(Tomorrow). This will give general notice to the public of the City of Raleigh
variance request and hearing.
2. _Health Officials Notice: The health director at Wake County Health
Department and Terry Pierce at the DEH were sent a copy of the notice per 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (B). A cover letter was sent to the local health director
informing her of the reason for this action.
3. _Local Officials Notice: Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (D) requires notices
8/6/2007 1 :08 P M
2L Variance-CORPUD _NRWWTP: Response about your question on ...
2 of2
be sent to governmental units or units with jurisdiction over the area covered
by the variance. Notices went to the Mayor of Raleigh, City Manager of
Raleigh, Wake County Manager, and Johnston County Manager. Cover letters went
to these persons describing why they got the notices.
4. _Property Owners Notice: _Property owner notice was given to approximately
124 addresses that the CORPUD included as a part of the variance application
and includes adjacent properties owners. It includes private business, state
properties, and residence near the site. This was done per the requirements of
in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e}(l}(E}.
In addition, a copy of a notice went to the following persons:
* Division of Water Quality staffs including management in the
Aquifer Protection Section central office and regional offices
and staff in the Surface Water Protection Section. Coleen
Sullins and Charles Wakild got copies too. About 24 notices went
out to these persons on Friday, August 3, 2007.
* H. Dale Crisp of the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
was sent a copy too.
* Carolyn Bachl with the law firm representing the City of Raleigh
was mailed a copy.
* Mr. Dean Neujoks of the Upper Neuse River Keeper's Alliance had
a copy of the notice mailed to him.
* Linda Culpepper at the Division of Waste Management has
requested that we sent a copy of permits related variances to
them when we give notice of hearings. The DWM now oversees
variances for groundwater cleanup incidents (i.e. spills,
releases, leaks, etc.} .It was agreed at a February 2007 meeting
that we would communicate and share what each agency is doing
with its variance requests.
* A hard copy was dropped off at Kathy Stecker"s Office on the 7th
Floor on Friday as well.
*/If there is anyone else who needs a notice of the variance and the public
hearing on September 5, 2007, please let me know and I will send that to them.
_Note that we are required by the rule to send notices to persons who make
requests for them._/*
Copies of the notices and letters that I have sent out have been provided to
Jeff Manning and to Alan Clark and these hardcopies are in the mailing boxes at
the DWQ-Planning Offices. / _Since the variance hearing will receive notice
over the weekend, *Susan Massengale*, the DWQ Public Information Officer for
DWQ, has been provided a copy of the notice and letters related to it with a
copy of 15A NCAC 2L.
_/*Attached is a copy of the Public Notice for this variance request that will
appear in the legal section of the News and Observer in the Saturday, August 4,
2007 issue. */
_/
David Hance, Env Spec
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/6/2007 1 :0 8
:: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWTP: Di ...
Subject: Re: 2LVariance Request/ City of Raleigh-CORPUD-NRWWTP: Discussion of the Newpaper
Publication and Mailing of Public Notices for this variance
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:33:55 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks, David. Will we have an internal planning meeting prior to the hearing?
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hello All:
You will recall that our Division has been working on a groundwater variance
request for the City of Raleigh over the last few months. A public hearing has
been scheduled for September 5, 2007 and as required in rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
The public hearing will be held in Raleigh in the Archdale Building@ 7 PM that
evening in the Ground Floor Hearing Room.
The notice for the public hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance at the Neuse
River Waste Water Treatment Plant was signed by the Director of DWQ on July
31st. In an attempt to meet the 30 Day requirement to give public notice
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113, the signed notice was mailed out to various person
described in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e} (1) (A-F} on Friday, August 3, 2007.
_A copy of the public notice was sent to the following organizations and persons:
1. _Newspaper Notice:_ The notice has gone to the News and Observer for
publication of a legal advertisement per requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e) (1) (A). I checked with staff at the N & 0 today and they said the notice
is ready to go in the paper in the *_Saturday, August 4th_ *edition (Tomorrow).
This will give general notice to the public of the City of Raleigh variance
request and hearing.
2. _Health Officials Notice: The health director at Wake County Health
Department and Terry Pierce at the DEH were sent a copy of the notice per 15A NCAC
2L .0113(e) (1) (B). A cover letter was sent to the local health director informing
her of the reason for this action.
3. _Local Officials Notice: Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e} (1) (D} requires notices be
sent to governmental units or units with jurisdiction over the area covered by the
variance. Notices went to the Mayor of Raleigh, City Manager of Raleigh, Wake
County Manager, and Johnston County Manager. Cover letters went to these persons
describing why they got the notices.
4. _Property Owners Notice: _Property owner notice was given to approximately 124
addresses that the CORPUD included as a part of the variance application and
includes adjacent properties owners. It includes private business, state
properties, and residence near the site. This was done per the requirements of in
15A NCAC 2L . 0113 (e} (1) (E).
In addition, a copy of a notice went to the following persons:
* Division of Water Quality staffs including management in the
Aquifer Protection Section central office and regional offices
and staff in the Surface Water Protection Section. Coleen
Sullins and Charles Wakild got copies too. About 24 notices went
out to these persons on Friday, August 3, 2007.
* H. Dale Crisp of the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
was sent a copy too.
* Carolyn Bachl with the law firm representing the City of Raleigh
8/6/2007 1 :08 P M
Re: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWTP: Di ...
2 of2
was mailed a copy.
*Mr.Dean Neujoks of the Upper Neuse River Keeper"s Alliance had
a copy of the notice mailed to him.
* Linda Culpepper at the Division of Waste Management has
requested that we sent a copy of permits related variances to
them when we give notice of hearings. The DWM now oversees
variances for groundwater cleanup incidents (i.e. spills,
releases, leaks, etc.) .It was agreed at a February 2007 meeting
that we would communicate and share what each agency is doing
with its variance requests.
* A hard copy was dropped off at Kathy Stecker's Office on the 7th
Floor on Friday as well.
*/If there is anyone else who needs a notice of the variance and the public
hearing on September 5, 2007, please let me know and I will send that to them.
_Note that we are required by the rule to send notices to persons who make
requests for them._/*
Copies of the notices and letters that I have sent out have been provided to Jeff
Manning and to Alan Clark and these hardcopies are in the mailing boxes at the
DWQ-Planning Offices. / _Since the variance hearing will receive notice over the
weekend, *Susan Massengale*, the DWQ Public Information Officer for DWQ, has been
provided a copy of the notice and letters related to it with a copy of 15A NCAC
2L.
_/*Attached is a copy of the Public Notice for this variance request that will
appear in the legal section of the News and Observer in the Saturday, August 4,
2007 issue. */ _
_ /
David Hance, Env Spec
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
8/6/2007 1 :0 8
Fwd: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWTP: ...
'2
Subject: [Fwd: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWTP: Discussion of the Newpaper
Publication and Mailing of Public Notices for this variance]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:35:51 -0400
To: Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
Here is what we were talking about on the phone.
dh
Subject: 2L Variance Request/ City ofRaleigh-CORPUD-NRWWfP: Discussion of the Newpaper
Publication and Mailing of Public Notices for this variance
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:20:41 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hello All:
You will recall that our Division has been working on a groundwater variance request for the City of Raleigh
over the last few months. A public hearing has been scheduled for September 5, 2007 and as required in rule
15A NCAC 2L .0113. The public hearing will be held in Raleigh in the Archdale Building@ 7 PM that
evening in the Ground Floor Hearing Room.
The notice for the public hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant was signed by the Director of DWQ on July 31st. In an attempt to meet the 30 Day requirement to give
public notice pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113, the signed notice was mailed out to various person described
in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(A-F) on Friday, August 3, 2007.
A co py of the public notice was sent to the followin g onrnnizations and persons:
1. News pa per Notice: The notice has gone to the News and Observer for publication of a legal advertisement
per requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(A). I checked with staff at the N & 0 today and they said the
notice is ready to go in the paper in the Saturdav, August 4th edition (Tomorrow). This will give general
notice to the public of the City of Raleigh variance request and hearing.
2. Health Officials Notice: The health director at Wake County Health Department and Terry Pierce at the
DEH were sent a copy of the notice per 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(B). A cover letter was sent to the local
health director informing her of the reason for this action.
3. Local Officials Notice: Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(D) requires notices be sent to governmental units
or units with jurisdiction over the area covered by the variance. Notices went to the Mayor of Raleigh, City
Manager of Raleigh, Wake County Manager, and Johnston County Manager. Cover letters went to these
persons describing why they got the notices.
4. Pro pe rty Owners Notice: Property owner notice was given to approximately 124 addresses that the
CORPUD inc1uded as a part of the variance application and includes adjacent properties owners. It includes
8/6/2007 1 :09 PM
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FOR CLEANUP AT THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT -NEUSE RIVER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Permit Number WQ000l 730)
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The City of
Raleigh seeks to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L
(Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters ofNorth Carolina) for nitrates
that have migrated offsite from its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of
Water Quality regulates land application operations conducted ~t this facility under Permit Number
WQ000 1730. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as
a cleanup method, even though natural attenuation with groundwater containment is appropriate based on
information contained in the variance request and technical review by Division staff. Therefore, a variance is
being sought to 15A NCAC 2L.
The variance affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NR WWTP). The City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) used the land to apply wastewater
treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on numerous fields within its permitted compliance
boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist ofresidential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-
owned forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals.
The city is responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance boundary.
This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the southeast portion of Wake
County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The CORPUD requests that the Environmental
Management Commission grant the following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the
authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the following:
(1) Allows the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and treatment of groundwater containing nitrate
that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as required by 15ANCAC 2L ;0106
( d)(2) and applies the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). Nitrate associated with the application
of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary surrounding the facility.
Under 15A NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied
to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatrn.ent land disposal operations, unless a variance is
granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The city wants to apply ISA NCAC 2L .0106(k) where
discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto
adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implements a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional offsite migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time . Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
1
>f 1
?UD Hearing Next week: Volunteers assisting with the public he ...
Subject: CORPUD Hearing Next week: Volunteers assisting with the public hearing
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:57:01 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
"Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
As of August 31st, here is the list of staff that that have volunteered to assist the staff with the pubiic
hearing on Wed. September 5, 2007 in the evening.
These persons are as follows:
Volunteers helping with setup, registration and other things related to the hearing:
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Nora Deamer (? -if jury duty allows her to do this)
Elizabeth Kountis
Adrienne Weaver(?-pending discussion with family)
Amy Keyworth
Nikki Remington
Keith Larick (Raleigh Regional Office)
If your name is on this list, please try to get to the Ground Floor Hearing Room at or before 6:30 PM so
we can go over the plan. We will need help with registrations and getting people into the building since
the main doors on the ground floor self lock in the evening and there is no guard on duty at that time. I
will check on the room earlier in the day, if possible, to make sure it is set up properly for the hearing.
Hearing will start at 7 PM.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
8/31/2007 4:58 PM
NOTICE OF VARIAN CE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FOR CLEANUP AT THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT-~USE RIVER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Permit Number WQ000l 730)
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The City of
Raleigh seeks to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L
(Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters ofNorth Carolina) for nitrates
that have migrated offsite from its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NR WWTP). The Division of
Water Quality regulates land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number
WQ0O0l 730. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as
a cleanup method, even though natural attenuation with groundwater containment is appropriate based on
information contained in the variance request and technical review by Division staf£ Therefore, a variance is
being sought to 15A NCAC 2L.
The variance affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). The City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) used the land to apply wastewater
treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on numerous fields within its permitted compliance
boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-
owned forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals.
The city is responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance boundary.
This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the southeast portion of Wake
County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The CORPUD requests that the Environmental
Management Commission grant the following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the
authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the following:
(1) Allows the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and treatment of groundwater containing nitrate
that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as required by 15A NCAC 2L .0106
( d)(2) and applies the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). Nitrate associated with the application
of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary surrounding the facility.
Under 15ANCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15ANCAC2L .0106(k) cannot be applied
to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations, unless a variance is
granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The city wants to apply 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) where
discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto
adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implements a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
1
j: Legal ad in Saturday's paper?
Jf 1
Subject: RE: Legal ad in Saturday's paper?
From: "Pam Oleniczak" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:34: 14 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Pam is out of the office today, but I double-checked your ad and it looks
like everything is set up and ready to go on this end. Thanks!!
Patricia Tedder, for Pam O.
News & Observer, Legal Ads
919-829-4600 or 829-4586
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:31 AM
To: Pam Oleniczak
Subject: Legal ad in Saturday's paper?
Pam,
Do you have all you need from me on this.
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
8/3/2007 10:34 AM
L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWTP: Discus ...
f2
Subject: 2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWfP: Discussion of the Newpaper
Publication and Mailing of Public Notices for this variance
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:20:41 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
J [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hello All:
You will recall that our Division has been working on a groundwater variance request for the City of Raleigh
over the last few months. A public hearing has been scheduled for September 5, 2007 and as required in rule
15A NCAC 2L .0113. The public hearing will be held in Raleigh in the Archdale Building@ 7 PM that
evening in the Ground Floor Hearing Room.
The notice for the public hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant was signed by the Director of DWQ on July 31st. In an attempt to meet the 30 Day requirement to give
public notice pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113, the signed notice was mailed out to various person described
in 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(e)(l)(A-F) on Friday, August 3, 2007.
A copy of the public notice was sent to the following organizations and persons:
1. Newspaper Notice: The notice has gone to the News and Observer for publication of a legal advertisement
per requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(e)(l)(A). I checked with staff at the N & 0 today and they said the
notice is ready to go in the paper in the Saturdav, August 4th edition (Tomorrow). This will give general
notice to the public of the City of Raleigh variance request and hearing.
2. Health Officials Notice: The health director at Wake County Health Department and Terry Pierce at the
DEH were sent a copy of the notice per 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(e)(l)(B). A cover letter was sent to the local
health director informing her of the reason for this action.
3. Local Officials Notice: Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(D) requires notices be sent to governmental units
or units with jurisdiction over the area covered by the variance. Notices went to the Mayor of Raleigh, City
Manager of Raleigh, Wake County Manager, and Johnston County Manager. Cover letters went to these
persons describing why they got the notices.
4. Properry Owners Notice: Property owner notice was given to approximately 124 addresses that the
CORPUD included as a part of the variance application and includes adjacent properties owners. It includes
private business, state properties, and residence near the site. This was done per the requirements of in 15A
NCAC 2L .0l 13(e)(l)(E).
In addition , a copy of a notice went to the following persons:
• Division of Water Quality staffs including management in the Aquifer Protection Section central office
and regional offices and staff in the Surface Water Protection Section. Coleen Sullins and Charles
Wakild got copies too. About 24 notices went out to these persons on Friday, August 3, 2007.
• H. Dale Crisp of the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department was sent a copy too.
• Carolyn Bachl with the law firm representing the City of Raleigh was mailed a copy.
• Mr. Dean Neujoks of the Upper Neuse River Keeper's Alliance had a copy of the notice mailed to him.
8/3/2007 12:21 PM
2L Variance Request/ City of Raleigh -CORPUD-NRWWTP: Discus ...
2 of2
• Linda Culpepper at the Division of Waste Management has requested that we sent a copy of permits
related variances to them when we give notice of hearings. The DWM now oversees variances for
groundwater cleanup incidents (i.e. spills, releases, leaks, etc.).It was agreed at a February 2007
meeting that we would communicate and share what each agency is doing with its variance requests.
• A hard copy was dropped off at Kathy Stecker's Office on the 7th Floor on Friday as well.
If there is anyone else who needs a notice of the variance and the public hearing on September 5, 2007,
please let me know and I will send that to them. Note that we are req uired b y the rule to send ,iotices to
persons who make requests for them.
Copies of the notices and letters that I have sent out have been provided to Jeff Manning and to Alan Clark
and these hardcopies are in the mailing boxes at the DWQ-Planning Offices. Since the variance hearing will
receive notice over the weekend, Susan Massen gale, the DWQ Public Information O ffi cer for DWQ, has
been provided a copy o(the notice and letters related to it with a co pv of] 5A NCAC 2L.
Attached is a copy of the Public Notice for this variance request that will app ear in the legal section of
the News and Observer in the Saturday, August 4, 2007 issue.
David Hance, Env Spec
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
Content-Type: application/msword
signatureversion-VersionpublicNotice-CORPUD Variance.doc
, Content-Encoding: base64
8/3/2007 12 :21
NOTICE OF Y(A CE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT oh_ ONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
,IC UTILITIES DEP ARTMENT-1'{EUSE RIVER
NT (Permit Number WQ000l 730)
nd public hearing to be held by the Department of
.viromnental Management Commission. The City of
ive action plan (CAP) under the ISA NCAC 2L
e to the Groundwaters ofNorth Carolina) for nitrates
'ater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of
conducted at this facility under Permit Number
ules in 15A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as
Ii groundwater containment is appropriate based on
cal review by Division staff. Therefore, a variance is
d at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
ment (CORPUD) used the land to apply wastewater
· on numerous fields within its permitted compliance
:dential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-
i the application of residuals.
migrated outside the pennitted compliance boundary.
gh, North Carolina in the southeast portion of Wake
nd. The CORPUD requests that the Environmental
:e to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the
lowing:
ation and treatment of groundwater containing nitrate
ance boundary, as required by ISA NCAC 2L .0106
:::; 2L .0106(k). Nitrate associated with the application
.ted compliance boundary surrounding the facility.
lance with ISA NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied
.ent land disposal operations, unless a vanance is
r wants to apply ISA NCAC 2L .0106(k) where
will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto
t going to be used for a water supply;
will result in groundwater containment and treatment
~oundwater has migrated off-site . This alternative is
1 of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
ells, which will result in short-term extraction of
cesses or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
ing of other land application fields will be conducted
enc es Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
1
LISTS OF PERSONS WHO
RECEIVED DIRECT MAIL
NOTICE ACCORDING
TO lSA NCAC 2L .0113
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
C/O DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
STATE PROPERTY
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NC 27603
X:'i'l )N SLCI I 11 T
O'J JX'TJOY t ~ L ~SSES
roLLOW <'
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
jECTION 1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1636
··St.Tlff.,\CL V . TR src
. ,LO v,:·
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
'', QUIFl: ' OTE N
SLCTIO ' OITC' 0 ,
.· ,, ,>R1:sscs
FOLLOW -~
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
I \
1 l
· Leno
., ., { ESS E~;
\V , .
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
SUPERVISOR
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 14-56-25
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURFACE WATERPROTECTION
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
,:'.-\()UTFLR I OTCCTION
SC':-:T· )N <OTECTH 1!\'
i\Dll CSS[S
ro1.Low,:,
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
}
.,.1_; -V '~
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
PO BOX 1049
SMITHFIELD NC 27577
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
WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH
2100 HARMONY COURT
CLAYTON NC27520
ROY & CHARLOTTE JOHNSON
2008 RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
SONDRA AND GARY MORRIS
2016 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
ROBERT AND JODY STAMEY
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
2017VALLEY 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 AND JEAN
2610 RA VEN RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
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
A VIE COMPANY
1000 CCC DRIVE
CLAYTON NC 27520
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. EV ANS
2004 PINEBARK LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520
CE CAUGHMAN AND
REBECCA CAUGHMAN
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. BELVIN
LARRY E. BELVIN
321 EAST MAIN STREET
CLAYTON NC 27520-2463
DONALD A. PARKER
300 SOUTH PINE STREET
BENSON NC 27504
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
(35 people total)
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
27 people total
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 SW ADEE 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
TIMOTHY JOEL BAKER
AND
LULA ANNE BAKER
3345 STONEY CREEK DRIVE
CLAYTON NC 27520
MARGERY CARNEY GAZDA
SHANEGAZDA
2704 EMMETT CREST COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
RICHARD D LEHOCKY AND
BETTY A LEHOCKY
1336 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
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 KEIIB WHEELER
6029 MAIL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8534
JOHN H HOPKINS
2293 STANDING ROCK ROAD
CAMDENTON MO
65020-4626
TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORIGINAL
RR 1 (RURAL ROUTE 1)
KNIGHTDALE NC 27545-9801
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
RALEIGHNC
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/OATTN
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
STEVEN DALE BROWN AND
SHERRY ADAMS BROWN
135 RIDGEWAY LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520-8084
EVELYN C YOUNG
8537 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9767
► PERSONS WHO REQUESTED
NOTICE BELOW
H DALE CRISP (PE) DIRECTOR
CITY OF RALEIGH
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
POBOX590
RALEIGH NC 27602
35 total
SYBLE B BROWN
8529 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
ARNOLD L OSBORN JR
6208 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
> PERSONS WHO REQUESTED
NOTICE BELOW
CAROLYN BACHL
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
3737 GLENWOOD A VENUE
SUITE400
RALEIGH NC 27612
BRENDA J FRISON
8549 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
, PERSONS WHO REQUESTED
NOTICE BELOW
DEAN NAUJOKS
UPPER NEUSE RIVER KEEPER
112 SOUTH BLOUNT STREET
RALEIGH NC 27601
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 MARLAR.KEY AND
CECELIA GALE MARLAR.KEY
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 NEUSEHILL LANE
RALEIGH NC 27610-9102
JULIAN BAUCOM AND
MARLENE BAUCOM
3021 HICKORY TREE PLACE
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
DAUGHTERYGRADYSYOUNGDANIEL
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
27 people
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
DOUGLAS BALL
1027 HWY 70 WEST
SUITE225
GARNER NC 27529
ELIZABETH B MORGAN
POBOX4721
CHAPEL HILL 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 PHILLIPS 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 HICKORY TREE PLACE
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
ETHEL BARBOUR ROBERTSON-
JETHRO
1009 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
LOUIS MARRINER AND
FRANCIS OWENS MARRINER
1125 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
EXHIBIT3
TABLE 1 -JOHNSTON COUNTY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
Number QWNI;R .. -~· --·-ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIF!
1-WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH 2100 HARMONY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
2 WAUGH, DONALD & WAUGH, JEAN 2610 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
3 BOLEN, HOWARD & BOLEN, MELISSA 2016 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
4 JOHNSON, ROYS & CHARLOTTE M 2008 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
5 FLEMING, JANET LYNN 2004 FOREST DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8811
6 AVIE CO 1000CCCDR CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
7 MORRIS, SONDRA & GARY 2016 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
8 ETTRIDGE, JAMES F & JUDITH L 2020 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
9 STRICKER, RALPH & SONDRA 2024 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
10 STAMEY, ROBERT & JODIE 2000 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8816
11 JENKINS, GARY L & JANET H 2012 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
12 STRICKER, WILLIAM MICHAEL 2004 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
13 JOHNSON, TONY LEE & MARTHA P 2006 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
14 PRIVETTE, WILLIS E & JANICE 1925 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
15 EVANS, BRUCE L&CAROLYN M 2004 PINEBARK LANE CLAYTON INC 27520-0000
16 WILLIAMS, DONALD K & VIRGINIA 2013 VALLEY CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8604
17 JEWELL, GARY A & RHONDA 2003 PINEBARK LN CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
18 CAUGHMAN, CE&REBECCA 2009 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
19 MUNT, HERBERT F Ill . 2017 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
20 SHREVE, JAMES DANIEL & MITSY 2000 PINE BARK LN CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
21 SMITH, SANDY M & MATTHEW 2007 PINEBARK LANE · CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
22 GRANT, LONNIE G & PATTIE M 2021 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
23 RUSSELL, TRAVIS E & DEBRA 121 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
24 CARROLL, LARRY W JR 125 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
25 JOHNSON, MALCOM DEWITT & CAROL P OBOX966 CLAYTON NC 27520-0966
26 BOONE,CAROLBEARD 422 BISCAYNE DRIVE WILMINGTON NC 28411-0000
27 HORNE, SARAH BEARD 214 TARPON CT NAGS HEAD NC 27959-0000
28 BENSON, !RENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
29 BENSON, !RENE LF EST &STEVEN 2501 OLD US 70 WEST CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
30 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
31 BENSON, !RENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
32 STATE OF NC C/O STATE PROPERTY 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH NC 27603-0000
33 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH NC 27603-0000
34 JONES, CHRISTOPHER. & ANITA 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8212
35 BELVIN, JUDITH W & LARRY E 321 E MAIN ST CLAYTON NC 27520-2463
36 JOHNSON, CLARENCE & WIFE 201 MEADOW RUN KNIGHTDALE NC 27520-2463
37 JOHNSON, DAVID IRA & MARNIE 5009 COVERED BRIDGE RD CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
38 PARKER, DONALD A 300SPINEST BENSON NC 27504-0000
39 PARKER, DONALD A 300SPINEST BENSON NC 27504-0000
40 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
41 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
42 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
43 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
44 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
45 NA NA NA NA NA
NOTES:
NA: Parcel owner information not available on Wake County Geographic Information System
#9051632v2
EXHIBIT3
TABLE 2 • WAKE COUNTY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
l\lilijj!i~( ~l(VNteR . -·,· " -. ADDRESS ~ITY ST·ATE ZiP
46 FRANKLIN, PATRICIA A 3435 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
47 AUTON, SUSAN M & JERRY L 3524 BALLOT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9301
48 DOUGLAS, PHILLIP N & BARBARA S 413 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 2752D-B603
49 OONA TI, BRIAN C & DEBORAH M 1316 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
50 DEBOCK. RICHARD M & JOANNE 1320 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
51 WHITE, DENNIS C & RUTH H 1324 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
52 TERRY, AMANDA & RYAN GROULX 1109 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
53 LEBING, WYTOLD R & CAROLBARBOUR, SWADE E JR 1304 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
54 NA NA NA NA NA
55 CARROLL, KATHY LYNN 8500 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9266
56 DEBNAM, CATHERINE 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
57 SEAWELL, VIRGINIA D 5529 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 2761D-B526
58 TANKARD. ANNE M MCINNES, CORNELIA, STEWART C MCINNES 8419 KALB RD RICHMOND VA 23229-4133
59 BAUCOM, JOHN R JR & MARIE A 4400 AUBURN CHURCH RD GARNER NC 27529-8765
60 OKAMOTO. ERIC B & JUDITH F 1113 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
61 HEDRICK, ROBERT A & PATRICIA 0 4704 STILLER ST RALEIGH NC 27609-5640
62 EDGE OF AUBURN LLC POBOX19808 RALEIGH NC 27619-9808
63 HINZ, KYLE D & KAREN K 3401 DEER RACE LA CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
64 BEAVERS, RICHARD W & SHARON ROSE 654 CORBETT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-8452
65 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFC/O STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
66 BROADWELL, BOBBY H & PAMELA S 1328 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
67 HUNTER, TERI FULK TRUSTEE 1340 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
68 BAKER. LULA ANNE BAKER, TIMOTHY JOEL 3345 STONEY CREEK DR CLAYTON NC 27520-5958
69 SARROCCO, NICHOLAS A & EUGENIA S 7820 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9252
70 BRUFF, MICHAELS & KIMBERLY B 1312 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
71 GAZDA, SHANE GAZDA, MARGERY CARNEY 2704 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
72 ADAMS, JIMMY C & TONDRA E 8428 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
73 GARRETT, DARYL J & RAMONA C 7027 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
74 LEHOCKY, RICHARD D & BETTY A 1336 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
75 Gil, PAUL J & DARCY A 2708 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
76 MCLEAN, ROBERTS & JOHNNIE F 1333 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
77 SLAVIN, JAMES A & MARYE 1205 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
78 DEBNAM, SHIRLEY H 5700 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 2761D-B528
79 MCCLUNG. DOUGLAS E & AMYE 420 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
80 BARBOUR, SWADE E JR HEIRS 326 LOMBAR ST CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
81 MALARKEY, WILLIAM J & CECELIA GALE 1325 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
82 DEBNAM, RETHA M, DEBNAM, CHRISTOPHER HENRY W DEBNAM 1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DR WAXHAW NC 27173-6610
83 PHILLIPS, LESTER L PHILLIPS, REBECCA 2700 BALLOT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9304
84 WOO, HEA K & CHUN I 3425 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
85 BALL. DOUGLAS 1027 HWY 70 W SUITE 225 GARNER NC 27529-0000
86 TALTON, MARGARET B 2728 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9214
87 MCKINNON, SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
88 D'ALLAIRD DANIEL & EMMA 2436 NEUSEHILL LN RALEIGH NC 27610-9102
89 MORGA"!, ELIZABETH B PO BOX4721 CHAPEL HILL NC 27515-4721
90 LONG BRANCH FARM LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
91 8"-1-.•COM , JULIAN & MARLENE 3021 HICKORYTRloE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
92 HAWLEY, WILLIAM J & ROBERTA L 2709 EMMETT CR_EST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
93 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLO MILBURNIE RD RAU:IGH NC 27604-9555
94 DAUGHERTY, GLADYS YOUNGDA NIEL HOLLAND 572 BOGGS RANCH RD GRAHAM NC 272S3-0000
95 BAUCOM. WILLIAM BYRD PO BOX 248 C LAYTON NC 27526-0246
96 BAUCOM, CLIFTON P 3005 H ICKORY TREE PL IV-LEIGH NC 27610-8539
97 MIESCH, JOHN F & LINDA T 34 20 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9307
9B 9ANIELS, EARL & JOELINE Y 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 2761D-8529
99 ROBERTSON-JETHRO ETHEL BARBOUR 1009 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
100 BIDDIX, THOMAS L & DEBORAH W 1117 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
101 CHAMPION ROBERT & MONA 2700 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
102 MARRINER, LOUIS & FRANCES OWENS 1125 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
103 QUINN POLLY S PO BOX 132 HINESBURG VT 05461-0132
104 MCCARDLE, VAN R & CHERYL M 1105PINETRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
105 FREEMAN, DANNA F 1101 PINETRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
106 BAUCOM JULIAN M 3021 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
107 PRICE RALPH L & BEVERLY W 1201 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
108 MCKINNON SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
109 REED CHARLES E 7020 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
110 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFC/O STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
111 KELLY, JOSEPH A & JOAN B 1332 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
112 BELL IAN & ELMA C 1308 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
113 JONES, CHRISTOPHER & ANITA A 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8212
114 PBR GROUP LLC RTE 2 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-0000
115 PERKINS, MARVIN CLAUDE & SUSAN J 6200 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
116 RHODES WILLIAM T & GWYN K 3751 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
118 GILBERT JENNIFER P 273C BLUE POND RD CLAYTON NC 27520-7493
NOTES:
NA: Parcel owner information not available on Wake County Geographic Information System
#9051632v2
Re: Need a mailing address for a river keeper
Subject: Re: Need a mailing address for a river keeper
From: Heather Boyette <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:57:57 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hi David, I have his mailing address .
Dean Naujoks
Upper Neuse River Keeper
112 S Blount Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
-Heather
David Hance wrote:
Does anyone have a mailing address for the following person identified as working
for the Neuse Riverkeeper's alliance?
*The person is Mr. Dean Naujoks.*
Please reply if you do.
david hance
x . 587
Room 625aa
Heather Boyette <[e-mail]>
319 Grant Program
Division of Water Quality
NCDENR
8/1/2007 2 :38 PM
Draft (not for citation or quote)
Mr. Rick Hester
Johnston County Manager
PO Box 550 -Suite 1100
Smithfield NC 27577
Dear Mr. Hester:
August 3, 2007
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has received a request for
a variance to corrective action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) (Groundwater
Classifications and Standards) and the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(d)(2) for the
Cit y of Ralei gh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant located at
Groundwater containin g nitrates in excess of current state and federal standards has
mi grated be yond this facility 's permitted com pliance boundar y . A variance granted for
this facility will lead to the implementation of a corrective action plan that will apply
the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) at the site. 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(1 )(D)
requires adequate notice be given to governmental units having jurisdiction over the
geographical area covered by the variance prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please refer to
the enclosure for additional information.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
David A. Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
Draft (not for citation or quote)
~: CORPUD variance: Review of a draft letter to local officials and ...
of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD variance: Review of a draft letter to local officials and a couple of questions I
want to talk with you about
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:37: 13 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hi David;
Please see my suggested edits on the attachment.
rb
David Hance wrote:
Hi Rick,
Attached is a draft letter that I crafted from some of the other materials we have
worked on.
We are required in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (DJ to give notice to local officials
with jurisdiction. _
_ These letters with a copy of the public notice that Coleen signed are going out
to the Johnston County Manager, the Mayor of Raleigh and the Wake County Manager.
_We are planning to get all notices to adjacent property owners and others into
the mail on Friday, August 3rd. (this Friday)_
/*Please read this attached draft and get this back to me -If possible -On
Thursday Morning -August 2, 2007*/.
Also .... I have a couple of questions that I got from staff about this variance
that I believe are things that can be answered with ease but I would rather speak
to you on the phone about them. Please call me tomorrow .
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ _ Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
/*PS ---All notices are ready for adjacent property owners and these will go out
on Friday. The newspaper notice should show up in the N and O on Saturday, August
4th.*
I
Content-Type: application/msword
V-CORPUD-JohnsonCounty-PN.doc Content-Encoding: base64
8/2/2007 11 :03 AM
:ORPUD variance: Review of a draft letter to local officials and a co ...
Subject: CORPUD variance: Review of a draft letter to local officials and a couple of questions lwant
to talk with you about
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:55:58 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hi Rick,
Attached is a draft letter that I crafted from some of the other materials we have worked on.
We are required in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(D) to give notice to local officials with jurisdiction.
These letters with a copy of the public notice that Coleen signed are going out to the Johnston County
Manager, the Mayor of Raleigh and the Wake County Manager.
We are planning to get all notices to adjacent property owners and others into the mail on Friday, Aug ust
3rd. (this Friday)
Please read this attached draft and get this back to me -If possible -On Thursday Morning -August
2, 2007.
Also .... I have a couple of questions that I got from staff about this variance that I believe are things that
can be answered with ease but I would rather speak to you on the phone about them. Please call me
tomorrow.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ _ Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
PS ---All notices are ready for adjacent property owners and these will go out on Friday. The
newspaper notice should show up in the N and O on Saturday, August 4th.
: Content-Type: application/msword
V-CORPUD-JohnsonCounty-PN.doc C . b 64 ; ontent-Encodmg: ase
_:__c.:c:..::.:..;_======-=----===c.c
8/1/2007 4:56 PM
Legal notice from David Hance at DWQ --Response -See attachment
fl
Subject: Re: Legal notice from David Hance at DWQ --Response -See attachment
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:58:14 -0400
To: Pam Oleniczak <[e-mail]>
Pam,
Here it is in Word.
david hance
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Pam Oleniczak wrote:
got it ... is there a way you can email it (WORD format) .. if so, that would
be great and would save us from having to type in all the coyp ... if not,
no problem, we will .
Let me know if that's possible .. Thanks David and good morning.
Pam
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:05 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Legal notice from David Hance at DWQ
Pam,
I just faxed this to you. Four pages total.
Did you get them?
david hance
733-5083 x. 587
1 ·· . . ·1 Content-Type: application/msword
1signatureversion-VersionpublicNotice-CORPUDVariance.doc I Content-Encoding: base64
====::-------:-=====...:-I
8/1/2007 9:58 AM
NOTICE OF VARIAN CE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FOR CLEANUP AT THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT -NEUSE RIVER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Permit Number WQ0O0l 730)
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The City of
Raleigh seeks to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L
(Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters of North Carolina) for nitrates
that have migrated offsite from its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of
Water Quality regulates land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number
WQ000l 730. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as
a cleanup method, even though natural attenuation with groundwater containment is appropriate based on
information contained in the variance request and technical review by Division staff. Therefore, a variance is
being sought to 15A NCAC 2L.
The variance affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). The CityofRaleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) used the land to apply wastewater
treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on numerous fields within its permitted compliance
boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist ofresidential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-
owned forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals.
The city is responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance boundary.
This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the southeast portion of Wake
County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The CORPUD requests that the Environmental
Management Commission grant the following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the
authority of 15A NCAC 2L . 0113 so that it does the following:
)
(1) Allows the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and treatment of groundwater containing nitrate
that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as required by 15ANCAC 2L .0106
(d)(2) and applies the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). Nitrate associated with the application
of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary surrounding the facility.
Under 15A NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied
to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations, unless a variance is
granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The city wants to apply. 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) where
discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto
adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implements a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
1
occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both
regular groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis until the CORPUD achieves compliance
with the rules.
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration. Nearby private wells that were impacted by
nitrate associated with the over-application of residuals have either been abandoned per the state's well
construction rules in 15A NCAC 2L .0100 or are no longer in use as a source of drinking water supply.
Downgradient private well owners with abandoned wells are now served by water from the City of Raleigh.
In light of this pending variance request, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for this facility has been modified so that nitrate from groundwater discharging into surface waters will
be considered as well as nitrate coming out of the discharge pipe such that the total allowable discharge of this
substance is unchanged.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer. Please forward comments or req uests for information
to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five pages of copies are
made. Ifless than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
(Si gn ed on Tuesday, July 31 , 2007)
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
E: Legal notice from David Hance at DWQ --Response -See attac ...
Subject: RE: Legal notice from David Hance at DWQ --Response -See attachment
From: "Pam Oleniczak" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:01:35 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Thanks David -you are the bomb!
Pam
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:58 AM
To: Pam Oleniczak
Subject: Re: Legal notice from David Hance at DWQ --Response -See
attachment
Pam,
Here it is in Word .
david hance
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Pam Oleniczak wrote:
I got it ... is there a way you can email it (WORD format) .. if so, that
would
be great and would save us from having to type in all the coyp ... if not,
no problem, we will .
Let me know if that's possible .. Thanks David and good morning.
Pam
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hance [mailto:David [e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:05 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Legal notice from David Hance at DWQ
Pam,
I just faxed this to you. Four pages total .
Did you get them?
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
8/1/2007 10:01 AM
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FOR CLEANUP AT THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT -NEUSE RIVER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Permit Number WQ000l 730)
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The City of
Raleigh seeks to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L
(Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters ofNorth Carolina) for nitrates
that have migrated off site from its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NR WWTP). The Division of
Water Quality regulates land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number
WQ000l 730. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as
a cleanup method, even though natural attenuation with groundwater containment is appropriate based on
information contained in the variance request and technical review by Division staff Therefore, a variance is
being sought to 15A NCAC 2L.
The variance affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). The City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) used the land to apply wastewater
treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on numerous fields within its permitted compliance
boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist ofresidential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-
owned forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals.
The city is responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance boundary.
This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the southeast portion of W alee
County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The CORPUD requests that the Environmental
Management Commission grant the following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the
authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the following:
(1) Allows the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and treatment of groundwater containing nitrate
that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as required by 15ANCAC 2L .0106
( d)(2) and applies the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). Nitrate associated with the application
of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary surrounding the facility.
Under 15ANCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15ANCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied
to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations, unless a variance is
granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The city wants to apply ISA NCAC 2L .0106(k) where
discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto
adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implements a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional offsite migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined wi.th natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
1
occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both
regular groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis until the CORPUD achieves compliance
with the rules.
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L . 0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration. Nearby private wells that were impacted by
nitrate associated with the over-application of residuals have either been abandoned per the state's well
construction rules in 15A NCAC 2L .0100 or are no longer in use as a source of drinking water supply.
Downgradient private well owners with abandoned wells are now served by water from the City of Raleigh.
In light of this pending variance request, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for this facility has been modified so that nitrate from groundwater discharging into surface waters will
be considered as well as nitrate coming out of the discharge pipe such that the total allowable discharge of this
substance is unchanged.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer. Please forward comments or requests for information
to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five pages of copies are
made. If less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
Rick Bolich's J/31 chang es
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FOR CLEANUP AT THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT -NEUSE RNER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Permit Number WQ000l 730)
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The City o:f
Raleigh seeks to-pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L
(Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters ofNorth Carolina) for nitrates
that have migrated offsite from its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP}. The Division of
Water Quality refers to land application operations conducted at this· facility under Permit Number
WQ0O0 1730. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as
a cleanup method, even though natural attenuation with groundwater containment is appropriate based on
information contained in the variance request and technical review by Division staff.
The variance affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). The City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD )used the land to apply wastewater
treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on numerous fields within its permitted compliance
boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-
owned forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals.
The city is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance
boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the southeast portion
of Wake County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres ofland. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD~ requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the following
variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the
following:
(1) The variance request is to allow the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L .010? (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate associated with the application of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance
boundary surrounding the facility. Under ISA NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal
operations, unless a variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A
NCAC 2L . 0106(k) where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent
surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water
supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional offsite migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short:-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time . Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
1
Rick Bolich's 7/31 changes
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences of the Groundwater Quality Standard for
nitrate have occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will
include both regular groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis until the CORPUD
achieves compliance with the rules.
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15ANCAC 2L .0106G). The proposed variancerequestwillnotchangetherequiredstandard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration. Nearby private wells that were impacted by
nitrate associated with the over-app lication of residuals have either been abandoned per the state's well
construction rules in 15A NCAC 2L .0100 or are no longer in use as a source of drinking water supply.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587);Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five page.s of copies are
made. If less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(i). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance rp.onitored a~ this facility is under consideration. @, n"~'°-x-e ('/l ~A +e ~~ 'f4-. +-/ t-4 ~ I rr--ffJ<.. ~ ~ ~ f') 1 +v-n-k h ~ ~ o...b l7'A ~crM-eJ '{-)-Qlr r'-1(_ ~ C (!Y\$ v1ruf-'VY-S~•
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows: r v""l
!SA (VC/9(
RALEIGH 2 ( ~ CJ/ 0,
();)tr CM-€_ September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
"\ V{J:)/~r,/n
~~ I>.,~t
tfffj ~ <>k:nr··.} ~
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five pages of copies are
made . Ifless than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FOR CLEANUP AT THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT -NEUSE RIVER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Permit Number WQO00l 730)
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The City of
Raleigh seeks pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L
(Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters ofNorth Carolina) for nitrates
that have migrated offsite from its NRWWTP. The Division of Water Quality refers to land application
operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number WQ000l 730. Permit conditions and state I
l ~ ,grouudwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L prohibit natural attenuation as a cleanup method, even though c~
fl-~th groundwater containment is appropriate for this type of site based on information contained in the
variance request and technical review by Division staff.
The variance affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). The City of Raleigh Public Utility Department used the land to apply wastewater treatment
plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on numerous fields within its permitted compliance boundary.
Properties surrounding this site consist of residential properties, fannland, commercial, and state-owned
forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals.
The city is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance
boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the southeast portion
of Wake County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD) requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the following
variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the
following:
( 1) The variance request is to allow the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate associated with the application ofresiduals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance
boundary surrounding the facility. Under 15A NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A
N CAC 2L . 0106(k) cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal
operations, unless a variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent
surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water
supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
1
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit. 1bis monitoring effort will include both
regular groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis until the CORPUD achieves compliance
with the rules.
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration. Nearby private wells that were impacted by
nitrate have either been abandoned per the state's well construction rules in 15A NCAC 2L .0100 or are no
longer in use as a source of drinking water supply.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five pages of copies are
made. If less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
9197153605 PAGE 04/05
PUBLIC NOTICE-Printed Apri1 I St 2007 in the Charloue Observer
NOTJCE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
lhis ts to notify the pubHc ofa varianee application and public bcariog to be held by the Departmem of
Environment and Natural Resources (OENR) on behalf of the Environmental Man:tgeme:nt Commistiot. ·
The hearing concerns a reque~t for a variance from the GroundwateT Quality Standards of 15A 'NCAC: !L
_02.Ct2 and the Corrective Action Tequircments of I SA NCAC 2L .0106(j) for a site at 530 East Sugar C eek
Road in Charlott:, North Carolina, Tho sito is referred to in DENR records as On>undwattT Jraeldent
#55906 and consists of approximately 5.02 acres oflll!ld owned by Kaiser Aerospace.& Eler;:tro:ojcs
Corporation. Environmental assessment work conducted at this site indicatet that historic source~ of
n:1cases inctudc the loading dock. aod materials storage areas, tooling and deburring areas, hydraulic pu :np
and compressor rooms and the fonncr settling bmk and degreaseT, which are located in the northwest c1 mer
of the site.
The property is located at tile comeT of East Sugar creek Road and R.aJeigh Street. The parcel Is listed is
Mecklenburg County Parcel Number 09107104. R.oclcwelJ Collins has requested that the Environment J
Management .Commission grant the variance to its rules under the authority of I SA NCAC 2L .OJ 13 to
allow ~nccntrations of chemicals to remain at levels above 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Qaali~
Standards u analyzed beginning in 2001. The historical groundwater analytical data ha.i: shown
halogenated volatile o-rganjc compounds exceed.mg the !ttandards in the former settling tank area. A sh, ,rt
term dual phase extraction evenrs were conducted between August 2004 and April 2005. During March and
Afnil 2006. furthm-tx<:a'VAtion was Mi1duetcd ill the former settling tank area and instaUation of a J foe t
thick z.ero-valent iroritsand reaction zone along tbe clo~grai:;lient face of the exuvation. Approximatel; •
550 cubic ;yards {in-plac~ volume) of soil wu excavated. Grotmdwater modeling Indicates concentratir ,ns
of Trlchloroethcne, the primary HVOC in onsite groundwater, will ctttenuate onsite and will not exceed the
standards a.t the property boundary.
A Public Hearing will beheld pur!uant to the requirements of1SA NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
Tuesday, May IS, 2007
2pm
Comm1,1nity Room in th~ Un.t\lers.ity City .R,egional Library
301 East WT Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina
Oral c;omments may ~ made during the hearing, or written sta.t~mcnts may be ~ubmittt:d to th¢ agency ~y
June 7, 200'7. Written copjes of oral statemcn~ exceeding three minutes are requested. All attendees ll fl1
have the opportunity to present five (5) minute oral staUments regarding the variance request.
Written comments should be sent to:
Linda Culpepper, Deputy Director
North Carolina Division of Waste Management
MSC 1646
401 Oberlin Rd, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
The propo9ed variance request is available for public review Monday through Friday durin.g office hom s
(9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) at the location listed above. Call Holly Murray at [phone] for an
appointment.
NC DENR will provide auxiliary aidii and services for disabled persons who wish to perticipa.te in this
public hearing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. To receive special services, please
contact Holly Murray at the above address and phone number as early as possible, so arrangements can be
mad~.
CORPUD edits-reply
, I
Subject: Re: CORPUD edits-reply
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:52:35 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
I understood them.
I put them in on Friday Eveni ng and got it to Jeff Manning for review.
david hance
****************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Let me know if you have any questions regarding either my or Rick's edits.
J
7/30/2007 9:56 AM
of3
: notice for variance -CORPUD
Subject: Public notice for variance -CORPUD
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:54:16-0400
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
The notice is on Jeffs desk and he said he would get it to me this morning.
david hance
********************************
[e-mail] wrote:
Thanks.
----Original Message----
From: coleen.sullins@ncmail .net
Date: Jul 29, 2007 19:03
To: "Alan Clark"<[e-mail]>
Subj: Re: [Fwd: 2LVariance for the City of Raleigh -CORPUD: Mark
this date on your Calendars -September 5, 2007]
Alan -I am in Monday and most of Tuesday. Coleen
Alan Clark wrote:
It literally gives a weekend or so for the hearing officer's to
deliberate before sending the report to the EMC, but it's doable .
}
David told me he would need your signature before you go out of
town
next week in order to notice this. What is your availability next
week?
Alan
Coleen Sullins wrote:
excellent, thank you. Coleen
Alan Clark wrote:
7/30/2007 9:55 A M
Public notice for variance -CORPUD
Bolich
net>,
Coleen, FYI .
--------Original Message--------
Subject: 2 L Variance for the City of Raleigh -CORPUD: Mark
this date on your Calendars -September 5, 2007
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Rick
<Rick [e-mail]>, kathy stecker <Kathy.Stecker@ncmail.
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>
*Hello staffs at the DWQ Planning Section and Aquifer Protection
Section: *
_Mark this date, time & place on your calendars for the public
hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance Request:
*
* *Wednesday, September 5, 2007*
*_Raleigh_
**@ 7 PM*
*Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room*
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
Env. Spec
919-733-5083 x. 587
2 of3 7/30/2007 9:55 AM
)RPUD edits
Subject: CORPUD edits
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:18:03 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Let me know if you have any questions regarding either my or Rick's edits .
J
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/30/2007 9 :55 AM
1f2
◄wd: 2 L Variance for the City of Raleigh-CORPUD: Mark this ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: 2 L Variance for the City of Raleigh -CORPUD: Mark this date on your Calendars -
September 5, 2007]
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:04:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Thanks.
----Original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Jul 29, 2007 19:03
To: "Alan Clark"<[e-mail]>
Subj: Re: [Fwd: 2 L Variance for the City of Raleigh -CORPUD: Mark
this date on your Calendars -September 5, 2007)
Alan - I am in Monday and most of Tuesday. Coleen
Alan Clark wrote:
It literally gives a weekend or so for the hearing officer's to
deliberate before sending the report to the EMC, but it's doable.
)
David told me he would need your signature before you go out of
town I next week in order to notice this. What is your availability next
week?
Alan
Coleen Sullins wrote:
excellent, thank you. Coleen
Alan Clark wrote:
Coleen, FYI.
--------Or i ginal Message--------
Subject: 2 L Variance for the City of Raleigh -CORPUD: Mark
this date on your Calendars~ September 5, 2007
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
To: Jay .Zimmerman@ncmail .net, Alan Cla~
<Ala~lark@ ncmail.net>, Ted Bush <Ted [e-mail]>, Rick
Bolich I I f <Ri ck .Bol i ch@ncma il.net>, kathY., stecker <Kathy.Steck~r@ncmail.
net>,
Andrew P itner <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <j eff.manning @ncmail.net>
*Hello staffs at the DWQ Planning Section and Aquifer Protection
Section: *
_Mark this date, time & place on your calendars for the public
hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance Request:
7/30/2007 9:57 AM
Re: [Fwd: 2 L Variance for the City of Raleigh-CORPUD: Mark this ...
*
*
*Wednesday, September 5, 2007*
*_Raleigh_
**@ 7 PM*
*Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room*
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
Env. Spec
919-733-5083 x. 587
2 of 2 7/30/2007 9:57 AM
Do Not Send this Out!
7/30/2007 10:0E
2 of2
CORPUD Variar>~e: Discussion of notices and people
f4
•
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of notices and people
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:18:12 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
I am pretty sure we can get River Keeper addresses here.
I will look at the CAP for those addresses. Thank you for letting me know that.
If there are other well owners not revealed in the variance request, I can only see the newspaper as a means to do
this. We will be doing this as a legal ad no doubt. Massengale could do a press release before the hearing as well.
David Hance
*************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Thanks for the attachments. Regarding the addresses, I recommend we send notices to all affected property/well
owners. Complete addresses, including zip codes, were on table 1-2 in the Dec 2005 CAP, submitted as part of
the variance . I do agree that wells are property, but don't agree that if the well is abandoned that they should not
receive a seperate notice (I guess this is what you are getting at). They still h_ave a stake in this even though their
wells may have been permanently abandoned. I am not sure how to go about notifying other well owners
outside of the area affected by the variance except by posting in a newspaper. Regarding the Neuse River
Keeper, don't you have that on a list of interested groups for mailings of rule changes? We can probably get it
but there may be others that I can't currently think of, that we should also notice. Thoughts?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I. About the CORPUD Informational Item for the EMC Groundwater Committee in Se ptember
2007: Yes , attached are Two Examples of information items that are the typical formats for the EMC GWC
meetings. Hope these help!
II. What I need for the "Notice of Public Hearing": I don't think I need anything from you to complete
the notice. If I do -will will call/email you.
ill. What I will need from the RRO for the Mailout of the Notice-More addresses: We had discussed
earlier in an email the mailout of the public notice and the need to notice well owners . We had talked about
the kind of well owners to notice and it would make sense to notice those who have active wells (irrigation
wells too). If well have been abandoned properly according to state rules, I have hard time seeing them as
property, since the direct mail notice requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0113( e )(1 )(A-F) specify that notices
be sent to "property owners" within the proposed area of the variance. My point is - A well is real property
because it comes with the land. However, an abandoned well cannot be property anymore since you would
assume the materials to construct it are removed and the access to it is restricted by grout according to the
abandonment rules. Q11esti01i: Do you agree with this? What I need is a listing of well owners with
name, address, town and zip code. Also ....... Rick had mentioned sending a notice to the River Keeper's
7/30/2007 10:09 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of notices and people
2 of4
Alliance in for the Neuse River an email he had sent. Question: Do you have this information?
N. Immediate Plans for Gettin g thin gs Moving along :
a. Working on the public notice
b. Quick cover note for Coleen.
b. Working on a schedule in table and will email that to you and others.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
****************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Rick will likely present this informational item, however, I will be present in the event any questions
come up that Rick may prefer I answer. He made a Power Point presentation to Coleen that will likely
be modified to deal more specifically with the meat of the variance. Can you send Rick and me an
example of the format for an "Informational Item"? Your email gave clues for "Action Items" only.
Also, is there anything elase you need from us in order to proceed with the Notice of Public Hearing?
If so, please advise ASAP.
Thanks
Jay
Rick,
Note August 2nd deadline to get stuff to David.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
FYI---Alan spoke to me today about the meeting you all had with. Coleen Sullins this morning ..
It appears that the Variance for the CORPUD will be an information item at the EMC Groundwater
Committee Meeting in September 2007.
I sent this on to Jay Zimmerman so that he would know how to get agenda items to me and the
deadlines I have. Alan told me later on in the day that there was talk of Rich Bolich doing this
informational presentation on the variance.
7/30/2007 10:09 Ar-
CORPUD Variance: Discussion of notices and people ... . '
4
David Hance
733-5083 x . 587
Subject:
EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting for September 12th: CORPUD Variance
Information Item/ Request for Agenda Items sent
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:50 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]
Jay,
I got your phone message earlier today about the CORPUD Variance
Request. I have not had discussions with Alan Clark yet. He has
been in meetings and should be coming by later today.
Here is the request for items email that I send out to people who
have presentations for EMC GWC meetings. I am assuming that y ou
will be making that presentation to the members.
This went out this morning to DWQ and other Staffs and has
instructions in it. Please read.
David Hance
733-5083 X .587
**********************************************************************************
As you may already know, the EMC Groundwater Committee (GWC) is scheduled to meet on:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
@2:00PM
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
1. Do you have any action items, such as rulemaking, requiring a Committee vote to proceed to
the full Commission?
2. Do you have any informational presentations on your activities that you want to let the EMC
GWC know about?
Please send me a title of you agenda item by email attachment with an explanation and
recommended action.
7/30/2007 10:09 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of notices and people
4 of4
{A Note on A genda Items: To promote consistency in the language of all of the agenda items that
will go before the EMC Groundwater Committee, The Division of Water Quality -Planning
Section asks that if you have action items, the title should begin as follows: "Request to Proceed to
tlte E11vironmental Management Commission with a (whatever the action is)". In addition,
try to keep the agenda title brieffor both Action Items and Informational Items. Remember the
format of your Action Agenda Items should include a (I) agenda title at the top; (2) an explanation
in the middle; and (3) a recommendation to the EMC Groundwater Committee at the bottom of the
document. Informational Items should follow a similar pattenz with a cover page that shows an
agenda item title and explanation. I( 1•ou need a tem r late fo rm fr om me, fe el fr ee to ask/
If possible, I would appreciate getting your agenda item title(s) on or before Thursday, August
2, 2007 and your explanation(s) no later than Wednesday, August 8, 2007@ 6:00 PM. If you
have no items, please let me know as well.
Note that if you have materials (that is, attachments for the EMC GWC meeting), we are
requesting that you make approximately 30 double sided copies of the materials. Staple each copy
and get the copies and originals to me when you submit your items. This applies to both rules or
information items. This is to cover EMC Groundwater Members, presenters, the AGO
representative, all program managers we deal with. It should include your full agenda item plus the
attachment you would want to the EMC GWC members to have. My management wants to keep
our staff from having to rush around and make lots of copies at the last minute before a mail out.
David Hance
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
733-5083; ext. 587
Room 625-aa, Archdale Building
7/30/2007 10:09 A
CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
·4
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:02:24 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
I just looked at the December 2005 CAP binder. Did you mean Table 1-1 or Figure 1-2 ( the map of the site)?
Table 1-1 has the same issue I found in the variance request itself --no zi p code or town listed in it!
Addresses are incomplete here in Table 1-1!
david hance
733-5083 x. 587
***********************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Thanks for the attachments. Regarding the addresses, I recommend we send notices to all affected property/well
owners. Complete addresses, including zip codes, were on table 1-2 in the Dec 2005 CAP, submitted as part of
the variance. I do agree that wells are property, but don't agree that if the well is abandoned that they should not
receive a seperate notice (I guess this is what you are getting at). They still have a stake in this even though their
wells may have been permanently abandoned. I am not sure how to go about notifying other·well owners
outside of the area affected by the variance except by posting in a newspaper. Regarding the Neuse River
Keeper, don't you have that on a list of interested groups for mailings of rule changes? We can probably get it
but there may be others that I can't currently think of, that we should also notice. Thoughts?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I. About the CORPUD Informational Item for the EMC Groundwater Committee in Se ptember
2007: Yes, attached are Two Examples of information items that are the typical formats for the EMC GWC
meetings. Hope these help!
II. What I need for the "Notice of Public Hearing ": I don't think I need anything from you to complete
the notice. Ifl do -will will call/email you.
ill. What I will need from the RRO for the Mailout of the Notice-More addresses: We had discussed
earlier in an email the mailout of the public notice and the need tdnotice well owners. We had'talked about
the kind of well owners to notice and it would make sense to notice those who have active wells (irrigation
wells too). If well have been abandoned properly according to state rules, I have hard time seeing them as
property, since the direct mail notice requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(A-F) specify that notices
be sent to "property owners" within the proposed area of the variance. My point is - A well is real property
because it comes with the land. However, an abandoned well cannot be property anymore since you would
assume the materials to construct it are removed and the access to it is restricted by grout according to the
abandonment rules. Question: Do you agree with this? What I need is a listing of well owners with
name, address, town and zip code. Also ....... Rick had mentioned sending a notice to the River Keeper's
Alliance in for the Neuse River an email he had sent. Question: Do you have this information?
7/30/2007 10:09 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
2 of4
N. Immediate Plans for Gettin g things Movin g along :
a. Working on the public notice
b. Quick cover note for Coleen.
b. Working on a schedule in table and will email that to you and others.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
****************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Rick will likely present this informational item, however, I will be present in the event any questions
come up that Rick may prefer I answer. He made a Power Point presentation to Coleen that will likely
be modified to deal more specifically with the meat of the variance. Can you send Rick and me an
example of the format for an "Informational Item"? Your email gave clues for "Action Items" only.
Also, is there anything elase you need from us in order to proceed with the Notice of Public Hearing?
If so, please advise ASAP.
Thanks
Jay
Rick,
Note August 2nd deadline to get stuff to David.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
FYI---Alan spoke to me today about the meeting you all had with Coleen Sullins this morning.
It appears that the Variance for the CORPUD will be an information item at the EMC Groundwater
Committee Meeting in September 2007.
I sent this on to Jay Zimmerman so that he would know how to get agenda items to me and the
deadlines I have. Alan told me later on in the day that there was talk of Rich Bolich doing this
informational presentation on the variance.
David Hance
7/30/2007 10:09
CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
f4
733-5083 x. 587
Subject:
EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting for September 12th: CORPUD Variance
Information Item/ Request for Agenda Items sent
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:50 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
To:
Jay [e-mail]
Jay,
I got your phone message earlier today about the CORPUD Variance
Request. I have not had discussions with Alan Clark yet. He has
been in meetings and should be coming by later today.
Here is the request for items email that I send out to people who
have presentations for EMC GWC meetings. I am assuming that you
will be making that presentation to the members.
This went out this morning to DWQ and other Staffs and has
instructions in it. Please read.
David Hance
733-5083 X .587
**********************************************************************************
As you may already lmow, the EMC Groundwater Committee (GWC) is scheduled to meet on:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
@2:00PM
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
1. Do you have any action items, such as rulemaking, requiring a Committee vote to proceed to
the full Commission?
2. Do you have any informational presentations on your activities that you want to let the EMC
GWC know about?
Please send me a title of you agenda item by email attachment with an explanation and
recommended action.
{A Note on A genda Items: To promote consistency in the language of all of the agenda items that
7/30/2007 10 :09 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
4 of4
will go before the EMC Groundwater Committee, The Division of Water Quality -Planning
Section asks that if you have action items, the title should begin as follows: "Request to Proceed to
the Environmental Management Commission with a (whatever the action is)". In addition,
fly to keep the agenda title brief for both Action Items and Informational Items. Remember the
fonnat ~[your Action Agenda Items should include a (lj agenda title at the top; (2j an explanation
in the middle; and (3j a recommendation to the EMC Groundwater Committee at the bottom of the
document. Infonnational Items should follow a similar pattern with a cover page that shows an
agenda item title and explanation. I(,·ou need a tem plate fo rm from me, feel fr ee to ask}
If possible, I would appreciate getting your agenda item title(s) on or before Thursday, August
2, 2007 and your explanation(s) no later than Wednesday, August 8, 2007@ 6:00 PM. If you
have no items, please let me know as well.
Note that if you have materials (that is, attachments for the EMC GWC meeting), we are
requesting that you make approximately 30 double sided copies of the materials. Staple each copy
and get the copies and originals to me when you submit your items. This applies to both rules or
information items. This is to cover EMC Groundwater Members, presenters, the AGO
representative, all program managers we deal with. It should include your full agenda item plus the
attachment you would want to the EMC GWC members to have. My management wants to keep
our staff from having to rush around and make lots of copies at the last minute before a mail out.
David Hance
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
733-5083; ext. 587
Room 625-aa, Archdale Building
7/30/2007 10:09 N
CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Pla ...
)
f3
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Plans to move this along
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:18:55 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Thanks Rick-Maybe we have an address on this person!
david hance
Rick Bolich wrote :
David and Jay;
The reason that i mentioned sending notice to the Riverkeepers-is based on a verbal.request--.
i received from Dean Naujoks to be notified of the hearing .
rb
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Thanks for the attachments. Regarding the addresses, I recommend we send notices to all
affected property/well owners. Complete addresses, including zip codes, were on table
1-2 in the Dec 2005 CAP, submitted as part of the variance. I do agree that wells are
property, but don't agree that if the well is abandoned that they should not receive a
seperate notice (I guess this is what you are getting at). They still have a stake in
this even though their wells may have been permanently abandoned. I am not sure how to
go about notifying other well owners outside of the area affected by the variance except
by posting in a newspaper . Regarding the Neuse River Keeper, don't you have that on a
list of interested groups f or mailings of rule changes? We can probably get it but there
may be others that I can't c urrently think of, that we should also notice. Thoughts?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I. *About the CORPUD Informational Item for the EMC Groundwater Committee in
September 2007:*_ Yes, attached are Two Examples of information items that are the
typical formats for the EMC GWC meetings. Hope these-help!
II. *What I need for the "Notice of Public Hearing":* I don't think I need
anything from you to complete the notice. If I do -will-will call/email you.
III. * What I will need from the RRO for the Mailout of the Notice-More addresses:
*We had discussed earlier in an email the mailout of the public notice and the need to
notice well owners. We had talked about the kind of well owners to notice and it
would make sense to notice those who have active wells (irrigation wells too). If well
have been abandoned properly according to state rules, I have hard time seeing them as
property, since the direct mail notice requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (A-F)
specify that notices be sent to "property owners" within the proposed area of the
variance. My point is - A well is real property because it comes with the land.
However, an abandoned well cannot be property anymore since you would assume the
materials to construct it are removed and the access to it is restricted by grout
according to the abandonment rules. /*Question: Do you agree with this? What I need
is a listing of well owners with name, address, town and zip code.*/ Also ....... Rick
had mentioned sending a notice to the River Keeper's Alliance in for the Neuse River
an email he had sent.* Question: Do you have this information?*
/*
*/IV. *Immediate Plans for Getting things Moving along: *
a. -Working on the public notice
b. Quick cover note for Coleen.
email that to you and others.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
b. Working on a schedule in table and will
7/30/2007 10:09 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Pla ...
2 of3
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
***************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Rick will likely present· this informational item, however, I will be present in the
event any questions come up that Rick may prefer I answer. He made a Power Point
presentation to Coleen that will likely be modified to deal more specifically with
the meat of the _variaRce. Can you send Rick and me an example of the format for an
"Informational Item"? Your email gave clues for "Action Items" only.
Also, is there anything elase you need from us in order to proceed with the Notice
of Public Hearing? If so, please advise ASAP.
Thanks
Jay
Rick,
Note August 2nd deadline to get stuff to David .
Jay
David Hance wrote:
FYI---Alan spoke to me today about the meeting you all had with Coleen Sullins
this morning.
It appears that the Variance for the CORPUD will be an information item at the
EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting in September 2007 .
I sent this on to Jay Zimmerman so that he would know how to get agenda items to
me and the deadlines I have. Alan told me later on in the day that there was
talk of Rich Bolich doing this informational presentation on the variance .
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
Subject:
EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting for September 12th: CORPUD Variance
Information Item/ Request for Agenda Items sent
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:50 -0400
To:
Jay.Zimmerman@ncmail .net
To:
[e-mail]
Jay,
I got your phone message earlier today about the CORPUD Variance Request. I have
not had discussions with Alan Clark yet. He has been in meetings and should be
7/30/2007 10:09 N
CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Pla ...
corning by later today.
Here is the request for items email that I send out to people who have
presentations for EMC.GWC meetings. I am assuming that you will be making that
presentation to the members.
This went out this morning to DWQ and other Staffs and has instructions in it .
Please read.
David Hance
733-5083 X .587
*********************************************************************************
As you may already know, the EMC Groundwater Committee (GWC) is scheduled to
meet on:
*Wednesday, September 12, 2007
*
Room*
@ 2:00 PM*
Archdale Building**-Ground Floor Hearing
1. Do you have any action items, such as rulemaking, requiring a Committee
vote to proceed to the full Commission?
2. Do you have any informational presentations on your activities that you
want to let the EMC GWC know about?
Please send me a title of you agenda item by email attachment with an
explanation and recommended action.
/*_{A Note on Agenda Items:_* To promote consistency in the language of all of
the agenda items that will go before the EMC Groundwater Committee, The Division
of Water Quality -Planning Section asks that if you have action i~ems, the
title should begin as follows:*"Request to Proceed to the Environmental
Management Commission with a (whatever the action is)".* In addition, try to
keep the agenda title brief for both Action Items and Informational Items.
Remember the format of your Action Agenda Items should include a (1) agenda
title at the top; (2) an explanation in the middle; and (3) a recommendation to
the EMC Groundwater Committee at the bottom of the document. Informational Items
should follow a similar pattern with a cover page that shows an agenda item
title and explanation. _If you need a template form from me, feel free to ask_}/
*/If possible, I would appreciate getting your agenda item title(s) on or before
Thursday, August 2, 2007 and your explanation(s) no later than Wednesday, August
8, 2007@ 6:00 PM. /*If you have no items, please let me know as well.
Note that if you have materials (that is, attachments for the EMC GWC meeting),
we are requesting that you make approximately 30 double sided copies of the
materials. Staple each copy and get the copies and originals to me when you
submit your items. This applies to both rules or information items. This is to
cover EMC Groundwater Members, presenters, the AGO representative, all program
managers we deal with. It should include your full agenda item plus the
attachment you would want to the EMC GWC members to have. My management wants to
keep our staff from having to rush around and make lots of copies at the last
minute before a mailout.
David Hance
Division of Water Quality -Planning Section
733-5083; ext. 587
Room 625-aa, Archdale Building
7/30/2007 10:09 AM
:tft Version of Public Notice for CORPUD Variance Request -for ...
,f 1
Subject: Draft Version of Public Notice for CORPUD Variance Request -for your input
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:57:03 -0400
To: [e-mail] ·
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Jay,
I have completed a draft notice and Jeff Manning is giving this review prior to going forward with it to
Coleen Sullins on Monday.
Here it is attached and in Word.
You will notice that is is a modified and shortened version of what we sent the Division of Public
Health and is two pages long.
Please get any changes you have in the morning on Monday, July 30th.
I will be in all week---next week.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
draftVersion-publicNotice-CORPUDVariance.doc .
Content-Type: application/ms word
Content-Encoding: base64
7/27/2007 3 :57 PM
CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
f3
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:12:45 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
The addresses and zips ARE complete on the table inside Figure 1-2.
David Hance wrote:
I just looked at the December 2005 CAP binder.*/ Did you mean Table 1-1 or Figure 1-2 ( the
map of the site)?/*
Table 1-1 has the same issue I found in the variance request itself --_no zip code or town
_listed in it!
*_Addresses are incomplete here in Table 1-1! *
david hance
733-5083 x. 587
***********************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Thanks for the attachments. Regarding the addresses, I recommend we send notices to all
affected property/well owners. Complete addresses, including zip codes, were on table
1-2 in the Dec 2005 CAP, submitted as part of the variance. I do agree that wells are
property, but don't agree that if the well is abandoned that they should not receive a
seperate notice (I guess this is what you are getting at). They still have a stake in
this even though their wells may have been permanently abandoned. I am not.sure how to
go about notifying other well owners outside of the area affected by the variance except
by posting in a newspaper. Regarding the Neuse River Keeper, don't you have that on a
list of interested groups for mailings of rule changes? We can probably get it but there
may be others that I can't currently think of, that we should also notice. Thoughts?
Jay
David Hance wro·te:
Jay,
I. _*About the CORPUD Informational Item for the EMC Groundwater Committee in
September 2007:*_ Yes, attached are _Two Examples o_f information items that are the
typical formats for the EMC GWC meetings. Hope these help!
II. *What I need for the "Notice of Public Hearing":*_ I don't think I need
anything from you to complete the notice. If I do -will will call/email you.
III. *_What I will need from the RRO for the Mailout of the Notice-More addresses:
*We had discussed earlier in an email the mailout of the public notice and the need to
notice well owners. We had talked about the kind of well owners to notice and it
would make sense to notice those who have active wells (irrigation wells too). If well
have been abandoned properly according to state rule·s, I have hard time seeing them as
property, since the direct mail notice requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) (1) (A-F)
specify that notices be sent to "property owners" within the proposed area of the
variance. My point is - A well is real property because it comes with the land.
However, an abandoned well cannot be property anymore since you would assume the
materials to construct it are removed and the access to it is restricted by grout
according to the abandonment rules. /*Question: Do you agree with this? What I need
is a listing of well owners with name, address, town and zip code.*/ Also ....... Rick
had mentioned sending a notice to the River Keeper's Alliance in for the Neuse River
an email he had sent.* Question: Do you have this information?*
/*
* I IV. _*Immediate Plans for Get.ting things Moving along: *
a. Working ori the public notice
b. Quick cover note for Coleen. b. Working on a schedule in table and will
email that to you and others.
7/27/2007 2:04 PM
: CORPUD Variance-question on incomplete addresses??
f3
I got your phone message earlier today about the CORPUD Variance Request . I have
not had discussions with Alan Clark yet. He has been in meetings and should be
coming by later today.
Here is the request for items email that I send out to people who have
presentations for EMC GWC meetings. I am assuming that you will be making that
presentation to the members.
This went out this morning to DWQ and other Staffs and has instructions in it.
Please read.
David Hance
733-5083 X .587
*********************************************************************************
As you may already know, the EMC Groundwater Committee (GWC) is scheduled to
meet on:
*
Room*
*Wednesday, September 12, 2007
@ 2:00 PM*
Archdale Building**-Ground Floor Hearing
1. Do you have any action items, such as rulemaking, requiring a Committee
vote to proceed to the full Commission?
2. Do you have any informational presentations on your activities that you
want to let the EMC GWC know about?
Please send me a title of you agenda item by email attachment with an
explanation and recommended action.
/*_{A Note on Agenda Items:_* To promote consistency in the language of all of
the agenda items that will go before the EMC Groundwater Committee, The Division
of Water Quality -Planning Section asks that if you have action items, the
title should begin as follows:*"Request to Proceed to the Environmental
Management Commission with a (whatever the action i2)".* In addition, try to
keep the agenda title brief for both Action Items and Informational Items.
Remember the format of your Action Agenda Items should include a (1) agenda
title at the top; (2) an explanation in the middle; and (3) a recommendation to
the.EMC Groundwater Committee at the bottom of the document. Informational Items
should follow a similar pattern with a cover page that shows an agenda item
title and explanation. _If you need a template form from me, feel free to,-ask_}/
*/If possible, I would appreciate getting your agenda item title(s) on or before
Thursday, August 2·, 2007 and your explanation(s) no later than Wednesday, August
8, 2007@ 6:00 PM. /*If you have no items, please let me know as well.
Note that if you have materials (that is, attachments for the EMC GWC meeting),
we are requesting that you make approximately 30 double sided copies of the
materials. Staple each copy and get the copies and originals to me when you
submit your items. This applies to both rules or information items. This is to
cover EMC Groundwater Members, presenters, the AGO representative, all program
managers we deal with. It should include your full agenda item plus the
attachment you would want to the EMC GWC members to have. My management wants to
keep our staff from having to rush around and make lots of copies at the last
minute before a mailout.
David Hance
Division of Water Quality -Planning Section
733-5083; ext. 587
Room 625-aa, Archdale Building
7/27/2007 2:04 PM
~igh Variance -Hearing officers Contact --oops!
Subject: Raleigh Variance -Hearing officers Contact --oops!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:39:26 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Ooops! I already called Andrew earlier today to see if he was available said he is
able to do this. I guess I read into the email that I should make the contact. I
sent an email on to staff@ 2:32 PM today about this.
However, it is ultimately Ted Bush's call of who he wants as Hearing Officer based on
our procedures and I noted that in the follow up email.
David Hance
************************************************************************************
Alan Clark wrote:
David, I appreciate your offer to contact him, although I believe Jeff or Ted was
making the contact already. Please check with them so we are not duplicating
effort and confusing Andrew.
Thanks, Alan
David Hance wrote:
OK. I will contact Andrew and let him know.
David Hance
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Alan Clark wrot_e:
David, in a meeting this morning, Coleen requested that there be two hearing
officers for the Raleigh variance hearing -one from APS and one from
Surface Water/Planning. I know that Andrew Pitner was being contacted to
see if he would serve. Coleen suggested having Kathy Stecker, the modeling
and TMDL supervisor, be the other HO. I've spoken to Kathy and she will be
happy to serve. She does ask that when the other hearing officer is firmed
up, that she and staff have a meeting to go over plans for hearing. Let me
know if you have any questions.
Alan
7/26/2007 5:48 PM
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The hearing'"\
concerns a request for a variance from the prohibition to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action planJ '
(CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L (Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters
of North Carolina). This site is owned by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) and is
known as the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of Water Quality refer
to land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number WQ000l 730. The variance
affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land ~t~ Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP).
CORPUD used the land to apply waste6er 'treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on
numerous fields within its permitted compliance boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist of
residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-owned forestland. The Division has currently
suspended the application of residuals.
The CORPUD is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted
compliance boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the
southeast portion of Wake County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the
following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it
does the following:
(1) The variance request is to allow the CORPUD to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate associated with the application of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance
boundary surrounding the facility. Under 15A NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal
operations, unless a variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent
surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water
supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both
regular groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis until the CORPUD achieves compliance
with the rules. ·
1
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation t f
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five pages of copies are
made. If less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
Draft Version 7/27/07 Not for Citation or QuoteReviewed by Jay
Zimmerman on 7/27/07@ 4:30 PM
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DNISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The hearing
concerns a request for a variance from the prohibition to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan
(CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L (Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters
of North Carolina). This site is owned by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) and is
known as the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NR WWTP). The Division of Water Quality refers
to land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number WQ000l 730. The variance
affects thirty-five (3 5) parcels ofland at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NR WWTP):. that--tihe
city usegs te the land to apply wastewater treatment plant residuals under permit via landfarming on numerous
fields and under the conditions written into the permit within its compliance boundary. Properties surrounding
this site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-owned forestland. The Division has
currently suspended the application of residuals while this variance is being pursued.
The CORPUD is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted
compliance boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the
southeast portion of Wake County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the
following variance to its rules for its NR WWTP facility under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it
does the following:
(1) The variance request is to allow the CORPUD to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate associated with the land a pp lication of residuals from non discharge disposal operations has
migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary surrounding to the soutb>.vest of the facility.
Under 15A NCAC 2L, this type of corrective action in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106 ,k l
cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations, unless a
variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or
onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
ad jacent to -in-the two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This
alternative is directed at controlling additional offsite migration of nitrate into impacted areas through
installation of a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term
extraction of groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface
to control an:d break down nitrate over time; and
~Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted over the remaining areas of the
site where exceedences of the nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have occurred at or
beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both regular
1
Draft Version 7/27/07 Not for Citation or QuoteReviewed by Jay
Zimmerman on 7/27/07@ 4:30 PM
groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis and will occur until the CORPUD achives
compliance with the rules. for the life of the facility.
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00 P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five copies are made. If
less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
-: Draft Version of Public Notice for CORPUD Variance Request -f ...
Jf 1
Subject: Re: Draft Version of Public Notice for CORPUD Variance Request -for your input
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:32:03 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
David,
Looks fine to me. I made a few edititorial changes. Let me know if any questions. I will coopy Rick in
the event I missed something.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I have completed a draft notice and Jeff Manning is giving this review prior to going forward with it
to Coleen Sullins on Monday.
Here it is attached and in Word.
You will notice that is is a modified and shortened version of what we sent the Division of Public
Health and is two pages long.
Please get any changes you have in the morning on Monday, July 30th.
I will be in all week---next week.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>'
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
draftVersion-publicNotice-CORPUDVariance.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
7/27/2007 4:36 PM
Draft Version 7/27/07 Not for Citation or Quote Ricks version
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The hearing
concerns a request for a variance from the prohibition to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan
(CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L (Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters
of North Carolina). This site is owned by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) and is
known as the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of Water Quality refers
to land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number WQ000 1730. The variance
affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP).,_ that tihe
~ORPUD useg_s-te the land to apply wastewater treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming
on numerous fields .!!llilunder the conditions written into the pennit within its permitted compliance boundary.
Properties surrounding this site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-owned
forestland. The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals 'tvhile this variance is being
pursued . .:.
The CORPUD is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted
compliance boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the
southeast portion of Wake County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the
following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it
does the following:
(1) The variance request is to allow the CORPUD to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L ,0106 (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate associated with the land application of residuals from non discharge disposal operation:, has
migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary surroundin\! to the southv;est of the facility.
Under 15A NCAC 2L, this type of corrective action in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (k)
cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations, unless a
variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or
onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
ad jacent to :ffi---tBe two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This
alternative is directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through
installation of a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term
extraction of groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface
to control and break down nitrate over time; and
fBLong-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted over the remaining areas of the
site where exceedences of the nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have occurred at or
1
Draft Version 7/27/07 Not for Citation or Quote Ricks version
beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both regular
groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis and will occur until the CORPUD achives
com r liance with the rules. for the life of the focil-i:eyc
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(i). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five p ages of copies are
made. If less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The hearing
concerns a request for a variance from the prohibition to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan
(CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L (Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters
of North Carolina). This site is owned by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) and is
known as the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plap.t (NRWWTP). The Division of Water Quality refers
to land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number WQ000l 730. The variance
affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP).
CORPUD used the land to apply wastewater treatment plant residuals under a permit via landfarming on
numerous fields within its permitted compliance boundary. Properties surrounding this site consist of
residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-owned forestland. The Division has currently
suspended the application of residuals.
The CORPUD is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted
compliance boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the
southeast portion of Wake County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the
following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it
does the following:
(1) The variance request is to allow the CORPUD to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate associated with the application of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance
boundary surrounding the facility. Under 15A NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal
operations, unless a variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent
surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water
supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both
regular groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis until the CORPUD achieves compliance
with the rules.
1
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three J?linutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five pages of copies are
made. If less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DNISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The hearing
concerns a request for a variance from the prohibition to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan
(CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L (Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters
of North Carolina). This site is owned by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) and is
known as the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of Water Quality refers
to land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number WQ000l 730. The variance
affects thirty-five (35) parcels ofland at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The city
used the land to apply wastewater treatment plant residuals under permit via landfarming on numerous fields
and under the conditions written into the permit within its compliance boundary. Properties surrounding this
site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-owned forestland. The Division has
currently suspended the application of residuals while this variance is being pursued.
The CORPUD is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted
compliance boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the
southeast portion of W ak:e County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the
following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it
does the following:
(1) The variance request is to allow the CORPUD to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate associated with the application of residuals has migrated outside of the permitted compliance
boundary surrounding the facility. Under 15A NCAC 2L, corrective action in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal
operations, unless a variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent
surface waters , or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water
supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment and treatment
adjacent to two fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is
directed at controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of
a limited number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of
groundwater combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and
break down nitrate over time . Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted
over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have
occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both
regular groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis until the CORPUD achieves compliance
with the rules.
1
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five copies are made. If
less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H . Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
Need a mailing address for a river keeper
f I
Subject: Re: Need a mailing address for a river keeper
From: Heather Boyette <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:57:57 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hi David, I have his mailing address.
Dean Naujoks
Upper Neuse River Keeper
112 S Blount Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
-Heather
David Hance wrote:
Does anyone have a mailing address for the following person identified as working
for the Neuse Riverkeeper's alliance?
*The person is Mr. Dean Naujoks.*
Please reply if you do.
david hance
X. 587
Room 625aa
Heather Boyette <heather.bo [e-mail]>
319 Grant Program
Division of Water Quality
NCDENR
7/27/2007 1 :02 PM
, Variance for the City of Raleigh -CORPUD: Mark this date on yo ...
fl
Subject: 2 L Variance for the City of Raleigh -CORPUD: Mark this date on your Calendars -
September 5, 2007
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400
To: [e-mail], Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Hello staffs at the DWO Planning Section and Aquifer Protection Section:
Mark this date, time & place on your calendars for the public hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance
Request:
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Ralei gh
@7PM
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
Env. Spec
919-733-5083 X. 587
7/27/2007 12 :49 PM
: CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Pia ...
>f 4
_Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Plans to move this along
11Vrom: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:06:14 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
David,
Thanks for the attachments. Regarding the addresses, I recommend we send notices to all affected property/well
owners. Complete addresses, including zip codes, were on table 1-2 in the Dec 2005 CAP, submitted as part of
the variance. I do agree that wells are property, but don't agree that if the well is abandoned that they should not
receive a seperate notice (I guess this is what you are getting at). They still have a stake in this even though their
wells may have been permanently abandoned. I am not sure how to go about notifying other well owners outside
of the area affected by the variance except by posting in a newspaper. Regarding the Neuse River Keeper, don't
you have that on a list of interested groups for mailings of rule changes? We can probably get it but there may be
others that I can't currently think of, that we should also notice. Thoughts?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I. About the CORPUD Informational Item for the EMC Groundwater Committee in September
2007: Yes, attached are Two Examples of information items that are the typical formats for the EMC GWC
meetings. Hope these help!
II. What I need for the "Notice of Public Hearing ": I don't think I need anything from you to complete
the notice. If I do -will will call/email you.
III. What I will need from the RRO for the Mailout of the Notice-More addresses: We had discussed
earlier in an email the mailout of the public notice and the need to notice well owners. We had talked about
the kind of well owners to notice and it would make sense to notice those who have active wells (irrigation
wells too). If well have been abandoned properly according to state rules, I have hard time seeing them as
property, since the direct mail notice requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(A-F) specify that notices be
sent to "property owners" within the proposed area of the variance. My point is - A well is real property
because it comes with the land. However, an abandoned well cannot be property anymore since you would
assume the materials to construct it are removed and the access to it is restricted by grout according to the
abandonment rules. Question: Do you agree with this? What I need is a listing of well owners with name,
address, town and zip code. Also ....... Rick had mentioned sending a notice to the River Keeper's Alliance in
for the Neuse River an email he had sent. Question: Do you have this information?
IV. Immediate Plans for Getting things Moving along :
a. Working on the public notice
b. Quick cover note for Coleen.
b. Working on a schedule in table and will email that to you and others.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
7/27/2007 12:11 PM
: CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Pia ...
l Information Item/ Request for Agenda Items sent
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:50-0400
To:
J [e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]
Jay,
I got your phone message earlier today about the CORPUD Variance
Request. I have not had discussions with Alan Clark yet. He has
been in meetings and should be coming by later today.
Here is the request for items email that I send out to people who
have presentations for EMC GWC meetings. I am assuming that you
will be making that presentation to the members.
This went out this morning to DWQ and other Staffs and has
in~tructions in it . Please read.
David Hance
733-5083 X .587
*********************************************************************************
As you may already know, the EMC Groundwater Committee (GWC) is scheduled to meet on:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
@ 2:00PM
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
1. Do you have any action items, such as rulemaking, requiring a Committee vote to proceed to
the full Commission?
2. Do you have any informational presentations on your activities that you want to let the EMC
GWC know about?
Please send me a title of you agenda item by email attachment with an explanation and
recommended action.
{A Note on Agenda Items: To promote consistency in the language of all of the agenda items that
will go before the EMC Groundwater Committee. The Division o..f Water Quality -Planning Section
asks that if you have action items, the title should begin asf<Jllows:"Request to Proceed to the
Environmental Management Commission with a (whatever the action is)". In addition, fly to
keep the agenda title brieffor both Action Items and Informational Items. Remember the format of
your Action Agenda Items should include a (1) agenda title at the top; (2) an explanation in the
middle; and (3) a recommendation to the EMC Groundwater Committee at the bottom of the
document. Informational Items should follow a similar pattern with a cover page that shows an
agenda item title and e.\planation. /(you need a temp late f orm fr om me, (eel free to ask}
7/27/2007 12:11 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Pia ...
If possible, I would appreciate getting your agenda item title( s) on or before Thursday, August 2,
2007 and your explanation(s) no later than Wednesday, August 8, 2007@ 6:00 PM. If you have
no items, please let me know as well.
Note that if you have materials (that is, attachments for the EMC GWC meeting), we are requesting
that you make approximately 30 double sided copies of the materials. Staple each copy and get the
copies and originals to me when you submit your items. This applies to both rules or information
items. This is to cover EMC Groundwater Members, presenters, the AGO representative, all
program managers we deal with. It should include your full agenda item plus the attachment you
would want to the EMC GWC members to have. My management wants to keep our staff from
having to rush around and make lots of copies at the last minute before a mailout.
David Hance
Division of Water Quality -Planning Section
733-5083; ext. 587
Room 625-aa, Archdale Building
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
i .
4 of4 7/27/2007 12:1 1
RPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Plans ...
:4
Subject: CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Plans to move this along
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:31:47 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
1 CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Jay,
I. About the CORPUD Informational Item for the EMC Groundwater Committee in September
2007: Yes, attached are Two Examples of information items that are the typical formats for the EMC GWC
meetings. Hope these help!
II. What I need for the "Notice of Public Hearing ": I don't think I need anything from you to complete
the notice. Ifl do -will will call/email you.
III. What I will need from the RRO for the Mailout of the Notice-More addresses: We had discussed
earlier in an email the mailout of the public notice and the need to notice well owners. We had talked about
the kind of well owners to notice and it would make sense to notice those who have active wells (irrigation
wells too). If well have been abandoned properly according to state rules, I have hard time seeing them as
property, since the direct mail notice requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e){l){A-F) specify that notices be
sent to "property owners" within the proposed area of the variance. My point is - A well is real property
because it comes with the land. However, an abandoned well cannot be property anymore since you would
assume the materials to construct it are removed and the access to it is restricted by grout according to the
abandonment rules. Question: Do you agree with this? What I need is a listing of well owners with name,
address, town and zip code. Also ....... Rick had mentioned sending a notice to the River Keeper's Alliance in
for the Neuse River an email he had sent. Question: Do you have this information?
IV. Immediate Plans for Getting thin gs Moving along :
a. Working on the public notice
b. Quick cover note for Coleen.
b. Working on a schedule in table and will email that to you and others.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
****************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Rick will likely present this informational item, however, I will be present in the event any questions
come up that Rick may prefer I answer. He made a Power Point presentation to Coleen that will likely be
modified to deal more specifically with the meat of the variance. Can you send Rick and me an example
7/27/2007 10:32 AM
CORPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Plans ...
2 of4
of the format for an "Informational Item"? Your email gave clues for "Action Items" only.
Also, is there anything elase you need from us in order to proceed with the Notice of Public Hearing? If
so, please advise ASAP.
Thanks
Jay
Rick,
Note August 2nd deadline to get stuff to David.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
FYI---Alan spoke to me today about the meeting you· all had with Coleen Sullins this morning.
It appears that the Variance for the CORPUD will be an information item at the EMC Groundwater
Committee Meeting in September 2007.
I sent this on to Jay Zimmerman so that he would know how to get agenda items to me and the
deadlines I have. Alan told me later on in the day that there was talk of Rich Bolich doing this
informational presentation on the variance.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
Subject:
EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting for September 12th: CORPUD Variance Information
Item/ Request for Agenda Items sent
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:50 -0400
To: Jay .Zimmerman(w.,n cmail.net
To: Jay [e-mail]
Jay,
I got your phone message earlier today about the CORPUD Variance
Request. I have not had discussions with Alan Clark yet. He has
7/27/2007 10:32
:::oRPUD Variance/ Answers, Questions, two attachments and Plans ...
been in meetings and should be coming by later today.
Here is the request for items email that I send out to people who
have presentations for EMC GWC meetings. I am assuming that you
will be making that presentation to the members.
This went out this morning to DWQ and other Staffs and has
instructions in it. Please read.
David Hance
733-5083 X .587
********************************************************************************* *
As you may already know, the EMC Groundwater Committee (GWC) is scheduled to meet on:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
@2:00PM
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
1. Do you have any action items, such as rulemaking, requiring a Committee vote to proceed to the
full Commission?
2. Do you have any informational presentations on your activities that you want to let the EMC
GWC know about?
Please send me a title of you agenda item by email attachment with an explanation and
recommended action.
{A Note on Ag enda Items: To promote consistency in the language of all of the agenda items that
will go before the EMC Groundwater Committee, The Division of Water Quality -Planning Section
asks that if you have action items, the title should begin as follows: "Request to Proceed to the
Environmental Management Commission with a (whatever the action is)". In addition, try to keep
the agenda title brief for both Action Items and b1formational Items. Remember the format of your.
Action Agenda Items should include a(}) agenda title at the top; (2) an explanation in the middle;
and (3) a recommendation to the EMC Groundwater Committee at the bottom of the document.
Informational Items should follow a similar pattern with a cover page that shows an agenda item
title and explanation. I f vou need a tem p late /orm /i·om me, (eel fr ee to ask}
If possible, I would appreciate getting your agenda item title(s) on or before Thursday, August 2,
2007 and your e.xplanation(s) no later than Wednesday, August 8, 2007@ 6:00 PM. If you have
no items, please let me know as well .
Note that if you have materials (that is, attachments for the EMC GWC meeting), we are requesting
that you make approximately 30 double sided copies of the materials. Staple each copy and get the
copies and originals to me when you submit your items. This applies to both rules or information
items. This is to cover EMC Groundwater Members, presenters, the AGO representative, all
program managers we deal with. It should include your full agenda item plus the attachment you
would want to the EMC GWC members to have. My management wants to keep our staff from
having to rush around and make lots of copies at the last minute before a mailout.
7/27/2007 10:32 AM
Re: [Fwd: EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting for September 12th ...
2 of3
Subject:
EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting for September 12th: CORPUD Variance Information
Item/ Request for Agenda Items sent
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:50 -0400
To: Ja [e-mail]
To: Jay.Zimmerman@,n cmail.net
Jay,
I got your phone message earlier today about the CORPUD Variance
Request. I have not had discussions with Alan Clark yet. He has
been in meetings and should be coming by later today.
Here is the request for items email that I send out to people who
have presentations for EMC GWC meetings. I am assuming that you will
be making that presentation to the members.
This went out this morning to DWQ and other Staffs and has
instructions in it. Please read.
David Hance
733-5083 X .587
*********************************************************************************** ~
As you may already know, the EMC Groundwater Committee (GWC) is scheduled to meet on:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
@2:00PM
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
1. Do you have any action items, such as rulemaking, requiring a Committee vote to proceed to the
full Commission?
2. Do you have any informational presentations on your activities that you want to let the EMC GWC
know about?
Please send me a title of you agenda item by email attachment with an explanation and
recommended action.
{A Note on Ag enda Items: To promote consistency in the language of all of the agenda items that will
go before the EMC Groundwater Committee, The Division of Water Quality-Planning Section asks
that if you have action items, the title should begin as follows: "Request to Proceed to the
Environmental Management Commission with a (whatever the action is)". In addition, try to keep
the agenda title brief for both Action Items and Informational Items. Remember the format of your
Action Agenda Items should include a (I) agenda title at the top; (2) an explanation in the middle; and
(3) a recommendation to the EMC Groundwater Committee at the bottom of the document.
Informational Items should follow a similar pattern with a cover page that shows an agenda item title
and explanation. I[ vou need a tem plate fo rm fr om me, fe el fr ee to aski
7/27/2007 10:33 A
[Fwd: EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting for September 12th. ..
If possible, I would appreciate getting your agenda item title(s) on or before Thursday, August 2,
200~ and your explanation(s) no later than Wednesday, August 8, 2007@ 6:00 PM. If you have no
items, please let me know as well.
Note that if you have materials (that is, attachments for the EMC GWC meeting), we are requesting that
you make approximately 30 double sided copies of the materials. Staple each copy and get the copies
and originals to me when you submit your items. This applies to both rules or information items. 'This
is to cover EMC Groundwater Members, presenters, the AGO representative, all program managers we
deal with. It should include your full agenda item plus the attachment you would want to the EMC
GWC members to have. My management wants to keep our staff from having to rush around and make
lots of copies at the last minute before a mailout.
David Hance
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
733-5083; ext. 587
Room 625-aa, Archdale Building
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay.Zimmerman@n cmail.net>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/27/2007 10:33 AM
1-Raleigh CORPUD Variance Request/ hearing officers----Discu ...
Subject: FYI -Raleigh CORPUD Variance Request/ hearing officers----Discussion of the second
hearing officer and were we are at as of this afternoon
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:32:00 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>,jeffmanning <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>; kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, J [e-mail]
Hello everyone,
See the email from Alan Clark below for the basis of this email.
As a result of this morning's discussion between Alan Clark, Kathy Stecker, and Coleen Sullins today, I
contacted Andrew Pitner. He is the DWQ / Aquifer Protection Section (APS) -Regional Office
Supervisor at the Mooresville Regional Office.
He informs me that he is willing to be a hearing officer for the public hearing on the Ci ty of Raleigh
CORPUD Variance for the permitted facili ty in Wake County.
According to the attached procedures that in in Word, the last sentence in Section II (d) states that
the program supervisor is to designate " ... which of his supervisors ... " are to serve at hearing officers
for a variance request. That person for the D WQ-Aquifer Protection Section is Ted Bush.
Kathy Stecker is already committed as a hearing officer for this public hearing.
Note regarding current status of the variance: We are tentatively planning to hold a hearing in
September 2007. As a part of our procedures, we conducted some outreach to the Division of Public
Health on the risk assessment for the site and their staff has been in discussion with the DWQ-APS -
Raleigh Regional Office Staff (Jay Zimmerman) on this variance request.
David Hance
Env. Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Alan Clark wrote:
David, in a meeting this morning, Coleen requested that there be two hearing officers for the
Raleigh variance hearing -one from APS and one from Surface Water/Planning. I know that
Andrew Pitner was being contacted to see ifhe would serve. Coleen suggested having Kathy
Stecker, the modeling and TMDL supervisor, be the other HO. I've spoken to Kathy and she will be
happy to serve. She does ask that when the other hearing officer is firmed up, that she and staff
have a meeting to go over plans for hearing.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Alan
7/26/2007 2:32 PM
FYI -Raleigh CORPUD Variance Request I hearing officers----Discu ...
. I Content-Type: application/msword
longVers1on-ProcessV AR.doc: . b 6 i Content-Encodmg: ase 4
;
. 2 of2 7/26/2007 2:3 2 1
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DNISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The hearing
concerns a request for a variance from the prohibition to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan
(CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L (Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters
of North Carolina). This site is owned by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) and is
known as the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The Division of Water Quality refers
to land application operations conducted at this facility under Permit Number WQ000I 730. The variance
affects thirty-five (35) parcels of land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) that the
city uses tq land apply wastewater treatment plant residuals under permit via landfarming on numerous fields
under the conditions written into the permit within its compliance boundary. Properties surrounding this site
consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-owned forestland. The Division has currently
suspended the application of residuals while this variance is being pursued.
The CORPUD is entirely responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted
compliance boundary. This site is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina in the
southeast portion of Wake County and consists of approximately 1,466 acres of land. The City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the
following variance to its rules for its NRWWTP facility under the authority of ISA NCAC 2L .0113 so that it
does the following:
(1) The variance request is to allow the CORPUD to forgo active remediation and treatment of
groundwater containing nitrate that has migrated beyond the limits of the compliance boundary, as
required by 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (d)(2) and apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Nitrate from non-discharge disposal operations has migrated outside of the permitted compliance
boundary to the southwest of the facility. Under 15A NCAC 2L, this type of corrective action cannot
be applied to exceedences at permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations, unless a
variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The utility wants to apply 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
where discharges of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or
onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply;
(2) Implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that will result in groundwater containment in the two
fields (Fields 50 and 500) where groundwater has migrated off-site. This alternative is directed at
controlling additional off site migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of a limited
number of groundwater extraction wells, which will result in short-term extraction of groundwater
combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation in the subsurface to control and break down
nitrate over time; and
(3) Long-term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted over the remaining areas of
the site where exceedences of the nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard have occurred at or beyond
the compliance boundary under permit. This monitoring effort will include both regular groundwater
and surface water sampling analysis artd will occur for the life of the facility.
1
If granted by the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of
corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard
for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted
that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no
other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The hearing will be held pursuant to the requirements of title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as follows:
RALEIGH
September 5, 2007
7:00P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Oral comments may be made during the hearing or written statements may be submitted to the agency by
October 5, 2007. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested. Oral statements
may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the location listed below. A copy may
be obtained at this location for a charge of ten cents per page if greater than twenty-five copies are made. If
less than twenty-five copies are made, then there is no charge to the public.
Coleen H. Sullins
Director, Division of Water Quality
2
July 23rd CORPUD Variance email: Noticing well owners and in ...
·1
Subject: Re: July 23rd CORPUD Variance email: Noticing well owners and information that appears
lacking in the Variance Request/ w Questions
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:41:24 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Suggest we also send written notification to the Neuse River Foundation and/or
Riverkeepers organization. This is based on an email request i received from Dean
Naujoks to be notified of any public meeting relating to the Raleigh WWTP.
7/25/2007 2:40 PM
: Raleigh Variance hearing officers (reply)
1f 1
Subject: Re: Raleigh Variance hearing officers (reply)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:55:49 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
OK. I will contact Andrew and let him know.
David Hance
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Alan Clark wrote:
David, in a meeting this morning, Coleen requested that there be two hearing
officers for the Raleigh variance hearing -one from APS and one from Surface
Water/Planning. I know that Andrew Pitner was being contacted to see if he would
serve. Coleen suggested having Kathy Stecker, the modeling and TMDL supervisor,
be the other HO. I've spoken to Kathy and she will be happy to serve. She does
ask that when the other hearing officer is firmed up, that she.and staff have a
meeting to go over plans for hearing. Let me know if you have any questions.
Alan
7/26/2007 2:02 PM
pud: Well owners mailing labels or list
Subject: Corpud: Well owners mailing labels or list
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:38: 17 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Jay,
To start off, I will answer the last question you have first. If you look at 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(E) you
see the word "and" at the end of the sentence. From dealing with the Rules Review Commission and our
rules representatives at the DENR, when you see the word "and" in a listing of activities, it means you do all
of them listed. Based on this, I do not believe a newspaper notice will be enough.
We definitely want to get any well owners who are using their wells for drinking, irrigation or car
washing since the water can be used.
If a well has been properly abandoned per the state 15A NCAC 2C .0100 rules and all the casing,
pumps/parts have been removed, and it has been abandoned according to the 2C rules (i.e. grouted), I would
feel like it no longer constitutes property since it is no longer in existence on the property. Therefore, that
well owner would have no stake since he cannot possibly get access to the groundwater. The onl y exception I
could think of would be were a well is capped because the owner had no use for it at this time but wants
access later for g ardening and such. If you remember from the materials in the variance request, the City of
Raleigh referred its activity as "decommissioning wells" and I am not sure what the y mean b y that.
I understand that most of these former well owners on the southeast side are on city water. Thinking out loud
... since most of these well owners are now former wells owners and are using city water, the City of Raleigh
I must have a billing address or mailing address from them in order to collect bi-monthly payments. I would
think it is relatively easy for the CORPUD to get at this information and send it to us. It would not hurt if
they could provide the the mailing information on sticky labels for everyone who got sampled since it would
give wide area notice.
However, I believe that it is only necessary to provide mailing addresses to us of active drinking water wells,
irrigation wells ,and wells that have not gone through the grouting procedure and well abandonment under
15ANCAC 2C.
I hope this helps narrow it down!
David Hance
****************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
We can certainly ask. From your email I gather you want a complete mailing address for each of the
property owners, whose wells Raleigh sampled and in particular, owners who were ultimately connected
to city water (two different types of owners as not all that had well sampled were connected to city
water). Is this correct? I don't recall if Raleigh had seperate plans to notify area residents. Also, are we
7/23/2007 5:39 PM
Corpud: Well owners mailing labels or list
2 of2
required legally to notify everyone within 1/2 mile of the field perimeter by letter or will a public notice
in the paper suffice?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I have been doing some planning ahead on the variance in anticipation of the resolution of issues
raised by Ken Rudo and by the DWQ Planning Section -Basinwide program that have been
previously discussed in our email traffic. This is an effort to get a bit ahead of the curve once things
break.
I was looking over the materials for Adjacent Property Owners and others that we are required to
give notice to pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
I have found something in the monitoring data for the well owners in Table# 1 of the Variance
Request. _ *I did not see any City or Zip Code listed in the table for this. *_They give the name of
the person, phone numbers, and the street name but nothing else.
In addition, I checked on various website including the US Postal Service to see ifthere is an easy
way to get this information. *The zip codes for various roads are _different_ from one website to the
next and quite confusing.* It would be cumbersome to attempt to get hard copy mail out to the well
owners in light of all of this.
_ *It would be to some advantage to letter/notice sent to these persons who are included in the
monitoring data to support the CORPUD variance request.
Questions follow:
* *
1. Is there any way that CORPUD could provide us with a complete listing of the well owners who
have been tested that includes a full mailing list ..... or better yet -labels?
2. I remember some vague discussion about mailings and you said that CORPUD had their own
plans to provide notice to these persons. Does this outreach include the well owners in Table # 1?
*I don't think we have to worry about adjacent properties (as in landowners) or state properties
since the information contained in the variance seems to cover that.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X 587
*
*
7/23/2007 5:39 P
e: July 23rd CORPUD Variance email: Noticing well owners and in ...
Subject: Re: July 23rd CORPUD Variance email: Noticing well owners and information that appears
lacking in the Variance Request/ w Questions
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:28:42 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
We can certainly ask. From your email I gather you want a complete mailing address
for each of the property owners, whose wells Raleigh sampled and in particular,
owners who were ultimately connected to city water (two different types of owners as
not all that had well sampled were connected to city water). Is this correct? I
don't recall if Raleigh had seperate plans to notify area residents. Also, are we
required legally to notify everyone within 1/2 mile of the field perimeter by letter
or will a public notice in the paper suffice?
Jay
David Hance wrote:-
Jay,
I have been doing some planning ahead on the variance in anticipation of the
resolution of issues raised by Ken Rudo and by the DWQ Planning Section -
Basinwide program that have been previously discussed in our email traffic. This
is an effort to get a bit ahead of the curve once things break.
I was looking over the materials for Adjacent Property Owners and others that we
are required to give notice to pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .Oli3.
I have found something in the monitoring data for the well owners in Table# 1 of
the Variance Request. _*I did not see any City or Zip Code listed in the table for
this. *_They give the name of the person, phone numbers, and the street name but
nothing else.
In addition, I checked on various website including the US Postal Service to see
if there is an easy way to get this information. *The zip codes for various roads
are different from one website to the next and quite confusing.* It would be
cumbersome to attempt to get hard copy mail out to the well' owners in light of all
of this.
*It would be to some advantage to letter/notice sent to these persons who are
Included in the monitoring data to support the CORPUD variance request.
Questions follow:
* *
1. Is there any way that CORPUD could provide us with a complete listing of the
well owners who have been tested that includes a full mailing list ..... or better
yet -labels?
2. I remember some vague discussion about mailings and you said that CORPUD had
their own plans to provide notice to these persons. Does this outreach include the
well owners in Table# l?
*I don't think we have to worry about adjacent properties (as in landowners) or
state properties since the information contained in the variance seems to cover
that.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X 587
*
*
7/23/2007 5:38 PM
itly 23rd CORPUD Variance email: Noticing well owners and inform ...
Subject: July 23rd CORPUD Variance email: Noticing well owners and information that appears
lacking in the Variance Request/ w Questions
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:33:53 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Jay,
I have been doing some planning ahead on the variance in anticipation of the
resolution of issues raised by Ken Rudo and by the DWQ Planning Section -Basinwide
program that have been previously discussed in our email traffic. This is an effort
to get a bit ahead of the curve once things break.
I was looking over the materials for Adjacent Property Owners and others that we are
required to give notice to pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
I have found something in the monitoring data for the well owners in Table# 1 of the
Variance Request. _*I did not see any City or Zip Code listed in the table for this .
*_They give the name of the person, phone numbers, and the street name but nothing
else.
In addition, I checked on various website including the US Postal Service to see if
there is an easy way to get this information. *The zip codes for various roads are
different from one website to the next and quite confusing.* It would be cumbersome
to attempt to get hard copy mail out to the well owners in light of all of this.
*It would be to some advantage to letter/notice sent to these persons who are
included in the monitoring data to support.the CORPUD variance request .
Questions follow:
* *
1. Is there any way that CORPUD could provide us with a complete listing of the
well owners who have been tested that includes a full mailing list ..... or better yet
-labels?
2. I remember some vague discussion about mailings and you said that CORPUD had their
own plans to provide notice to these persons. Does this outreach include the well
owners in Table# 1?
*I don't think we have to worry about adjacent properties (as in landowners) or state
properties since the information contained in the variance seems to cover that.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X 587
*
*
7/23/2007 3:34 PM
Request for Information; About 'Wake Connnons'
f2
Subject: Re: Request for Information; About 'Wake Commons'
From: Joanne Rutkofske <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11: 14:01 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
They book well in advance so you might have problems with availability, but it is a nice location at a
great price.
Call 856-5731 for Tasha in the office. She handles reservations.
The security desk at the Commons is 250-1000, Enga can assist with room layout & other on-site needs.
Let them know in advance of setup needs & they'll have the room ready for you.
They can make room recommendations based on the type room layout you need and expected number of
people.
We had a very large group ( ~ 100 people) with tables and refreshments, so we always book Room 100 A,
B, and C, which can be opened into one large space.
If your group is smaller, and tables not needed, you'll have more flexibility.
The front room has a podium and projector screen.
If you need a cordless microphone they can provide one but you need to let them know in advance so
they can bring it over.
This location also has kitchen with ice machine, handy if you plan on any refreshments.
I've also attached a map.
-Joanne
David Hance wrote:
Joanne,
There is the possibility of having a public hearing on a 2L Variance in the next three months. I need
information on Wake Commons since it was suggested by Jay Zimmerman@the DWQ-APS RRO
as a good location. He said that you have had a lot of interaction with the people there in the work
you do with the WCCC Commission.
M y Q uestion:
1. Who is the contact staff there that well help me get a large auditorium/roq!Il in the evenings?
Could you give me a name/phone and email?
Please get this to me as soon as you can. It will help facilitate scheduling and I will need to prepare a
notice once I get the date and time set.
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
7/20/2007 12:13 PM
,: Request for Information; About 'Wake Commons'
Joanne Rutkofske
WCC Program Coordinator
Well Contractors Certification Commission
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Tel: [phone] x315
Fax: [phone]
Content-Type: application/pdf
ParkerLincoln-Wake Co Comm Map 2006.pdf b 64 Content-Encoding: ase
2 7/20/2007 12:13 PM
p] I-Math Teams for 4-8 Grades in Raleigh and Cary
2
Subject: [ sp] I -Math Teams for 4-8 Grades in Raleigh and Cary
From: Alexa Mason Carter <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: Spiceline <[e-mail]>
Are you interested in a challenging math experience for you child? I am offering Math Olympiad and
MathCounts classes for 2007-08, starting in September. These are both national math problem solving
competitions (Math Olympiad is for 4-6 grades, and MathCounts is for 7-8 grades). These are great
programs for expanding kids' knowledge of math. This past year, our Math Olympiad team placed in the
top 10% of the almost 3000 teams that participated! I have taught these classes for the past four years in
Cary and 2 years in Durham, and we've had a great time. I am a homeschool grad with a degree in math
from UNC Charlotte.
There will be two locations for Math Olympiad: Peace Presbyterian Church in Cary (1 :00-2:00 on
Tuesdays) and a home in North Raleigh in the Wyndham subdivision (600 Grosvenor Dr), just south of
540 off of Six Forks (3:30-4:30 on Wednesdays). MathCounts will meet at Peace Presbyterian from
2:30-4:00 on Tuesdays.
If you are interested in more information, please check out my website at www.geocities. corn/alexa _ lm.
Please feel free also to call me at 452-4754 or e-mail at alexa lm({i)v ahoo. com.
Alexa Carter
Get .your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed)
_._,_._
Messages in this to 1 ic (0) Reply (via web post) I Start a new to pic
Messages
Web site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spice-line
Post message: [e-mail]
Swap Board: Wendi at [e-mail]
Business Cards: twcooke [e-mail]
Subscribe: [e-mail]
Unsubscribe: [e-mail]
!Yahoo! Grou ps!
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest I Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Grou p I Yahoo! Grou ps Terms of Use I Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
• 11
New Members
7/20/2007 12:14 PM
[sp] I -Math Teams for 4-8 Grades in Raleigh and Cary
2 of2
Visit Your Grou p
Moderator Central
Get answers to
your questions about
running Y! Groups.
Sell Online
Start selling with
our award-winning
e-commerce tools.
Real Food Group
Share reci pes
and favorite meals
w/ Real Food lovers.
_,_._,_
7/20/2007 12:1 41
Re: Status of Meetings on the Non-Point Items raised about the CO ...
2 of2
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
DENR Division of Water Quality
7/19/2007 3:44
tus of Meetings on the Non-Point Items raised about the CORPUD ...
>f 1
Subject: Status of Meetings on the Non-Point Items raised about the CORPUD variance request and the
general discussion
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:18:13 -0400
To: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Ted,
Back on July 9, 2007, we were discussing the possibility of setting up meetings between the DWQ
Planning Staff and the DWQ-APS staff on the CORPUD variance request, non-point source issues
related to ND Permitting & surface waters, and non-discharge permits.
You wanted to have a meeting with your APS staff and Carl Bailey first before going ahead and having a
much larger discussion. You will recall that Rick Bolich and Evan Kane were heading this one up.
In case I get a question when Jeff Manning gets back on Monday ............ .
Ql. How is planning for this coming along? Has the APS internal meeting been held yet?
Q2. Do you know if there is a date yet for the larger meeting involving DWQ-Planning and
DWQ-APS?
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
\ 7/19/2007 11:18 AM
: City of Raleigh Variance (reply)
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance (reply)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:29:36 -0400
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Carolyn,
I got your phone call from 7 /17 /07 and your email.
Here is my response:
1. Process to Bring a Variance Request to Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for Final Action:
As noted below and in your phone call you seemed confused as to the involvement of the EMC in variances. Let me try
to clear the air here. A variance request does not go to the EMC before it proceeds to public hearing. Based on
15A NCAC 2L .0113(d), the Director of DWQ is delegated approval to send 2L variances to public notice and
hearing in accordance with statute and the rule.
The following is a general outline of how 2L variances get before the EMC for final action. Once all staff work is
completed on a variance application, it is sent to the Director ofDWQ to determine it is is complete and should go to
public hearing per 15A NCAC 2L._.0113(d). The variance then must go through a public notice period, public hearing,
and public comment time pursuant to ISA NCAC 2L .0113(e). All comments received at hearing and written comments
will be considered at part of the hearing record per 15A NCAC 2L .0113(£). Once the written comment period has
ended, the staff and hearing officer(s) review the comments and develop a response and set of recommendations for our
Division management leading to scheduling of the variance for consideration by the EMC Groundwater Committee. If
the EMC Groundwater Committee review results in consensus that the variance should go forward, it will proceed to
the full EMC for approval. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approval of a variance request constitutes
final action pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (f). If you have any more questions about the process of getting a
variance to the EMC,pleasefeelfree to contact me, David Hance, at 733-5083 x. 587.
2. Update on the Status of the CORPUD Variance Request as of July 18th: As part of our internal process, the
risk assessment work done by CORPUD in addition to private well information for this variance was sent to the
Division of Public Health (DPH) to get their comments. The DPH has been working with the DWQ-Aquifer Protection
Section -Raleigh Regional Office staff and it is anticipated that DPH comments will be completed and sent to the
DWQ-Planning Section on or before August 27, 2007. Ifrou have a11v questions on how these discussions are
going, please contact JaJ Zimmerman at the Raleigh Regio11al Office@ 791-4200 (main).
I hope this clears up any confusion you have.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
*************************************************************************************************
Bach!, Carolyn wrote:
David,
I am just following up on my voicemail and leaving my email with you in case that is a preferable way to respond.
Basically, I am trying to understand our schedule to completion and particularly, want to know whether we have to go to
the EMC before we notice the public hearing. I thought that I understood from our previous conversations that we did
not.
7/18/2007 2:30 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance (reply)
2 of2
Thanks,
Carolyn
a' KILPATRICK ~ STOCKTON LLP
Att\irnq.-s at law
Carolyn A. Bachl
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite 400
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
t9194201702
f919 510 6169
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and
its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential
attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the
information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 919 420 1700, and
destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Treasury Department Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Treasury Department, we
inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein ...
7/18/2007 2:30 P
1RPUD Variance Request-Permit Number WQ000l 730: Tune exte ...
f2
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request-Permit Number WQ000l 730: Time extension for DPH review of
Supporting information and discussion of this Morning's Meeting
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:35:06-0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Dr. Ken Rudo"
<[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr." <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hello Gentlemen,
Just to recap where we are at as of today ... At 11 AM a meeting was held at the Division of Public
Health (DPH) Office on Six Forks Road to discuss Dr. Ken Rudo's concerns about the proposed variance
request for the City Of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD). This meeting occurred as a
result of a June 29, 2007 request by the DWQ Planning Section for the Division of Public Health (DPH)
review the risk assessment methodology submitted by the CORPUD to support that a variance for their
facility will not endanger public health and safety. Dr. Ken Rudo of the DPH was in attendance as well
as Rick Bolich and Jay Zimmerman of the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS). David Hance from
the DWQ-Planning Section was also at the meeting.
As a result of this meeting, Dr. Rudo expressed the need to have more time to review the risk assessment
and well information submitted to support this variance request. Dr. Rudo's concern is well water use
within 1/2 mile of the facility and he feels the need for a better understanding of the materials submitted
by the petitioner, work conducted at the site, and the technical judgment made by the Division of Water
Quality-APS RRO field staff in reviewing the variance request. In order to assist the DPH in its review,
the DWQ-APS staff and Dr. Rudo also agreed to schedule a site visit within the next few working days,
if possible.
In the June 29, 2007 request for assistance from the Division of Public Health (DPH), it was requested
that they provide the Division of Water Quality -Planning Section with a response by July 27, 2007. As
a result of today's discussion, it was recognized that an adequate time extension was needed to
complete the DPH review and that the new date for completing this review is August 27, 2007,
which is an additional month.
Once all questions are resolved, Dr. Rudo will then send a recommendation regarding the risk
assessment to David Hance at the DWQ-Planning Section as specified on Page 7 of the June 29, 2007
letter. If in the event all concerns can be resolved at time much earlier than August 27, 2007, the DWQ
staff would very much like to receive that recommendation from the Division of Public Health as soon
as it can be finalized.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
7/17/2007 4:35 PM
: [Fwd: CORPUD variance meeting with Rudo] -Reply and Question
of I
Subject: Re : [Fwd: CORPUD variance meeting with Rudo] -Reply and Question
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:44:46 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Thanks--! be there at 11 AM.
Question: Do you want me to brin g the box with the variance request and reports in it?
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
see reference to mtg. with Dr.Rudo in his office
Jay
Subject:
CORPUD variance meeting with Rudo
From: Rick Bolich <rick [e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:08:13 -0400
To: JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>
To: JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>
Jay;
Ken R. called this afternoon and he's concerned that the nitrate plume may extend "at least another
2000 feet" into neighborhoods to the south of the CORPUD land app. fields. I believe this would
include the neighborhood that you live in. I told Ken that i didn't think there were any wells that
appeared to be threatened by the plume migration that i was aware of, but it was difficult to assess
the areas that he was referring to since i didn't have the same map that he was looking at. I agreed
to meet him in his office at 1100 on 7 /17 to discuss. It might be a good idea for you to attend as
well.
rb
7/16/2007 10:51 AM
I: CORPUD variance meeting with Rudo]
1 of 1
Subject: [Fwd: CORPUD variance meeting with Rudo]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:35:22 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
see reference to mtg. with Dr.Rudo in his office
Jay
Subject: CORPUD variance meeting with Rudo
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:08:13 -0400
To: JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>
Jay;
Ken R. called this afternoon and he's concerned that the nitrate plume may extend "at
least another 2000 feet" into neighborhoods to the south of the CORPUD land app.
fields. I believe this would include the neighborhood that you live in. I told Ken
that i didn't think there were any wells that appeared to be threatened by the plume
migration that i was aware of, but it was difficult .to assess the areas that he was
referring to since i didn't have the same map that he was looking at. I agreed to
meet him in his office at 1100 on 7/17 to discuss. It might be a good idea for you
to attend as well.
rb
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G, <Jay.Zimmerm~[e-mail]>-,I
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/ Aquifer Protection Section
Content-Type: message/rfc822
CORPUD variance meeting with Rudo Content-Encoding: 7bit
7/16/2007 10:50 Al'
: CORPUD Variance Request: Rudo meeting and persons attending
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Rudo meeting and persons attending
From: J [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:05:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
The following is an automated response
to your mes.sage generated on behalf of [e-mail]
I am out-of-the-office until July 23, 2007. Please visit
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swccontact.html to contact other staff that may be
able to assist you. If you need to speak with a live person immediately, you may
call [phone], then press 0 and ask for assistance. Thank you.
7/13/2007 6:07 PM
u>UD Variance Request: Rudo meeting and persons attending
l of2
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Rudo meeting and persons attending
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:06:56 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, DAVID
HANCE <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Thank you Jay!
Based on this, I will not be attending the meeting on July 17th.
If you need anything from me before or after the.meeting --Let me know.
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Yes we have a meeting with Dr. Rudo on the 17th. I'd prefer to keep it to the technical staff at this
point to keep the meeting manageable. Since we have not heard Dr. Rudo's concerns I am not
prepared to make specific recommendations until Rick and I have spoken with him. I also think it
may be premature for Dr. Rudo to oppose the variance when he hasn't had an opportunity to discuss
his concerns with our office. I will have a better handle on the issues once we meet.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Jay and Rick,
On Wednesday, on July 11th, I had a phone conversation with the Dr. Ken Rudo at the
Division of Public Health (DPH). You will recall that on June 29, 2007, the DWQ Planning
Section sent a memorandum to the Division of Public Health requesting assistance in reviewing
the risk assessment methodology submitted by the City of Raleigh Public Utility Department
(CORPUD) for the proposed variance at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). This proposed variance is intended to allow the permittee to use alternative
cleanup requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) as a means of addressing Nitrate that has
moved outside of the compliance boundary for this facility.
Dr. Rudo is concerned that the supporting materials for the variance request do not show all
the private wells that are being used within 1/2 mile (2,640 feet) from this facility. You will
recall that the materials submitted for this variance discussed 45 water well users that were
downgraident from the site that previously had Nitrate levels above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202
Groundwater Quality Standard. These persons have since been placed on city water and these
wells have been abandoned accordance with state rules or are in use for irrigation only. From
Dr. Rudo's work around this site, he believes there are more wells in the area around this
7/13/2007 6:07 p~
CORPUD Variance Request: Rudo meeting and persons attending
2 of2
facility that were not accounted for in the permittee's well survey. He also expressed concerned
that nitrate in groundwater has moved to such a lateral extent from the facility that it
approaching the 1/2 mile mark from the site. I referred Dr. Rudo to the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) -Aquifer Protection Section Staff (APS) in the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO).
He told me that he called both you Jay Zimmerman and also Rick Bolich to express his
concerns on what he needs to complete his risk assessment. He phoned Rick since he was the
field staff that conducted the work at this site when Rick worked at the RRO.
What Dr. Rudo told me is that he wants the Division of Water Quality to contact the local
health departments to obtain current drinking water well information within 2,640 feet around
the property line of the facility (360 degrees). He believes that this will accurately determine if
there are any additional wells being used for drinking and if they are currently being impacted
by nitrate or may be impacted if a variance is granted. In order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns,
it is requested that the DWQ-APS assist Dr. Rudo in getting the information he needs to
complete his review of the risk assessment for this variance request . Please respond to this
email as to the necessary steps the D\VQ-APS intends to take in order to address Dr.
Rudo's concerns. If possible, I would like to receive a reply from the DWQ-APS -Raleigh
Regional Office before Wednesday, July 18, 2007.
Note that based on the information provided to the DPH contained in the June 29th
memorandum and attachments, Dr. Rudo informed me that he is prepared to advise his
management to oppose this variance request for the CORPUD -NRWWTP unless other
convincing information shows that the variance will not " ... endanger public health and safety
... "pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4). If after looking into this, you or the D\VO-APS
Central Office feel that a meeting with DPH is needed to help address their concerns, I
would happv to make those arrangements. Please feel free to contact me at 733-5083 x. 587
if you have questions or need a meeting set up. This email was sent to other DWQ
management since there is much interest at the Division in this variance request and Ted Bush
also received a copy.
David Hance
Env. Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
7/13/2007 6 :07 Pl
: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division of Public Health /
Dr. Ken Rudo concerns and his request for more information
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:10:31 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, jeff manning <[e-mail]>
David,
Yes we have a meeting with Dr. Rudo on the 17th. rd prefer to keep it to the technical staff at this point
to keep the meeting manageable. Since we have not heard Dr. Rudo's concerns I am not prepared to
make specific recommendations until Rick and I have spoken with him. I also think it may be premature
for Dr. Rudo to oppose the variance when he hasn't had an opportunity to discuss his concerns with our
office. I will have a better handle on the issues once we meet.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Jav and Rick,
On Wednesday, on July 11th, I had a phone conversation with the Dr. Ken Rudo at the Division
of Public Health (DPH). You will recall that on June 29, 2007, the DWQ Planning Section sent a
memorandum to the Division of Public Health requesting assistance in reviewing the risk
assessment methodology submitted by the City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) for
the proposed variance at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). This proposed
variance is intended to allow the permittee to use alternative cleanup requirements under 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k) as a means of addressing Nitrate that has moved outside of the compliance
boundary for this facility.
Dr. Rudo is concerned that the supporting materials for the variance request do not show all the
private wells that are being used within 1/2 mile (2,640 feet) from this facility. You will recall that
the materials submitted for this variance discussed 45 water well users that were downgraident from
the site that previously had Nitrate levels above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality
Standard. These persons have since been placed on city water and these wells have been abandoned
accordance with state rules or are in use for irrigation only. ·From Dr. Rudo's work around this site,
he believes there are more wells in the area around this facility that were not accounted for in the
permittee's well survey. He also expressed concerned that nitrate in groundwater has moved to such
a lateral extent from the facility that it approaching the 1/2 mile mark from the site. I referred Dr.
Rudo to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) -Aquifer Protection Section Staff (APS) in the
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO). He told me that he called both you Jay Zimmerman and also Rick
Bolich to express his concerns on what he needs to complete his risk assessment. He phoned Rick
since he was the field staff that conducted the work at this site when Rick worked at the RRO.
What Dr. Rudo told me is that he wants the Division of Water Quality to contact the local health
departments to obtain current drinking water well information within 2,640 feet around the property
line of the facility (360 degrees). He believes that this will accurately determine if there are any
7/13/2007 6:07 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
2 of2
additional wells being used for drinking and if they are currently being impacted by nitrate or may
be impacted if a variance is granted. In order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns, it is requested that the
DWQ-APS assist Dr. Rudo in getting the information he needs to comp lete his review of the risk
assessment for this variance re quest . Please respond to this email as to the necessary steps the
DWQ-APS intends to take in order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns.// possible, I would like to
receive a reply from the DWQ-APS -Raleigh Regional Office before Wednesday, July 18, 2007.
Note that based on the information provided to the DPH contained in the June 29th memorandum
and attachments, Dr. Rudo informed me that he is prepared to advise his management to oppose
this variance request for the CORPUD -NRWWTP unless other convincing information shows
that the variance will not " ... endanger public health and safety ... "pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(c)(4). If after lookin g into this . ou or the DWQ-APS Central Office feel that a meetin g
with DPH is needed to hel p address their concerns , I would ha ppy to make those
arran gements. Please feel free to contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 if you have questions or need a
meeting set up. This email was sent to other DWQ management since there is much interest at the
Division in this variance request and Ted Bush also received a copy.
David Hance
Env. Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Ja [e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/13/2007 6:07 Pi
~e: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division of Public Health /
Dr. Ken Rudo concerns and his request for more information
From: "DA [e-mail]" <DA [e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>
I am available to attend on Tuesday. I plan to be in the office all
day long.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
7/16/2007 10:52 AM
1: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi...
Subject: Fw: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division of Public Health/
Dr. Ken Rudo concerns and his request for more information
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: David.Hance@ncmaiLnet
David, FYI. I saw your email response to Jay. However, would you be
available to attend this meeting?
Alan
----Original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Jul 15, 2007 10:33
To: <[e-mail]>, <ted [e-mail]>, <jeff .
manning@ncmail,net>
Subj: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the
Division of Public Health/ Dr. Ken Rudo concerns and his request for
more information
Jay, I'd prefer for David to be in attendance. Jeff Manning will be
out this week, and David is the lead DWQ staff person on groundwater
variances. He is also the most technically knowledgeable person in
the
Planning Section on this topic.
Thanks, Alan
----Original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Jul 13, 2007 17:10
To: "David Hance"<[e-mail]>
Cc: "Ted Bush"<[e-mail]>, "Rick Bolich"<Rick.Bolich@ncmail.
net>, "Alan Clark"<[e-mail]>, "jeff manning"<j.eff.
[e-mail]>
Subj: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the
Division of Public Health/ Dr. Ken Rudo concerns and his request for
more information
David,
Yes we have a meeting with Dr. Rudo on the 17th. I'd prefer to keep
it
to the technical staff at this point to keep the meeting manageable.
Since we have not heard Dr. Rudo"s concerns I am not prepared to make
specific recommendations until Rick and I have spoken with him. I
also
think it may be premature for Dr. Rudo to oppose the variance when he
hasn"t had an opportunity to discuss his concerns with our office. I
will have a better handle on the issues once we meet.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
_*Hello Jay and Rick,*_
On Wednesday, on July 11th, I had a phone conversation with the
Dr. Ken Rudo at the Division of Public Health (DPH). You will
recall I that on June 29, 2007, the DWQ Planning Section sent a memorandum
to
>f 3 7/16/2007 10: 10 AM
r: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
I the Division of Public Health requesting assistance in reviewing
the
is
risk assessment methodology submitted by the City of Raleigh Public
Utility Department (CORPUD) for the proposed variance at its Neuse
River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). This proposed variance
intended to allow the permittee to use alternative cleanup
requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) as a means of addressing
Nitrate that has moved outside of the compliance boundary for this
facility.
Dr. Rudo is concerned that the supporting materials for the
variance request do not show all the private wells that are being
used
I within 1/2 mile (2,640 feet) from this facility. You will recall
that the materials submitted for this variance discussed 45 water
well I users that were downgraident from the site that previously had
Nitrate I levels above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standard.
These I persons have since been placed on city water and these wells have
been
abandoned accordance with state rules or are in use for irrigation
only. From Dr. Rudo's work around this site, he believes there are
more wells in the area around this facility that were not accounted
for in the permittee's well survey. He also expressed concerned
that
I nitrate in groundwater has moved to such a lateral extent-from the
facility that it approaching the 1/2 mile mark from the site.
I
I referred Dr. Rudo to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ} -Aquifer
Protection Section Staff (APS) in the Raleigh Regional Office
(RRO). I He told me that he called both you Jay Zimmerman and also Rick
Bolich
I to express his concerns on what he needs to complete his risk
assessment. He phoned Rick since he was the field staff that
conducted
the work at this site when Rick worked at the RRO .
What Dr. Rudo told me is that he wants the Division of Water
Quality to contact the local health departments to obtain current
drinking water well information within 2,640 feet around the
property
I line of the facility (360 degrees). He believes that this will
accurately determine if there are any additional wells being used
for
I
be
I
drinking and if they are currently being impacted by nitrate or may
impacted if a variance is granted._ In order to address Dr. Rudo's
concerns, it is requested that the DWQ-APS assist Dr. Rudo in
getting I the information he needs to complete his review of the risk
assessment I for this variance request . _*Please respond to this email as to
the I necessary steps the DWQ-APS intends to take in order to address Dr .
7/16/2007 10:10 AM
1: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
,f 3
Rudo's concerns.* */I//f possible, I would like to receive a reply
from the DWQ-APS -Raleigh Regional Office before Wednesday, July
18,
2007. /
* Note that based on the information provided to the DPH
contained I in the June 29th memorandum and attachments, Dr. Rudo informed me
that
he is prepared to advise his management to *oppose this variance**
request* for the CORPUD -NRWWTP unless other convincing information
shows that the variance will not/" ... endanger public health and
safety ... "/ pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L . 0113 (c) (4) ._ *If. after
looking I into this, you or the DWQ-APS Central Office feel that a meeting
with I DPH is needed to help address their concerns, I would happy to
make I those arrangements.*_/ /Please feel free to contact me at 733-5083
x.
587 if you have questions or need a meeting set up. This email was
sent to other DWQ management since there is much interest at the
Division in this variance request and Ted Bush also received a copy .
David Hance
Env. Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
7/16/2007 10:10 AM
CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division of Public Health/
Dr. Ken Rudo concerns and his request for more information
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:34:10 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, "Dr. Ken Rudo" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Jay and i are meeting with Ken at 11:00 on July 17th to discuss his concerns about
the variance.
rb
David Hance wrote:
_*Hello Jay and Rick,*_
On Wednesday, on July 11th, I had a phone conversation with the Dr. Ken Rudo
at the Division of Public Health (DPH). You will recall that on June 29, 2007,
the DWQ Planning Section sent a memorandum to the Division of Public Health
requesting assistance in reviewing the risk assessment methodology submitted by
the City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) for the proposed variance
at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). This proposed variance
is intended to allow the permittee to use alternative cleanup requirements under
15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) as a means of addressing Nitrate that has moved outside of
the compliance boundary for this facility.
Dr. Rudo is concerned that the supporting materials for the variance request
do not show all the private wells that are being used within 1/2 mile (2,640 feet)
from this facility. You will recall that the materials submitted for this
variance discussed 45 water well users that were downgraident from the site that
previously had Nitrate levels above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality
Standard. These persons have since been placed on city water and these wells have
been abandoned accordance with state rules or are in use for irrigation only.
From Dr. Rudo's work around this site, he believes there are more wells in the
area around this facility that were not accounted for in the permittee's well
survey. He also expressed concerned that nitrate in groundwater has moved to such
a lateral extent from the facility that it approaching the 1/2 mile mark from the
site. I referred Dr. Rudo to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) -Aquifer
Protection Section Staff (APS) in the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO). He told me
that he called both you Jay Zimmerman and also Rick Bolich to express his concerns
on what he needs to complete his risk assessment. "He phoned Rick since he was the
field staff that conducted the work at this site when Rick worked at the RRO.
What Dr. Rudo told me is that he wants the Division of Water Quality to contact
the local health departments to obtain current drinking water well information
within 2,640 feet around the property line of the facility (360 degrees). He
believes that this will accurately determine if there are any additional wells
being used for drinking and if they are currently being impacted by nitrate or may
be impacted if a variance is granted._ In order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns, it
is requested that the DWQ-APS assist Dr. Rudo in getting the information he needs
to complete his review of the risk assessment for this variance request .
*Please respond to this email as to the necessary steps the DWQ-APS intends to
take in order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns.* */I//f possible, I would like to
receive a reply from the DWQ-APS -Raleigh Regional Office before Wednesday, July
18, 2007. /
* Note that based on the information provided to the DPH contained in the June
29th memorandum and attachments, Dr. Rudo informed me that he is prepared to
advise his management to *oppose this variance** request* for the CORPUD -NRWWTP
unless other convincing information shows that the variance will not /" ... endanger
7/13/2007 1:47 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
2 of2
public health and safety . . . "/ pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L . 0113 (c) (4). *If after
looking into this, you or the DWQ-APS Central Office feel that a meeting with DPH
is needed to help address their concerns, I would happy to make those
arrangements.*_/ /Please feel free to contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 if you have
questions or need a meeting set up. This email was sent to other DWQ management
since there is much interest at the Division in this variance request and Ted Bush
also received a copy.
David Hance
Env. Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
7/13/2007 1:47 Pt
: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division of Public Health/
Dr. Ken Rudo concerns and his request for more information
From: Rick Langley <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:34:45 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks, if you feel we need to meet, let me know.
David Hance wrote:
_*Hello Jay and Rick,*_
On Wednesday, on July 11th, I had a phone conversation with the Dr. Ken Rudo
at the Division of Public Health (DPH). You will recall that on June 29, 2007,
the DWQ Planning Section sent a memorandum to the Division of Public Health
requesting assistance in reviewing the risk assessment methodology submitted by
the City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) for the proposed variance
at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). This proposed variance
is intended to allow the permittee to use alternative cleanup requirements under
15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) as a means of addressing Nitrate that has moved outside of
the compliance boundary for this facility.
Dr. Rudo is concerned that the supporting materials for the variance request
do not show all the private wells that are being used within 1/2 mile (2,640 feet)
from this facility. You will recall that the materials submitted for this
variance discussed 45 water well users that were downgraident from the site that
previously had Nitrate levels above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality
Standard. These persons have since been placed on city water and these wells have
been abandoned accordance with state rules or are in use for irrigation only.
From Dr. Rudo's work around this site, he believes there are more wells in the
area around this facility that were not accounted for in the permittee's well
survey. He also expressed concerned that nitrate in groundwater has moved to such
a lateral extent from the facility that it approaching the 1/2 mile mark from the
site. I referred Dr. Rudo to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) -Aquifer
Protection Section Staff (APS) in the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO). He told me
that he called both you Jay Zimmerman and also Rick Bolich to express his concerns
on what he needs to complete his risk assessment. He phoned Rick since he was the
field staff that conducted the work at this site when Rick worked at the RRO.
What Dr. Rudo told me is that he wants the Division of Water Quality to contact
the local health departments to obtain current drinking water well information
within 2,640 feet around the property line of the facility (360 degrees). He
believes that this will accurately determine if there are any additional wells
being used for drinking and if they are currently being impacted by nitrate or may
be impacted if a variance is granted._ In order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns, it
is requested that the DWQ-APS assist Dr. Rudo in getting the information he needs
to complete his review of the risk assessment for this variance request .
_*Please respond to this email as to the necessary steps the DWQ-APS intends to
take in order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns .* */I//f possible, I would like to
receive a reply from the DWQ-APS -Raleigh Regional Office before Wednesday, July
18, 2001. I
* Note that based on the information provided to the DPH contained in the June
29th memorandum and attachments, Dr. Rudo informed me that he is prepared to
advise his management to *oppose this variance** request* for the CORPUD -NRWWTP
unless other convincing information shows that the variance will not /11 ••• endanger
public health and safety ... 11 / pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c) (4). *If after
looking into this, you or the DWQ-APS Central Office feel that a meeting with DPH
is needed to help address their concerns, I would happy to make those
arrangements.*_/ /Please feel free to contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 if you have
questions or need a meeting set up. This email was sent to other DWQ management
since there is much interest at the Division in this variance request and Ted Bush
also received a copy.
7/13/2007 1:47 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Divi ...
2 of2
David Hance
Env. Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
7/13/2007 1:47 p~
1RPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division ...
f2
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division of Public Health/ Dr.
Ken Rudo concerns and his request for more information
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:16:27 -0400
To: J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Dr. Ken Rudo"
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hello Jay and Rick.
On Wednesday, on July 11th, I had a phone conversation with the Dr. Ken Rudo at the Division of
Public Health (DPH). You will recall that on June 29, 2007, the DWQ Planning Section sent a
memorandum to the Division of Public Health requesting assistance in reviewing the risk assessment
methodology submitted by the City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) for the proposed
variance at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). This proposed variance is
intended to allow the permittee to use alternative cleanup requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) as
a means of addressing Nitrate that has moved outside of the compliance boundary for this facility.
Dr. Rudo is concerned that the supporting materials for the variance request do not show all the
private wells that are being used within 1/2 mile (2,640 feet) from this facility. You will recall that the
materials submitted for this variance discussed 45 water well users that were downgraident from the site
that previously had Nitrate levels above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standard. These
persons have since been placed on city water and these wells have been abandoned accordance with state
rules or are in use for irrigation only. From Dr. Rudo's work around this site, he believes there are more
I wells in the area around this facility that were not accounted for in the permittee's well survey. He also
expressed concerned that nitrate in groundwater has moved to such a lateral extent from the facility that
it approaching the 1/2 mile mark from the site. I referred Dr. Rudo to the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) -Aquifer Protection Section Staff (APS) in the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO). He told me that
he called both you Jay Zimmerman and also Rick Bolich to express his concerns on what he needs to
complete his risk assessment. He phoned Rick since he was the field staff that conducted the work at this
site when Rick worked at the RRO.
What Dr. Rudo told me is that he wants the Division of Water Quality to contact the local health
departments to obtain current drinking water well information within 2,640 feet around the property line
of the facility (360 degrees). He believes that this will accurately determine if there are any additional
wells being used for drinking and if they are currently being impacted by nitrate or may be impacted if a
variance is granted. In order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns, it is requested that the DWQ -APS assist Dr.
Rudo in g etting the information he needs to comp lete his review of the risk assessment for this variance
request . Please respond to this email as to the necessary steps the DWQ-APS intends to take in
order to address Dr. Rudo's concerns. If possible, I would like to receive a reply from the DWQ-APS
-Raleigh Regional Office before Wednesday, July 18, 2007.
Note that based on the information provided to the DPH contained in the June 29th memorandum and
attachments, Dr. Rudo informed me that he is prepared to advise his management to oppose this
variance request for the CORPUD -NRWWTP unless other convincing information shows that the
\variance will not " ... endanger public health and safety ... "pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4). If
after lookin g into this , you or the DWO-APS Central Office feel that a meetin g with DPH is
7/13/2007 12:17 PM
CORPUD Variance Request: Preliminary Response from the Division ...
2 of2
needed to hel p address their concerns, I would happy to make those arran gements. Please feel free
to contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 if you have questions or need a meeting set up. This email was sent to
other DWQ management since there is much interest at the Division in this variance request and Ted
Bush also received a copy.
David Hance
Env. Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
11131200112:11 r r
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting
Project Title: Evah.iation and Remediation of Nitrate Flux from Biosolid Application
Fields to Surface Waters in the Neuse River Basin
DWQ Contract Number: FY06 NPS 319 Contract EW07015
Contract Period: 9/25/06-12/25/2007
Project Manager(s): Dr. William Showers
Dept. of MEAS
North Carolina State University
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Campus Box #8208
Raleigh NC 27695-8208
w showers t ,ncsu.edu [phone]
Reporting Period: Second Quarter 2007
Project Outputs and Deliverables (Second Quarter, Jan.-Mar .. 2007):
1. Conduct 1st workshop with project partners
2. Installation of stream gages continues
3. Stream and River Monitoring continues
4. Execute Quarterly reports
Anticipated% of Requested Funding Spent: 66.67% (50% + 16.67%)
New Data/Activities/Project Progress (First Quarter, Jan-Mar. 2007):
Please report activities for each deliverable listed above.following the same numbering system.
"No activity" is acceptable if there was no progress made for a given deliverable for the quarter
being reported.
1. Showers, Harris (NCSU) Smith, Mcswain, Bales, and Chapman (USGS) met at the
USGS district office on March 15, 2007 to conduct first 319 workshop meeting of
participants. Spruill (USGS) has retired and is participating on a volunteer basis.
2. Plant stream gage installation Jan-March 2007 by Smith continues, City of Raleigh
approves stream monitoring site plans on March 21, 2007.
3a. River Net Monitoring of nitrate gains in the Neuse River next to the NRWWTP
continues by Showers and Harris (see results below).
3b. Hydro-Observatory Monitoring continues by Chapman and Mcswain (see results
below).
3c. Plant stream monitoring (stage, specific conductivity, and Grab sampling) initiated
August 15, 2006 continues (see results below).
4. Second Quarterly report, March 30, 2007 (this document).
Previous Reports Listed in Reverse Chronologic Order bv Date of Quarterly Report:
Second Report April 2007
First Report January, 2007
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report Mar, 2007: Page 1
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting
RESULTS (Second Quarter, Jan. -Mar. 2007):
Project Location: The project is located in the Upper Neuse River Basin at the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The NRWWTP is located on the Neuse River just
north of the Wake County/Johnston County boundary. (SubBasin 03-04-02, HUNC
0302021100030)
Project Objectives: To evaluate the nitrate flux in surface streams and groundwater draining
into the Neuse River from the biosolid application fields at the NRWWTP (operated by the City
of Raleigh Public Utilities Division-CORPUD). These results will be combined with river
monitoring data (RiverNet, htt p://rivernet.ncsu.edu) and groundwater monitoring results (Raleigh
Hydrogeological Observatory) to design and evaluate innovative groundwater remediation
strategies to prevent nitrogen from biosolids migrating into the Neuse River.
Overview of Problem: Municipal biosolid sludge is a product of wastewater treatment.
Biosolids can be burned, placed in a land fill, or land applied to croplands. Land application
biosolids is a common practice in many countries, and is a cost effective reuse of material
produced at sewage treatment facilities in areas of rapidly growing urban populations. Biosolids
have been land applied at the NRWWTP since 1980 on~ 1030 acres of farmland owned or leased
by The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Division (CORPUD). Original errors in the estimation of
the PAN at the NRWWTP resulted in biosolid over-application on city owned or leased Waste
Application Fields (WAFs, ECS 2002). Biosolid over application occurred primarily during the
early 1980's in the northern fields (ECS 2002), and from the mid 1990's to 2001 at fields in all
areas of the plant (ENSR, 2002). The City of Raleigh paid a fine of $73,937 to NCDENR for
biosolid application permit violations, and ceased spreading biosolids in 2002. Public concern
about groundwater contamination was increased in Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 when 11 private
drinking wells along Mial Plantation Road next to the southeastern portion of the plant were
found to have nitrate levels about the National MCL of 10 mg/I NO3. CORPUD has joined the
National Biosolids Partnership's (NBP) Biosolids Environmental Management System (EMS)
program and applied for a NPDES permit variance to resume biosolid applications at the site.
This application is pending with the Environmental Review Commission (EMC).
Previous Results RiverNet/WRRI Monitoring Projects: The amount ofNPS nitrate entering
the Neuse River was quantified using CORPUD discharge data from the NRWWTP, and
RiverNet station data in the Neuse River above and below the plant (Showers et al., 2005). A
significant amount of nitrate was found to be entering the Neuse River adjacent to the plant, but
the amount of nitrate gains in the reach varied from year to year and did not follow the predicted
natural attenuation model estimates of ENRS (2003). Over the initial period the amount of
nitrate entering the Neuse River appears to be related to the amount ofrainfall recorded at the
Clayton ECONET weather station approximately 5 miles to the SE of the site. Groundwater
nitrate disappears in the riparian buffers 30-50 feet before the Neuse River (Fountain, 2006), so it
is likely that biosolid nitrate is transported to the river via streams that cut across the buffers and
are deeply incised into the upper saprolite rock. This would create a shallow flow path that
would prevent any natural attenuation of nitrate in the groundwater system before it enters the
surface water. Groundwater levels at.the mid-slope Hydro-observatory wells (WC-2) vary
synchronously with nitrate concentrations in the weir stream during the previous year.
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report Mar, 2007: Page 2
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting ·
annual variation of nitrate gains is loosely correlated to the amount of rainfall in the area, but the
exact mechanism that drives the seasonal and inter-annual N concentration variations in the
stream are unknown. The total amount of nitrogen released by the plant via the pipe discharge
and gained in the river from contaminated groundwater is still well below the maximum amount
allowed by the current NPDES permit (306,437 kg-TN, NC0029033). This assumes that the
DON (Dissolved Organic Nitrogen) in the plant streams is always low as suggested by a small
number of stream TKN analyses. If the stream DON flux is 60% of the DIN flux, as is the case
with the treated waste water, then the plant is at 80% of the current NPDES permitted total
nitrogen flux (pipe versus river N gains). If the stream DON flux is equal to the DIN flux, then
the plant is at the NPDES permitted total nitrogen flux with no room for expansion.
NRWWTP Stream Monitoring
This 319 project will monitor the stream nitrate concentrations and discharge from four streams
at the NRWWTP (Figure 2). Approval for the monitoring sites has been obtained from the US
Army Corp of Engineers and the City of Raleigh Public Utilities division. The USGS is
Figure 2. Stream monitoring sites at the NR WWTP.
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report Mar, 2007: Page 4
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting
presently in the process of installing stream monitoring equipment at the sites (Figure 3).
Equipment has been ordered to monitor the specific conductivity at the four sites, and to gauge
the stream discharge. The Weir and Pipe streams have been monitored for stage, specific
conductivity and nitrate concentrations while approval was obtained for stream monitor station
installations from CORPUD (Figure 4 ). Discrete water samples have been taken at all four sites
since the project began in Fall 2006, along with continuous measurements of stage and specific
conductivity at the Pipe and Weir streams (Figures 4, 5, 6). All the streams, but the Pipe stream,
have high nitrate concentrations throughout the year (Figure 6). The Pipe stream drains a larger
area that is forested and has biosolid waste application fields (Figure 2). Streams at the
NR WWTP have nitrate concentrations that range from 5 to 80 mg/1 nitrate (ENSR 2002,
Showers et al., 2005). These concentrations change seasonally and indicates that the source
Figure 3. USGS data logger and satellite antennae for data transfer at the Eastern Stream Site.
water for these drainages also changes during the year (Figure 2). Surface nitrate concentrations
are low in the late summer when groundwater tables are low, and increase in the winter when
groundwater tables are high. At the weir stream we have a 1.5 year record (Figure 7). There are
also inter-annual stream nitrate concentrations variations. In the spring of2007 stream nitrate
concentrations are lower than in the spring of 2006. Biosolids have not been land applied at this
site since 2002, so the lower concentrations may be the result of small concentrations of nitrate
in the recharge water or dilution by an increase in the water table level at both the mid-slope and
lower Hydrological Observatory well clusters (Figure 8). The dilution interpretation fits the
specific conductivity trends seen in WC-21, which has much higher water levels and lower
groundwater specific conductivity in Spring 2007 than observed in Spring 2006. This
strengthens the interpretation that stream chemistry is controlled by groundwater characteristics
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report Mar, 2007: Page 5
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting
Phase 2 Work (Third Quarter Mar. -Jun. 2007).
Installation of stream monitoring systems in all four drainages at the site will be completed
during this next quarter along with Aqua Trolls that will record stream specific conductivity.
CORPUD will assist with equipment and personnel in the construction of discharge monitoring
stations. Streams will be gauged and rated over the next three months by the USGS and NCSU
investigators. Stream gauging requires discharge measurements to be made with wading rods
during storm events so that high and low discharge states can be monitored. Since there are four
streams, two teams of investigators will be needed to gauge the streams during the summer
storms. Nitrate gains will continue to be monitored in the Neuse River adjacent to the biosolid
waste application fields in the plant during this period. TN flux will be quantified in the streams
with inorganic and organic N measurements. When the stage-discharge relationships are
determined for the streams, the DIN flux for the Pipe and Weir streams can be calculated from
the stage and the specific conductivity data at each site.
Importance of this 319 Program
Managing surface water quality will be crucial in the future as population growth increases
sewage discharges into surface waters. Surface waters will become more important sources of
drinking water as groundwater resources are over-committed or contaminated. The
groundwater/surface water nitrogen transport from biosolid waste application fields to the Neuse
River described by these results is a new source of nitrogen to our watersheds that has not been
previously described. The implications of this work are that the amount of nitrogen released to
the environment by these sewage treatment point sources has been seriously underestimated.
Accurately measuring this new groundwater N flux is the first step in designed remediation
systems to protect river water quality. At the NRWWTP, if the mechanism for contaminated
groundwater transport is surface streams draining across the riparian buffer into the river, then
wetlands can be constructed to eliminate most if not all the biosolid nitrogen and protect Neuse
River water quality. Land application ofbiosolids produced from waste water treatment in areas
of rapidly growing urban populations is a cost effective reuse of nitrogen and phosphorus, as
well as an effective disposal method of the sediment and sludge produced during the treatment
process. Land application ofbiosolids may increase significantly in the future as treatment plants
expand and other disposal practices such as landfills, incineration, and ocean dumping become
too expensive or are banned. The accumulation and export of nutrients from biosolid waste
application fields must be considered for sustainable biosolid management. The results from this
project are the first important steps in the design and implementation of sustainable biosolid
management programs at the NR WWTP.
References
Engineering Consulting Services, LID. (ECS) 2002. Report oflnvestigations-Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant
ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Inc. 2002. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report. 62 pp.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Site Assessment Report. 108 pp.
Fountain, Matthew J. 2006 Nitrate transport in shallow flow systems at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant. MS Thesis, North Carolina State University, 118 pg.
Showers, WJ, Usry, B, Fountain, M, Fountain, JC, McDade, T, DeMaster, D. 2005 Nitrate Flux from Ground to
Surface Waters Adjacent to the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant. Univ. of North Carolina WRRI, Report
No 365a, 38 pp.
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report Mar, 2007: Page 9
UNC-WRRI -351A
Nitrate Flux from Ground to Surface Waters Adjacent to the
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
by
William J. Showers, Brian Usry, Matthew Fountain, John Fountain,
Timothy McDade, and Dave DeMaster
Department of Marine, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
The research on which this report is based was supported by a grant to the
University of North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute by the City of
Raleigh through the Urban Water Consortium.
Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the City of Raleigh, the Urban Water Consortium or the Water Resources
Research Institute, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute their endorsement by the City, Consortium, Institute, North Carolina
State University, or the State of North Carolina.
WRRI Project 50328
June 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Field sampling for this project was carried out with the assistance of Bernard
Genna, John Bucci, Christopher Garlington, and Kyle Hagen. Chemical and
isotopic analyses were completed in the NCSU Stable Isotope Lab by Ruthie
Deters and Bernard Genna with the help of Blake Pulley, Shannon Curtis, and
Bahdria Cho. River monitoring was carried out by Harold Henion, Amy Mabrey,
John Bucci, and Bernard Genna. The RiverNet program is funded by NCDENR.
Financial support for this study was provided by a grant made to the
University of North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute by the City of
Raleigh through the Urban Water Consortium and NCDENR. The co-operation
and assistance of the City of Raleigh personnel at the Public Utilities Division and
at the NRWWTP is gratefully acknowledged.
ABSTRACT
Biosolids have been land applied at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP) since 1980. The long biosolid application history at this site
has resulted in a build up of nitrate in the ground water beneath the Waste
Application Fields (WAFs). The results of this study demonstrate that ground
water nitrate concentrations are spatially heterogeneous under the biosolid
WAFs. Large differences in nitrate concentrations can occur across a single
field. Nitrate concentrations in groundwater are highest in shallow saprolite wells
less than 75 feet deep. Nitrate levels decrease, but are still high and above 10
mg/I in bedrock wells at depths up to 180 feet. Biosolids that are land applied
and leached enrich the underlying ground waters in 15N and chloride. The
nitrogen and oxygen isotopic composition of nitrate in the biosolid WAF
groundwater indicates that 18% of the monitoring wells are impacted by fertilizer
N, 57% of the wells are impacted by biosolid N, 22% of the wells are affected by
de nitrification, and one well is impacted by Atmospherically Deposited N
(A.D.N.). Wells that have extensive denitrification are located in hydric or
partially hydric soils with high concentrations of TOC. The association of hydric
soils with denitrification suggests that geochemical processes play an important
role in the spatial heterogeneity of nitrate in groundwater underlying biosolid
WAFs. The nitrate/chloride ratios range from 1 to 3.5 in ground waters under the
WAFs where denitrification has not affected nitrate concentrations. High
nitrate/chloride ratios and enriched 15N -nitrate are geochemical characteristics
that can identify ground waters impacted by biosolid N.
The flux of water and nitrate from the biosolid WAFs into the adjacent reach
of the Neuse River was measured using two RiverNet monitoring stations.
Stations were placed above and below the 6. 7 km reach of the river adjacent to
the treatment plant. Water and nitrate flux into and out of the reach was
monitored for a 24-month period. The net daily contribution of surface I ground
water and nitrate to the reach was calculated from the sum of the flux into the
reach at the upper RiverNet station plus the plant discharge minus the flux out of
the reach at the lower RiverNet station. The difference between the flux into the
reach and what is added from the plant to the flux out of the reach is termed the
non-point source gain or loss (NPS gain). The NPS gain could come from
groundwater and/or surface drainage additions to the reach. On an annual basis,
daily integrated NPS nitrate gains were ~70,000 kg in year 1 and ~27,900 kg in
year 2. This represents an average over the two year period of ~12% of the total
nitrate flux out of the reach and 43% of the nitrate discharged from the treatment
plant into the reach. NPS water gains in the reach over the two year period were
~6% of the water flux out of the reach and ~110% of the water discharged from
the treatment plant into the reach. The NPS nitrate gains in the reach were event
driven, occurring over 1 to 3 day periods. For a given event, NPS nitrate gains in
the reach could be up to 2.5 times the magnitude the flux of nitrate that enters
the reach from the upper basin. Preliminary data from river nitrate mapping
suggests that a major portion of the N PS nitrate flux enters the river along the
northern edge of the plant, where nitrate concentrations in surface drainages are
iii
the highest. The relative importance of surface drainages and ground water flux
to NPS discharge and nitrate gains in the study reach could not be determined
from these data, and should be the focus of future research.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. .ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... vii
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. ~ ...................... viii
INTRODUCTION: LAND APPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS ...................................... 1
STUDY SITE, BIOSOLID PRODUCTION AND APPLICATION .............................. 2
PREVIOUS GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS .................................... 5
STUDY SITE GEOLOGY AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION ...................................... 8
METHODS ............ .' ...................................................................................... 10
RESULTS ..
GROUNDWATERS UNDER WAFs ................................................................ 12
SURFACE WATERS DRAINING WAFS ............................................ , ............. 14
MAJOR ION CHEMISTRY AND NITRATE. ...................................................... 20
NEUSE RIVER NITRATE FLUX ..................................................................... 21
DISCUSSION ......................................................................... · ...................... 30
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 35
APPENDIX 1 SOIL TYPES IN THE NRWWTP WAFs .......................................... 38
V
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Location of Study Site, the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP) located in the upper Neuse River Basin ...................................... 3
2. Waste application fields at NRWWTP and the date of first biosolid application .... .4
3. Shallow and deep groundwater monitoring wells installed at the NRWWTP ........ 6
4. Nitrate concentrations in selected CORPUD monitoring wells ........................... 6
5. Total amount of Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) in lbs/ac applied in the
NRWWTP Waste Application Fields .......................................................... 7
6. Nitrate concentration in the monitoring wells in the WAFs ............................... 8
7. Nitrate concentration versus depth in monitoring wells at the NRWWTP .......... 13
8. Surface water nitrate concentrations ......................................................... 14
9. Nitrogen isotopic composition of biosolids produced at the NRWWTP .............. 15
10. Surface nitrate concentrations in drainage basins with Total PAN .................. 15
11. Isotopic composition of nitrate in groundwaters under the N RWWTP .............. 17
12. Wells that show isotopic evidence of denitrification and distribution
of hydric and partially hydric soils at the NRWWTP ...................................... 18
13. Nitrate, chloride, and TOC concentrations in quarterly groundwater
samples from 1991 to 2004 .................................................................... 19
14. Ion concentrations in WAF wells .............................................................. 20
15. Nitrate concentration and nitrogen isotope composition of monitoring wells ..... 21
16. Stage and nitrate concentrations at the RiverNet Stations ............................ 23
17. Comparison of nitrogen and water flux from April to June 2003 ..................... 25
18. Nitrate gains in the reach adjacent to the NRWWTP ................................... 27
19. Nitrate concentration and isotopic relationship with discharge ....................... 28
20. River mapping of nitrate concentration in the Neuse River ........................... 29
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Total Amount of PAN Applied To Drainage Basins ........................................ 16
2. Average Concentration and Flux in the Study Reach ..................................... 22
3. Nitrate and Water Flux in the Study Reach .................................................. 24
vii
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Land application of biosolids produced from waste water treatment in areas of
rapidly growing urban populations is a cost effective reuse of nitrogen and
phosphorus, as well as an effective disposal method of the sediment and sludge
produced during the treatment process. Land application of biosolids may
increase significantly in the future as treatment plants expand and other disposal
practices such as landfills, incineration, and ocean dumping become too
expensive or are banned. Sustainable biosolid management programs require
attention to N management, because soil N accumulation affects crop N
requirements and the leaching of N from surface soils has important
environmental impacts. It is now recognized that groundwater makes up a
significant source of water to streams and rivers in almost all catchments.
Groundwater storage time and geochemical reactions such as denitrification in
the subsurface hydrogeologic environments through which ground waters
migrate control nitrate concentrations in receiving streams (Kendall 1998,
Aravena and Kendall 2000). Previous studies on the land application of biosolids
were generally limited to less than five years, while it can take several deca~es
for recharged groundwater to discharge into streams. This study is unique
because biosolids have been land applied at the NRWWTP (Neuse River Waste
Water Treatment Plant) near Clayton N.C. since 1980. The amount of Plant
Available Nitrogen (PAN) applied to each field and ground water chemistry has
been monitored since the initiation of land application. Nitrate concentrations in
groundwater under the biosolid WAFs are highly variable ranging from 0.1 mg/I to
180 mg/I. Accumulation of biosolid N in groundwater can be traced with heavy
nitrogen isotope ratios in nitrate (o 15N) and high nitrate/chloride ionic ratios.
Denitrification in ground and surface waters can be detected by nitrogen and
oxygen (0 180) isotopic ratios in nitrate. These isotopic indicators suggest that
biosolid N has impacted 57% of the monitoring wells at the NRWWTP, and most
of the surface waters that drain off the site with elevated nitrate concentrations.
Fertilizer N has impacted 18% of the monitoring wells, while nitrate has been
significantly attenuated by denitrification in 23% of the wells at the NRWWTP.
One well has been affected by atmospheric deposition. The wells that are
affected by denitrification are associated with hydric and partially hydric soils.
Hydric soils have the right geochemical conditions for denitrification, but are not
continuously distributed in the WAFs. The location of hydric soils may explain
the heterogeneous distribution of nitrate under biosolid application fields and
offsite migration patterns.
The flux of water and nitrate in the Neuse River was quantified at stations
located above and below the plant and compared to daily plant discharge for two
years. Water gained by the reach approximately equaled water added to the
reach from the NRWWTP over two years. Together these water inputs make up
about 6% of the water exported from the reach. Nitrate contributed to the reach
from non-point sources such as groundwater and streams (NPS flux) was about
43% of the nitrated discharged in plant effluent. NPS nitrate gained in the reach
and nitrate discharged from the treatment facility together make up about 38% of
viii
the nitrate exported from the reach. The NPS (Non-Point Source) nitrate flux
shows large increases (NPS gains) in the reach episodically over 1 to 3 day
periods. Preliminary data from river nutrient mapping suggest that NPS nitrate
enters the reach along the northern portion of the plant, where WAF biosolid
applications have been the heaviest. Surface waters draining from these
northern fields have nitrate concentrations > 50 mg/I. Preliminary data from the
riparian buffers indicate that nitrate does not migrate across the riparian areas in
shallow groundwater flow paths. Nitrate flux in deep groundwater flow paths has
not been measured and should be the focus of future studies.
The total NPS flux in the reach was distinctly different between the two years.
NPS nitrate gains in the reach during 2003-04 were over twice the NPS nitrate
gains measured in 2004-2005. Precipitation only decreased by only 25% during
the second year. The highest NPS gains were measured in the Spring of 2003
when river stage was high. However, biosolid application ceased at the
NRWWTP in September 2002 and have not been applied for over three years.
NPS nitrate gains in the river may be decreasing because of inter-annual
hydrographic variability or because biosolids nitrogen is transported in shallow
flow paths that have received less nitrate in recharge since biosolid application
stopped in 2003. While nitrate concentrations have not changed significantly in
the surface drainages, the flux of water and nitrate in the small streams during
storm events remains unknown. The relative importance of surface or ground
water nitrate inputs to the Neuse River NPS. nitrate flux cannot be determined
from these data, and should be the subject of future investigations. Continued
monitoring over the next year will determine if the decreasing nitrate gains in the
reach observed over the last two years is the result of inter-annual hydrological
variability, or because biosolids applications were stopped two years ago. If
nitrogen flux in surface water drainages is the most important source of NPS
nitrogen in the reach, sustainable biosolid application to the existing fields may
be possible by enhancing natural nitrate attenuation in the creeks draining the
site. The riparian buffers next to the surface drainages could be enlarged, and
wetlands can be constructed at the bottom of the drainages to reduce the nitrate
flux into the river from the WAFs.
ix
INTRODUCTION: LAND APPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS
Land application of biosolids is a common practice in many countries, and is a
cost effective reuse of material produced at sewage treatment facilities in areas
of rapidly growing urban populations (Weggler et al., 2004). Biosolids are a
significant source of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and trace elements. These
nutrients can increase production of a wide variety of crops when applied at
appropriate rates (Serna and Pomarez, 1992; Korboulewsky et al., 2002;
Weggler-Beaton et al., 2003). Addition of biosolids to degraded soils is a cost
effective alternative to inorganic fertilizers (Fresquez et al, 1990; Martinez et al.,
2003). Land application of biosolids may increase significantly in the future as
other disposal practices such as landfills, incineration, and ocean dumping
become too expensive or are banned (Pierzynski 1994). Repeated application of
biosolids at the same site can reduce the costs of locating and permitting new
application sites (Cogger et al., 2001). However, nitrogen, phosphorous, and
trace elements can buildup in soils and in ground waters with repeated biosolid
applications. The accumulation and export of nutrients from waste application
fields (WAF) must be considered for sustainable biosolid management. N
management is important because N soil accumulation from previous biosolid
applications can have a significant effect on N requirements of succeeding crops
(Sullivan et al, 1997). Biosolids organic N content is commonly larger than
inorganic N forms and must be mineralized before becoming PAN (Plant
Available Nitrogen, Glimour et al., 2003). The solubility of DIN (Dissolved
Inorganic Nitrogen) suggests that biosolid N is likely to be exported from waste
application fields into underlying ground waters. These ground waters will
eventually move into adjacent surface water drainages on time scales specific to
the hydrogeology at each site. Accumulation of excess P is a concern usually
with animal manures (Sharpley et al, 1997). Because municipal biosolids are
produced using lime or metal salts, the potential for biosolids P runoff can vary
with the wastewater treatment process. Municipal biosolids produced with iron
have the lowest increase in soil extractable P and runoff dissolved reactive P
(Penn and Simms, 2002). Biosolids also contain heavy metals such as Cd that
can have adverse effects when entering the food chain in elevated amounts
(Weggler et al., 2004). Soil organic matter content, soil pH, oxidation I reduction
status, and clay type are considered to be major factors in determining the
bioavailability of trace metals in soils (Sommers et al., 1987). Increased Cl
concentrations have been shown to increase Cd concentrations and
bioavailability to plants (Weggler et al., 2004). Most biosolid studies have
observed soil chemistry changes over short periods of-{1-7 years; Cogger et al.-,.
2001; Meyer et al., 2001; Penn and Simms 2002; Grey and Henry 2002;
Korboulewsky et al., 2002; Weggler et al., 2004). Longer studies of biosolid
applications are rare, but are important to evaluate sustainable biosolid
management practices.
The links between biosolid application rates, groundwater quality, and surface
water contamination are not well known. Easton and Petrovic (2004) found that
the type of fertilizer applied to turf grass was related to N & P run off. Municipal
biosolids, swine and dairy compost applied to turf grass fields resulted in greater
P run off, whearas urea and controlled release (sulfur coated) urea resulted in
greater N loss on a percentage applied basis. Martinez et al., (2003) found that
land applied biosolid and composted municipal solid wastes reduced sediment
yield in run-off compared to control plots, but increased PO4-P and NO3-N in
runoff and resulted in higher soil NH4-N concentrations. In a forested watershed,
Grey and Henry (2002) found that biosolid application changed the nitrate-N /
discharge relationship after 1.5 years, and that increased discharge resulted in
increased nitrate concentrations after this period of time. In these forested
watersheds P loss was in the particulate form. After 7 years of biosolid
application in Washington, Cogger et al (2001) found that soil nitrate increased at
the higher application rates. Anthropogenic changes in groundwater recharge
chemistry commonly occur in agricultural areas over a period of decades (Bohlke
2002). Groundwater discharge rates to surface streams occur on a much longer
time scale than encompassed by most biosolid application studies. To develop
sustainable biosolid management programs, ground and surface water quality
studies need to be done at a site where biosolids have been applied for periods
of time that approaches groundwater discharge rates.
STUDY SITE LOCATION, BIOSOLID PRODUCTION AND APPLICATION
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Division (CORPUD) has operated the
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) in southeastern Wake
County NC since 1976 (Figure 1 ). This facility treats wastewater from the City of
Raleigh and the towns of Knightdale, Wendell, Garner and Rolesville. The facility
collects an average of 38 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater from 1616
miles of pipeline fed by gravity flow that is assisted with 74 pump stations. The
plant processes wastewater for 107,000 metered customers and serves a
population of approximately 315,000 people. The NRWWTP facility consists of a
tertiary treatment system with final UV radiation to eliminate bacteria. This
effluent is discharged to the Neuse River via an underground pipe on the eastern
side of the plant south of field #22 (Figure 2). The NRWWTP is permitted to
discharge up to 60 MGD of effluent into the Neuse River (DENR 1998), but
averaged about 45 MGD from March 2003 to March 2005 (CORPUD,
unpublished data). The NC Division of Water Quality required a 30% reduction in
nitrogen discharged to the Neuse River Estuary by January 1, 2003. To meet
this requirement, the NRWWTP reduced effluent N discharge to the Neuse by
49% compared to 1995 levels by upgrading treatment facilities at the plant.
Biosolids are produced at the NRWWTP as part of the normal treatment
operations. Microorganisms are cultured within aeration basins to convert lighter
organic solids and soluble material to solid residue for removal. This is referred
to as the "Active Sludge Process". The solid material that is produced settles out
in the secondary clarifiers. A portion of this bio-sludge is recycled back into the
2
Legend
-River Basin
N River * Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
3~0 ~5--0 ~~~~30 Mil~+E
s
Figure 1. Location of study site, the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP), in the upper Neuse River Basin.
aeration basins to maintain active microorganism populations, and the rest are
moved to reuse for biosolid production. Two types of biosolids are produced at
the plant. Class A biosolids are produced by mixing the dewatered sludge with
lime and fly ash. Class A biosolids are marketed under the name of Raleigh Plus
and are available to the public. Class B biosolids are produced by dewatering the
sludge in a conveyor belt process. Class B biosolids are then land applied on the
farmland surrounding the plant to produce crops, which are sold as animal feed
(Figure 2).
Farmland, state owned forest, and private residences surround the plant. The
northern and eastern boundaries of the plant border a 5. 79 km reach of the
Neuse River. Biosolids have been land applied since 1980 on 1030 acres of
farmland owned or leased by CORPUD. The land application permit allows for
7,000 total dry tons of Class B biosolids to be applied per year on farmlands
(Permit #WQ0001730). Fields in the northern portion of the plant have the
longest biosolid application history and have received biosolids since the early
1980's (Figure 2). Application was stopped in the 1990's in fields 1-3 when they
were used for other purposes by the City Police Department. Fields in the
3
pots, crude protein content, and biosolid C:N ratio, organic N and total N content
(Glimour et al, 2003; Jaynes et al 2003; Easton and Petrovic 2004). Original
errors in the estimation of the PAN at the NRWWTP resulted in biosolid over-
application on city owned or leased WAFs (ECS 2002). Biosolid over application
occurred primarily during the early 1980's in the northern fields (ECS 2000), and
from the mid 1990's to 2001 at fields in all areas of the plant (ENSR, 2002). The
City of Raleigh paid a fine of $73,937 to NCDENR for biosolid application permit
violations, and temporarily ceased spreading biosolids in 2002 until a
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) could be completed.
Biosolid storage at the NRWWTP reached significant levels after the
suspension of land application in 2002 resulting in two spills that were contained
at the plant site. CORPUD then employed private contractors to move all the
stored biosolids to land fills outside of Wake County. All biosolids stored at the
plant were removed by Spring 2003. In 2002 CORPUD hired ENSR Consulting
and Engineering Inc. to complete a CSA. The CSA report was completed by
ENSR in December 2002 (ENSR 2002) with a Supplemental CSA completed in
September 2003 (ENRS 2003). The CSA involved soil, surface, and
groundwater sampling to determine nitrate concentrations along compliance
boundaries, and to characterize groundwater flow in the area surrounding the
waste application fields. CORPUD currently has an application pending with
NCDENR to resume land application of biosolids at the site.
PREVIOUS GROUNDWATER MONITORING RES UL TS
ENSR installed 22 shallow temporary monitoring wells, 13 shallow permanent
monitoring wells in the saprolite layer, 1 permanent monitoring well in the partially
weathered zone layer, and three deep permanent bedrock wells in 2002 (Figure
3). In addition to these new monitoring wells, 50 monitoring wells had been
previously installed at the site over the past 24 years. 33 of these wells are intact
and still accessible for sampling (Figure 3). Historical and recent water quality
data for a total of 69 monitoring wells at the site are available from CORPUD, NC
DENR Groundwater Section, ENSR (2002), and from this report (Figures 3 & 6).
Monitoring wells were sampled on a quarterly basis by CORPUD since the
initial biosolid field applications. Water samples were analyzed for nutrients,
conductivity, pH, trace metals, and TOC by CORPUD. Monitoring water quality
data archived at NCDENR Groundwater Section since 1980 indicates that nitrate
has increased only in some of the monitoring wells in the biosolid WAFs (Figure
4). Differences in groundwater nitrate concentrations across one field can
approach 100 mg/I. This spatial heterogeneity in groundwater nitrate
concentration is perplexing, and is larger than can be accounted for by different
hydrogeologic flow paths or groundwater age differences (Bohlke 2002, Bohlke
and Denver 1995). Total PAN applied to the fields has varied from 6.92 to 0.23
Mg/ha (6170 -209 lbs/ac) with the highest total PAN applied in the northern
5
(Daniel and Dahlen 2002, Daniel and Payne 1990). The Rolesville bedrock is a
foliated to massive, megacrystic to equigranular granite cut by intrusive dioritic
dikes. The dikes trend northwest to southeast, and are 100-200 feet across with
dike splays 10-20 feet wide (Parker 1979). The local topography consists of
rolling hills dissected by v shaped drainages and perennial streams that drain
into the Neuse River. Heath (1984) has mapped groundwater discharge zones to
the north and south east of the WAFs along the Neuse River. These
groundwater discharge zones are areas where streams and seeps discharge
water during wet and dry periods. None of the WAFs are in these groundwater
discharge zones. The saprolite soils that underlay the waste application fields
are well-drained sandy silts to silty sands and loamy sands with porosities of 35
to 55% (Daniel and Dahlen 2002). Red clays and silty sands occur over the
intrusive dioritic dikes. The predominate soil types at this site are Appling,
Wedowee, Durham, and Altavista, although there are 41 different soil types
found in the WAFs (Appendix 1, CGIA, 1983). The saprolite is underlain by the
partially weathered zone (PWZ), which is an unconfined aquifer. The PWZ is
then underlain by fractured bedrock, which has a porosity of 1-3 % that
decreases with depth and closes at ~ 750 ft (Daniel and Dahlen 2002). Shallow
groundwater movement in the soil and saprolite is controlled by topography and
typically flows from ridges and hilltops down to perennial streams and drainages.
The fractured bedrock, PWZ, saprolite, and soil make up a complex flow system.
The ridge in the central portion of the plant is incised by surface drainages
flowing north and east into the Neuse River. Saprolite is thickest on the ridges
and thins in the valleys. Harned & Daniel (1992) and Harned (1989) suggest that
the PWZ zone between bedrock and saprolite serves as a primary transmitter of
contaminants.
Wells installed at the NRWWTP in 2002 were logged and have four distinct
stratigraphic layers (ENRS 2002). The upper soil layer varies from 1-4 feet thick
and soil types vary with topography. The saprolite consists of sandy silts and silty
sands, which are 30-40 feet thick on the slopes and to 50-60 feet thick on ridge
tops. The partially weathered zone has a higher porosity due to the occurrence
of parent rock fragments, and is Oto 1 O feet thick below the saprolite and above
the fractured bedrock. This geology is not uniform, and complex groundwater
flow paths may account for some of the heterogeneity of groundwater nitrate
concentrations under these WAFs. The complex hydrogeology would make
ground water discharge patterns to the adjacent surface waters difficult to model.
This study evaluates surface and groundwater quality at a site where
biosolids have been applied for over 20 years. The purpose of this study is to
identify geochemical characteristics of biosolid nitrate that has accumulated in
groundwater beneath WAFs. These geochemical properties can then be used to
identify nitrogen dynamics and transport of biosolid nitrate off site. Several
studies have identified contaminated shallow aquifers underlying active
agricultural lands as the dominant source of eutrophication in many watersheds
(Howarth et al., 2000, 2002a; Bohlke, 2002). Extensive studies have been
9
completed to understand nitrate contamination and attenuation processes in
ground water (Wassenaar, 1995; Bohlke and Denver, 1995; McMahon et al.,
1999). Discharge rates of nitrate to streams commonly are not correlated to field
application rates. In most watersheds, discharge rates are significantly lower
than field application rates (Howarth 2002b, van Breenmen et al., 2002).
Riverine nitrogen fluxes typically only accounts for ~25% of the nitrogen input into
watersheds (Kendall, 1998; Cane and Clark, 1999; Kendall and Aravena, 2000;
van Breenmen et al., 2002). Closing the nitrogen budget by correctly linking field
application rates to contaminant loads in surface waters requires an
understanding of the dynamics and time scales of contaminant transport through
ground water systems and riparian zones that connect ground to surface waters.
The NRWWTP is an ideal location to investigate ground to surface water
linkages, because biosolids have been applied at the site for a long period of
time (24 years), accurate records of the total amount of biosolid PAN applied at
the site are available, approximately 70 monitoring wells are located at the site of
which about 75% have water quality records that exist for 15 to 25 years,
biosolids have a unique nitrogen isotope and major ion 1 trace element chemistry,
and river discharge and nitrate flux have been continuously monitored in the
reach adjacent to the site for a 24 month period.
METHODS
WAF monitoring wells and streams were sampled from July 2002 to May
2005. Nitrate concentrations for wells or streams were also taken from CORPUD
data or from ENSR (2002), which sampled the wells and streams during the
same period of time. Wells were purged of 3-5 volumes of water, then 1 liter
samples were collected in acid washed (0.1 M HCI) Nalgene bottles. Samples
were filtered witt, a GWV 63 micron filter and kept at 4°C until processed for
nutrient concentrations and isotopic abundances. Continuous monitoring
stations were installed in the river attached to bridges above and below the
WAFs (Figure 3, NRAK and NRCP). A YSI Sande equipped with temperature,
pressure, pH, conductivity, DO, and turbidity probes along with either a WS
Envirotech NAS 2-E nitrate analyzer or a Satlantic ISUS UV nitrate analyzer were
placed in an aluminum mesh cage and placed on the river bottom cabled to a
bridge pylon. The Sande and nitrate analyzers were connected to a solar
charged battery, Campbell data logger and cell phone modem. The data were
transferred to the data logger every 15 minutes and then transmitted to a data
server via cell phone once every 24 hours for a 24 month period. Data were
checked daily to ensure that the in situ instruments were functioning properly.
Water samples were collected weekly at each station to check the calibration of
both instruments. Temperature, pH, conductivity and DO were measured in the
field, and nitrate, dissolved phosphate, ammonia, and turbidity were measured in
the lab to check the calibration of the in situ instruments. The nitrate
concentration of the On Board Standard (OBS) was measured in the lab before
and after the NAS-2E was deployed in the river to make sure the calibration did
not change during deployment. The OBS was made using sterile procedures to
10
prevent bacterial growth during deployment. Bacterial growth in reagents can be
a problem during warm summer months. Freezing of reagents in the winter is
not an issue because the instrument is in the water below the river surface. ISUS
UV nitrate analyzers were calibrated with three standards prior to deployment
and checked after deployment. The mirror was cleaned every two weeks.
Weekly river samples were collected at each station and checked against the in
situ measurements made by both types of instruments. The NAS analyzer made
hourly nitrate measurements, whereas the ISUS and Sande made
measurements every 15 minutes for a 24-month period starting March 1, 2003.
River discharge was measured with a SONTEK 3.0 MHz RiverSurveyor
Acoustic Doppler Profiler (ADP). The SONTEK ADP was mounted on a 14 ft.
aluminum boat equipped with GPS (Trimble Geoexplorer 3 and Beacon on a Belt
real time correction) and driven across a straight section of the river multiple
times . At least 10 discharge estimates that agreed within 5% were averaged for
each river stage as measured with the Sande pressure transducer at the
RiverNet station. 5-8 different river stages were measured, and a logarithmic
stage discharge curve was determined for each station (Usry 2005). Stage
discharge curves were checked every 3 months to make certain the relationships
did not change. The 15-minute pressure readings were then converted to river
discharge for each interval. Nitrate fluxes were calculated from the concentration
data and calculated water fluxes. Continuous nitrate profiles between the
stations were measured during falling discharge periods with a Satlantic ISUS
UV nitrate sensor. Position was determined with a Trimble Geoexplorer 3 and
BOB that continuously logged the location of the !SUS sensor. The ISUS was
calibrated with 3 river water standards that had reagent grade NaNO3 added to
increase the NO3 concentration from 0.3 mg/I to 2 mg/I. Linear corrections were
applied to the ISUS measurements when needed. Three 1-second UV pulses
were emitted into the river at one-minute intervals, and the average concentration
was calculated along with the standard deviation of each one-minute estimate.
The boat speed was approximately 6.8 km/hr, so the average distance between
measurements was ~100 meters.
In the lab, surface and groundwater samples were filtered through a Gelman
AquaPrep 600 cartridge filter (0.45 micron) or a GFF precombusted filter (0.77
micron, heated to 500°C for 4 hours). Nutrient concentrations (NO3, NH4, PO4,
Cl) were determined on the filtered samples. Approximately 10 ml of the filtered
water were analyzed in an automated flow injection La Chat Quick-Chem 8000
Ion Chromatograph (IC) for chloride (EPA Method 300.0, USEPA 1993), nitrate+
nitrite (EPA Method 353.2, USEPA 1993), phosphate (EPA Method 365.1,
USEPA 1993) and ammonium (EPA Method 350.1, USEPA 1993). During each
La Chat IC run, an external standard (EPA) and several internal QC standards
were run with 10 dilution standards and one spiked river water sample to quantify
matrix effects. An additional internal QC standard was run for every 10 samples
analyzed. Dissolved Cl, SO4, Ca, Mg, and Na concentrations were determined in
11
the NCSU Dept. of Soil Sciences Analytical lab by ion chromatography and flame
atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
The 815N of dissolved nitrate or ammonia was analyzed by a modification of the
technique of Chang et al., (1999). 1-4 liters of sample, which was enough water
to yield 15 µM of nitrogen, were passed through a double ion exchange resin
column (1st -cation - 5 ml Biorad AG 50-WX8; 2nd -anion -2ml Biorad AG 2-
X8). The cation column was pre-washed with deionized water. The anion
column was pre-washed with 3N HCL, and then repeatedly washed with
deionized water to remove all acid residues. Pre-washing the anion column with
the same strength acid as the elutant allows 15 µM dissolved samples to be
analyzed without an isotopic correction (Chang et al. 1999). Nitrate was eluted
from the anion column with 30 ml of 3N HCI. The HCI was neutralized with 15
gm of Ag2O, the sample was filtered with a Whatman GFF filter, and the filtrate
was freeze dried to yield a fine white powder of AgNO 3. Half the sample was
placed in a tin boat and combusted in a Carlo Erba NC2500 Elemental Analyzer
and isotopically analyzed with a Finnigan Mat Delta+ XLS CF-I RMS to determine
o15 N-NO3. The other half of the sample was placed in an Ag boat, and pyrolyzed
with a Thermoquest Thermal Conversion Elemental Analyzer (TCEA) and
isotopically analyzed with a Finnigan Mat Delta+ XL CF-IRMS to determine 018 0
-NO3. The o15N results were calibrated against NIST 8550, NIST 8548, NIST
8547, and four internal 15N standards. The 8180 results were calibrated against
NIST 8542, 8549, NBS 120c, NBS 127, and two internal 180 standards . For
ammonia analysis, the order of the resin columns was reversed, the cation resin
was air dried at 65°C, and 100-400 ug of resin was placed in a tin boat and
combusted in a Carlo Erba NCS 2500 Elemental Analyzer. A carbon trap was
placed behind the water trap in the EA to remove the CO2 peak, and the 815N-
NH4 was determined by CF-I RMS. Statistical analysis of all the river flux, nutrient
concentration, and isotopic results were completed using Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets.
RESULTS
GROUNDWATERS UNDERWAFs
Previous studies have suggested that groundwater nitrate concentrations are
highly variable beneath the biosolid waste application fields at the NRWWTP site
(ECS 2000, Welby 2000, ENSR 2002). This study also found highly va.riable
groundwater nitrate concentration .. s under the biosolid WAFs (Figure 6). The
highest nitrate concentrations were found in the northeastern portion of the plant
(Wells #41, GP2, GP3, GP6), in the central portion of the plant (Well #18, 45;
MW 101, 101 D; GP-8), and in the southeastern portion of the plant (GP-20, GP-
22). Nitrate concentrations generally decrease with well depth (Figure 7). The
highest nitrate concentrations were found in wells with depths less than 50 feet.
Most of the monitoring wells at the NRWWTP sample the saprolite zone. One
well (113d) samples the PWZ, and three wells (101d, 105d, 111d) plus two older
monitoring wells (24, 25) sample the fractured bedrock. In the saprolite,
12
TABLE 1. TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAN APPLIED TO DRAINAGE BASINS
Basin Total PAN
Applied (lbs)
1 462890
2 305997
3 1177210
4 84592
5 457178
6 138795
NW 246773
North 422128
East 153706
Bridge 75703
TOTAL (lbs) 3524970
TOT AL (tons) 1762
portion of the plant have had moderate amounts of Total PAN applied to the
fields. Surface drainages in these basins have >50 mg/I nitrate concentrations,
most likely because these areas have had biosolids applied since the early
1980s (+20 years). Basins #1 & #5 on the southern and eastern portion of the
plant have had a large amount of PAN applied (>400,000 lbs/ac, Table 1). The
#5 basin had low nitrate concentrations in surface streams, most likely because
biosolid application fields cover a small amount of the drainage area and
biosolids have not been applied over a long period of time. Basin #1 has high
nitrate concentrations in surface waters that drain the WAFs on the eastern part
of the drainage. Basin #3 has had the most Total PAN applied (>1,000,000
lbs/ac, Table 1). Surface water nitrate concentrations in basin #3 varied from 77
mg/I to 33 mg/I. The wetlands and hydric soils in basins #3 and #4 appear to
attenuate surface water nitrate concentrations before they flow into the Neuse
River (Figure 10).
The isotopic composition of nitrate in ground water under the WAFs varies
from +2 to +35 per mil for o 15 N, and from +3 to +35 for o 18 0 (Figure 11a).
Surface water nitrate varied from +8 to +19 per mil for o 15N, and from +1.5 to +10
per mil for o 180. By plotting the o 15 N and o 18 0 of nitrate, the source of nitrate
can be identified and the influence of denitrification can be determined (Kendall
1998, Kendall and Aravena 2000). Nitrate derived from fertilizers has relatively
low o 15N compositions, and is isotopically distinct from nitrate derived from
wastes which have elevated 8 15N ratios due to ammonia volatilization . Nitrate
formed in surface environments from the oxidation of ammonium generally has
lower 8 180 ratios than fertilizers. Fertilizer 8 180 ratios are fixed by industrial
processes from atmospheric oxygen and have similar 8 180 compositions near
+20 per mil (Kendall 1998). Denitrification can shift the 15N comflosition of nitrate
to heavier values (Kendall and Aravena 2000). In this case, the 5N of
groundwater nitrate impacted by fertilizer sources and affected by denitrification
16
deeper wells with elevated nitrate concentrations, 8 15 N nitrate varied from 10 to
15 per mil indicating that biosolids are the main source of nitrate in these deeper
wells as well as the surface drainages (Figure 11 c).
The location of the wells that are affected by denitrification can be spatially
analyzed using GIS soil data. Wells that were affected by denitrification are
located in hydric or partially hydric soils (Figure 12). Hydric soils are wet soils
that are anoxic all the time, while partially hydric soils undergo wet and dry
periods. High organic carbon content (TOC) and anoxia are required for
denitrification (Knowles 1981). Multi-year water quality data from hydric, partially
hydric, and non-hydric soils show very different trends (Figure 13). Nitrate and
TOC concentrations in groundwater from hydric soils had low nitrate and high
TOC contents (Figure 13a). Groundwater in non-hydric soils had high nitrate and
low TOC contents (Figure 13c). Groundwater in partially hydric soils had high
TOC contents and intermediate nitrate concentrations {Figure 13b). Hydric
A
C
6 ·. N03 1
(mg/I) 4 '.
140 1· _.-
120 \ e
Well #31 Hydric Soils
Well#42
Non-Hydric Soils
---..... __
I
I
i
B
N03
(mg/I)
Well#44
Partially Hydric Soils
Figure 13. Nitrate, Chloride, and TOC concentrations in quarterly groundwater samples
from 1991 to 2004 in hydric soils, partially hydric soils, and non-hydric soils. (For well
locations see Figure 14). Note scale changes for nitrate and chloride concentrations.
19
data with rating curves produced from the River Surveyor ADCP profiles
(Acoustic Doppler Current Profiling System; Usry 2005, Herschy, 1995)
according to the following formula:
Q=C(h+ a)°
where Q is the discharge, his the depth, C and n are constants derived from a
log-log plot of discharge versus depth, and a is a correction factor for the depth of
the river at zero flow (Herschy, 1995). The correction factor, a, was determined
experimentally from the maximum depth of the channel in relation to the station's
TABLE 2. AVERAGE DAILY CONCENTRATION & FLUX IN THE STUDY
REACH
NRWWTP
Upper Station Pipe Lower Station
Year1
in situ Nitrate (mg/L) 0.33 1.92 0.49
Flux N03 (kg/d) 1063 328 1439
Year2
in situ Nitrate (mg/L) 0.34 1.71 0.55
Flux N03 (kg/d) 609 298 883
Total
in situ Nitrate (mg/L) 0.34 1.82 0.52
Flux NO3 (kg/d) 836 313 1161
depth in the river cross-section. Comparison of the in situ nitrate measurements
with the grab sample concentrations measured in the lab on a La Chat ion
chromatograph showed an average difference of -0.01 to 0.05 mg/I with a
standard deviation of± 0.1 to± 0.05 mg/I at the NRCP and the NRAK stations,
respectively. The NAS 2E nitrate analyzers had a precision of± 0.1 mg/I nitrate,
and the La Chat ion chromatograph had a precision of± 0.03 mg/I nitrate for
replicate analyses during the monitoring period period. This good agreement
between the in situ and grab sample nitrate measurements indicates little error
was introduced into the flux calculations from nitrate concentration data.
The standard error of estimate (Se) for the depth:..discharge relationship is
given by: Se= [~d 2 / (N-2)] o.s.
where dis the deviation of an ADCP measurement from the calculated value
from the depth-discharge regression and N is the total number of ADCP
22
of scatter about the regression is given by, tSe (Herschy, 1995). Based on
sample sizes (N = 10-11 measurements), a Student's t value of 2.2 was chosen
for the two sites (Usry 2005). The uncertainty of estimates of discharge from the
depth-discharge equation is determined by calculation of the standard error of
the mean relation (Smr) for the 95% confidence interval. This gives minimum error
at the me~n value of the regression and maximum at the upper and lower limits
(Herschy, 1995). The mean error of discharge was calculated to be 8% at the
two sites, but there is no independent measure to verify this estimate. This is
similar to mean errors determined at USGS gauging stations (Herschy, 1995).
These estimates of error indicate that most of the uncertainties introduced into
the nitrate flux calculations are from the discharge estimates and not from the
nitrate concentration data. The average nitrate fluxes in the river are reduced by
~40% during the second year compared to the first year. The plant fluxes did not
change significantly over the two year period . The large differences in discharge
and nitrate flux suggest hydrological inter-annual variability is important to fluxes
of nitrate and water in the upper Neuse Basin. A one-year estimate of fluxes
may not be a good estimate of groundwater discharges to surface waters, and
multi-year monitoring is required to capture the full range of fluxes at this site.
By comparing the fluxes into and out of the reach, discharge and nitrate gains
and losses can be determined. Plant fluxes are reported on a daily basis, so a
24-hour period is the shortest time scale that discharge and nitrate gains can be
estimated (Figure 17a). The calculated NPs· nitrate flux had large gains and
losses in this reach during the two-year period, while the water influx and outflow
are more closely matched (Figure 17b). NPS nitrate gains (positive fluxes) occur
over a 1-3 day period, while NPS nitrate losses (negative fluxes) occur over a 1-5
day period. On an annual basis over the two-year period these NPS nitrate gains
equal~ 12% of the nitrate flux that is exported from the reach, and is~ 43% of
the nitrate flux that is discharged from the treatment plant (Table 3). There are
significant variations in the reach nitrate gains on an annual, monthly, and daily
TABLE 3. NITRATE AND WATER FLUX IN THE STUDY REACH
Year1
Year2
Total
Daily
Integrated
N03Gains
70098
27876
97974
Daily
% Total N03 % Total N03 Integrated % Total Q
Output Output Discharge Output
(NRCP) NRWWTP Gains (NRCP)
13 58 4520132409 9
9 26 272321563 1
12 43 4792453972 6
basis (Figures 18a,b; Table 3). The first year NPS nitrate gains in the reach are
more than twice the second year NPS nitrate gains. The yearly NPS nitrate
gains vary from 26% to 58% of the nitrate discharged from the plant. On a
monthly basis, the NPS nitrate gains can vary from 1% to 200% of the monthly
NPS flux is the Non-point Source flux that is derived from the integrated daily out of the reach minus the daily integrated flux Into the reach plus the
flux from the Treatment Plant.
24
nitrate flux discharged from the plant (Figure 18). The most NPS nitrate was
gained in the reach during the Spring of 2003. NPS nitrate gains tend to
increase in the winter and decrease in the summer. On a daily basis the NPS
nitrate gains do not directly correlate with precipitation or to river stage. The
highest NPS nitrate gains are observed during Spring 2003 when river stage was
high, but precipitation was low (Figure 18b). After Spring 2004, precipitation
events correlate to NPS nitrate gains. River stage at the site is related to
precipitation and water discharge levels from Falls Dam, which is approximately
20 miles upstream from the site. The lack of correlation between nitrate gains in
the reach and stage or precipitation suggests that the NPS nitrate gains may be
related to a complicated series of hydrological variables and interactions between
ground water and surface water that are difficult to model without more detailed
monitoring data.
The nitrate concentration in the river varies significantly with discharge at both
RiverNet stations above and below the plant (Figure 19a, b). Nitrate
concentrations increase with decreasing discharge and reach a maximum at low
flow of 0.5 mg/I above the plant and 1.2 mg/I below the plant. There is a
significant log relationship between discharge and 15N at the lower RiverNet
station (NRCP), but not at the upper station. The higher discharge 15 N nitrate
values at both stations are 4 to 6 per mil, which are characteristic of soil organic
nitrogen and fertilizer N. These low D15N ratios in high flow river nitrate are
distinct from the 15 N of biosolids and plant effluent. This 15N/discharge
relationship indicates that both forms of waste nitrogen have little influence on
river nitrate flux during high flow periods (Figure 19c). Low discharge 15N nitrate
values do not change at the upper station as discharge decreases. However, at
the lower station low flow 815N river nitrate ratios increase up to +30 per mil. The
change in low flow 15N nitrate values between the two stations indicates the
relative importance of biosolid and/or effluent nitrate entering the reach during
low discharge to the nitrogen flux out of the reach. But does biosolid nitrate enter
the Neuse River from the WAFs or just from the effluent discharge pipe? If
nitrate concentrations in the reach increase before the discharge pipe, then
biosolid nitrate in contaminated groundwater or surface water is entering the
reach from the WAFs. If nitrate concentrations in the reach do not change from
the upper station to the discharge pipe in the reach, then biosolid nitrate is
probably not important to river N flux along the northern portion of the plant.
To determine where nitrate is entering the river, the nitrate concentration was
mapped during falling/low discharge stages with an ISUS UV nitrate analyzer.
Nitrate concentration measurements were made in the river from NRAK to NRCP
stations every minute. At the speed traveled down the river, measurements were
approximately 100 meters apart (Figure 20). The nitrate concentration in the
reach increases before the effluent pipe on the northern portion of the WAFs, has
a sharp increase at the discharge pipe, and a sharp decrease where wetlands
drain into the river on the eastern side of the plant (Figure 20). The nitrate
26
concentrations do not change from the wetlands drainage to the bottom of the
reach (Figure 20}. These data clearly indicate that river nitrate concentrations
increase along the northern portion of the plant approximately 1. 7 miles before
the effluent pipe discharges into the reach. This spatial pattern of low flow nitrate
concentrations suggests that biosolid nitrate is entering the Neuse River along
the northern portion of the reach, and that the nitrate gains in the reach are most
likely controlled by hydrological processes at the site that are unknown and link
biosolid nitrate enriched groundwater to surface waters in the Neuse River.
DISCUSSION
Agronomic use of biosolids as a soil fertilizer remains controversial because
of environmental concerns despite, widespread adoption of the practice over the
past 20 years (Shober et al., 2003). Long-term studies of biosolid amended soils
indicate that soil accumulation of organic carbon, total carbon, and ammonia are
not significant. However, nitrate, phosphate, calcium and some trace elements
do accumulate in biosolid amended soils (Cogger et al., 2001). Potassium can
also be lost, which is a concern for K fertility (Cogger et al., 2001 ). This study
indicates that after 22 years of application, municipal biosolid nitrate has
migrated from ground waters into surface waters adjacent to the waste
application fields underlain by fractured granite. Groundwater that accumulates
biosolid nitrate has positive 815N-nitrate and elevated N03'CI ratios. These
distinct geochemical characteristics in groundwater not affected by denitrification
can be used to trace the environmental impact of biosolid application practices.
15N data from groundwater nitrate at the site indicates that biosolid nitrate has
migrated into the deep fractured rock aquifer, as well as the shallow unconfined
saprolite aquifer. The nitrate concentration in groundwater under the WAFs
varied spatially from 180.0 to 0.01 mg/I nitrate. The application of biosolids in
WAFs at this site has varied from 400 to 61700 lbs/ac Total cumulative PAN.
The highest concentrations of PAN have been applied for the longest duration in
the northern portion of the plant. The differences in amount of PAN and duration
of biosolid application do not totally explain the variations of groundwater nitrate
concentrations. The distribution of hydric and partially hydric soils does correlate
to the nitrate, chloride, and TOC concentrations in the underlying groundwater.
The isotopic composition of groundwater nitrate indicates that 18% of the WAF
monitoring wells are affected by fertilizer, 57% are affected by biosolids, 22% of
the wells are affected by denitrification and one well is affected by A.D.N.
(Atmospherically Deposited Nitrogen). Wells that are significantly affected by
denitrification as indicated by the trend of 15 N and 180 "nitrate ratios are located in
hydric or partially hydric soils. These hydric or partially hydric soils are located
around the perimeter of the plant and discontinuously in the narrow v-shaped
drainages that disect the eastern portion of the plant. The variable nitrate
concentration in the groundwater at this site is likely the result of differences in
application rates, complicated groundwater flow paths, and the presence or
absence of significant amounts of denitrification in anoxic or partially anoxic soils.
30
Hourly river nitrate flux and daily plant discharge data over a 24 month period
estimates that 70,098 kg of NPS nitrate migrated into the reach during the first
year of monitoring, and 27,876 kg of NPS nitrate was gained in the reach during
the second year (Table 3). These nitrate gains in the reach occur on an episodic
basis, typically over a 1 to 3 day period. The NPS nitrate gains are equal to 58%
of the plant effluent nitrate discharged during the first year and 26% of the plant
effluent nitrate discharged during the second year. Over the two year period the
NPS nitrate gains in the reach equal 43% of the amount of nitrate discharged
from the treatment plant. These NPS nitrate gains are therefore significant, but
difficult to model because the inter-annual differences are large. The NPS water
gained in the reach represents 206% of the amount of water discharged by the
plant during the first year and 12 % of the water discharged from the plant during
the second year, for a total of 108% of the amount of water discharged from the
plant over the two-year period. The hydrographic conditions during the two years
were different. While precipitation was not significantly greater during the first
year (50.74" total rainfall vs 38.39" total rainfall measured at the Clayton
Horticultural Station; State Climate Office), discharge was high during the first
year most likely because stage height was augmented by water release from
Falls Dam. Changes in groundwater levels are not known. During high river
stage, the river banks are flooded which promotes bank infiltration. Water
exchange between the river bank and groundwater is controlled by the relative
elevation differences between groundwater and river stage as well as bank
porosity (Figure 188). Hydric soils are a barrier to nitrate, but not water migration
along the northern, and eastern borders of the WAFs (Figure 12). Preliminary
data in these riparian areas indicates that shallow field edge wells have nitrate
concentrations of~ 40 mg/I, while shallow river edge wells have consistent nitrate
concentrations below 0.1 mg/I (Fountain et al., in prep). The riparian buffer width
next to the Neuse River ranges from 100 to 250 feet (GIS analysis of 1999 Wake
County digital orthophotographs). Gilliam (1994) and Spruill (2004) suggest that
buffers of this width are adequate to attenuate nitrate migration into the river,
although Spruill (2004) also emphasizes the role of organic rich hyporheic
sediments in the river bottom that contribute to nitrate attenuation. This buffer
width also conforms to the BMPs described by Gilliam et al (1997), and should
provide effective protection for nitrate migration from the WAFs into the Neuse
River at the site. The data and buffer width BMPs suggest that nitrate migration
through the riparian buffers adjacent to the Neuse River is not important for
nitrate gains in the river. Given the distribution of hydric soils around the biosolid
WAFs, biosolid application history, and site topography, biosolid nitrate migration
from the WAFs is only likely north and east of fields 49 and 50 and east of fields
201 and 500. If nitrate is not likely to migrate through the riparian buffers at the
site, then another mechanism must account for the NPS nitrate gains in the
reach.
Nitrate could enter the reach via small streams that are deeply incised and
drain the WAFs at the site (Figure 10). Surface water drainages have nitrate
concentrations that can vary up to 77 mg/I nitrate. Streams that drain the
31
northern WAFs generally have nitrate concentrations above >50 mg/I. Riparian
buffers adjacent to the small surface drainages vary from 0 to over 100 feet in
width, less than recommended BMPs (Gilliam et al., 1997). The 15N and 180
composition of nitrate found in these surface drainages suggest that biosolids are
the source of the nitrogen in these streams and creeks (Figure 12a). The highest
nitrate concentrations in surface drainages are in the northern basins and basin
#3 in the central portion of the plant (Figure 10). These WAFs have had the
heaviest application rates over the longest duration (Figures 2,5). Nitrate .
concentrations in the monitoring wells along the northern edge of the plant vary
from 0.2 to 106 mg/I (Figure 6). Wetlands occupy the eastern edge of the plant
adjacent to the Neuse River in basins #3 and #4 (Figure 10). Surface water
nitrate concentrations are low in basin #4 due to the low amounts of Total PAN
applied and the presence of hydric soils. In basin #3, which has had the most
amount of PAN applied, surface water nitrate concentrations are attenuated from
77 mg/I to ~30 mg/I in wetlands (Figure 10). River nitrate mapping shows a drop
in nitrate concentrations in the Neuse River adjacent to these wetland areas
(Figure 20). It is likely that groundwater contaminated with biosolid nitrate enters
the river along the northern portion through the surface drainages. These
drainages are deeply eroded through the overlying solls and cut into the top of
the porous saprolite. This creates shallow groundwater flow paths that would
direct recharge concentrated with biosolid N into the surface drainages. These
drainages cut across the riparian buffers next to the Neuse River and would not
attenuate nitrate in the stream. The episodic discharge of these drainages after
a precipitation event linked with shallow groundwater flow paths may explain why
nitrate gains are observed in the reach over a 1-3 day period and then cease.
Groundwater levels and surface water discharge monitoring are needed to
understand the importance of these surface water drainages to NPS nitrate gains
in the reach in the future.
Intrusive diabase dikes are found at this site (Parker 1979) and are another
potential shallow groundwater flow path from the WAFs. Diabase dikes have
been mapped crossing the Neuse River in the northern portion of the plant ·
(Daniel and Payne 1990, ENSR 2002, 2003) where river nutrient mapping
documents increases in riverine nitrate concentrations. The hydraulic impact of
these dikes on groundwater flow, and links to surface water is not known and
could be potentially variable. Increased fractures in the country rock adjacent to
the dike along the margins of the dikes caused by the dike intrusion could be a
conduit for groundwater into the river. The weathering of the diabase into clays
could also reduce porosity and form a hydrologic barrier to water flow. A p~ak in
the river nitrate concentration occurs near the surface drainage in the NW basin,
where a large diabase dike crosses the river (Figure 20). More low flow river
mapping at finer spatial scales is required to determine if the nitrate
concentration increases observed in the river is associated with the surface water
drainages or the location of the diabase dikes. Increased transport of
groundwater along side of the diabase dikes could link deep groundwater to the
Neuse River with short residence times. However, the highest nitrate
32
concentrations are found in groundwater shallower than 50 feet at this site, so
the diabase dike effects on groundwater flow would be most important in the
saprolite where clay weathering and hydrologic flow restrictions are most likely
(Figure 7).
ENSR (2003) estimated that approximately 65,435 kg of nitrogen was
discharge from groundwater into the Neuse in 2003 with a steady state
groundwater flow model, uniform subsurface flow paths, and a 30%
mineralization rate for organic nitrogen. This is within 7% of the 2003-2004 NPS
nitrate gains estimated in the reach with hourly river monitoring. Simulated
groundwater discharge to the Neuse with this model suggests nitrogen gains
from groundwater will peak in the Neuse River at 71,940 kg in 2005. In 2006 the
model predicts that nitrogen gains will decrease to 35,720 kg. Monitoring
estimates that NPS nitrate gains dropped in the river during 2004-2005 to 27,876
kg. According to the ENSR model, nitrate discharges should decrease after the
2005 peak flux if biosolid fields are managed so that the maximum nitrate in
recharge to groundwater is <6 mg/I. The model estimates that 30 to 40 years is
required for nitrate concentrations in groundwater to decrease below 10 mg/I.
Actual monitoring of the NPS nitrate gains in the river do not agree with the
model nitrate flux predictions. The differences may be because the ENSR model
does not take into account the heterogeneous location of denitrification in hydric
sediments, the variable rates of biosolid remineralization, and heterogeneous
subsurface flow. Shallow groundwater flow paths through the riparian buffers do
not appear to carrying most of the biosolid nitrate into the river as suggested by
the model. Inter-annual hydrological variability, changes in groundwater levels,
and nitrate flux in surface drainages may control nitrate gains in the reach on a
yearly basis which are not addressed by the ENSR model.
The 15N nitrate/ discharge relationshif. in the river becomes significant below
the WAFs. This is the result of positive 1 N nitrate values observed in the river
during low flow conditions. Welby (2000) found that the rates of nitrate
accumulation in groundwater under WAFs in the western portion of the plant
were directly related to application rates when over 2000 lbs/ac Total PAN had
been applied to a field. This application threshold has been exceeded all along
the northern portion of the plant. However, during high flow conditions the 15 N
composition of the river does not change significantly. This is the result of
dilution of the nitrate entering the river from the waste application fields by nitrate
entering the reach from upstream during high flow (Figure 19c). At the highest
discharge levels, the nitrate contributed by the ·treatment plant equals <5% of the
nitrate transported out of the reach while the water amounts to less than 2% of
the water that leaves the reach. Complicated interactions between high river
stage and groundwater levels controlling bank infiltration and exfiltration are
important to nitrate migration across riparian buffers. Flooded river banks would
enhance the denitrification potential of the partially hydric soils that line the river
bank and decrease NPS nitrate transport to the river. The 15N composition of
groundwater under the WAFs becomes more positive due to biosolid degradation
33
and leaching to the water table. Groundwater nitrate that migrates off the WAFs
to the riparian buffer would become even more isotopically positive as a result of
denitrification in sediments adjacent to the river. 15 N values of nitrate in river
edge wells are~ 60 per mil (Fountain et al., in prep), but <>15 N nitrate values that
heavy have not been observed at low flow in the river. This isotope data
combined with the riparian buffer nitrate concentration data suggests that the
shallow groundwater pathways through the riparian buffers is not important to
river NPS nitrate flux. Groundwater that is intercepted by deeply incised surface
drainages and leaves the WAFs as surface runoff would have shorter residence
times and less nitrate attenuation by denitrification than shallow groundwater
moving through the riparian buffers.
The relative importance of NPS nitrate groundwater inputs through riparian
buffers, or NPS nitrate in surface waters that drain into the Neuse River to the
nitrate flux in the river cannot be determined from this data and should be the
subject of future investigations. The relative difference in NPS flux through
different pathways is important because artificial wetlands can be constructed to
attenuate the surface water nitrate flux to the river. Ground water nitrate flux
through riparian buffers is unlikely at this site, but more buffers need to be
monitored. Groundwater nitrate moving along basaltic dikes, if present, would be
more difficult and costly to remediate. NPS nitrate inputs from surface or
groundwater sources contributed approximately 40% compared to the nitrogen
discharged as effluent by the plant over the 2003-05 period . Understanding the
predominate NPS nitrate flow path to the Neuse River at the site is critical for
designing remediation strategies. Surface water discharge and nitrate
concentrations need to be monitored and compared to reach NPS nitrate gains to
determine the relative important of each flow path. Streams on the eastern side
of the plant drain into a wetland and surface water nitrate concentrations
decrease by ~ 50% before the water enters the Neuse River. During high
stages, river water floods up these drainages creating shallow flooded wetland
areas that attenuate nitrate in the surface drainage. Construction of artificial
wetlands along the northern edge of the plant and reducing flow in the streams
with rock dams may produce the same result observed during the flooded
drainages on the eastern side of the plant. Enhancing denitrification and water
retention in the surface drainages, widening the narrow buffers adjacent to the
stream drainages in the fields, and reducing the surface drainage nitrate flux to
the Neuse River by creating artificial wetlands at the base of these drainages
would be cost efficient approaches to formulate sustainable biosolid land
application practices at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment facility .
34
REFERENCES
Ajwa HA, Tabatabai MA. 1994. Decomposition of Different Organic Materials in
Soils. Biol. & Fert. Soils 18 (3): 175-182.
Bohlke JK 2002 Groundwater recharge and agricultural contamination. Hydrogeo.
Journ. 10:153-179.
Bohlke JK, Denver JM 1995 Combined Use Of Groundwater Dating, Chemical, And
Isotopic Analyses To Resolve The History And Fate Of Nitrate Contamination In 2
Agricultural Watersheds, Atlantic Coastal-Plain, Maryland. Water Resour Res 31 (9):
2319-2339.
Bohlke JK, Wanty R, Tuttle M, Delin, G., Landon, M. 2002. Denitrification In The
Recharge Area And Discharge Area Of A Transient Agricultural Nitrate Plume In a
Glacial Outwash Sand Aquifer, Minnesota. Water Resour Res 38 (7): Art. No. 1105
Cane G, Clark ID 1999 Tracing ground water recharge in an agricultural
watershed with isotopes. GROUND WATER 37(1): 133-139.
Chang CCY, Langston J, Riggs M, Campbell DH, Silva SR, Kendall C 1999 A method
for nitrate collection for delta N-15 and delta 0-18 analysis from waters with low nitrate
concentrations Can. J. Fish. and Aquat. Sci. 56 (10): 1856-1864
Cogger, C.G., Bary, A.I., Fransen , S.C., Sullivan, D.M. 2001. Seven years of
biosolid versus inorganic fertilizer application in tall fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
30: 2188-2194.
Daniel, C.C., 111, and Dahlen, P.R., 2002, Preliminary hydrogeologic assessment
and study plan for a regional ground-water resource investigation of the Blue
Ridge and Piedmont Provinces of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations 02-4105, 60 p.
Daniel, C.C., 111, and Payne, R.A., 1990, Hydrogeologic unit map of the Piedmont
and Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 90-4035, 1 sheet, scale 1 :500,000.
DENR 1998. Neuse River Basinwide 1998 Water Quality Plan
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Neuse/neuse_wq_management_plan.htm
Engineering Consulting Services, LTD. (ECS) 2002. Report of Investigations -
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Inc. 2002. Comprehensive Site Assessment
Report. 62 pp.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Site Assessment
Report. 108 pp.
Easton ZM, Petrovic AM. 2004 Fertilizer source effect on ground and surface
water quality in drainage from turfgrass. J. Environ. Qual. 33 (2): 645-655.
Fountain, M., Fountain, JC, Showers, WJ in prep Nitrate attenuation in riparian
buffers next to biosolid waste application fields. J. Environ. Qual.
Fresquez PR, Francis RE, Dennis GL. 1990. Sewage-Sludge Effects On Soil
And Plant-Quality In A Degraded, Semiarid Grassland. J. Environ. Qual. 19 (2):
324-329.
Grey M., Henry C. 2002. Phosphorus and nitrogen runoff from a forested
watershed fertilized with biosolids. J. Environ . Qual. 31 (3): 926-936 MAY-JUN
Gilmour JT, Cogger CG, Jacobs LW, Evanylo GK, Sullivan OM. 2003
Decomposition and plant-available nitrogen in biosolids: Laboratory studies,
field studies, and computer simulation. J. Environ. Qual. 32 (4): 1498-1507.
35
Gilliam, JW 1994 Riparian Wetlands And Water-Quality J. Environ. Qual. 23 (5):
896-900.
Gilliam, JW, Osmond, DL, Evans, RO 1997 Selected Agricultural Best
Management' Practices to Control Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin, North
Carolina. ARS Tech. Bull . 311, NCSU, Raleigh, NC.
Harned, D.A., 1989, The hydrogeologic framework and a reconnaissance of
ground-water quality in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina, with a
design for future study: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 88-4 ~.30,-55 p.
Harned, D.A., and Daniel, C~t., Ill, 1992, The transition zone between bedrock
and regolith: Conduit for contamination?, in Daniel, C.C., 111, White, R.K., and
Stone, P.A., eds., Ground water in the Piedmont, Proceedings of a
Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont of the Eastern United States,
Charlotte, N.C., Oct. 16-18, 1989: Clemson, S.C., Clemson University, p.
336-348
Heath, R. 1984. Groundwater recharge in North Carolina. NCDEM DEHNR Report, 52
pp.
Herschy, R.W., 1995. Streamflow measurement. Chapman & Hall, London; New York,
xvi, 524 pp.
Howarth RW, Swaney DP, Butler T J, Marino R 2000 Climatic control on eutrophication
of the Hudson River estuary Ecosys. 3(2): 210-215.
Howarth RW, Sharpley A, Walker D 2002a Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal
waters in the United States: Implications for achieving coastal water quality goals
Estuaries 25 (4B): 656-676.
Howarth RW, Boyer EW, Pabich WJ, Galloway JN 2002b Nitrogen use in the United
States from 1961-2000 and potential future trends. AMBIO 31 (2): 88-96.
Jaynes WF, Zartman RE, Sosebee RE, Wester DB._ 2003. Biosolids
decomposition after surface applications in west Texas. J. Environ. Qual. 32
(5): 1773-1781.
Karr, J.D., W. J. Showers, J .W. Gilliam and A. S. Anders. 2001 Tracing nitrate transport
and environmental impact from intensive swine farming using delta nitrogen-15. J.
Environ. Qual. 30: 1163-1175.
Kendall C. 1998 Tracing sources and cycling of nitrate in catchments, In Isotope
Tracers in Catchment Hydrology, eds. C. Kendall and J. J. McDonnell, pp. 519-
576. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Kendall, C. and R. Aravena. 2000. Nitrate isotopes in groundwater systems. In:
Environmental Tracers in Subsurface Hydrology. eds. P.G. Cook and A.L. Herczeg.
Kluwer Academic, Boston. pp . 261-297.
Knowles, R. 1981 Denitrification. In Paul, EA, Ladd, JN (eds) Soil Biochemistry Vol. 5
New York: Marcel Dekker.
Korboulewsky N, Dupouyet S, Bonin G. 2002. Environmental risks of applying sewage
sludge compost to vineyards: Carbon, heavy metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus
accumulation. J. Environ. Qual. 31 (5): 1522-1527. ·
Martinez F, Casermeiro MA, Morales D, Cuevas, G. Walter, I. 2003 Effects on run-off
water quantity and quality of urban organic wastes applied in a degraded semi-arid
ecosystem. Sci. Tot. Environ. 305 (1-3): 13-21.
Martinez F, Cuevas G, Calvo R, Walter, I. 2003 Biowaste effects on soil and native
plants in a semiarid ecosystem. J. Environ. Qual. 32 (2): 472-479.
36
Meyer, V.F., Redente, E.F., Barbarick, K.A., Brobst, R. 2001 . Biosolids applications
affect runoff water quality following forest fire. J. Environ. Qual. 30:1528-1532.
McMahon PB, Bohlke JK, Bruce BW 1999 Denitrification in marine shales in
northeastern Colorado Water Resour. Res. 35 (5): 1629-1642.
Parker, J.M. 1979 Geology and Mineral Resources of Wake County. NC DNRCD,
Geol. Survey Sec. Bull 86, 122 pp.
Penn C.J., Sims J.T. 2002. Phosphorus forms in biosolids-amended soils and losses in
runoff: Effects of wastewater treatment process. J. Environ. Qual. 31 (4): 1349-1361.
Pierzynski, G.M. 1994. Plant nutrient aspects of sewage sludge. pg 21-26 In C.E.
Clapp, W.E. Larson, and R.H. Dowdy (eds.). Sewage Sludge: Land utilization and the
environment. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI.
Serna M.D., Pomares F. 1992. Indexes of Assessing N-Availability in Sewage Sludges.
Plant & Soil 139 (1): 15-21 .
Silva SR, Ging PB, Lee RW, Ebbert JC, Tesoriero AJ, lnkpen EL 2002 Forensic
applications of nitrogen and oxygen isotopes in tracing nitrate sources in urban
environments Envir. Forensics 3 (2): 125-130.
Sharpley AN, Sisak I. 1997. Differential availability of manure and inorganic sources of
phosphorus in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour. 61 (5): 1503-1508.
Shober AL, Stehouwer RC, Macneal KE. 2003 On-farm assessment of biosolids effects
on soil and crop tissue quality Journ. Environ. Qual. 32 (5): 1873-1880.
Sommers, L., van Volk, V., Sopper, W .E., Bastain, R. 1987. Effects of soil properties on
accumulation of trace elements by crops. Pg . 5-23. In A .L. Page, T.G. Logan, and
J .A. Ryan, (eds .) Land Application of Sludge. Lewis Publ. Chelsea, Ml.
Spruill TB 2004 Effectiveness of riparian buffers in controlling ground-water
discharge of nitrate to streams in selected hydrogeologic settings of the North
Carolina Coastal Plain WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 49 (3): 63-70.
Sullivan, D.M., Fransen, S.C., Cogger, C.G., Bary, A.I. 1997. Biosolids and dairy
manure as nitrogen sources for prairie grass on a poorly-drained soil. J. Prod. Agric.
10: 589-596.
US EPA 1993. Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental
Samples. EPA 600 R-93100.
USEPA. 1995. Process design manual-Land application of sewage sludge and
domestic septage. EPN625/R-95/001 . USEPA, Washington, DC .
Usry, B. 2005 Nitrogen loading in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina: The RiverNet
monitoring program. MS Thesis, North Carolina State University, 121 pp.
van Breeman N, Boyer EW, Goodale CL, Jaworski NA, Paustian K, Seitzinger SP,
Lajtha K, Mayer B, Van Dam D, Howarth RW, Nadelhoffer KJ, Eve M, Billen G
2002 Where did all the nitrogen go? Fate of nitrogen inputs to large watersheds in the
northeastern USA Biogeochemistry 57 (1): 267-293
Wassenaar LI 1995 Evaluation of The Origin And Fate Of Nitrate In The Abbotsford
Aquifer Using the Isotopes Of N-15 and 0-18 in NO3. Applied Geochem. 10 (4): 391-
405.
Weggler K, McLaughlin MJ, Graham RD. 2004. Effect of chloride in soil solution on the
plant availability of biosolid-borne cadmium. _J. Environ. Qual. 33 (2): 496-504.
Weggler-Beaton K, Graham RD, McLaughlin MJ 2003. The influence of low rates of air-
dried biosolids on yield and phosphorus and zinc nutrition of wheat (Triticum durum)
and barley (Hordeum vulgare). Austr. J. Soil Res, 41 (2): 293-308.
Welby, C.W. 2000. A study of nitrate movement to ground water at the Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant. UNG WRRI Spec. Report No. 20. 246 pp.
37
:•:'" -.:::.: ::·:::··"::;:··.;·=!•··-··-·;:-·::!ff·;-·· :;r•-• ··: :;: :-··:: _:·. -~!~;· . : . : :::
2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 2016 2017 & Beyond
Watershed Nutrient : : ( :~; . -. -~· ., :: •· 1 • .. -: ;. .. , ... . ;:: -· 0.0262-: : .. :: :· ·• :; : •.•: :: •' ;;
Reduction Goals : : :_::=·;· ··:::;::.. .:.:: . . ,,
0.0263-Nutrient Mgmt. Com pl ete T raining or Imple ment Ce rti fied Pla n
Likely• Tra ining Dates• . .. .. .. . ..
0 .0264-Agriculture Implementation, I Imp lemen tation as Neede d Additi ona l lmplementati(;)n per I Maintain Redu ctions ln ifi al Accounting EM C if Needed
... ..
0.0265-s tormwater, New Develo p I * Subm it Implement Local Prog rams Develo pment Mode l Pro Qra ms
LGs Conduct Feasibility Stud y I EMC I I LGs Implement Load-Reducing Activities Toward Lon g-Term
0.0266-Stormwater, Existing approva Goals
Development ·;:~/--'..~::t: /·= ( ·:· l=· / rr :::\f Local Governments Implement Illicit Discharge ani:I Education Programs t/ ·• .. -. :,. \· '"\i./\J, ... :;:: -.. ~-... >o:-• •• .. ._ ... ·-·-. ,.--·-.~. -..... ~ ..... · ... . .... ,,,
0 .0267 -Riparian B uffer Protection • Submit Prog ram~ ....... -['Rs tGl lmpJeri\!_elilt !l:!.oca l Bu ffer Programs --
0.0268 -/ Miti gation 0--W® h'f1®1:lme.m;ts-; Program f:0-r State 11::n-ti ties ·-.. ... ,, ·•·· .,., . . . .. -f • •""• ••• ~: -t· • . ....... o-• ·• • ... I " ~ • .,_, ■
0.0269-Options (Trading) ., (! Av aila bl e all th e t1 me .z.-, ~ ·~· ....... -·-·-···· ·.•,1 -• ..... ~ ••• ' ..... •.• .• .•.•~· ~ ............. ~ ..... ~,~ .. -.•,•· ......
MeetP 11
~ -..
M &<N " Mai ntal 'n NIP 0.0270-Wastewater Opti mize Nutri ent Reduo'!ion 'I
AJ locatlons Al lb~ ons Al.l oca ti ons ,...,. ---. . ~-...... . . . .. . .. . .,. ... -.. , ...... .. , .. •·· "
Stormwater NCDOT * Su bmit DWQ PEitml ts New Development
0.0271-State/ Proora ms DOT lmpl ements1~d-R educlng AcilviUes T0warq Long T erm Goals
Federal Universities DWQ Perm its New Devel0p ment
Cond uct Feas ibility Study I EMC approval I Un ivers it ies Implement load-Red ucit1 g Aciivilie s to wa rd Exis t, Dvlp. Goars
. ~
0.0272-Buffer Mitigation F~es Available all the time, per-acre rate adjusted annually in January
.,A'•l )•,;_ =<}l:U:"H/ ,,,,,;,,:,;;,>,:, ><,:. /' <. ];' ',;,E'=Hi,//'tr-1
[!)= 5-year fiscal reporting period Assumed I-Effective Date
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting
Project Title: Evaluation and Remediation of Nitrate Flux from Biosolid Application
Fields to Surface Waters in the Neuse River Basin
DWQ Contract Number: FY06 NPS 319 Contract EW07015
Contract Period: 9/25/06-12/25/2007
Project Manager(s): Dr. William Showers
Dept. of MEAS
North Carolina State University
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Campus Box #8208
Raleigh NC 27695-8208
w showers @ncsu.edu [phone]
Reporting Period: Third Quarter 2007
Pro ject Outputs and Deliverables (Third Quarter, Apr.-Jun. 2007):
1. Finish Installation of Stream Monitoring Stations
2. Gage Streams (define stage/discharge relationships)
3. Stream and River N Flux Monitoring continues
4. Execute Quarterly reports
Anticipated% of Requested Funding Spent: 81 .67% (66.67% + 15%)
New Data/Activities/Pro ject Progress (First Quarter, Jan-Mar. 2007):
Please report activities for each deliverable listed above,following the same numbering system.
"No activity" is acceptable if there was no progress made for a given deliverable for the quarter
being reported.
1. Showers and Harris (NCSU) finished the installation of monitoring station at the Weir
Stream site. Smith (USGS) finished the installation of the monitoring stations at
other three sites, USGS data available on StreamFlow Website.
2. Stream gauging starts at the four monitoring sites.
3a. River Net Monitoring of nitrate gains in the Neuse River next to the NR WWTP
continues by Showers and Harris (see results below).
3b. Hydro-Observatory Monitoring continues by Chapman and McSwain (see results
below).
3c. Plant stream monitoring (stage, specific conductivity, and Grab sampling) initiated
August 15, 2006 continues (see results below).
4. Third Quarterly report, March 30, 2007 (this document).
Previous Re ports Listed in Reverse Cbronolog ic Order bv Date of Quarterly Report:
Third Report June 2007 (This Report)
Second Report April 2007
First Report January, 2007
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report June, 2007: Page 1
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting
RESULTS (Second Quarter, Jan. -Mar. 2007):
Project Location: The project is located in the Upper Neuse River Basin at the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The NRWWTP is located on the Neuse River just
north of the Wake County/Johnston County boundary. (SubBasin 03-04-02, HUNC
0302021100030)
Project Objectives: To evaluate the nitrate flux in surface streams and groundwater draining
into the Neuse River from the biosolid application fields at the NRWWTP (operated by the City
of Raleigh Public Utilities Division-CORPUD). These results will be ~ombined with river
monitoring data (RiverNet, htt p://rivemet.ncsu.edu) and groundwater monitoring results (Raleigh
Hydrogeological Observatory) to design and evaluate innovative groundwater remediation
strategies to prevent nitrogen from biosolids migrating into the Neuse River.
Overview of Problem: Municipal biosolid sludge is a product of wastewater treatment.
Biosolids can be burned, placed in a land fill, or land applied to croplands. Land application of
biosolids is a common practice in many countries, and is a cost effective reuse of material
produced at sewage treatment facilities in areas of rapidly growing urban populations. Biosolids
have been land applied at the NRWWTP since 1980 on~ 1030 acres of farmland owned or leased
by The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Division (CORPUD). Original errors in the estimation of
the PAN at the NRWWTP resulted in biosolid over-application on city owned or leased Waste
Application Fields (W AFs, ECS 2002). Biosolid over application occurred primarily during the
early 1980's in the northern fields (ECS 2002), and from the mid l 990's to 2001 at fields in all
areas of the plant (ENSR, 2002). The City of Raleigh paid a fine of $73,937 to NCDENR for
biosolid application permit violations, and ceased spreading biosolids in 2002. Public concern
about groundwater contamination was increased in Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 when 11 private
drinking wells along Mial Plantation Road next to the southeastern portion of the plant were
found to have nitrate levels about the National MCL of 10 mg/I N03 • CORPUD has joined the
National Biosolids Partnership's (NBP) Biosolids Environmental Management System (EMS)
program and applied for a NPDES permit variance to resume biosolid applications at the site.
This application is pending with the Environmental Review Commission (EMC).
Previous Results RiverNet/WRRI Monitoring Projects: The amount ofNPS nitrate entering
the Neuse River was quantified using CORPUD discharge data from the NRWWTP, and
RiverNet station data in the Neuse River above and below the plant (Showers et al., 2005). A
significant amount of nitrate was found to be entering the Neuse River adjacent to the plant, but
the amount of nitrate gains in the reach varied from year to year and did not follow the predicted
natural attenuation model estimates ofENRS (2003) on an annual basis. The amount of nitrogen
entering the Neuse River from the biosolid application fields is significant, approximately 50%
of the nitrogen released from the plant over a four year period. What is not known is how much
nitrogen will be transported off the fields in the future. ENSR (2003) provided CORPUD an
estimate of past and future N export with a SW AT groundwater flow model that assumed a two
layer rock model, recharge dominated by precipitation, no nitrate present in recharge and
predicted that the nitrogen migration would peak in 2005 at 65,260 Kg in 2005.
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report June, 2007: Page 2
North Carolina's Section 319 NPS Program
Quarterly Progress Reporting
Importance of this 319 Program
Managing surface water quality will be crucial in the future as population growth increases
sewage discharges into surface waters. Surface waters will become more important sources of
drinking water as groundwater resources are over-committed or contaminated. The
groundwater/surface water nitrogen transport from biosolid waste application fields to the Neuse
River described by these results is a new sour~e of nitrogen to our watersheds that has not been
previously described. The implications of this work are that the amount of nitrogen released to
the environment by these sewage treatment point sources has been seriously underestimated.
Accurately measuring this new groundwater N flux is the first step in designed remediation
systems to protect river water quality. At the NRWWTP, if the mechanism for contaminated
groundwater transport is surface streams draining across the riparian buffer into the river, then
wetlands can be constructed to eliminate most if not all the biosolid nitrogen and protect Neuse
River water quality. Land application ofbiosolids produced from waste water treatment in areas
of rapidly growing urban populations is a cost effective reuse of nitrogen and phosphorus, as
well as an effective disposal method of the sediment and sludge produced during the treatment
process. Land application ofbiosolids may increase significantly in the future as treatment plants
expand and other disposal practices such as landfills, incineration, and ocean dumping become
too expensive or are banned. The accumulation and export of nutrients from biosolid waste
application fields must be considered for sustainable biosolid management. The results from this
project are the first important steps in the design and implementation of sustainable biosolid
management programs at the NRWWTP.
References
ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Inc. 2002. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report. 62 pp.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Inc . 2003. Supplemental Site Assessment Report. 108 pp.
Showers, WJ, Usry, B, Fountain , M , Fountain, JC, McDade, T, DeMaster, D. 2005 Nitrate Flux from Ground to
Surface Waters Adjacent to the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant. Univ. of North Carolina WRRI, Report
No 365a, 38 pp.
NCSU/USGS 319 Quarterly Progress Report June, 2007: Page 8
~: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] -A report from Dr. Sho ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] -A report from Dr. Showers forwarded for you
review and for the DWQ-APS internal meeting]
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:22:47 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks David!
David Hance wrote:
Nora,
FYI ......................... The report you sent me this morning has gone to Ted
Bush at the DWQ-APS Central Office and to Jay Zimmerman at the DWQ-APS Raleigh
Regional Office. Rick Bolich is the technical staff that worked on both the
variance and has assisted persons, including the USGS, with groundwater resource
evaluation work around the CORPUD-NRWWTP.
david hance
x. 587
Subject:
[Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] - A report from Dr. Showers forwarded for you
review and for the DWQ-APS internal meeting
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:15:30 -0400
To:
"Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]
To:
"Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
Jay [e-mail]
CC:
Jeff Manning <j eff.manning @ncmail.net>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
*FYI to the DWQ -APS staff:*
Nora Deamer just sent me this preliminary report from Dr. Showers of his work
related to Nitrates & the Neuse River near the City of Raleigh wastewater
treatment facility.
I thought you might want to have it prior to the internal DWQ-APS on matters
related to the CORPUD, non-discharge facilities, groundwater -surface water
issues, nitrates and permitting.
david hance
733-5083 x. 587
Subject:
Bill Showers WRRI report
From:
Nora Deamer <Nora .Deamer@ncmail .net>
Date:
Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:43:34 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
7/10/2007 10:22 AM
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] - A report from Dr. Sho ...
2 of2
To:
david [e-mail]
CC:
Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Rich Gannon <[e-mail]>,
Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
This is the WRRI report that Dr. Bill Showers refers to in his 319 quarterly
reports. I don't know if you want to forward this on to others or not. It is
some of his preliminary work using the RiverNet Stations .
Thanks
Nora
7/10/2007 10:22
Re: Bill Showers WRRI report (reply)
Subject: Re: Bill Showers WRRI report (reply)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:05 :56 -0400
To: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Nora,
I will forward this on to Jay Zimmerman, Rick Bolich, and Ted Bush in the DWQ-APS.
They will be meeting as a staff on issues discussed in previous emails prior to
having meeting with the DWQ-Planning Section.
David Hance
7333-5083 x. 587
**********************************************************************************
Nora Deamer wrote:
Hi David,
This is the WRRI report that Dr. Bill Showers refers to in his 319 quarterly
reports. I don't know if you want to forward this on to others or not. It is
some of his preliminary work using the RiverNet Stations.
Thanks
Nora
7/10/2007 10:22 AM
~wd: Bill ·Showers WRR1 report] -A report from Dr. Showers forwa ...
Subject: [Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] -A report from Dr. Showers forwarded for you review and for the DWQ-APS internal meeting
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:15:30-0400
To: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
FYI to the DWO -APS staff:
Nora Deamer just sent me this preliminary report from Dr. Showers of his work related to Nitrates & the Neuse River near the City of
Raleigh wastewater treatment facility. ·
I thought you might want to have it prior to the internal DWQ-APS on matters related to the CORPUD, non-discharge facilities,
groundwater -surface water issues, nitrates and permitting.
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
Subject: Bill Showers WRRI report
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:43:34 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Rich Gannon <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
This is t he WRRI report that Dr. Bill Showers refers to in his 319 quarterly reports. I don't know if you want to
forward this on to-others or not. It is some of his preliminary work using the RiverNet Stat i ons.
Thanks
Nora
S
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Bill bowers WRRI report
Content-Encoding: 7bit
I
. . . . Content-Type: application/pdf: Showers et al., 2005 Land Apphcabon of B1osohds at the NRWWTP WRRI Report 351A.pdf '·
-Content-Encoding: base64
7/10/2007 10:21 AM
1wd: [Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] -A report from Dr. Showers ...
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] -A report from Dr. Showers forwarded for you review and for the DWQ-APS internal meeting]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10Jul200710:21:21-0400
To: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Nora,
FYI ......................... The report you sent me this morning has gone to Ted Bush at the DWQ-APS Central Office and to Ja.y Zinunerman at the
DWQ-APS Raleigh Regional Office. Rick Solich is the technical staff that worked on both the variance and has assisted persons, including the USGS.
with groundwater resource evaluation work around the C0RPOD -NRWWTP.
david hance
x. 587
Subject: [Fwd: Bill Showers WRRI report] - A report from Dr. Showers forwarded for you review and for the DWQ-APS internal meeting
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:15:30-0400
To: ''Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
FYI to the DWO -APS staff:
Nora Deamer just sent me this preliminary report from Dr. Showers of his work related to Nitrates & the Neuse ,River near the City of Raleigh wastewater treabnent facility.
I thought you might want to have it prior to the internal DWQ-APS on matters related to the CORPUD, non-discharge facilities, groundwater -surface water issues, nitrates
and permitting. ·
davidhance
733-5083 x. 587
Subject: Bill Showers WRRI report
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:43 :34 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Rich Gannon <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clruk
<[e-mail]>
Hi David,
This is the WRRI ~eport that Dr . Bill Showers refers to in his 319 quarterly reports. I don• t know if you want to forward this on to others or
not. It is some of his preliminary work using the RiverNet Stations. 1 Thanks
Nora
. ;, Content-Type: message/rfc822
(Fwd: Bill s·howers WRRI report] -A report from Dr. Showers forwarded foryou review and for the DWQ-APS internal meeting
Content-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: rnessage/rfc822
Bill Showers WRRI report
Content-Encoding: 7bit
r== Content-Type: application/pdf
1Showers et al., 2005 Land Application or Biosolids at the NRWWTP WRRI Report 351A.pdf1 · C . b e6 4 -ontent-Encodmg: as
7/10/2007 10:21 AM
,rwarded email: DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) staff Conta ...
2
Subject: Forwarded email: DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) staff Contacted about CORPUD variance and Basinwide Unit Staff concerns about Nitrate
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13 :13:16-0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, CARL BAREY
<[e-mail]>, Rich Gannon <[e-mail]>
CC: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
FYI to DWQ-Planning Section staff:
Since some discussions have been occurriog among us related to Nora Deamer's email from last week about this subject, I decided to forwani what I sent to the DWQ
Aquifer Protection Section staff to you all. Jay Zimmerman and Rick Bolich in the DWQ APS-Raleigh Regional Office that have worked on this variance request received
this. The Section Chief, Ted Bush got a copy as well .
David Hance
Env. Spec.
733-5083 x. 587
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request] • response requested from the DWQ • Aquifer Protection Section
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:59:56 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Hi Jay and Rick,
I am forwarding this email from Ms. Nora Deamer at the DWQ-Planning Section I Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). These comment from the Division's Planning Section
staff relates to the proposed variance request from the City of Raleigh at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NR WWTP). You will recall that this variance
proposes to allow the use of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) to address nitrate levels that are in exceedence of the 2L Groundwater Quality Standard southwest of the site and
outside of the compliance boundary for the facility. This proposed variance would require ''plume containment" and long term groundwater and surface water monitoring.
In her email, Nora discusses the work done by Dr. William Showers at NCSU under a 319 Project grant. I am sending this to you Jay because it discusses the proposed
variance request that the Raleigh Regional Office and DWQ Planning staff have been working on for some time. I am also sending this to Rick Bolich since he is the DWQ
staff that conducted technical hydrogeological review of this variance, has conducted a significant amount of work with the site, and has assisted with some hydrogeologic
research efforts by the USGS and others.
I Attached to this email are two Section 319 Non Point Source (NPS) Quarterly Progress Reports from Dr. Showers for March 2007 and for June 2007, respectively. The email
notes that Dr. Showers had been examining sources of Nitrate entering the Neuse River system. Bill Showers work in the PDF reports states that the City of Raleigh
CORPUD has greath underestimated the.contribution of Nitrates from these fields to the river system In the Information submitted to support the variance
request. ms conclusions came from field measurements he has conducted around the facilih', pursuant to the attached reports.
The DWQ_Planning Section B'PU has expressed concerns that if a variance is approved and land application is re-introduced into those fields, it would have result
in degradation of the river downstream. There is already significant degradation and impairments of Nutrient Sensitive Waters as discussed in the email.
These PDF files and Nora's emails raise several questions concernin g the site as follows:
I. Is the Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section staff aware of Dr. Showers work and have you had any recent conversations with him and are aware of these
concerns?
2. As I recall nitrate was migrating from certain land application fields located at the southwest portion of the site. If a variance is granted, would it allow the CORPUD
NRWWTP to land apply residuals to those fields once again? (T_his was something the Planning Section Chief, Alan Clark, asked me).
3. Does the DWQ-RRO -Aquifer Protection Section (APS) believe that this infonnation should be sent to the consultant/City of Raleigh to get a response or further
discussion on the variance request?
4. Does the r~gional office.staff believe that we need to kve a meeting with persons in the DWQ-Plpning S_ection that represent the Non-Point :Program, Basinwide,
DWQ-APS and others concerning the CORPUD variance request?
5. Does the DWQ-RRO. APS think that a meeting needs to be held with Dr. Showers and DWQ staff/ (Note that if a meeting is deemed necessary, I think the contact with
Dr. Showers should come directly from the DWQ Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section).
Please note that Nora Deamer's email also brin gs u p polig• matters with res pect to management ofland application sites and consideration of non-point im pacts to surface
streams. It is (or these reasons that I have cop ied Ted Bush on this email in the event broader discussion is needed b1• sta ff
Please let me know your response to this email, the attachments and what you intend to do. If you need further information from me, please call 733-5083 x. 587.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
7/9/2007 1: 13 PM
,rwarded email: DWQ-Aquife r Protection Section (APS) staffConta ...
2 of2
Subject: N euse Ri ver WWIP I CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deam er <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13 :0 6:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <Darlene [e-mail]>, Je ff Manning <j eff.manni [e-mail]>, Rich Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance reguesl:.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you
aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Or. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a
variance to start land applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don•t know or understand all of the issues surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that
you and the other reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was presented was very concerning to me. The
amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of this fac i lity via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their discharge pipe per
year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land
application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He
also gave an example of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river and based on data that he
has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River .
As I •m sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. I •m currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired
for Chl a exceedances. This impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to include a large section below the
Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch
is getting worst. The trends that are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being delivered to the
estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and non-point agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these
coming from this facility need to be address and eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone
the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will become an issue as DWQ has to rethink. how to move
forward with possible new management strategies in the near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive
amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary .
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen t o their yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this
should be done in any case. They are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were
over applied initially and they should no longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitr ogen that would be
applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way ta the Neuse River as well as result in an increase risk to the
drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to
deeper aquifers. At some point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit down
and discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very important that you speak wi th Dr . Showers about his results as well .
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have added some information from this 319 project and the
request for the variance into the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible. Also please let me know when the public
hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Bas in Planner
919 -733-5083 , ext. 374
nor a. deamer•~ncmail . ne l
[Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request] -response requested fromtheDWQ -Aquifer Protection Section.em!
I Content-Type: message/rfc822
[Neuse Ri ver WWTP / CORPUD variance request
1 Content-Encoding: 7bit
I Content-Type: a pplication/pdf
I
QReport-Jan-Mar 2007-EW07015-2.pdf
Content-Encoding: bas e64
Content-Type: application/pdf
QReport-Apr June 2007-EW07015-t.pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
· Content-Type: message/rfc82 2
Content-Encoding: 7bit
7/9/2 007 1:13 I
1wd : Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request] -responser ...
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request] -response requested from the DWQ -
Aquifer Protection Section
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12 :59:56 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Hi Jay and Rick,
I am forwarding this email from Ms. Nora Deamer at the DWQ-Planning Section/ Basinwide Planning
Unit (BPU). These comment from the Division's Planning Section staff relates to the proposed variance
request from the City of Raleigh at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). You will
recall that this variance proposes to allow the use of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) to address nitrate levels
that are in exceedence of the 2L Groundwater Quality Standard southwest of the site and outside of the
compliance boundary for the facility. This proposed variance would require "plume containment" and
long term groundwater and surface water monitoring.
In her email, Nora discusses the work done by Dr. William Showers at NCSU under a 319 Project grant.
I am sending this to you Jay because it discusses the proposed variance request that the Raleigh Regional
Office and DWQ Planning staff have been working on for some time. I am also sending this to Rick
Bolich since he is the DWQ staff that conducted technical hydrogeological review of this variance, has
conducted a significant amount of work with the site, and has assisted with some hydrogeologic research
efforts by the USGS and others.
Attached to this email are two Section 319 Non Point Source (NPS) Quarterly Progress Reports from Dr.
Showers for March 2007 and for June 2007, respectively. The email notes that Dr. Showers had been
examining sources of Nitrate entering the Neuse River system. Bill Showers work in the PDF reports
states that the City of Raleigh CORPUD has greatlv underestimated the contribution of Nitrates
from these fields to the river system in the information submitted to support the variance request.
His conclusions came from field measurements he has conducted around the facilitv, pursuant to
the attached reports.
The DWQ_Planning Section BPU bas expressed concerns that if a variance is approved and land
application is re-introduced into those fields, it would have result in degradation of the river
downstream. There is already significant degradation and impairments of Nutrient Sensitive
Waters as discussed in the email.
These PDF files and Nora's emails raise several questions concerning the site as follows:
1. Is the Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section staff aware of Dr. Showers work and
have you had any recent conversations with him and are aware of these concerns?
2. As I recall nitrate was migrating from certain land application fields located at the southwest portion
of the site. If a variance is granted, would it allow the CORPUD NR WWTP to land apply residuals to
those fields once again? (This was something the Planning Section Chief, Alan Clark, asked me).
3. Does the DWQ-RRO -Aquifer Protection Section (APS) believe that this information should be sent
7/9/2007 1:14 PM
vd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request] -responser ...
2 of4
·to the consultant/City of Raleigh to get a response or further discussion on the variance request?
4. Does the regional office staff believe that we need to have a meeting with persons in the
DWQ-Planning Section that represent the Non-Point Program, Basinwide, DWQ-APS and others
concerning the CORPUD variance request?
5. Does the DWQ-RRO -APS think that a meeting needs to be held with Dr. Showers and DWQ staff?
(Note that if a meeting is deemed necessary, I think the contact with Dr. Showers should come directly
from the D WQ Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section) .
Please note that Nora Deamer's email also bring s up p olicy matters with respect to manag ement of/and
a pp lication sites and consideration o f non-point im pacts to surfa ce streams. It is for these reasons that I
have co pied Ted Bush on this email in the event broader discussion is needed b y sta ff
Please let me know your response to this email, the attachments and what you intend to do. If you need
further information from me, please call 733-5083 x. 587.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
Subject: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <Rich. [e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD
variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of
this project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land
applying sludge once again.
7/9/2007 I : 14
[Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request] -responser ...
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of
this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years
before these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land
application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only
continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example
of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged
to the river and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating
the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River .
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still
experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances. This
impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to
include a large section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also
a new impairment for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the
stretch is getting worst. The trends that are being done by DWQ also indicates that
we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being delivered to the estuary as
required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and non-point
agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need
to be address and eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other
sites similar to this all alone the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that
have not been addressed previously and will become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how
to move forward with possible new management strategies in the near future to address
the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive amounts of
nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to
their yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any
case. They are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the
river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they should no
longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of
nitrogen that would be applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen
making its way to the Neuse River as well as result in an increase risk to the
drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist but I would hate to think
of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At some
point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can
find. I would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this further with you. I
think that it is very important that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as
well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I
have added some information from this 319 project and the request for the variance
into the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible. Also
please let me know when the public hearings will be held .
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
t·-··---... . -· ..... ·--···· .. . ·---····-· .
Con tent-Type: message/rfc822
euse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request C E . ?b.
.. __ _ _ . _ .. . . . . . . . _ o_~!~~!-~codmg: 1t _
2
/I -----J
7/9/2007 1:14 PM
rd: Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
f
>f3
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:26:21 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:09 -0400
To: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer
<[e-mail]>, Evan Kane <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Carl,
It might be a good idea if we all meet to discuss internally as it would help me to
understand the ramifications of this variance and the impacts it may have on the
basin. Would you mind if Rick set this up? I have read Dr. Showers paper and do have
some questions about it. Also, I'd like to point out that Raleigh is not seeking a
variance to allow for the application of residuals, only that the nitrate in the
groundwater be allowed to migrate beyond the Compliance Boundary that we have
established. Also, the application of resiudals in the future has not yet been
decided and will only occur after Raleigh has conducted a more comprehensive
evaluation of nitrates in residence in the soil profile in select fields. The reason
for the existing nitrate impacts wasn't a result of residual application at agronomic
rates, but application of residuals at 2-4 times the agronomic rate for as much as 25
years in some cases. Please let me know if it would help to have a meeting on this. I
also agree with you and Darlene that there are a lot of opportunities for us to
collaborate on some of these important issues.
Jay
Carl Bailey wrote:
Darlene,
I agree that this is an example of where there is a clear connection between APS
and Planning responsibilities and that this type of site could be more common than
we have previously suspected .. I think that your staff and APS staff need to sit
down and talk about designing an evaluation approach that could lead APS to the
development of some targeted monitoring sites that could help quantify nutrient
contributions from other "nondischarge" sites in the Neuse Basin.
Carl
Darlene Kucken wrote:
Ted and Carl,
Nora has done an excellent job of pointing to just one more way in which
Planning and APS folks could team up together to get some unanswered questions
answered. This is not all that different of a question from the ones we have
talked about for the CHO NSW strategy.
I would like to know if either of you have any thoughts on this, or if you have
any feedback on the potential to work this sort of question into a project -as
we discussed for the CHO .
7/9/2007 1 :29 PM
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
2 of3
Thanks .
Subject:
Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From:
Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date:
Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]
CC:
Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<j eff.manning @ncmail.net>, Rich Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD
variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319
project on the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of
this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview
of this project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to
start land applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the
issues surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you
and the other reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The
information that was presented was very concerning to me. The amount of
nitrogen leaving the grounds of this facility via ground water is about half of
what is currently coming out of their discharge pipe per year. According to
Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before these levels will come down to
reasonable levels if no further land application is made. The amount of
nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only continue to increase if land
application is allowed again. He also gave an example of the amount of
nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river
and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the
amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the
Estuary is still experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a
exceedances. This impairment is extending further down the estuary during this
new assessment to· include a large section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott
Beach bend. There is also a new impairment for pH in the estuary indicating.
that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The trends that
are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in
nitrogen being delivered to the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the
reductions achieved by both point and non-point agricultural sources. Sources
of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need to be address and
eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar
to this all alone the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not
been addressed previously and will become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how to
move forward with possible new management strategies in the near future to
address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive
amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen
to their yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in
7/9/2007 1 :29 Pl
. .
Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD vanance request]]
any case. They are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of
nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially
and they should no longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly
utilize the amount of nitrogen that would be applied and will only further
increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River as well as
result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not
a geologist but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated
area to extend to deeper aquifers. At some point in our future we may need as
much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit
down and discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very
important that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on .this
request. I have added some information from this 319 project and the request
for the variance into the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much
as possible. Also please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay.Zimmerman(m ncmail.net>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
1
1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 l~:=--[~d: Neuse Rive~-WWT~ / CORPUD va:iance request] Content-Encoding: 7bit
7/9/2007 1:29 PM
[Fwd: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request] -respons ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request] -response requested from the
DWQ -Aquifer Protection Section
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:25:45 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<Alan. [e-mail]>, Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins
<[e-mail]>
David,
I just sent an email to Carl suggesting a meeting to clear up some concerns. I'll check to see if you were
copied but I know Ted was as Ijsut sent it. The short answers to your questions are as follows, but may
change after our discussion:
1. yes and Rick and I have read it.
2. no, as that is a seperate issue not addressed by this variance request
3. no,
4. yes, see earlier email
5. no, not at this point
I think the real issue is how to quantify nutrients moving into surface waters from groundwater. Dr.
Showers and the City of Raleigh have gone about it in different ways. The method Raleigh chose was
coordinated with with Ted Mew before his passing.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hi Jay and Rick,
I am forwarding this email from Ms. Nora Deamer at the DWQ-Planning Section/ Basinwide
Planning Unit (BPU). These comment from the Division's Planning Section staff relates to the
proposed variance request from the City of Raleigh at its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). You will recall that this variance proposes to allow the use of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
to address nitrate levels that are in exceedence of the 2L Groundwater Quality Standard southwest of
the site and outside of the compliance boundary for the facility. This proposed variance would
require "plume containment" and long term groundwater and surface water monitoring .
......
In her email, Nora discusses the work done by Dr. William Showers at NCSU under a 319 Project
grant. I am sending this to you Jay because it discusses the proposed variance request that the
Raleigh Regional Office and DWQ Planning staff have been working on for some time. I am also
sending this to Rick Bolich since he is the DWQ staff that conducted technical hydrogeological
review of this variance, has conducted a significant amount of work with the site, and has assisted
with some hydrogeologic research efforts by the USGS and others.
Attached to this email are two Section 319 Non Point Source (NPS) Quarterly Progress Reports
from Dr. Showers for March 2007 and for June 2007, respectively. The email notes that Dr.
Showers had been examining sources of Nitrate entering the Neuse River system. Bill Showers
7/9/2007 1:29 PM
[Fwd: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request] -respons ...
f4
work in the PDF reports states that the City of Raleigh CORPUD has greatlv underestimated
the contribution of Nitrates from these fields to the river system in the information submitted
to support the variance requ_est. His conclusions came from field measurements he has
conducted around the facili ty, pursuant to the attached re ports.
The DWQ_Planning Section BPU has expressed concerns that if a variance is approved and
land application is re-introduced into those fields, it would have result in degradation of the
river downstream. There is already significant degradation and impairments of Nutrient
Sensitive Waters as discussed in the email.
These PDF files and Nora's emails raise several questions concerning the site as follows:
1. Is the Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section staff aware of Dr. Showers work and
have you had any recent conversations with him and are aware of these concerns?
2. As I recall nitrate was migrating from certain land application fields located at the southwest
portion of the site. If a variance is granted, would it allow the CORPUD NRWWTP to land apply
residuals to those fields once again? (This was something the Planning Section Chief, Alan Clark,
asked me).
3. Does the DWQ-RRO -Aquifer Protection Section (APS) believe that this information should be
sent to the consultant/City of Raleigh to get a response or further discussion on the variance request?
4. Does the regional office staff believe that we need to have a meeting with persons in the
DWQ-Planning Section that represent the Non-Point Program, Basinwide, DWQ-APS and others
concerning the CORPUD variance request?
5. Does the DWQ-RRO -APS think that a meeting needs to be held with Dr. Showers and DWQ
staff? (Note that if a meeting is deemed necessary, I think the contact with Dr. Showers should come
directly from the D WQ Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section) .
Please note that Nora Deamer's email also bring s up p olicy matters with resp ect to manag ement o f
land app lication sites and consideration of non-p oint im pacts to surface streams. It is (o r these
reasons that I have co pied Ted Bush on this email in the event broader discussion is needed b y staff
Please let me know your response to this email, the attachments and what you intend to do. If you
need further information from me, please call 733-5083.x. 587.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
7/9/2007 1 :29 PM
.e: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request] -respons ...
previously and will become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new
management strategies in the near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River
Estuary due to excessive amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their yearly total
nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They are essentially responsible for
adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and
they should no longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of
nitrogen that would be applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way
to the Neuse River as well as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm
not a geologist but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to
deeper aquifers. At some point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking
purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this further ·with you. I
think that it is very important that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have added
some information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into the plan. I would like
to keep this up to date as much as possible. Also please let me know when the public hearings will
be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083,ext. 374
nora.deamer@ ncmail.net
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G . <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/9/2007 1 :29 PM
euse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request
Subject: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD
variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of
this project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land
applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of
this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years
before these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land
application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only
continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example
of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged
to the river and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating
the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River.
As I'm sure you are aware, the 'Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still
experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances. This
impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to
include a large section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also
a new impairment for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the
stretch is getting worst. The trends that are being done by DWQ also indicates that
we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being delivered to the estuary as
required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and non-point
agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need
to be address and eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other
sites similar to this all alone the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that
have not been addressed previously and will become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how
to move forward with possible'new management strateg~es in the near future to address
the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive amounts of
nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to
their yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any
case. They are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the
river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they should no
longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of
nitrogen that would be applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen
making its way to the Neuse .River as well as result in an increase risk to the .
drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist but I would hate to think
of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At some
point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can
find. I would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this further with you. I
think that it is very important that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as
well.
Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
2 of2
into the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible . Also
please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance .
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
-....... ~ Content-Type: a~plication/pdf I
QReport-Jan-Mar 2007-EW07015-2.pd C d" b 64 ontent-Enco mg: ase '-========-:··=··c._____:··;_· -....... -. . ····················· ············· ............... .
Content-Type: application/pdf
QReport-Apr June 2007-EW07015-1.pdf C . b 64 ontent-Encodmg: ase
===='.=========-: -
7/5/2007 11 :2 3
wd: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request]]
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:29:30 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David, in followup to Nora's email, I was thinking that Raleigh would not be applying any more waste to
this spray field, and would seeking a variance to allow natural attenuation to take place. Please clarify
for me whether Raleigh plans to continue to apply treated residuals at on the site.
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
Date:Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:10:26 -0400
From:jeff manning <[e-mail]>
To:Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD
variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of
this project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land
applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of
this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years
before these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land
application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only
continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example
of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged
to the river and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating
the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still
7/5/2007 11 :23 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
2 of2
experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances . This
impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to
include a large section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also
a new impairment for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the
stretch is getting worst. The trends that are being done by DWQ also indicates that
we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being delivered to the estuary as
required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and non-point
agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need
to be address and eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other
sites similar to this all alone the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that
have not been addressed previously and will become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how
to move forward with possible new management strategies in the near future to address
the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive amounts of
nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to
their yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any
case. They are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the
river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they should no
longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of
nitrogen that would be applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen
making its way to the Neuse River as well as result in an increase risk to the
drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist but I would hate to think
of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At some
point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can
find. I would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this further with you. I
think that it is very important that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as
well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I
have added some information from this 319 project and the request for the variance
into the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible. Also
please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance .
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
nora.dearner@nc rnail.net
:f -! Content-Type: .. message/rfc822
1Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request.emi r 7b.
:1 I Content-Encoding: 1t
I -================= . ======~
•·• ···········-'"······•-··--------······-·-~---··
i Content-Type: application/pdf
QReport-Jan-Mar 2007-EW07015-2.pdfJ d" b 64 !, Content-Enco mg: ase ,,
Content-Type: application/pdf
:QReport-Apr June 2007-EW07015-1.pdf . b ; Content-Encodmg: ase64
7/5/2007 11:23 J,
.e: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request (REsponse)
l
Subject: Re: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request (REsponse)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:24:46 -0400
To: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Hello Nora,
I will contact staff at the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) / Raleigh Regional Office
(RRO) staff and get the attachments your email to them. This will go to Jay Zimmerman, who
is the supervisor of the staff that does groundwater and hydrogeologic reviews. I will also
send this on to Rich Bolich who was the technical staff that conducted the technical review
of this site and assisted the CORPUD in applying for this variance request.
I will ask the DWQ/APS-RRO staff how they wish to proceed on this. I will also copy that
email that I send to Jay and Rick on to Ted Bush.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
********************************************************************************************
Nora Deamer wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance
request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this
project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying
sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of this
facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take SO to 70 years before
these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land application is
made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only continue to increase
if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example of the amount of nitrogen
the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river and based on data
that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of nitrogen truly
making its way to the Neuse River.
As .I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters.
I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major
algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances. This impairment is extending
further down the estuary during this new assessment to include a large section below the
Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment for pH in the
estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The
trends that are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in
nitrogen being delivered to the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions
achieved by both point and non-point agricultural sources. Sources of ~itrogen like
these coming from this facility need to be address and eliminated as much as possible.
I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone the Neuse River. These
are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will become an issue
as DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management strategies in the
near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to
excessive amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their
7/5/2007 11 :23 AM
Re: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request (REsponse)
2of2
yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case . They
are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel
that these fields were over applied initially and they should no longer be use for such
purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that would be applied
and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River
as well as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm
not a geologist but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area to
extend to deeper aquifers. At some point in our future we may need as much groundwater
for drinking purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit down and discuss any of
this further with you. I think that it is very important that you speak with Dr.
Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I
have added some information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into
the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible . Also please let me
know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance .
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919 -733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
7/5/2007 11 :2 3
>ra Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
f3
Subject: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:01:54-0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Alan,
If you look at the memorandum that went to Dr. Rick Langley at the Division of Public Health on June 29th,
you can gather some very useful information from this that will address some of the issues you have raised
here. You recall that we sent the memorandum with some attachments to get their take on the risk assessment
work done for public health purposes.
If you look on the first page -first paragraph -last sentence you will see the following statement:
"The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals while this variance is being pursued".
Tiris text came from Jay Zimmerman and Rick Bolich of the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) /
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) and was given to me as a response to a request for their input into that
memorandum. _I do not have any clear information on what is planned for the land application fields
assuming a variance is granted or what the intent of the CORPUD is on this matter.
Certainly, this variance would rely on natural attenuation processes in the subsurface since the purpose of the
variance is to allow the implementation of a corrective action plan beyond the compliance boundary which is
not allowed under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Note also pages 6 and 7 of this letter that shows the discussion of Alternative# 2 and the table I developed to
explain the significance of this variance request. It does show that the proposed variance would require
groundwater extraction to control additional offsite migration of nitrate downgraident from Field 500. This is
the portion of the property where there is significant gw impacts and migration of nitrate. There would also
be surface and groundwater monitoring with this variance, if granted by the EMC.
The DWQ-APS/RRO has been working with Dr. Showers and would have more knowledge about this work
as well as the variance. My 2 Cents here -----I believe before we go down the road any further, we need a
response from the DWQ-APS RRO with regards to the coricems raised by Dr. Showers.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
****************************************************************************************~
Alan Clark wrote:
David, in followup to Nora's email, I was thinking that Raleigh would not be applying any more waste to
this spray field, and would seeking a variance to allow natural attenuation to take place. Please clarify for
me whether Raleigh plans to continue to apply treated residuals at on the site.
7/5/2007 11 :24 AM
Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
2 of3
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
Date:Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:10:26 -0400
From:jeff manning <[e-mail]>
To:Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: david.hance (wncmail.net
To: david .hance (a>ncmail.net
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <jeff.manning @ncmail.net>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on the Neuse River
WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this project. He also
noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues surrounding this large scale
request but I want to make sure that you and the other reviews are aware of all the available data on this
site. The information that was presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the
grounds of this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their discharge
pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before these levels will come down
to reasonable levels if no further land application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the
Neuse will only continue to increase ifland application is allowed again. He also gave an example of the
amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river and based on data
that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the
Neuse River .
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters . I'm currently in
the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now
indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances.
This impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to include a large
section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment for pH in the
estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The trends that are being
done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being delivered to the
estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and non-point
agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need to be address and
eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone the Neuse
7/5/2007 11:24 A
·ora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will become an issue as
DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management strategies in the near future to
address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive amounts of nitrogen
getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their yearly total nitrogen
allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They are essentially responsible for adding this
quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they should no
longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that would be
applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River as well
as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist but I would hate
to think of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At some point in our
future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit
down and discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very important that you speak with Dr.
Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have added some
information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into the plan. I would like to keep this
up to date as much as possible. Also please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
7/5/2007 11 :24 AM
.e: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
Subject: Re: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:47:55 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff manning <jef£[e-mail]>
Thanks, David. I did re-read the memo that you prepared to Rick Langley and noted that residuals application
was suspended, but I didn't know what CORPUD's plans were going forward. It seemed to me that if they were
no longer land applying residuals, and that natural attenuation would take place, combined with Raleigh
factoring . in the groundwater contributions with their WWTP effluent loadings, that the variance was on solid
ground. I'll follow up with Nora.
Alan
David Hance wrote:
Alan,
If you look at the memorandum that went to Dr. Rick Langley at the Division of Public Health on June 29th,
you can gather some very useful information from this that will address some of the issues you have raised
here. You recall that we sent the memorandum with some attachments to get their take on the risk
assessment work done for public health purposes.
If you look on the first p age -first paragra ph -last sentence you will see the following statement:
"The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals while this variance is being
pursued".
This text came from Jay Zimmerman and Rick Bolich of the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) /
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) and was given to me as a response to a request for their input into that
memorandum. _I do not have any clear information on what is planned for the land application fields
assuming a variance is granted or what the intent of the CORPUD is on this matter.
Certainly, this variance would rely on natural attenuation processes in the subsurface since the purpose of
the variance is to allow the implementation of a corrective action plan beyond the compliance boundary
which is not allowed under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Note also pages 6 and 7 of this letter that shows the discussion of Alternative# 2 and the table I developed
to explain the significance of this variance request. It does show that the proposed variance would require
groundwater extraction to control additional offsite migration of nitrate downgraident from Field 500. This
is the portion of the property where there is significant gw impacts and migration of nitrate. There would
also be surface and groundwater monitoring with this variance, if granted by the EMC.
The DWQ-APS/RRO has been working with Dr. Showers and would have more knowledge about this work
as well as the variance. M y 2 Cents here -----I believe before we go down the road any further, we need a
res ponse from the DWQ -APS RRO with re gards to the concerns raised b y Dr. Showers.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
***************************************************************************************
7/5/2007 11 :24 AM
Re: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
2 of3
Alan Clark wrote :
David, in followup to Nora's email, I was thinking that Raleigh would not be applying any more waste
to this spray field, and would seeking a variance to allow natural attenuation to take place. Please
clarify for me whether Raleigh plans to continue to apply treated residuals at on the site.
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
Date:Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:10:26 -0400
From:jeff manning <jeff.manning@ ncmail.net>
To:Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From:
Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date:
Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: david.hance ~$lcmail.net
To: david.hance(@,ncmail.net
CC: Darlene Kucken <Darlene.Kucken(a)ncmail.net>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <Rich.Gannon @ncmail.net>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on the Neuse River
WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this project. He also
noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues surrounding this large scale
request but I want to make sure that you and the other reviews are aware of all the available data on this
site. The information that was presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving
the grounds of this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before these levels will
come down to reasonable levels if no further land application is made. The amount of nitrogen making
its way to the Neuse will only continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an
example of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river
and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of nitrogen truly
making its way to the Neuse River .
7/5/2007 11 :24
,: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
3
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. I'm currently in
the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands
now indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major algal .blooms and is impaired for Chi a
exceedances. This impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to
include a large section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment
for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The trends
that are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being
delivered to the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and
non-point agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need to be
address and eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone
the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will
become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management strategies
in the near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive
amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their yearly total
nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They are essentially responsible for
adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they
should no longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that
would be applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse
River as well as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist
but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At
some point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can fmd. I
would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very important
that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have added some
information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into the plan. I would like to keep
this up to date as much as possible. Also please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know ifl can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
nora.deamer@ ncmail.net
7/5/2007 11 :24 AM
:i.e: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/07 -Your questions
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:03:17 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, jeff manning <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>
Thanks David as that was very helpfull. Now I understand Dr. Rudo's role a little better in this situation. As
for the permission, my only concern was that the rules require notification of the variance plan, not
permission to carry it out. While I definitely agree permission would be preferable (and I think we have it
from most), it isn't essential. We have approved many a CAP proposing natural attenuation where the
adjacent property owner didn't want a plume unaer their property and unless they cmrld' ,dffltti~1 9QW1J¥l.y
were harmed (harm to property values not relavant to our rules) we went ahead with paln approval, which
the Director signed. So, if the propety owners disagree with the proposed CAP, we would have to discuss
the issue with the hearing officer to ensure a consistent approach.
Can I assume at this point you have the info you need to proceed to the next step? Can you walk me through
it as it has been a while? Does Collen appoint a hearing officer first or does it go the the Groundwater
Committee as an informational item?
Thanks,
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Here are some more comments and thoughts to Jay 's email on May 31st:
*******************************
1. Role of DPH -OEES and Dr. Rudo: As a matter of our process for evaluating variances, any of
these handled by the Division of Water Quality have always given the Division of Public Health an
opportunity to review the variance request, prior to public notice and hearing for many practical
reasons. You will note that the variance requires that the variance applicant demonstrate in his request
that granting a variance " ... will not endanger public health and safety ... " as specified under 15A NCAC
2L .113( c )( 4). This demonstration also includes health and environmental effects from exposures to
groundwater contaminants.
Furthermore, if you will remember the variance request and supporting reports contain water well
data from private wells and a detailed risk assessment of various exposure pathways supplied by the
CORPUD where potential impacts could occur. The utility evaluated exposures from intruders, persons
going into the creek wading, and the groundwater exposure pathway downgraident from the facility.
Rudo does have the background to look at exposure models and monitoring data and water well data to
form an opinion on the risk. From what I remember reading in the variance, this request proposes to
allow the Nitrate to go outside of compliance boundaries and the permitted operations at this treatment
plant will be ongoing and continue for many decades to come.
Note also that this variance needs to proceed to public notice and hearing per requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). It would not be good for DWQ to go to hearing and have the state's main health
7/5/2007 11:25 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
2 of5
protection agency opposing it based on what it may have heard from someone, saw in a new article, or
out of ignorance of the facts. If there is something that we have missed it would be good to have that
involvement from them as we have always had. Having a letter from DPHs expressing support, no
objections or no comments on this matter could help prevent a lot of confusion at hearing. This project
could very well get some level of public attention as you well know.
(Note that I am developing a letter to Rudo per Jeffs instructions that would
provide DPH With only (1) the well data, ((2) risk assessment information; (3) and
other relevant portions of the CORPUD request to assist him. My intent would be to
ask for his response a month after the letter is signed and sent. We could also meet
With him if he has sign.ill.cant questions.)
2. As for 'Permission' of Adjacent Property owners: I think you are correct. I do not know of any
law or policy that requires permission from adjacent land owners to have substances go across
properties. Our variance Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) specifies extensive efforts to provide notice to
adjacent property owners of the hearing .... so .... one would assume that those concerns would be
attended to there by the hearing officer. Of course .. . . I think it would give our Division and the
permittee a great level of comfort if all of the adjacent properties were to agree to the variance or
express that they have no objections prior to hearing.
If you look at ISA NCAC 2L .0106 (q) it specifies that a corrective action plan that permits the
migration of contaminants onto adjacent properties " ... shall not affect any private right of action by
any party which may be effected by that contamination". By looking at this, the rule implies that
migration of substances across property lines would be assumed as a part of a corrective action plan
{especially one that CORPUD would follow through on (i.e. KLM) after the variance is granted}.
At this point, I think it comes down to (a) how the downgraident property owners will react to the
variance request for applying the KLM rule to a permitted facility; and (b) how they would react to a
variance that is currently or could potentially allow for migration of Nitrate into groundwater above the
GW Standard beneath their property; and ( c) the value the EMC places on property owner permission &
public reaction (if any) in the variance request when it comes to them for review.
At many of our hearings we had on permitted facilities and incidents -no adjacent property owners
attend even when we go all out to get notice to them. Something else I just thought about ---In a
practical sense ... Nitrate is a nutrient and even if a person uses groundwater for non-drinking purposes
as a source of irrigation supply or for a car washing would nitrate above the standard would a well
owner using his well or installing a well for that purpose see this as a problem? Hmm!
3. Deed Recordation, Deed Restrictions, and Land Use Restrictions & DWM variances: These
thoughts come to you as a result ofmy last emails that I sent on that subject. As you know, at DWM
sites they have significant laws regarding deed recordation, deed restrictions, specifying certain notices
be given, and land use restrictions when adjacent properties are involved CAPS under the UST
Program, Hazardous Waste and Other Programs.
Back in February 2007 when they met with Carl and myself they expressed their intent is to
apply these laws to variance requests for incident sites, as applicable!
After these discussions, I did some searches of the NC General Statutes for laws of this kind as they
apply to non-discharge permits and have found nothing related to these facilities.
The two big questions that could come up at hearing or be brought up by the hearing officer for the
CORPUD variance and these are:
a. Why does the DWM require deed recordation & deed restrictions and other things and DWQ does
not?; and
7/5/2007 11 :25
le: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
b. How would a new downgraident property owner or land owner know that a variance had ever
been granted to CORPUD if there is no legal trail in a deed? How would they know where to look?
These matters under# 2 and # 3 sound kind oflegal to me. Do you want to bring this up to Ted Bush
prior to hearing?
********************************
Sorry, I may be muddying the waters with all of this. There has not been a variance granted for a facility
of this type for this kind of activity and it is important to make sure the right policy is set up front since
we may get more if these if one is approved by the Commission.
In the mean time, I will continue to search the NC Statutes and Bills for the stuff under Numbers# 2
and 3 above. I co pied Ted Bush on this since he might find this interesting.
David Hance
DWQ Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
7/5/2007 11 :25 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
4of5
Thanks David and this helps us focus our comments. Attached are comments from us regarding
your most recent line of questions. I hope this addresses any remainig concerns and thanks for
helping us polish this up and get it ready for the next phase.
On a different note, I still do not understand Dr. Rudo's role as he is not really in a position or, in my
opinion qualified, to assess risk related to contaminant movement in the groundwater. The potential
for exposure to nitrates is related to use of the groundwater and it's role in recharging the surface
waters. All wells impacted by the nitrates, with I believe one exception, have been connected to
city water and the wells permanently abandoned. I believe there is one well owner that has refused
to allow connection to city water (I also recall their well was not impacted above the nitrate
standard, but could be wrong). In addition, wells not at risk and for which there was no data to
suggest they were impacted by the Cities activities , were connected to City water to further
alleviate residents concerns. I agree the groundwater pathway is an important, if not the most
important, driver, however, Dr. Rudo would not be the appropriate person to evaluate this issue -we
would. Maybe I am misunderstanding his role though.
Also, while we have received letters from adjacent property owners concerning the variance, I could
not fing a regulatory reference for their permission as a required component of the variance. In
looking at the rule it would seem to me that even if they disagreed, permission would not be
necessary. Can you help clarify these latter two issues so I am prepared to discuss if needed?
Thanks
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I have gone over the original set of questions that I sent you and Rick on April 27, 2007.
I have pared down these to three "bare bones" questions that I think need to be answered before
we give Dr. Ken Rudo a look at the risk assessment work for this. There are three total.
Question # 1 is big in that I have not found a map in variance materials that corresponds to the
listing of private well owners in the variance request.
Dr. Ken Rudo will be looking at a variance request in light of the risk assessment they
conducted, potential exposures of nitrate, and impacts on drinking water wells as a result of
placing a variance for the facility and its spray fields. The risk assessment in the variance
materials from CORPUD indicate that the groundwater pathway is important and is a driver
behind needing a variance. Groundwater Standards in the groundwater resource could be
exceeded for some time under a variance of this type even though natural remediation would
ultimately degrade nitrate concentrations.
My questions are attached in the word document you see here. Hthese are resolved I
think this can go forward.
As for my previous submittal to you and Rick from April 27, 2007 ....... the discussion about
Deed Recordation in Question# 8 was to let you know of that development at DWM and the
meeting we had with the staff. Note that the Division of Waste Management will be requiring
7/5/2007 11 :25
te: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
this on its variances since there has been significant legislation related to sites. Your last email
answered that question and you indicated that the subject has not been brought up.
Question # 9 from that document was a comment on what a variance is for-the permit and the
pennitted activity and not the land. It would not be like a reclassification of the groundwater
resource.
The other questions were to clarify maps, diagrams and information to help me understand the
materials. These questions may need to be answered to help out the hearing officer when this
goes to hearing. Prior to April 27, 2007, I had not asked any of these questions to the RRO staff
or anyone else.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay [e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/5/2007 11 :25 AM
R.e: [Fwd: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Reques ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit
WQ000l 730) ----see attachment]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11 :36: 11 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
David,
Rick forwarded the attached to me for review and we have looked over your comments. Given the
length of time that has elapsed since we originally sent it to you, and the significance of this variance,
could you streamline your comments to reflect only those necessary for us to proceed with the request. I
believe I have spoken to you before and I recall you indicated some of the comments were for your own
information, however, in the interest of time I would ask that the questions to which you seek answers be
limited to those necessary for the variance request to proceed. I'd be happy to discuss any other
questions at another time. Of note is the question #8, concerning notice of a variance. The variance, if
granted, only allows Raleigh to forgo active treatment as a mechanism of restoring groundwater. They
are not asking for a variance from a numeric standard, which I see would require a deed recordation.
The goal of this CAP is to restore the groundwater to the standard for Nitrate through passive means, the
progress of which is to be monitored. There is nothing in the rule that I am aware of that requires deed
recordation. Pursuant to the rules, the people whose property is affected by the variance and those
adjacent to it are to be notified of the public hearing per 2L .0113(e)(l)(E), correct? If Raleigh was to
be required to obtain permission to record the variance on the deeds of each affected property it would
be impossible to obtain the variance in my opinion. Also, I am a little confused by some of the other
questions as I thought we had answered them previously. Am I right? Please advise us of the questions
you think are necessary for you to proceedc tot he next step and let me or Rick know if any questions.
Thanks,
Jay
Subject:
Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit WQ000l 730) ----
see attachment
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:41 :31 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <rick.bolich(cvncmail.net>
Hello Rick and Jay,
I have been over the paperwork for the proposed City of Raleigh Variance
7/5/2007 11 :26 AM
Re: [Fwd: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Reques ...
2 of2
for Permit# WQ000l 730 (CORPUD).
See the attached document in word. If we need to speak or meet about
this -let me know.
In mean time I will "fit in" getting parts of the letter to Dr. Ken Rudo
at DPH completed. We have DPH review the risk assessment work on
variances before we go to hearings. The answers to many of the
questions I have in the attachment will help me finish off that letter.
It will help me communicate effectively with him and with staff her.
David Hance
Env Spec.
DWQ Planning
733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay.Zimmerman@ ncmail.net>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/5/2007 11 :2(
[Fwd: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request]
f4
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:20:30 -0400
To: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>, Darlene Kucken
<[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>, Evan Kane
<[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN <JA Y.Z™[e-mail]>, jeff manning
<[e-mail]>, David hance <[e-mail]>
Ted, I think all ofus getting together at a later date, after you've had a chance to meet, is a good idea for
this variance and for other APS/Planning matters. This situation points to potential opportunities for all
ofus to work together to manage water in its various forms and positions in the landscape.
I did note that Jeff was not included on most of these emails. I'm assuming this was mostly because I
signed off on the variance request to DPH and because some of the discussion goes beyond this specific
variance. However, he and David have the lead on handling CORPUD's variance request, so please
make sure he is included in future emails and discussions on the topic so that he can make the right
decisions on how the variance process is conducted.
Thanks, Alan
Ted L. Bush, Jr. wrote:
Rick,
I concur with Carl, Darlene, and Nora's perspectives on this issue and would like to see APS &
Planning continue to communicate on assessing the impacts of this facility and similar ones that
may be out there. This is an area where we could benefit greatly from your continued involvement.
There are obvious ties with your past and present positions, and you bring a wealth of site
knowledge that could help the Division develop a much better understanding of ground water and
surface water interactions.
Please work with Evan Kane over the next couple weeks to arrange a meeting between you, Evan,
Carl, and me to discuss plans for moving forward. I would like you and Evan to work together in
coordinating our efforts with those of the Planning Section. After we meet internally to discuss
future direction, we should be in a better position to chat with Darlene and her folks about some of
the specifics.
Give me a call if you have questions.
Thanks,
Ted
Carl Bailey wrote:
7/9/2007 4 :44 PM
Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
2 of4
Darlene,
I agree that this is an example of where there is a clear connection between APS and Planning
responsibilities and that this type of site could be more common than we have previously
suspected .. I think that your staff and APS staff need to sit down and talk about designing an
evaluation approach that could lead APS to the development of some targeted monitoring sites
that could help quantify nutrient contributions from other "nondischarge" sites in the Neuse
Basin.
Carl
Darlene Kucken wrote:
Ted and Carl,
Nora has done an excellent job of pointing to just one more way in which Planning and
APS folks could team up together to get some unanswered questions answered. This is not
all that different of a question from the ones we have talked about for the CHO NSW
strategy.
I would like to know if either of you have any thoughts on this, or if you have any feedback
on the potential to work this sort of question into a project -as we discussed for the CHO.
Thanks.
Subject:
Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From:
Nora Deamer <Nora.Deamer@,n cmail.net>
Date:
Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
To :
[e-mail]
CC:
Darlene Kucken <Darlene.Kucken@ ncmail.net>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Rich Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD
variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on the
7/9/2007 4:44 Pl
[Fwd: Neuse River WW1P / CORPUD variance request]
if4
Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this
. project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying sludge
once agam.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues surrounding this
large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other reviews are aware of all
the available data on this site. The information that was presented was very concerning to
me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds ofthis facility via ground water is about
half of what is currently coming out of their discharge pipe per year. According to Bill
Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before these levels will come down to reasonable levels
if no further land application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse
will only continue to increase ifland application is allowed again. He also gave an
example of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged
to the river and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the
amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River .
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. I'm
currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major algal blooms
and is impaired for Chl a exceedances. This impairment is extending further down the
estuary during this new assessment to include a large section below the Cherry Point
/Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment for pH in the estuary indicating
that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The trends that are being done
by DWQ also indicates.that we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being delivered to
the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and
non-point agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility
need to be address and eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites
similar to this all alone the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been
addressed previously and will become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how to move
forward with possible new management strategies in the near future to address the
continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive amounts of nitrogen
getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their yearly
total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They are essentially
responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were
over applied initially and they sh9uld no longer be use for such purposes since they can't
possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that would be applied and will only further increase
the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River as well as result in an increase
risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist but I would hate~to think
of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At some point in
our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I
would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very
important that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have
added some information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into the
plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible; Also please let me know
7/9/2007 4:44 PM
Re: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
4of4
when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know ifl can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
7/9/2007 4:44 Pl
e : Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request (REsponse)
'2
Subject: Re: Neuse River WWTP I CORPVD variance request (REsponse)
From: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:18:52-0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks David. I also sent a brief note to Ted and Carl on this issue because it goes along
well with another issue we have talked about for the CHO basin .
David Hance wrote:
Hello Nora,
I will contact staff at the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) / Raleigh Regional
Office (RRO) staff and get the attachments your email to them. This will go to Jay
Zimmerman, who is the supervisor of the staff that does groundwater and hydrogeologic
reviews. I will also send this on to Rich Bolich who was the technical staff that
conducted the technical review of this site and assisted the CORPUD in applying for this
variance request.
I will ask the DWQ/APS-RRO staff how they wish to proceed on this. I will also copy that
email that I send to Jay and Rick on to Ted Bush. David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
*******************************************************************************************
Nora Deamer wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance
request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this
project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying
sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of
this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before
these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land application is
made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only continue to
increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example of the amount
of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river and
based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of
nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River .
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still
experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances. This impairment
is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to include a large
section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment
for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting
worst. The trends that are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the
decreases in nitrogen being delivered to the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite
the reductions achieved by both point and non-point agricultural sources. Sources of
nitrogen like these coming from this facility need to be address and eliminated as much
as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone the Neuse
River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will
become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management
strategies in the near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River
Estuary due to excessive amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
7/6/2007 10 :28 AM
Re: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request (REsponse)
2 of2
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their
yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They
are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel
that these fields were over applied initially and they should no longer be use for such
purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that would be applied
and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River
as well as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm
not a geologist but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area
to extend to deeper aquifers. At some point in our future we may need as much
groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit down and
discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very important that you speak
with Dr. Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I
have added some information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into
the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible. Also please let
me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
7/6/2007 10:28
Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
f3
Subject: Re: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:47:55 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Thanks, David. I did re-read the memo that you prepared to Rick Langley and noted that residuals application
was suspended, but I didn't know what CORPUD's plans were going forward. It seemed to me that if they were
no longer land applying residuals, and that natural attenuation would take place, combined with Raleigh
factoring in the groundwater contributions with their WWTP effluent loadings, that the variance was on solid
ground. I'll follow up with Nora.
Alan
David Hance wrote:
Alan,
If you look at the memorandum that went to Dr. Rick Langley at the Division of Public Health on June 29th,.
you can gather some very useful information from this that will address some of the issues you have raised
here. You recall that we sent the memorandum with some attachments to get their take on the risk
assessment work done for public health purposes.
If you look on the first page -first paragra ph -last sentence you will see the followin g statement:
"The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals while this variance is bebtg
pursued".
This text came from Jay Zimmerman and Rick Bolich of the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) /
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) and was given to me as a response to a request for their input into that
memorandum. _I do not have any clear information on what is planned for the land application fields
assuming a variance is granted or what the intent of the CORPUD is on this matter.
Certainly, this variance would rely on natural attenuation processes in the subsurface since the purpose of
the variance is to allow the implementation of a corrective action plan beyond the compliance boundary
which is not allowed under 15A NCAC 2L .0 l 06(k).
Note also pages 6 and 7 of this letter that shows the discussion of Alternative# 2 and the table I developed
to explain the significance of this variance request. It does show that the proposed variance would require
groundwater extraction to control additional offsite migration of nitrate downgraident from Field 500. This
is the portion of the property where there is significant gw impacts and migration of nitrate. There would
also be surface and groundwater monitoring with this variance, if granted by the EMC.
The DWQ -APS/RRO has been working with Dr. Showers and would have more knowledge about this work
as well as the variance. M y 2 Cents here-----I believe before we g o down the road an y further, we need a
resp onse from the DWQ-APS RRO with regards to the concerns raised b y Dr. Showers.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
*************************************************************************************** I
7/3/2007 5 :01 PM
Re: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
2 of3
Alan Clark wrote:
David, in followup to Nora's email, I was thinking that Raleigh would not be applying any more waste
to this spray field, and would seeking a variance to allow natural attenuation to take place. Please
clarify for me whether Raleigh plans to continue to apply treated residuals at on the site.
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
Date:Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:10:26 -0400
From:jeff manning <jeff.manning(ci),ncmail.net>
To:Alan Clark <alan.clark@n crnail.net>
Subject:
Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From:
Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date:
Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <Darlene.Kucken(aJncmail.net>, Jeff Manning <jeff.manning(a),ncmail.net>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on the Neuse River
WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this project. He also
noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues surrounding this large scale
request but I want to make sure that you and the other reviews are aware of all the available data on this
site. The information that was presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving
the grounds of this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before these levels will
come down to reasonable levels if no further land application is made. The amount of nitrogen making
its way to the Neuse will only continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an
example of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river
and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of nitrogen truly
making its way to the Neuse River .
7/3/2007 5:01 P
Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
f3
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. I'm currently in
the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands
now indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a
exceedances. This impairment is extending :further down the estuary during this new assessment to
include a large section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment
for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The trends
that are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being
delivered to the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both poin,t and
non-point agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need to be
address and eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone
the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will
become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management strategies
in the near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive
amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their yearly total
nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They are essentially responsible for
adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they
should no longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that
would be applied and will only :further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse
River as well as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist
but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At
some point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I
would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this :further with you. I think that it is very important
that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have added some
information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into the plan. I would like to keep
this up to date as much as possible. Also please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know ifl can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
nora.deamer@n cmail.net
7/3/2007 5 :01 PM
Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
f3
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. I'm currently in
the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands
now indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a
exceedances. This impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to
include a large section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment
for pH in the estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The trends
that are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being
delivered to the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and
non-pofot agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need to be
address and eliminated as m:uch as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone
the Neuse River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will ·
become an issue as DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management strategies
in the near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive
amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their yearly total
nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They are essentially responsible for
adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they
should no longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that
would be applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse
River as well as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist
but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At
some point in our future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I
would be happy to sit down and discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very important
that you speak with Dr. Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have added some
information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into the plan. I would like to keep
this up to date as much as possible. Also please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
7/3/2007 5:01 PM
,ra Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
f3
Subject: Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:01:54-0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Alan,
If you look at the memorandum that went to Dr. Rick Langley at the Division of Public Health on June 29th,
you can gather some very useful information from this that will address some of the issues you have raised
here. You recall that we sent the memorandum with some attachments to get their take on the risk assessment
work done for public health purposes.
If you look on the first page -first paragraph -last sentence you will see the following statement:
"The Division has currently suspended the application of residuals while 'this variance is being pursued".
This text came from Jay Zimmerman and Rick Bolich of the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) /
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) and was given to me as a response to a request for their input into that
memorandum. _I do not have any clear information on what is planned for the land application fields
assuming a variance is granted or what the intent of the CORPUD is on this matter.
Certainly, this variance would rely on natural attenuation processes in the subsurface since the purpose of the
variance is to allow the implementation of a corrective action plan beyond the compliance boundary which is
not allowed under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k).
Note also pages 6 and 7 of this letter that shows the discussion of Alternative# 2 and the table I developed to
explain the significance of this variance request. It does show that the proposed variance would require
groundwater extraction to control additional off site migration of nitrate downgraident from Field 500. This is
the portion of the property where there is significant gw impacts and migration of nitrate. There would also
be surface and groundwater monitoring with this variance, if granted by the EMC.
The DWQ-APS/RRO has been working with Dr. Showers and would have more knowledge about this work
as well as the variance. My 2 Cents here -----I believe before we go down the road any further, we need a
response from the DWQ-APS RRO with regards to the concerns raised by Dr. Showers.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
****************************************************************************************~
Alan Clark wrote:
David, in followup to Nora's email, I was thinking that Raleigh would not be applying any more waste to
this spray field, and would seeking a variance to allow natural attenuation to take place. Please clarify for
me whether Raleigh plans to continue to apply treated residuals at on the site.
7/3/2007 3:02 PM
Nora Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
2 of3
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
Date:Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:10:26 -0400
From:jeff manning <jeff.mannin g@ ncmail.net>
To:Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deamer <Nora.Deamer@J ncmail.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: david.hance @ncmail.net
To: david.hance @ncmail.net
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on the Neuse River
WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this project. He also
noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues surrounding this large scale
request but I want to make sure that you and the other reviews are aware of all the available data on this
site. The information that was presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the
grounds of this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their discharge
pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before these levels will come down
to reasonable levels if no further land application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the
Neuse will only continue to increase ifland application is allowed again. He also gave an example of the
amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river and based on data
that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the
Neuse River.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. I'm currently in
the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now
indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances.
This impairment is extending further down the estuary during this new assessment to include a large
section below the Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment for pH in the
estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The trends that are being
done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in nitrogen being delivered to the
estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions achieved by both point and non-point
agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like these coming from this facility need to be address and
eliminated as much as possible. I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone the Neuse
7/3/2007 3:02 P
,ra Deamer's concerns and the CORPUD Variance request
f3
River. These are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will become an issue as
DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management strategies in the near future to
address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to excessive amounts of nitrogen
getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their yearly total nitrogen
allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They are essentially responsible for adding this
quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel that these fields were over applied initially and they should no
longer be use for such purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that would be
applied and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River as well
as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm not a geologist but I would hate
to think of the potential for this contaminated area to extend to deeper aquifers. At some point in our
future we may need as much groundwater for drinking purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit
down and discuss any of this further with you. I think that it is very important that you speak with Dr.
Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I have added some
information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into the plan. I would like to keep this
up to date as much as possible. Also please let me know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
nora.deamer/aJncmail.net
7/3/2007 3:02 PM
Neuse River WWTP / CORPlJD variance request (REsponse)
Subject: Re: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request (REsponse)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:24:46 -0400
To: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Hello Nora,
I will contact staff at the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) / Raleigh Regional Office
(RRO) staff and get the attachments your email to them. This will go to Jay Zimmerman, who
is the supervisor of the staff that does groundwater and hydrogeologic reviews. I will also
send this on to Rich Bolich who was the technical staff that conducted the technical review
of this site and assisted the CORPUD in applying for this variance request.
I will ask the DWQ/APS-RRO staff how they wish to proceed on this. I will also copy that
email that I send to Jay and Rick on to Ted Bush.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
********************************************************************************************
Nora Deamer wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance
request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of this
project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land applying
sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of this
facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years before
these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land application is
made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only continue to increase
if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example of the amount of nitrogen
the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged to the river and based on data
that he has collected, it is severely underestimating the amount of nitrogen truly
making its way to the Neuse River.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters.
I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still experiencing major
algal blooms and is impaired for Chl a exceedances. This impairment is extending
further down the estuary during this new assessment to include a large section below the
Cherry Point /Minnesott Beach bend. There is also a new impairment for pH in the
estuary indicating that the chlorophyll problem in the stretch is getting worst. The
trends that are being done by DWQ also indicates that we are not seeing the decreases in
nitrogen being delivered to the estuary as required by the TMDL, despite the reductions
achieved by both point and non-point agricultural sources. Sources of nitrogen like
these coming from this facility need to be address and eliminated as much as possible.
I'm afraid that there are other sites similar to this all alone the Neuse River. These
are sources of nitrogen that have not been addressed previously and will become an issue
as DWQ has to rethink how to move forward with possible new management strategies in the
near future to address the continued impairment of the Neuse River Estuary due to
excessive amounts of nitrogen getting to the estuary.
I understand that the facility will add the model estimated amount of nitrogen to their
7/3/2007 2:25 PM
: Neuse River WWTP I CORPUD variance request (REsponse)
f2
yearly total nitrogen allocation. I think that this should be done in any case. They
are essentially responsible for adding this quantity of nitrogen to the river. I feel
that these fields were over applied initially and they should no longer be use for such
purposes since they can't possibly utilize the amount of nitrogen that would be applied
and will only further increase the amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River
as well as result in an increase risk to the drinking water aquifers in the area. I'm
not a geologist but I would hate to think of the potential for this contaminated area to
extend to deeper aquifers. At some point in our future we may need as much groundwater
for drinking purposes as we can find. I would be happy to sit down and discuss any of
this further with you. I think that it is very important that you speak with Dr.
Showers about his results as well.
I would appreciate being kept informed as you make your decision on this request. I
have added some information from this 319 project and the request for the variance into
the plan. I would like to keep this up to date as much as possible. Also please let me
know when the public hearings will be held.
Thanks again for you time and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Nora
Nora Deamer
DENR-DWQ
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
Neuse River Basin Planner
919-733-5083, ext. 374
[e-mail]
7/3/2007 2:25 PM
vd: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
f2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13 :29:30 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David, in followup to Nora's email, I was thinking that Raleigh would not be applying any more waste to
this spray field, and would seeking a variance to allow natural attenuation to take place. Please clarify
for me whether Raleigh plans to continue to apply treated residuals at on the site.
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
Date:Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13: 10:26 -0400
From:jeff manning <jef£[e-mail]>
To:Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kuck en <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD
variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of
this project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land
applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of
this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years
before these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land
application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only
continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example
of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged
to the river and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating
the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still
7/3/2007 3:15 PM
David Hance Page 1 7/3/2007
PLAN FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE VARIANCE TO THE CORRECTIVE
ACTION RESTRICTIONS IN 2L
Results of June 26th DWQ Staff Meetin g and Decisions Made about the CORPUD
hearin g and polic y for Variances:
1. Memoranda to DPH on Variances: This correspondence should be
addressed to the new Boss of the DPH-OEES -Mr. Rick Langley. Rudo
can be copied;
2. Process for goin g to the EMC Groundwater Committee and
Commission: We should not waive the 30-day Rule since according to
Jeff Manning; this is not technically a rule. We will try to schedule things
out in advance so the staff is not put in the place of begging for something
from the EMC GWC. According to Jeff, since this is not a rule we can
schedule this item at both the EMC GWC and the EMC the next day
without a waiver-if this is needed. Alan wants to push this as fast as
possible. Jeff wants us to follow the same procedure for DWM variances
that are going before the EMC GWC in July '07 -which is to honor the
30-Day rule. Depending on the hearing, it may dictate our schedule with
when we go ( comments, responses etc).
3. Hearin g Officers: Any Supervisor from the DWQ_APS outside the host
region can be a Hearing Officer. For permits at NPDES sites like at the
CORPUD, this is better than having NPDES staff serve due to conflicts of
interests.
4. Presentation of the CORPUD Variance Re quest to the EMC GWC:
The plan thus far calls for getting this on the EMC GWC agenda for
September 2007 as an Informational item and then bring it to the EMC
GWC as an action item in November 2007. We could either bring it as an
Action item to the Full EMC in November '07 or January '08 but it looks
like we are leaning toward November 2007.
Supervisors Plan for bringing the CORPUD Variance to completion
rd: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
,f2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]]
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:29:30 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David, in followup to Nora's email, I was thinking that Raleigh would not be applying any more waste to
this spray field, and would seeking a variance to allow natural attenuation to take place. Please clarify
for me whether Raleigh plans to continue to apply treated residuals at on the site.
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject:[Fwd: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request]
Date:Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:10:26 -0400
From:jeff manning <[e-mail]>
To:Alan Clark <alan.clark @ncmail.net>
Subject: Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD variance request
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:06:27 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Rich
Gannon <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about the Neuse River WWTP / CORPUD
variance request.
Attached are the last two quarterly reports from the NCSU/Bill Showers 319 project on
the Neuse River WWTP spray fields. I wanted to make you aware of this information.
We did a 319 site visit last week and Dr. Bill Showers gave us a brief overview of
this project. He also noted that the facility is seeking a variance to start land
applying sludge once again.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know or understand all of the issues
surrounding this large scale request but I want to make sure that you and the other
reviews are aware of all the available data on this site. The information that was
presented was very concerning to me. The amount of nitrogen leaving the grounds of
this facility via ground water is about half of what is currently coming out of their
discharge pipe per year. According to Bill Showers, it will take 50 to 70 years
before these levels will come down to reasonable levels if no further land
application is made. The amount of nitrogen making its way to the Neuse will only
continue to increase if land application is allowed again. He also gave an example
of the amount of nitrogen the facilities predicted model estimated to be discharged
to the river and based on data that he has collected, it is severely underestimating
the amount of nitrogen truly making its way to the Neuse River.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Neuse River is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. I'm currently in the process of writing up the new Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. The data as is stands now indicates that the Estuary is still
7/3/2007 3:15 PM
:: Permits Variance : FYI -City of Raleigh -CORPUD variance requ ...
)f 1
Subject: Re: Permits Variance: FYI-City of Raleigh -CORPUD variance request risk assessment has
been sent to the Division.of Public Health
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:26:45 -0400
To: "DA [e-mail]" <DA [e-mail]>
gracias
Jay
DAVID [e-mail] t wrote:
I dropped off a copy at the RRO this past Friday in the afternoon around 4 PM.
Front desk -main floor. It should be in your inbox by now .
dh
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/3/2007 9 :59 A M
:: Permits Variance: FYI -City of Raleigh -CORPUD variance requ ...
Subject: Re: Permits Variance: FYI -City of Raleigh -CORPUD variance request risk assessment has
been sent to the Division of Public Health
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:43:32 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks David. When did our copy go out?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hi Jay and Rick,
Here is an FYI email about the variance request for the CORPUD.
We here at the DWQ Planning Section have completed the memorandum for the Division
of Public Health (DPH). This is document that asks them to conduct a review of the
risk assessment information that the City of Raleigh and ENSR International
provided to us to support the variance request. (You will remember this
discussion of this document from our email traffic as the "Ken Rudo Memo").
Per a Division of Water Quality Staff meeting on June 26th, the Planning Section
staff and Ted Bush agreed that it would be best to address this memorandum in a
more formal way to Dr. Rick Langley at the Division of Public Health. As we
understand it, he is soon to be the acting interim supervisor over Ken Rudo and
Luanne Williams, until a replacement is made. Bill Pate is retiring from the state
in July.
Note that memorandum plus relevant portions the variance request were submitted to
the DPH. Included in this package were various tables, monitoring data, private
well sampling and analysis information, maps with a discussion of the variance
risk for this variance. Note also that Dr. Rudo got a copy of the memorandum with
a note about it from me. In addition, the DWQ staff also go a "cc" copy of the
memorandum that was delivered. Jay, Rick Bolich, Ted Bush, Jeff Manning, and Debra
Watts have received copies.
In the memorandum, we have requested review and comment from the DPH on this
proposed variance request "on or before" Friday, July 27, 2007. If there is a
need for a meeting, the memorandum the DPH received makes me, David Hance, the
initial contact person for that.
I will keep you up on the status and progress of this.
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
7/3/2007 10:00 AM
mits Variance: FYI -City of Raleigh -CORPUD variance request r ...
fl
Subject: Permits Variance: FYI-City of Raleigh-CORPUD variance request risk assessment has been
sent to the Division of Public Health
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:14:23 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>
CC: Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
Hi Jay and Rick,
Here is an FYI email about the variance request for the CORPUD .
We here at the DWQ Planning Section have completed the memorandum for the Division of
Public Health (DPH). This is document that asks them to conduct a review of the risk
assessment information that the City of Raleigh and ENSR International provided to us
to support the variance request. {You will remember this discussion of this document
from our email traffic as the "Ken Rudo Memo").
Per a Division of Water Quality Staff meeting on June 26th, the Planning Section
staff and Ted Bush agreed that it would be best to address this memorandum in a more
formal way to Dr. Rick Langley at the Division of Public Health. As we understand it,
he is soon to be the acting interim supervisor over Ken Rudo and Luanne Williams,
until a replacement is made. Bill Pate is retiring from the state in July.
Note that memorandum plus relevant portions the variance request were submitted to
the DPH. Included in this package were various tables, monitoring data, private well
sampling and analysis information, maps with a discussion of the variance risk for
this variance. Note also that Dr. Rudo got a copy of the memorandum with a note about
it from me. In addition, the DWQ staff also go a "cc" copy of the memorandum that was
delivered. Jay, Rick Bolich, Ted Bush, Jeff Manning, and Debra Watts have received
copies.
In the memorandum, we have r-equested review and comment from the DPH on this proposed
variance request "on or before" Friday, July 27, 2007. If there is a need for a
meeting, the memorandum the DPH received makes me, David Hance, the initial contact
person for that.
I will keep you up on the status and progress of this .
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
6/29/2007 5:14 PM
.treatment land disposal operations at its NRWWTP where discharges of groundwater impacted by
nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is
not going to be used for a water supply. In areas near the facility, where the future use of the
groundwater will be for a potable supply, the CORPUD has implemented an active treatment system
designed to more rapidly remove the nitrate from the groundwater. Residents in this area have been
connected to municipal water by CORPUD in the interim.
The CORPUD 1:>elieves that groundwaters down.gradient from the facility are exceeding the current
standard but can be attenuated and restored by passive natural processes in the subsurface. If granted by
the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of corrective
action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
down.gradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106G). The proposed variance request will not change the required
standard for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It
must be noted that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this
variance request and no other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
Su pporting Materials:
The supporting information for this variance request is contained in two reports titled as follows:
• "Corrective Action Variance Application, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, December 1, 2005" and will be referred to in this letter as the
"December I, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" and is also referred to as the
variance request; ·
• "City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, Revised
Corrective Action Plan, ENSR International, December 2005" and will be referred to in this
letter as "December 2005 Revised Corrective·Action Plan" or "RCAP."
Reasons that a Variance Will not Endang er Public Health and Safety :
The Division of Water Quality requests that the Division of Public Health evaluate the attached
information to support the risk assessment for this proposed variance. Relevant portions of the reports
discussed above are included with this request. In order to meet the requirements in 15A NCAC 2L
.0113, the utility submitted the following supporting information to demonstrate that the variance will
not endanger public health and safety for the following reasons:
1. The permitted operations at this facility (Permit Number WQ000I 730) have been conducted
since 1976 and the CORPUD will be overseeing permitted land application operations and
the conditions related to this variance request until the facility is no longer in use, which is
not likely occur for decades to come. The current estimated life of the CORPUD Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant is 30 years.
2. The utility has fully delineated which properties are included in this variance request. The
thirty-five parcels of land included within this request are listed in Table # 6 of the
2
''December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" with parcel sizes and land uses
discussed. These properties are shown in Figure # 2 of the variance request.
3. The CORPUD has determined the direction and rate of groundwater flow that would be
affected by granting a variance. Page 1-4 and Page 1-5 of the "December 2005 Revised
Corrective Action Plan" shows that groundwater is generally moving in the direction of the
Neuse River and its tributaries around the site. Page 4 of the request states that the movement
of groundwater through soils and subsurface materials as the site is approximately a rate of
"1.3 square feet per day", which is a relatively low rate of movement for this hydrogeologic
setting.
4. The CORPUD investigated groundwater analytical results from monitoring wells on-site and
these are discussed on Page # 4 and Page # 6 of the variance request. Monitoring well data
for nitrate is shown in Table# 3 for Test Wells (TW) from March 2003 to July 2005. Results
from Monitoring Wells (MW) are found in Table # 4 for nitrate from late 2002 through the
spring of 2004. These tables demonstrate that wells around Fields 50 and 500 consistently
have concentrations of nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per
liter. It is these land application fields that the CORPUD believes have caused significant
impacts to downgradient properties outside of compliance boundaries. Analysis of
groundwater samples from various fields shows exceedences of the Groundwater Quality
Standard for nitrate at sixteen fields (Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 100,
201, 500 and 503 which are located near the compliance boundary. Four onsite monitoring
wells and a former water supply well (PW-22) have exceedences of the nitrate standard. The
utility believes that off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater associated with biosolids in the
vicinity of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road does not extend east of Shotwell
Road and Mial Plantation Road. (See Table # 3 and Table # 4 of the December I, 2005
Corrective Action Variance Application and Figure 3 from the December 2005 Revised
Corrective Action Plan).
5. Table # 1 of the titled "December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows
private well sampling around this facility. The utility has investigated the off-site impacts to
area drinking water wells to meet the criteria of 15A-NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4). There are no
downgradient water wells that are known to be in use for drinking water supply at this time.
All of these properties are now on the City of Raleigh's public water supply system. Starting
in 2002, the CORPUD conducted sampling of private water supply wells located adjacent to
the facility. Of the thirty-six water supply wells initially sampled, seven showed
concentrations of nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per liter
in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. As a result of the initial sampling effort and to evaluate water use
in light of proposing a variance, the utility expanded its monitoring to forty-five properties
and sampled wells on a quarterly basis. There are thirty-nine properties that were served by
thirty-eight water supply wells, of which thirty-seven have been permanently abandoned in
accordance with the state's rules and all of these properties have been connected to the City
of Raleigh Public Water Supply System. The owner of the one property where the well has
not been abandoned is on city water but refused the offer to have the well abandoned.
Analytical data from the monitoring wells located across Beddingfield Creek indicates that
3
migration of nitrate-impacted groundwater under the stream is not likely occurring. (See
Page 5 and Page 6 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application for a
more detailed discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
6. The utility has conducted further analysis of nitrate concentrations from this site to support
its findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the "December
1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows that the utility has conducted a risk
analysis of the impacts of nitrate to neighboring properties. A discussion of this risk
assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and continues onto Page # 9 of the
request. The CORPUD examined various pathways of exposure using the most sensitive
human receptors to determine the most conservative risk pathway. The exposure pathways
analyzed included a young child exposed to nitrate from water used in a swimming pool, a
child and a teenager wading in surface water near the facility, and the use of groundwater
containing nitrate as a source of irrigation supply. Data analysis of these pathways did not
indicate an unacceptable risk of exposure to the nitrates from the facility. The only pathway
for which risk analysis showed a possible impact was consumption of groundwater.
However, there are no property owners in the vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant that are using groundwater as a source of drinking water where
nitrate exceeds or is predicted to exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 (103). It must be noted that the city will continue to monitor nitrate levels as required
by permit for as long as nitrate concentrations in groundwater are above the 10 milligrams
per liter standard to ensure protection of public health and the environment.
7. The CORPUD has submitted information demonstrating that land application of residuals .
from the wastewater treatment process on existing fields that are in use will continue to be an
effective means of addressing these permitted activities. Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the
request discusses land application of nitrate and soils at this facility. The utility has
conducted analytical soil sampling to determine the soil profile for nitrate at the time this
variance was requested. The utility took samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west)
and Field 500 (southeast) and found that nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet
and 8 feet below the ground surface. The implication of this is that nitrates from the
permitted operations are accumulating through mechanisms such as infiltration via slow
water movement through the soil and anion exchange. fu addition, Page 7 notes that the site
assessment work by ENSR futernational considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in
2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to support this variance request. The study
concluded that the nitrogen applied to these field was "adequate to excessive" for crop
production and will support plant life.
8. Table # 5 of the variance request provides surface water analytical results from November
2002 through September 2005. These locations are mapped out on Figure 1 in this variance.
The direction of groundwater flow through this portion of the facility is toward a tributary of
the Neuse River identified in the variance request as Beddingfield Creek. This water body is
classified as Class C NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water). There is no nitrate surface water
standard for this class of surface water. This body of water empties into the Neuse River,
which is classified as Water Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) and the surface water
4
standard for Water Supply V NSW is 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrate levels in nearby surface
water suggests that groundwater discharges to streams and tributaries of the Neuse River,
however, Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River did not exceed the ISA NCAC 2B Surface
Water Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. A discussion of surface water sampling and the
implications of results found are located on Page # 6, Page # 8 and Page # 9 of the variance
request.
9. The CORPUD has also investigated the potential for euthrophication of the Neuse River as a
result of granting the variance request. Under certain ambient conditions, additional nitrate in
a surface water body may result in the occurrence of algal blooms that can deteriorate water
quality. Based on the data contained in the variance request, CORPUD has agreed that as a
condition for approval of the variance it will account for this potential impact. The utility has
indicated that it will accept a specification in its wastewater discharge permit to account for
the excess amount of nitrogen estimated to enter the Neuse River from groundwater
discharge. Where the Groundwater Quality Standard in ISA NCAC 2L .0202 is exceeded for
nitrate, the CORPUD will be required to count toward its annually-reported amount of
discharged nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by its NRWWTP, but also the
amount of nitrate associated with the groundwater discharge to the Neuse and its tributaries
once the variance is granted. The annual amount of nitrate that computer modeling predicts
will be discharged to the Neuse River via groundwater as a result of violations of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate, will be used as the basis for this determination
subject to actual field measurements and groundwater monitoring. The goal of this effort will
be that CORPUDs wastewater treatment and disposal operations never contribute more
nitrogen to the Neuse River than what is currently allocated under its NPDES discharge
permit. The potential for euthrophication is discussed on Page# 12 and Page# 13 of the
variance request.
10. The utility has provided a listing of property owners, well owners, and former well owners
affected by this variance request as required under lSA NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9). Figure # 2
lists the properties and ownership of them around the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP). Exhibit# 3 of the request also shows which parcels of land are in Wake
County, Johnson County and those that are owned by the State of North Carolina.
Variance Alternatives:
In proposing this variance request, the CORPUD has proposed two alternatives to addressing nitrate
migration outside of its existing compliance boundary and these are as follows:
Alternative # 1 -Corrective Action Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L: Groundwater Extraction and
Enhanced Denitrification along the Compliance Boundary with Discharge to the Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant:
This alternative would involve the construction of 426 extraction wells installed along portions of
the compliance boundary where the Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate has been exceeded or is
anticipated to be exceeded. Enhanced denitrification involves the injection (pressure or gravity feed) of
5
biodegradable carbon electron donor, such as com syrup or sodium lactate via injection wells to create
in-situ anaerobic zones to denitrify nitrate enriched plumes of groundwater beyond the compliance
boundary. The goal of using this method would be to stimulate the growth of microbes that would use
the nitrate as groundwater passes through these zones from the land application fields.
Alternative # 2 -A Variance Under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 that will Result in Groundwater
Containment in Fields 50 and 500, Discharge to North Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plant or
land application and Long-Term Monitoring of Other Areas:
Based on the best available information, nitrate exceedences have occurred beyond the compliance
boundary for this facility near Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is directed at controlling additional
offsite migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of a limited number of groundwater
extraction wells. If this alternative is applied short-term extraction of groundwater combined with
natural remedial processes or attenuation and degradation in the subsurface will control and break down
nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring will be conducted over the remaining areas of the site where
exceedences of the nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard have occurred at or beyond the compliance
boundary under permit.
Comparing the Effects of Alternative # 1 and Alternative # 2 the Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP):
The following table was developed from the information submitted by the CORPUD in variance
request and shows a comparison of the effect of using either Alternative # 1 or Alternative # 2 for as
follows:
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE# 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Number of New Wells 426 pumping wells around the 22 new groundwater extraction
Constructed entire facility wells installed downgradient from
(Including the construction Field 500
of 195 new injection wells
under
15A NCAC 2C .0200)
Additional Groundwater 128 wells 39 wells
Monitoring (20 monitoring wells, 20 (10 monitoring wells and 29
(Sampling conducted three times injection wells, and 88 extraction wells)
per year for the life of the recovery wells)
project)
6
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE# 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
(Continued) Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Surface Water Sampling 10 locations 2 locations
(Sampling conducted three times
per year for the life of the
project)
Potential Reduction of stream High None
base flow into the Neuse River
Estimated Costs $ 79 Million Dollars $ 9 Million Dollars
(Over the estimated 30 year life
of the facility)
If a variance is not granted, the utility will be required to address nitrate levels outside compliance
boundaries at this site by using Alternative # 1 in the table, which CORPUD believes is the Best
Available Technology (BAT) per 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). If Alternative # 1 is applied to its Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant, the bulk of this cost would be in the form of capital costs over a
period of the first three years of the project and represents "·:·· approximately 30 to 90 percent of its
total capital budget in the next few years. "
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(6) and (7), the applicant has submitted information in this
variance request to support the finding that the cost of applying BAT to this site is a "serious financial
hardship" on CORPUD without an equal or greater public benefit. The permittee does not believe that
any public benefit can be gained through the implementation of a Corrective Action Plan relying on
active remedial technology to cleanup groundwaters outside of permitted boundaries for a majority of
the site. A variance would allow concentration of nitrate to remain at levels near the 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 and allow the processes of natural degradation and attenuation to act upon residual concentrations
at this site. For a more detailed discussion of the economics of both alternatives, of the implementation
of corrective action Alternative # 1, and a variance under Alternative # 2 with application of 15A NCAC
2L .0106(k), see Page 9 through Page 14 of the "December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance
Application."
Request Review and Comment by Julv 27, 2007:
Please review the attached report and provide David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section with a
recommendation regarding the risk assessment of this variance request. Mr. Hance may be contacted at
733-5083 (ext. 587) and he is in the Archdale Building Room 625. If you would like to meet with
Aquifer Protection Section staff to further discuss the variance request, particularly regarding technical
aspects of the variance, please contact Mr. Hance to arrange such a meeting.
If possible, the Planning Section would like to receive your recommended response by Friday, July
27, 2007. If you need my assistance please call me at extension 570. Per the requirements of ISA
NCAC 2L .0113, variance requests must receive final action by the Environmental Management
7
Commission. Upon receiving your recommendation, this information will be incorporated into the
variance request packet and be forwarded to the Director of.the Division of Water Quality for review
pursuant to title 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d). If the Director deems the information to support this variance
request complete, DWQ will proceed to public notice and hearing under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(e) of the
rule.
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Jeff Manning
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor)
Rick Bolich
David Hance
Dr.Ken Rudo
8
Corrective Action Variance Application
City of Raleigh
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plan
Raleigh, North Carolina
December 1, 2005
't_·,
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ I
2.0 Site Background and History ............................................................................................ 2
2.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Site Physiography, Geology and Hydrogeology .................................................. 3
2.2.1. Regional Physiography .............................................................................. 3
2.2.2. Site Geology ................................................................................................ 3
2.2.3. Hydrogeology .............................................................................................. 4
3.0 Information Supporting Variance Request ..................................................................... 4
3.1 Resolution ............................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Description of Past/Existing/Proposed Sources of Groundwater
Contamination ........................................................................................................ 4
3.2.1. Water Supply Wells ................................................................................... 5
3.2.2. Soil Sampling Results ................................................................................ 6
3.2.3. Groundwater Analytical Results .............................................................. 6
3.2.4. Surface Water Results ............................................................................... 6
3.2.5. Soil PAN Evaluation ........................................... · ....................................... 7
3.3. Description of the Proposed Variance Area ........................................................ 7
3.4. Public Health and Environmental Exposure ....................................................... 7
3.4.1. Groundwater .............................................................................................. 7
3.4.2. Surface Water ............................................................................................. 8
3.5. Economics of Available Technology ..................................................................... 9
3.5.1. Alternative 1: Groundwater Extraction and Enhanced
Denitrification along the Compliance Boundary and Discharge
to NRWWTP .............................................................................................. 9
3.5.2. Alternative 2: Groundwater Containment in Fields 50 and
500, Discharge to NRWWTP or Land Application, and Long-
Term Monitoring in Other Areas .......................................................... .11
3.6. Financial Hardship and Lack of Public Benefit.. ............................................. .12
3.7. Information Regarding Adjacent Property Owners ........................................ 13
4.0 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 13
5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service Status
Table 2: Soil Analytical Results
Table 3: Groundwater Analytical Results-City Test Wells
Table 4: Groundwater Analytical Results-CSA-SSA Monitoring Wells
Table 5: Surface Water Analytical Results
Table 6: Description of Proposed Variance Areas
Table 7: Projected Debited Total Nitrogen Allocation
Table 8: Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit I : Nitrate Analytical Results
Exhibit 2: Human Health Risk Assessment -ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
Exhibit 3: Ownership Information for Variance Parcels and Parcels Adjacent to Variance
Parcels
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Nitrate Analytical Results
Figure 2: Proposed Remediation Plan and Variance Areas
Figure 3: Private Wells within 0.5 miles of Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant Spray Irrigation Areas
1.0 Introduction
This variance application has been prepared on behalf of the City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD) to support CORPUD's request for approval of its Revised Corrective
Action Plan (CAP) to address nitrate contamination in groundwater at the biosolids application
fields serving the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) in southeastern Wake
County.
In preparing the CAP, CORPUD evaluated various remedial alternatives to address nitrate
contamination at the site. CORPUD's evaluations focused on two alternatives. The first
alternative is one that fully complies with the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC)
rules and includes both hydraulically containing nitrate-impacted groundwater within the
compliance boundary and performing enhanced denitrification of groundwater beyond the
compliance boundary in areas where nitrate concentrations were predicted to exceed 10
milligrams per liter (mg/L). CORPUD determined that the capital and operation and
maintenance costs of this alternative over a thirty-year period would be nearly $80 million
dollars-: .. Because of the economic infeasibility of the remedy, CORPUD explored alternative
remedies that would provide ample protection to human health and environment in an
economically reasonable manner.
As a result of this evaluation, CORPUD developed a second alternative remedy -its preferred
alternative -that provides for hydraulic containment of groundwater in the area with the highest
density of existing residences immediately downgradient of the land application fields together
with long-term groundwater monitoring and natural attenuation of nitrate levels for the
remainder of the site. This remedy would fully comply with the EMC's rules for corrective
action in 15A NCAC 02L .0106(k) if CORPUD were a non-permitted facility. Since CORPUD
is a permitted facility, this remedial alternative requires CORPUD to receive a variance from the
EMC's rules. Specifically, CORPUD requests a variance from 15A NCAC .0106(k) that limits
the applicability of that rule to non-permitted facilities.
CORPUD believes that its preferred alternative is fully protective of public health and the
environment, provided that nitrogen loading to the Neuse River via groundwater is addressed as
discussed in detail below. CORPUD does not believe the first alternative is economically
reasonable, particularly considering the minimal benefit gained from the substantial additional
expenditure. For these reasons, COR.PUD believes that a variance from the rules of 15A NCAC
Subchapter 02L is appropriate and has prepared this document to support its request.
In addition to the information required by ISA NCAC 02L .0113(c), this document provides
background and historical information for the NRWWTP site in Section 2.0. Section 3.0
provides the following information that is required for the variance request:
(1) A resolution of by the City of Raleigh requesting the variance .
(2) A description of the past, existing or proposed activities or operations that have or
would result in a discharge of contaminants to groundwater.
(3) A description of the proposed area for which a variance is requested, including a
detailed location map, showing the orientation of the facility, potential for
groundwater contaminant migration, as well as the area covered by the variance
request, with reference to at least two geographic references.
(4) Supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger the public
health and safety, including health and environmental effects from exposure to
groundwater contaminants.
(5) Supporting information to establish that requirements of Subchapter 02L cannot
be achieved by providing the best available technology economically reasonable,
including the specific technology considered, 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.
(8) A list of the names and addresses of any property owners within the proposed area
of the variance as well as any property owners adjacent to the site covered by the
variance.
A summary of this variance application and conclusions is presented in Section 4.0, and
references are located in the final section.
2.0 Site Background and History
2.1. Site Description
The NRWWTP consists of approximately 1,466 acres of mostly contiguous farmland owned or
leased by CORPUD and divided into numbered fields. Properties surrounding the Site consist of
residential properties, farmland, and state-owned forestland. The northern and eastern Site
boundaries border a 3.6-mile section of the Neuse River. Beddingfield Creek bounds the Site to
the south. Topographically, the Site ranges in elevation from an approximate high of 270 feet
above mean sea level (ft msl) in upland areas to an approximate low of 140 ft msl at the Neuse
River (ENSR, 2002). A layout of the facility, associated biosolids application fields and the
current compliance boundary are depicted on Figure 1.
The Neuse River is classified as a Class C NSW (nutrient sensitive water) from the Falls Lake
Dam to the mouth of Beddingfield Creek. From the mouth of Beddingfield Creek to
approximately 0.2 miles downstream of Johnson County State Road 1700, the Neuse River is
classified as Water Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW). Beddingfield Creek is classified
as C NSW from the source to the Neuse River. No nitrate water quality standard has been
established for class C NSW surface water. For surface waters classified as Water Supply V
NSW, nitrate water quality standard is 10 mg/L.
2
2.2. Site Physiography, Geology and Hydrogeology
2.2.1. Regional Physiography
The Site is situated within the eastern Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Area
topography consists of rolling hills dissected by narrow v-shaped drainage ways and perennial
streams that drain into Neuse River. Localized steep bluffs exist to the south along Beddingfield
Creek and along the Neuse River to the east and north of the Site (May and Thomas, 1965).
Localized bluffs in this area plateau to narrow bench cut alluvial floodplains that are nearly flat
with incised drainage ways to the Neuse River.
2.2.2. Site Geology
The Site is within the Raleigh Geologic Belt and the underlying bedrock consists of massive
granitic rock of the Rolesville series. The granitic bedrock is part of an intrusive series described
as megacrystic to equigranular and is dated between 270 and 320 million years old
(Pennsylvanian to Permian). Mafic dikes have been identified regionally and generally have a
northwest to southeast alignment. According to published literature, these dike features may be
up to 100 to 200 ft wide. Smaller dike splays may be 10 to 20 ft wide (Parker, 1979). Details of
the dikes and geologic maps can be found in the SSA (ENSR, 2003).
Lithologic units identified at the Site are typical of local piedmont geology and include the
following:
• Topsoil and weathered parent rock material, referred to as saprolite tends to be
moderately thick in locations without visible rock outcropping. Site saprolite consists of
yellow brown to orange sandy silts (ML) to silty sands (SM) with the coarser material at
depth. Regionally, saprolite can vary in thickness from a few feet to up to hundreds of
feet. Saprolite typically contains relict structures and fabric from the parent rock from
which it has weathered. Saprolite thickness at the Site commonly ranges between 30 and
60 feet below surface grade (bsg).
• Partially weathered rock (PWR), often referred to as the transition zone between saprolite
and the parent unweathered bedrock, often exhibits the same properties as deeper
saprolitic soils (SM) but with higher occurrence of rock and rock fragments. PWR
thickness often ranges from O to IO ft thick on ridges and uplands to IO to 20 ft thick
along slopes and low-lying areas (Wilson and Carpenter, 1981 ).
• Bedrock in this area typically consists of granitic rock with fractures near the interface of
PWR and bedrock. The number and size of the fractures generally dissipate with depth
while voids and vugs are common in shallow rock zones when weak exfoliation soil
zones are encountered near PWR.
3
2.2.3. Hydrogeology
Hydrogeologically, the Site is situated in a meta-igneous hydrostratigraphic unit of the eastern
Piedmont of North Carolina (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Two general hydrostratigraphic units
(saprolite and PWR/upper bedrock) characterize the regional hydrogeology. The upper saprolite
unit is an unconfined aquifer that transmits water downward to the lower semi-confined PWR
and fractured confined crystalline bedrock aquifer unit. Groundwater yields often range from 2 to
20 gallons per minute (gpm) within the unit (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Groundwater occurs
where saprolite and localized sedimentary/alluvial deposits along the Neuse River overlie
bedrock. Groundwater movement in the saprolite is typographically controlled by groundwater
divides associated with ridges and streams. Typically flow of groundwater occurs from upland
areas (ridgelines) to perennial streams. The underlying granitic rocks are known to have lower
hydraulic conductivities than either saprolite or PWR and controls deep groundwater or regional
groundwater flow conditions. The PWR lies between saprolite and bedrock units and
groundwater movement flows both within the material matrix and through fractures.
Groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to intersecting sets of water-bearing fractures
and joints (Harned and Daniel, 1989).
Hydraulic properties of the saprolite and PWR zones were evaluated using rising and falling
head slug test methods. Hydraulic conductivity (K) values for the shallow aquifer ranged from
1.3 x 10-6 to 6.4 x 10-3 centimeters per second (cm/sec). K values for PWR wells ranged from
4.4 x 10-5 to 1.1 x 10-3 cm/sec. A transmissivity of 4.6 x 10"5 square centimeters per day
(cm2/day) (1.3 square feet per day [ft2/day]) was obtained for well MW-126d (ENSR, 2003).
Quantification of groundwater flow directions and rates has been provided by a calibrated, three-
dimensional groundwater flow model. Quantification of the movement and discharge locations
of nitrogen originating from the biosolids fields has been provided by a three-dimensional
transport model that uses the flow model to compute groundwater velocities. Both of these
models are documented in the Comprehensive Site Assessment and Supplemental Site
Assessment, and have been reviewed and approved by the Aquifer Protection Section.
3.0 Information Supporting Varian~e Request
3.1. Resolution
In accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0113(c)(a), the Raleigh City Council (Council) has made
this request for a variance to the EMC's rules. A copy of the Council's resolution to this effect is
attached as Exhibit 1.
3.2. Description of Past/Existing/Proposed Sources of Groundwater
Contamination
CORPUD has been operating the NRWWTP in southeastern Wake County since 1976. It began
land-applying biosolids in 1980 under a land application permit (Permit # WQ000 173 0) issued
by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The permit allows for the application
of 7,000 total dry tons of Class B Biosolids per year on fields listed in the permit. Figure 1
4
depicts fields to which CORPUD has land-applied biosolids under its permit. Since 1980, fields
have been added and removed from the biosolids application program. For example, CORPUD
discontinued biosolids application on Fields 1, 2 and 3 in 1998 and the City converted them into
a police training facility. Several fields (Fields 100, 101, 102, 200, 201, 500, 512, 513, 522, 523
and 524) wen~ formerly leased for biosolids application but are no longer leased for this purpose.
The property containing former leased Fields 100, 101, 102, 522, 523, and 524 is currently
owned by Waste Corporation of America and is used as a construction and demolition landfill.
CORPUD currently leases fields 600,601,602 and 603. The remaining fields shown on Figure
1 are owned by CORPUD.
Groundwater quality monitoring required under the permit revealed exceedances ofNCAC
Subchapter 02L nitrate groundwater standard in proximity to the compliance boundary of
CORPUD-owned biosolids application fields. The City suspended all land application of
biosolids in September 2002 (ENSR, 2003). The following sections discuss groundwater
contamination at the Site.
3.2.1. Water Supply Wells
In 2002, CORPUD sampled thirty-six private water supply wells located in the vicinity of the
Site. Analytical data indicated that seven wells had nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L
(see Table 1 ). The source of nitrates detected in these wells was likely a combination of septic
systems, non-CORPUD fertilization of upgradient fields, and biosolids application to upgradient
fields. CORPUD subsequently initiated a quarterly sampling program of private water supply
wells located within a half of a mile of the biosolids application field boundaries. The City
identified forty-five private and/or community water supply wells and included them in the
sampling program. A summary of the wells identified within proximity of the Site and
associated analytical results (from CORPUD sampling program) are listed in Table 1. Thirty-
nine of the forty-five properties included in the sampling program were subsequently connected
to the public water supply system. These thirty-nine properties were served by thirty-eight water
supply wells, of which thirty-seven wells have been decommissioned consistent with the NCAC
Subchapter 02L requirements. Per the information provided by CORPUD, the residential
property with the remaining private water supply well has been connected to the public water
supply system; however, the well will not be abandoned as requested by the property owner.
Based on the infonnation provided by CORPUD, there are three private water supply wells
(identified as PW-24, PW-42, and PW-43 in Table 1) that are still in use (active) and remain in
the CORPUD sampling program. Nitrate concentrations for these currently active water supply
wells were below 10 mg/L during the January 2005 sampling event (see Table 1). These wells
are not likely receptors for nitrate-impacted groundwater migrating from the biosolids
application fields. CORPUD will continue to monitor the three remaining wells as long as
required under its land application permit.
5
3.2.2. Soil Sampling Results
Analytical results of the soil samples collected from Fields 3, 100, and 500 are summarized on
Table 2. The data indicate concentrations of nitrate generally peak in 4 to 8 ft depth interval
(ENSR, 2002). The soil profile nitrate concentrations are expected to change over time, but the
peak concentrations are likely to stay in approximately same depth interval. The implication of
this feature is that nitrates are accumulating at the 4 to 8 ft depth interval through mechanisms
such as infiltration redistribution (some water takes a rather slow pathway through the soil) and
anion exchange (nitrate is an anion).
3.2.3. Groundwater Analytical Results
Groundwater analytical data for the CORPUD test wells and the CSA-SSA wells are provided in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The groundwater analytical data is depicted in Figure 1. The data
indicated that nitrate exceeded its 02L groundwater standard at locations near the compliance
boundary in the areas of Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62 63, 74,100,201, 500, and
503. The deep saprolite well (MW-l 13d) and bedrock wells (MW-lOld, MW 105d and MW-
11 Id) also exceeded nitrate groundwater standard (ENSR, 2002).
Analytical results suggest a potential for nitrates from biosolids application in Field 50 to have
impacted groundwater on the residential property to the east and in the former private water
supply well (PW-22). Field 50 received biosolids routinely between 1982 and 2002 and has been
reported to have received excess PAN applications in 8 of those years (ENSR, 2002). Results
from assessment of Field 500 suggested a more limited potential for nitrate impacts from
biosolids application.
Off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater associated with biosolids application in the vicinity of the
intersection of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road does not appear to extend
significantly east of Shotwell Road or Mial Plantation Road. Nitrates in groundwater exceeded
the nitrate groundwater standard within Field 500 in the vicinity of former private water supply
wells PW-8, PW-12, PW-30, and PW-36. The application history for Field 500 indicates that
biosolids application to Field 500 ceased in 1994 and that biosolids application rates were
generally less than other application fields such as Field 50. Field 500 apparently has been
cropped several years before and after biosolids application. The SSA concluded that detected
nitrates in groundwater in Field 500 were not due to biosolids application alone (ENSR, 2003).
Analytical data from wells located across major streams such as Beddingfield Creek indicated
that migration of nitrate impacted groundwater under the stream is likely not occurring (ENSR,
2003).
3.2.4. Surface Water Results
Surface water analytical results are tabulated in Table 5 and depicted on Figure 1. The surface
water data from several samples collected in first order tributaries and seeps within the
application areas had nitrate concentrations above 10 mg/L. Nitrate in surface water suggests
6
been replaced with public water supply and the former water supply wells have been abandoned.
(ENSR, 2005; ENSR, 2003). CORPUD offered free connections and water service to all
properties within its testing program, regardless whether the well serving that property had
experienced an exceedance of the groundwater standard and regardless whether there was any
evidence of or potential for contamination of the well by nitrate-contaminated groundwater
emanating from the CORPUD biosolids application fields. There are three private water supply
wells originally in the testing program that are currently in use but nitrate concentrations in those
wells are below the nitrate groundwater standard. See Figure 3. The remaining wells shown on
Figure 3 that were not part of CORPUD's testing program are at no risk from nitrate-
contaminated groundwater as indicated by CORPUD's conservative groundwater models.
To provide a conservative estimate of potential risks, ENSR evaluated potential future use of site
groundwater or downgradient groundwater by considering a hypothetical future resident .
potentially exposed to nitrate in groundwater used as drinking water. For non-potable uses,
ENSR considered a hypothetical future resident using groundwater for a swimming pool. The
receptor evaluated was a young child (aged 0-6 years) as a child is the most sensitive receptor for
noncarcinogenic effects. ENSR considered both ingestion and dermal routes of exposure.
Further details of the methods and data used and assumptions made are found in ENSR's report
in Exhibit 2 . After calculating the noncarcinogenic hazard indices (HI) and comparing it to the
EPA index, ENSR found that there were no unacceptable risks for exposure to groundwater used
for a non-potable purpose (swimming pool). The Hls also indicated that there were no
unacceptable risks for using groundwater for irrigation purposes. The His for potable use of
groundwater indicated a potentially unacceptable risk for site groundwater if it were used as
drinking water. However, 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. Moreover, the City will monitor nitrate levels in groundwater at the
compliance boundary for as long as nitrate concentrations in groundwater are above the 10 mg/L
standard to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
3.4.2. Surface Water
Nitrate was detected in Beddingfield Creek and in other tributaries to the Neuse River. The
NR WWTP site is partially fenced, which may reduce unauthorized access and use of the site.
However, it is possible that a trespasser or nearby resident might wade in one of the tributaries to
the Neuse River, located within the site or in Beddingfield Creek. To ensure a conservative risk
assessment, the receptor was identified as a child or teenager (aged 7 to 16 years) wading in the
surface water. As with the non-potable use of groundwater, ENSR found that there were no
unacceptable risks for exposure to surface. See Exhibit 2.
Nor does the nitrate contamination in groundwater present a localized risk to surface water
quality or aquatic life. In order to protect the Neuse River estuary from any increased risk of
eutrophication, CORPUD has agreed that, as a condition of the variance, it will accept a
condition in its wastewater discharge permit to account for the amount of nitrogen estimated to
enter the Neuse River from groundwater in excess of the nitrate groundwater standard.
CORPUD is currently allowed to discharge 676,496 pounds of nitrogen per year to the Neuse
River, but its actual discharge is substantially below the permitted amount. Under the proposed
8
permit condition, CORPUD will be required to count toward its annually-reported amount of
discharged nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by the NRWWTP, but also the
annual amount the model predicts will be discharged to the Neuse River via groundwater as a
result of the violations of the groundwater standard for nitrate. The model conservatively
indicates that the amount of this additional nitrogen discharge will be 123,000 pounds in 2006
and will decrease approximately 3,000 pounds per year. Table 7 illustrates the effect of this
nitrogen debit over time. The debit can be adjusted to reflect actual field conditions and would
be eliminated whenever all monitoring wells come into compliance with the standard. As a
result of this condition, CORPUD's wastewater treatment and disposal operations at the
NRWWTP will never contribute more nitrogen to the Neuse River than is currently allocated.
3.5. Economics of Available Technology
In determining an appropriate CAP for the nitrate contamination at the NR WWTP site, ENSR
identified potentially applicable technologies and evaluated alternatives for containing and
treating nitrate-impacted groundwater at the site (ENSR, 2005). ENSR completed a detailed
evaluation of a remedial alternative that uses best available technology and achieves full
compliance with the EMC's rules for groundwater corrective action (Alternative 1). This
remedy would include both hydraulically containing nitrate-impacted groundwater within the
compliance boundary and denitrification of groundwater beyond the compliance boundary in
areas where nitrate concentration were predicted to exceed 10 mg/L. Monitoring to evaluate the
effectiveness of the system would occur for at least 30 years, the expected life of the project.
The capital and operation and maintenance costs of this alternative over a thirty-year period
would exceed $68 million dollars.
Alternative 2, CORPUD's preferred alternative, provides for hydraulic containment of
groundwater in the area with the highest concentr~tion of existing residences immediately
downgradient of the land application fields together with long-term groundwater monitoring and
natural reduction in nitrate levels for the remainder of the site. 1 This remedial alternative
requires CORPUD to receive a variance from DWQ's rules. Alternative 2 would cost
approximately $9 million dollars to implement -$70 million dollars less than Alternative 1 -and
provide ample protection of human health and the environment. The following sections present
the details and these remedial alternatives and their associated costs.
3.5.1. Alternative 1: Groundwater Extraction and Enhanced Denitrification
along the Compliance Boundary and Discharge to NRWWTP
Extraction System Process. Based on hydrogeologic data and results of groundwater flow
modeling, it is anticipated that approximately 426 extraction wells (100-ft spacing) would be
1 CORPUD believes that a variance could be justified that required no active remediation. However, DWQ
indicated early in this process that its support for a variance request would be conditioned upon the CAP including
active remediation in the area with the highest concentration of downgradient residences, and CORPUD has agreed
to that condition.
9
installed along the portions of the compliance boundary where the nitrate groundwater standard
has been exceeded and/or is estimated to be exceeded based on groundwater modeling. The
depth of extraction wells would be expected to vary in different areas of the Site based on
elevation and water table. For purposes of developing probable costs, the average depth for the
wells is assumed to be 70 ft bsg. The average groundwater yield from these wells would be 2
gpm (1,226,880 gallons per day) which would be pumped through a network of extraction piping
to the NR WWTP for treatment. The piping required to convey water to the NRWWTP is
assumed to be installed underground, in trenches, along the roads and fields. The design,
construction, start-up, and decommissioning costs of this alternative are estimated to be
$19,220,060. Operation and maintenance costs, including treating the extracted water, would
cost approximately $29,868,120 over 30 years. The present worth of the costs associated with
the groundwater extraction system is approximately $30,727,827.
Enhanced Denitrification System Process. The enhanced denitrification process involves
injection (pressure or gravity feed) of biodegradable carbon electron donor (e.g., com syrup or
sodium lactate) via injection wells to create in situ anaerobic zones that would denitrify nitrate-
enriched groundwater in plumes situated beyond the compliance boundary across the Site. The
electron donor injection allows the populations of native microorganisms to multiply to the point
where microbial respiration consumes the available dissolved oxygen in groundwater. In the
absence of dissolved oxygen the microbes would use nitrate as an electron acceptor and produce
nitrogen gas, a process referred to as denitrification. Nitrate-impacted groundwater from the
application fields that migrates into the anoxic zone would be exposed to the denitrifying
bacteria and pass through the anoxic zone with little to no nitrate remaining in the water.
Prior to implementing a full-scale in-situ denitrification system, a pilot test would have to be
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness at the Site and to collect data for full-scale design.
Injection wells would be constructed within the compliance boundaries of the above-referenced
fields to reduce nitrate concentrations in the impacted groundwater. ENSR estimated that
approximately 195 injection wells would be required to achieve this control. Injection wells
would be properly spaced to allow establishment of anaerobic zones to support denitrification.
ENSR also anticipates that the injection wells would be installed to depths ranging from 65 to 85
ft bsg using conventional drilling techniques. This process would involve preparing the electron
donor solution by mixing the required amount of electron donor ( e.g., com syrup or sodium
lactate) with appropriate amounts of potable water. The electron donor solution would then be
manually injected into injection wells by either gravity feeding or pumping.
This remedy would require a field-scale pilot study to estimate the quantities of electron donor
solution and to determine the design parameters (e.g., area of influence, spacing and number of
injection wells/points, frequency of injection) prior to designing a full scale system. For the
purpose of costing, ENSR estimated that electron donor solution would be injected quarterly for
two years.
ENSR determined that the probable costs for the denitrification portion of Alternative 1,
including capital costs, operation and maintenance, and short-term monitoring, would be
$27,769,400, which has a present worth of $25,401,200.
10
Monitoring. To monitor effectiveness of Alternative 1, approximately 20 monitoring wells,
20 injection wells, and 10 surface water locations would be sampled three times a year and
analyzed for nitrate for the life of the project. In addition, 20 samples would be analyzed
annually for biogeochemical parameters (i.e., ferrous iron, total organic carbon etc.) to evaluate
denitrification/anaerobic conditions. ENSR estimated that 88 recovery wells would be sampled
annually for nitrates. It should be noted that CORPUD currently samples the compliance wells
three times a year as part of the compliance monitoring. Test well data would be used in
evaluating the performance of this alternative. The actual cost of the long-term monitoring (30-
year) program would be approximately $3,024,000, with a present worth of $1,382,373.
3.5.2. Alternative 2: Groundwater Containment in Fields 50 and 500,
Discharge to NRWWTP or Land Application, and Long-Term
Monitoring in Other Areas
Based on the available information, and groundwater flow and transport modeling, nitrate
concentrations have exceeded the groundwater standard at or beyond the compliance boundary
for Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is intended to control further off-site migration of nitrate
impacted groundwater from these areas. Long-term monitoring only is proposed for the
remaining areas of the site where exceedances of nitrate groundwater standard have occurred at
or beyond the compliance boundary.
Groundwater Extraction Process. Alternative 2 involves the collection of nitrate-impacted
groundwater using appropriately-spaced extraction wells in Fields 50 and 500. The groundwater
extraction (recovery) wells would be installed within the compliance boundaries in these two
fields to allow containment of the dissolved nitrate plume exceeding nitrate groundwater
standard. These extraction wells are expected to be installed to depths ranging from 60 to 80 ft
bsg. Based on hydrogeologic data and results of the groundwater capture zone modeling, ENSR
determined that 7 extraction wells would be installed near the eastern compliance boundary of
Field 50 to a depth of approximately 80 ft bsg. In addition, 22 extraction wells would be
installed near the eastern compliance boundary of Field 500. The depth of extraction wells in
Fields 500 is approximately 60 ft bsg. Figure 2-2 presents a layout of the proposed extraction
wells . Based on the results from the aquifer tests, yield from each well is assumed to be
approximately 2 gpm. Approximately 83,520 gallons per day of extracted groundwater would be
pumped to the NR WWTP for treatment. The design, construction, start-up, and
decommissioning costs of this alternative would be $2,391,920. Operation and maintenance
costs, including treating the extracted water, would cost approximately $4,206,240 over 30 years.
The present worth of the costs associated with the extraction process is $4,012,835.
Monitoring. ENSR assumed that 10 monitoring wells (MW-105, MW-108, MW-109, MW-110,
MW-111 , MW-112, MW-117, MW-118, MW-119, and MW-120) and 2 surface water locations
(SW-20 AND SW-22) would be sampled triennially and analyzed for nitrate for the life of the
project, in addition to the monitoring wells that are monitored triennially for the land application
permit. In addition, the 29 extraction wells would be sampled and analyzed for nitrates annually
for the life of the project. Groundwater data from these extraction wells, monitoring wells, and
surface water samples would be used to monitor the performance of this alternative. It should be
noted that CORPUD already samples the compliance wells three times a year as part of the
11
compliance monitoring (for the biosolids application permit) for the Site. Analytical data from
these test wells would be used to evaluate the effectiveness ofthis alternative. For the purpose of
costing and comparison, it was assumed that the project life of this alternative is 30 years. The
costs to monitor compliance wells (test wells) required under the biosolids permit are not
included in this estimate. The cost of monitoring over 30 years would be approximately
$2,307,600, with a present worth of$1,046,665.
3.6. Financial Hardship and Lack of Public Benefit
The full-compliance alternative would create a serious financial hardship on CORPUD requiring
that it spend approximately $70 million dollars beyond the approximate $9 million that it will
have to spend to implement its preferred alternative. Further, the immense expenditure required
to implement the full compliance alternative would not result in commensurate public benefit
relative to the more cost-effective and fully protective proposed remedy.
To illustrate the financial hardship that the full compliance alternative would incur, the City has
provided its projected operating and capital budgets in Table 8. The operations budget for the
NRWWTP and associated spray irrigation is approximately $14,000,000 per year over the next
few years. Operations and maintenance costs for Alternative 1 would be over $5,000,000 during
the first 3 years of the project. The combined capital, operation, and maintenance costs accounts
for almost a third of CORPUD's expected total annual operations budget over the next few years.
When the denitrification system is discontinued in the third year of the project, the annual
operations and maintenance costs decrease to approximately $1,000,000. However, this is still a
significant annual cost accounting for about seven percent of the operations budget.
The projected capital costs (including design, construction and startup) of Alternative 1 are
predicted to be $35,402,500 which would have to be paid out by the City over the first 2 years of
CAP implementation. Because of the age of the facility and the need for expansion to keep up
with the growing population, the NR WWTP requires a number of expensive improvements over
the next several years. Over the next three years when the capital costs of the CAP are likely to
be incurred by CORPUD, the CORPUD's capital budget for the NRWWTP for fiscal year 2006-
07 is $58,175,000, for 2007-08 is $31,625,000, and for 2008-2009 is $19,800,000. Assuming
that the City would spend more than $17,500,000 per year for the first two years of the project,
this sum would be approximately 30 to 90 percent of its total capital budget in any of the next
few years. The City would be compelled to divert funds allocated to the numerous and extensive
capital improvements planned for the NRWWTP putting the protection of water quality and the
availability of high quality wastewater treatment service to the area's growing population at risk.
This would be a great detriment to public health and outweigh any benefits of Alternative 1.
Further, the full-compliance alternative requires the expenditure of $79 million dollars to clean
up groundwater that has a very low likelihood of actually being used by the public for drinking
water or any other purpose.
Finally, Alternative l would have detrimental effects on the environment as the remedy is very
invasive, requiring the installation of 426 pumping wells, each installed at 100-foot intervals,
along portions of the City's property boundary where groundwater exceeds or is expected to
12
exceed the nitrate groundwater standard. This hydraulic barrier would result in reducing
groundwater discharge and thus stream baseflow to several streams in the area, particularly
Beddingfield Creek. This reduced flow would be potentially detrimental to the ecology of those
streams.
On potential benefit of Alternative 1 is that it accelerates the time by which off-site groundwater
in the downgradient areas could be used for human consumption if needed. However, there is no
net public benefit in spending an extra $70 million to accelerate the cleanup of groundwater in
area where there is little or no need to use the groundwater for human consumption. While it is
desirable that the groundwater eventually be remediated to unrestricted use standards, the
additional time required to achieve that goal utilizing CORPUD's preferred remedial alternative
will not endanger public health because no one is using or can use any contaminated
groundwater as a water supply.
3.7. Information Regarding Adjacent Property Owners
CORPUD obtained the names and address of those owning property within the proposed
variance area as well as property owners adjacent to the site covered by the variance from the
Wake County Geographic Information System. A list of these names and addresses are provided
in Exhibit 3.
4.0 Summary and Conclusions
The nitrate contamination at the site does not and will not endanger public health or the
environment provided that (i) contaminated groundwater is not used for human consumption,
and (ii) the impacts of nitrogen loading to the nutrient-sensitive Neuse River are offset.
CORPUD has provided city water service to all properties in the area where there was any risk
from using groundwater as a water supply.
CORPUD does not believe the alternative that would fully comply with the EMC's rules is
economically reasonable. It would cost in excess of $79,000,000 to remediate all areas where
the groundwater standard has been exceeded by installing and operating extraction wells around
the entire compliance boundary and implementing enhanced denitrification in area where nitrate
contamination has already migrated beyond the compliance boundary. Although the proposed
installation of a limited number of extraction wells is not strictly needed to protect public health
and the environment, it does provide a measure of additional benefit (by accelerating the time by
which off-site groundwater in the downgradient area could be used for human consumption if
needed) at a much more reasonable and manageable cost ($9,000,000). The full compliance
alternative would create a financial hardship on CORPUD and in particular would divert needed
funds from the numerous and extensive capital improvements planned for the NR WWTP in the
near future to ensure the protection of water quality and the availability of high quality
wastewater treatment service to the area's growing population. Nor would the immense
expenditure required to implement the full compliance alternative result in commensurate public
benefit relative to the more cost effective and fully protective proposed remedy. Moreover, the
full compliance alternative would result in reducing groundwater discharge and thus stream
13
baseflow to several streams in the area, particularly Beddingfield Creek, which would be
potentially detrimental to the ecology of those streams.
5.0 References
ENSR, 2002, Comprehensive Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, December.
ENSR, 2003, Supplemental Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, December.
ENSR, 2005, Revised Corrective Action Plan, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, December.
4229980.6
14
PRIVATE WELLS SAMPLED IN VICINITY OF NRWWTP ON DATES NOTED TO RIGHT
OWNER'S NAME
1 Adams Dalton
2 Adams Diarie
3 Adams Jimmy
4 Adams, Shirley
5 Baucom Julian I Clifton
6 Baucom William
7 Belvin Dannv
8 Blowe Bobbv
9 Brown Svbil
o Carroll Kathv
1 Clarlc John
2 Ross Clee
3 Cowi na. Bettv
4 Daniels Earl
5 Debnam. Catherine
6 Debnam Clarence
7 Debnam Judson &Shirle v
18 Debnam Renefla
Debnam Retha
Dunstan Ollie
1 Frison Brenda
19
20
2
22
23
Hash, David
Hockins John
Howell. Kenn y
'. ~tiatill terli ·., .. ,,:.,
26
27
McKinnon Charles
28
29
30
31
C itv of Ralei ah
Perkins Marvin
Rhodes William
n
n
9039830_3.Xl.S
Home#
n2-6706
n2-2348
772-6376
n2-5956
772-1647
772-2242
772-7898
779-1399
773-2467
779-0683
662-5504
772-0428
n2-1226
266-3581
266-3616
266-1923
266-1708
266-2387
266-4548
266-1829
773-1171
772-7049
n2-0739
661-5785
553-5661 ·
266-3073
553-5936
771-0714
553-7008
n
n
Work# Address
8401 Old Baucom Road
787-0125 8513 Old Baucom Road
8428 Old Baucom Road
8404 Old Baucom Road
302113005 Hickorv Tree Pl
-8004 7920 Old Baucom Road
6208 Mia/ Plantation Rd
2853 Shotwell Rd
8529 Old Baucom Road
8500 Old Baucom Road
8416 Old Baucom Road
2823 Shotwell Rd
8100 Old Baucom Road
5716 Mia/ Plantation Rd
5717 Mia/ Plantation Rd
5525 Mia/ Plantation Rd
5700 Mia/ Plantation Rd
561615620 Mia/ Plant Rd
5600 Mia/ Plantation Rd
5520 Mia/ Plantation Rd
546-4197 8549 Old Baucom Road
6216 Mial Plantation Rd
8321 Old Baucom Road
773-7184 2820 Brown Field
" 1340 Pin e Trail ~ -
5708 Mia/ Plantation Rd
8208 Old Baucom Road
6200 Mia/ Plantation Rd
553-7008 6205 Firecracker
n 6309 Mial Plantation
n 6317 Shotwell / Mlal Plant.
Aug1,1st 815 DWQS/23
N03 mg/L N03 mgA.
3.8
1.5
1
4.4
2.6
4.1
20.9 21
2.1
0.1
1.6
24 23
0.7
2.8
2.7
1.7
4.7
4.6
7.1
2.5
5.2
12.4 9.7
1.3
13
0.3 : :: ~
4.7
6.3
4.1
15.4 18
7.6
TABLE 1
Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply(Service Status
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carofina
Confirm 9/11 January 1/8 Confirm 2120 April July Oct Jan'04 April'04
NO, mg/L. NO.mg,\. No, mg/L. NO, mg/I.. NO. mg/L. NO. mg/L. NOamg/L N03 mg/L
6.3 3.4 NIA NIA NIA NIA
3 1.4 1.6 1.6 NIA NIA
0.9 1.0 NIA NIA NIA NIA
10.9 4.3 4.4 4.8 NIA NIA NIA
0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
6 2.4 2.4 2 .7 2.5 2.6
3.9 7.5 3.7 3.8 4.1 5.7 4.2
20 23.4 19.7 20.3 19.5 N/A N/A
2.1 5 2.2 2.4 2.3 NIA NIA
0.5 0.5 NIA NIA NIA NIA
1.7 1.4 NIA NIA NIA NIA
23.5 52.9 20.3 23.1 20.3 NIA NIA
0.5 0.5 0.9 NIA NIA NIA
5.9 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.2
6.4 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.7
2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2
10.3 4.4 4.7 4.7 5.1 5.6 5.4
8.4 3 .8 4.6 3.9 3.7 4.4 3.9
7 15 6.2 7.3 6.6 5.7 7.2 6.5
1.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.9
5.2 13.5 6.5 7.4 7.7 6.9 NIA NIA
11.6 16.2 15.2 14.4 18.0 NIA NIA
7.4 2.6 2.9 NIA NIA NIA
8.9 20.5 6.9 8.5 8.7 8.7 7.8
0.6 :e;·~o:5 · .. '..";.'0;5: '."'l:1:5 o',6 0.5
9.6 5 4.3 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
5.8 13.3 10.8 11.2 12.5 13.8 14.2 12.1
.
4.1 8.7 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.5 5.9 6.6
17.2 37.4 18.4 21.3 NIA NIA NIA
7.8 13.9 7 4.8 8.5 NIA NIA NIA
July'04 Oct'04 JarvFeb '05 April '05 August '05 Bottle Water Bold indicates results greater GWQ std
. Currentlv
N03 mg/L N03 mg/L N03 mg/L. N03 n,gll N03 mg/L STATUS
agreement rec 4/22, CONNECT 6/10/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/26/2003
agreement rec 7/17, CONNECT 10/14/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/18/2003
agreement rec 4/25, CONNECT 6/10/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/17/2003
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/1/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 11/26/2003
agreement rec 12/29/03, CONNECT 6/22/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 9/14/2004
2.5 1.3 NIA NIA NIA aqreement rec 4116/04 CONNECT9l28/04
agreement rec 12120/03, CONNECTB/1/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 09/09/2004
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/21/03, Well
N/A N/A NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 4/30/2004
agreement rec 10/28, CONNECT 11/18/03,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 01/28/2005
agreement rec 4/25, CONNECT 5/29/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/18/2003
City property, CONNECT5/29/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/18/2003
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/21/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 4/29/2004
agreement rec 4/30, CONNECT 7/14/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/26/2003
agreement rec 12/31/03, CONNECT6/2/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Welt abandoned 9/13/2004
agreement rec 9/13/04.,CONNECT 10/13/04,
3.7 6.4 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 1/27105
agreement rec 9/20l04,CONNECT10/19/04,
2.1 2.4 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 12106/04
agreement rec 9/13/04,CONNECT10l12/04,
4.5 2.1 NIA NIA NIA NL Well abandoned 1127/05
agreement rec 9/20l04,CONNECT10/20/04,
2.9 1.0 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 1126/05 .
agreement rec 9/13/04.,CONNECT10/12/04,
7.4 7.3 NIA NIA NIA NL Welt abandoned 1126105
agreement rec 11/29/04, CONNECT, Well
4.9 4.1 0.5 NIA NIA abandoned 1 /26/05
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/22/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 4/28/04
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 12/2/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 4/28/04
agreement rec 5/14, CONNECT 8/13/03, Well
NIA ' NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/26/03
agreement received 2005. Well abandoned
4.4 6.1 3.4 8 NIA X 4/18/05
(').5·.
.. iff' :o~f ::: ·;::: . .o;'i.'.:. ~;05 ... notaoolicable-water service not available · ,::,:
agreement rec 9/20/04,CONNECT11/16/04,
7.2 4.8 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 1/26/05
0.5 0.5 NIA NIA NIA Citv oro oe rtv. Well abandoned
agreement rec 6/10/04, CONNECT9l16l04,
13.9 NIA NIA NIA NIA NL Welt abandoned 1/27/05
agreement rec 12/07/03,CONNECT5/28l04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 9/8104
agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 8/4/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 11/17/03
agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 8/7/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 11 /17 /03
1 of2
Questions for the DWQ RRO staff concerning the Proposed Variance for the
City of Raleigh
Here are my q uestions and comments:
1. What is the surface water classification for Beddingfield Creek?
2. In Figure # 1 of the Variance Request, the map discusses "Future Compliance Boundary" in
the Map Legend. This boundary is noted in the map legend as a dark green color. Yet I
cannot see this area delineated on the map itself. Is this in Figure # 1 or somewhere else?
3. Also in Figure# 1, the Map Legend notes "MR Compliance Boundary" with a dark purple
dotted line. What is this? What does MR Mean?
4 . If you look at Figure# 1-2 in the Variance Request, you can visually see the parcels ofland
included in the request in green shading. You can also see the shaded places where the map
indicates that; "Consent is needed". I have some questions related to all of this as follows:
a. The map shows a number of state owned properties that indicate consent appears to
be needed. However, there is a consent letter in the May 23, 2006 ENSR Report and
it is signed by Tommy Cline, who was identified as person who representatives the
state office that handles properties. Has consent been granted for the state
properties that are included in the variance request?
b. Parcel # 130 is listed as being owned by "Materials Recovery LLC". This would
appear to be a private entity. I do not see any information in the Variance Request
showing that this person has granted consent. Has consent been granted?
c. What does "consent" mean? Consent for the variance? Consent for having nitrates
applied above the GW Standards on the properties?
5. Table# 1 of the request lists private well nitrate results for the last three years or so. On the
first page you see the well owner "Teri Hunter" listed with nitrate results from her water well.
It does not appear that there have been nitrate problems here. However, in the last column of
this table the entry is flagged in yellow and status of the well is listed as "not applicable -
water service not available". What is going on at this property? Does this person have a well
or is the property abandoned or something?
6. Still in Table # 1 on the second page, there are two residential wells that are highlighted in
yellow. The well owners are identified as Johnnie High and Glenda Watkins. Both wells are
}.TD Permit# WQ0001730 David Hance Questions 1
Questions for the DWQ RRO staff concerning the Proposed Variance for the
City of Raleigh
listed in the far right column as "Active Well". Groundwater monitoring has yet to show
concentrations above the Nitrate standard for either of these wells. Both these wells are
found at Mial Plantation Road. The variance materials indicate that the nitrates found in
water supply wells along Mial Plantation Road as being attributed to activities that outside
the control of the permittee (i.e waste disposal in septic systems and fertilizer use) which
produced occasional hits of Nitrate in these water supply wells above the Groundwater
Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 . I did not see a specific discussion about the
Johnnie High residence or the Glenda Watkins residence in the variance materials in relation
to the potential for nitrate from the CORPUD operations to impact these wells. Here are my
questions:
a. Does the DWQ-APS believe the levels of nitrate are from septic systems, fertilizers
and other operations?
b. Where are these active wells in relation to the spray fields proposed for variance (i.e.
Fields 50 and 500)? Cross-gradient, Down-gradient, or Up-gradient?
c. How far are they from the fields that are proposed for variance?
d. Does the RRO know if the well status recently changed?
e. Does the proposed variance provide adequate safeguards to these well owners?
f. Do we have a map that corresponds to table # 1 showing the well owners within 1/2
mile of the site? I did not locate this in the variance materials. (Note that rule 15A
NCAC 2L .0202(c)(4) discusses a map of this kind.
7. In Appendix C for the ENSR December 2005 Report, Figure 2 and Figure 3 discuss what is
described as "particle pathway lines" and shows these lines as purple lines in both figures.
Here are my questions as follows:
a. Are these particle pathway lines running perpendicular to the topographic elevations?
b. Are these particle pathway lines running perpendicular to existing groundwater
elevations?
c. Are these particle pathway lines going the same direction as the groundwater flow
lines?
d. I did not see a general site map showing the elevations at the two fields for which
variance is being requested. I did see some topographic maps but I did not see any
elevations listed. Was there a good reason to leave this out?
ND Permit# WQ000l 730 David Hance Questions 2
Questions for the DWQ RRO staff concerning the Proposed Variance for the
City of Raleigh
8. In February 2007, Division of Water Quality Staff had a meeting with the Division of Waste
Management staff concerning the reorganization and transfer of incident management
variances. During the discussion the issue of deed recordation and land use restrictions were
brought up. For the purpose of background, it appears in the last few years that the NC
General Assembly has enacted a number of laws requiring deed recordation, various types of
notices, and land use restrictions on cleanup sites. Sites under various types of statutes
include USTs, Hazardous Waste Facilities, Superfund, and CERCLA/RCRA sites. These
vehicles are utilized for sites where substances are left behind in the subsurface or
groundwater at concentrations above Groundwater Quality Standards. One very
oversimplified way of looking at this is, just about any non-permitted facility with less than
an operating pump and treat cleanup could come under these types of requirements and
restrictions. The big question that was brought to the staffs attention during this meeting was
"How would a member of the public figure out that there is a variance 011 a piece of
property if that variance is not recorded on the deed? How would they know where to
look?
As a result of this discussion with the DWM staff, some staff here at the Planning Section
believe that it would be appropriate to have the variances for permitted facilities recorded on
a deed for the land area affected by it if granted by the EMC. If the EMC grants a variance
for a permitted facility it would work as a means of alerting the public and potential future
property owners of that a variance had been granted. Has there been any discussion of deed
recordation of a variance with the City of Raleigh during the technical review?
9. COMMENT & QUESTION: Another outgrowth of the February 2007 meeting with the
Division of Waste Management, was a little education about the rule of what is being given
variance as a result of a variance granted by the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC). Per the rule, the person who is making request for variance is defined in 15A
NCAC 2L .0113 as the "applicant" and either affects a particular incident or impacts some
kind of permitted condition. A variance acts very much like a permit in that you cannot
transfer it to another entity if some other municipality or permittee took over the operation. I
believe from the materials I have seen shows that the City of Raleigh understands this
but has there been discussions on this?
ND Permit# WQ000l 730 David Hance Questions 3
RE: update on City of Raleigh Variance Request
1 of 1
Subject: RE: update on City of Raleigh Variance Request
From: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:24:32 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
David,
Thanks for the updates. The City would very much like to be through
this process before it goes in for its permit modification to reapply
residuals on the fields in question. We'll need to begin that process
this summer so we're anxious to make some progress, though we understand
your other time pressures .
Carolyn
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:39 PM
To: Bachl, Carolyn
Subject: update on City of Raleigh Variance Request
C,
I did find some time this week to do a read through on the request and I
will be looking at the other materials related to it . I 'have had a big
"r ed ball" project on this Arsenic rulemaking in 2L along with some
other peoples fires to deal with. I hope to f i t this in between things
next week.
david hance
3/27/2007 9:59 AM
Re: Raleigh variance application (reply)
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Raleigh variance application (reply)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:59:51 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
I got a set questions for you on this that I was going to get out. I am going to go
over them again to make sure they make sense. I am tied up with the Arsenic rule
assignment from Jeff of late.
I hope to email this to you on Friday evening.
David Hance
**********************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
David;
What is the status of the Raleigh variance application? I've had several people
ask me about this and i don't know what to tell them. Thanks!
rb
4/26/2007 4:18 PM
Raleigh variance application
'
Subject: Raleigh variance application
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date:Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:33:26 -0400
To: DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>
CC: JAY ZIMMERMAN <JA [e-mail]>
David;
What is the status of the Raleigh variance application? I've had several people ask
me about this and i don't know what to tell them. Thanks!
rb
1 of 1 4/26/2007 3:01 PM
update on City of Raleigh Variance Request
1 of I
Subject: update on City of Raleigh Variance Request
From:· David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:39:14 -0400
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
C,
I did find some time this week to do a read through on the request and I will be
looking at the other materials related to it. I have had a big "red ball" project on
this Arsenic-rulemaking in 2L along with some other peoples fires to deal with. I
hope to fit this in between things next week .
david hance
3/16/2007 6:39 PM
got your phone message about the variance >>>>>
1 of 1
Subject: got your phone message about the variance>>>>>
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:15:49 -0500
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
C,
My management has had me very tied up with Arsenic Rulemaking work rewriting and
incorporating more information into the Arsenic Economic Impact Analysis for 2L rules
this week . Meetings on Thursday and Friday too. I have not forgotten you.
I will be working late this evening and will try to get back into it today.
Note that the ITS is doing computer work and changing a whole bunch of stuff around
so I may not have access to emails until Monday. I am not sure what will happen until
after 5 PM today.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
3/9/2007 4:16 PM
RE: Variance for the City of Raleigh
1 of 1
Subject: RE: Variance for the City of Raleigh
From: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21 :28:53 -0500
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Thanks for the update, David.
Carolyn
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:39 PM
To: Bachl, Carolyn
Subject: Variance for the City of Raleigh
Carolyn,
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
I was detained on Friday morning and did not get your phone message until after your
meeting started. I have been busy with the Arsenic rulemak:ing, reorganization, and meetings but I
am planning to get into the variance this coming Wednesday, February 21 st .
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif}->
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
***DISCLAIMER*** Treasury Department Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Treasury
Department, we inform you that any U.S . federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein ...
2/19/2007 9:30 AM
Variaike for the City of Raleigh
1 of 1
Subject: Variance for the City of Raleigh
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:38:33 -0500
To: [e-mail]
Carolyn,
I was detained on Friday morning and did not get your phone message until after your meeting
started. I have been busy with the Arsenic rulemaking, reorganization, and meetings but I am planning
to get into the variance this coming Wednesday, February 21 st .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
2/18/2007 2:38 PM
City of Raleigh Variance Request: Tirird Party Contact/Fyi
1 of 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request : Third Party Contact/Fyi
~rom: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:37:07 -0500
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello,
Today, Charlotte Mitchell of Kennedy Covington showed up and made copies of parts of
the file for the City of Raleigh Variance.
david hance
733-5083 x.587
2/14/2007 5:37 PM
RE: File Review--reply
I of 1
Subject: RE: File Review--reply
From: "Mitchell, Charlotte" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:41:25 -0500
To: "DAVID HANCE" <DA [e-mail]>
That works. I'll see you then. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: DAVID HANCE [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:39 PM
To: Mitchell, Charlotte
Subject: Re: File Review--reply
Ms. Mitchell,
How about 3 PM on Wednesday?
I am at the Archdale Building on the 6th floor. Room 625 aa. I am in the
office across from the hallway.
david hance
733-5083 X 587
For further information about Kennedy Covington, please visit our website at
http://www.kennedycovington.com
****************************************
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: In order to comply with certain IRS regulations regarding
tax advice, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For more information about this
Notice, please visit http://www.kennedycovington.com/disclaimer.html
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachment)
is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain confidential or
legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any
privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to
intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this communication. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately
by email and delete this communication and all copies.
2/13/2007 10: 15 AM
FYI: Visitor coming to my office on Wed . Feb. 14th
1 of 1
Subject: FYI: Visitor coming to my office on Wed. Feb. 14th
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:21:43 -0500
To: Linda Chavis <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Linda,
A lady named Charlotte A. Mitchell of the law firm of Kennedy Covington Lobdell &
Hickman, LLP will be coming to my office to look at the City of Raleigh Variance
Request File. She is to meet me at 3 PM and I will let her read portions of this. She
is coming as an interested third party.
I have told her where to go but if you see her wandering around -get her to me.
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
2/13/2007 10:22 AM
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Hance DATE:
FROM: Rick Bolich ~
THROUGH: Jay Zimmerman ~
SUBJECT: Variance Performance Monitoring Plan
City of Raleigh, NC
Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
2/12/2007
On November 14, 2006, the Aquifer Protection Section (APS) Raleigh Regional Office
(RRO) submitted a memorandum to you in support of the Variance Application submitted by the
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Dept. (CORPUD) for the land application fields at the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant. This office issued conditional approval of a corrective action plan for
part of this site on July 19, 2006. The "conditional" aspect of the approval is dependent upon
whether or not CORPUD receives a variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) for the portions of the
site that are not being actively remediated by the groundwater extraction system. The conditionally
approved corrective action plan consisted of a groundwater extraction system and associated
groundwater monitoring. The groundwater monitoring plan for the CAP is specified in the March
31, 2006 letter to Jay Zimmerman from Peter Thibodeau, and it consists of sampling a total of 61
wells that will be sampled and analyzed three times a year.
APS-RRO staff support granting the variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) on the condition
that the flux of Nitrate from contaminated groundwater entering the Neuse River from the land
application fields is offset by a similar reduction in Nitrate from the NPDES permitted effluent
entering the river. In this manner, the total amount of nitrate entering the Neuse River from the
NPDES outfall combined with the flux of nitrate contributed by groundwater discharge will be less
than or equal to CORPUD 's permitted nitrate discharge amount. We also support this variance since
the other receptors of the contaminated groundwater, private water supply wells, have been provided
with Raleigh City water.
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
2/12/2007
Page 2 of 3
Data obtained from the Resource Evaluation Program monitoring wells at the site indicate
that the upper portion of the fractured bedrock, the ''transition zone", can act as a preferred pathway
for groundwater flow. The highest groundwater nitrate concentrations ever measured at the site have
occurred in a "transition zone" monitoring well. We believe that additional groundwater monitoring
wells installed in the "transition zone" are warranted in order to evaluate nitrate concentrations in
this zone. The attached figure shows the locations of three recommended variance performance
monitoring wells. These wells should be installed to monitor groundwater quality in the transition
zone, and therefore should be screened from approximately 10 feet below the top of the weathered
rock to approximately 5 feet above the top of the fractured rock. The three variance performance
monitoring wells should be sampled for the same parameters and at the same frequency as the
existing permit compliance monitoring wells.
A key element to justify this variance is a groundwater flow and contaminant transport model
that was prepared by the City's consultant, Eagle Resources. The output of this model was provided
in graphic and tabular form dated September 19, 2006 in response to an August 25, 2006 letter to
Chonticha McDaniel with the APS Land Application Unit (attached). This groundwater model
provides an estimate of the Nitrate flux into the Neuse River via groundwater discharge. The
groundwater model predicts that the groundwater Nitrate flux into the river would be steadily
decreasing starting in the year 2006. Although we understand that the groundwater model is a gross
simplification of actual hydrogeologic conditions, we believe that assumptions in the model
represent conservative estimates in terms of predicting the Nitrate flux into the river. However, it is
necessary to verify the results of the groundwater model using an independent methodology to
estimate the Nitrate flux from the land application fields into the Neuse River.
The actual nitrate flux into the Neuse River from groundwater can be measured by measuring
the river flow rates and nitrate concentrations at points directly upstream and downstream of the
application fields. This is currently done NCSU researchers at two RiverNet monitoring stations at
Auburn-Knightdale and Clayton. River water nitrate measurements should be measured at time
intervals of 30 minutes or less. The nitrate flux into the river from the Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant effluent outfall should be subtracted from the nitrate flux at the "downstream"
monitoring point in order to determine the actual groundwater nitrate flux from the land application
fields.
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
2/12/2007
Page3 of3
We recognize that the actual flux of Nitrate into the river will vary temporally in response to
climactic variations in groundwater recharge and that the actual nitrate flux is unlikely to assume the
smooth parabolic curve depicted in the September 19, 2006 model output graph. However, it is
imperative that the actual Nitrate flux into the river from groundwater discharge decreases over time
in general agreement with the model-predicted results. In the event that the actual Nitrate flux into
the river as determined by river monitoring methodology during the seven year NPDES permit cycle
is decreasing, but at a rate that is lower than predicted by the groundwater model, the groundwater
Nitrate flux "debit" that is to be subtracted from the NPDES outfall permit should be revised to
reflect the average actual Nitrate flux determined by river monitoring methodology. In the event that
the actual Nitrate flux into the river during the permit cycle is shown to be increasing instead of
decreasing over the length of the permit cycle, we recommend that a revised CAP be implemented
that would not require a variance from any existing water quality statute or rule.
cc: Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Rick Rowe-Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Greg Bright -Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Sample ID/ Field Sample
Depth Location Date
SB-1 0-7" Field 3 12/12/02
SS-1 0-4' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 12-16' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 16-22' Field 3 11/14/02
SB-2 0-7" Field 3 12/12/02
SS-2 0-4' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-2 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-2 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-2 12-14 ' Field 3 11/14/02
SB-3 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02
S83 0-4' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 4-8' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 12-16' Field 100 11/15/02
S8316-20' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 20-24' Field 100 11/15/02
SB-4 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02
S84 0-4' Field 100 11/15/02
S84 4-8' Field 100 11/15/02
S84 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02
S84 12-16' Field 100 11/15/02
S8416-20' Field 100 11/15/02
SB-5 0-7" Field 500 12/23/02
S85 0-4' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 4-8' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 12-16' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 16-24' Fie.Id 500 11/15/02
SB-6 0-7" Field 500 12/12/02
S86 0-4' Field 500 11/15/02
S86 4-8' Field 500 11/15/02
S86 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
D-S86 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
S86 12-16' Fie ld 500 11/15/02
S86 16-20' Field 500 11/15/02
Field 17 Field 17
Field 18 Field 18
Field 19 Field 19
Field 22 Field 22
Field 27 Field 27
Field 28 Field 28
Field 33 Field 33
Field 35 Field 35
Field 36 Field 36
Field 37 Field 37
Field 38 Field 38
Field 39 Field 39
Field 40 Field 40
Field 42 Field 42
Field 43 Field 43
Field 45 Field 45
Field 49 Field 49
Field 50 Field 50
Field 73 Field 73
Field 511 Field 511
Notes:
TKN -Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TOC -Total Organic Carbon
mg/kg -Milligrams per kilogram
J -Estimated value
NA -Not Analyzed
PAN Surf-Plant Available Nitrogen (Surface)
TABLE 2
Soil Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite Solids TKN
(mg /kg ) (m g/kg) (m g /kg ) (%) (mg/kg)
1.3 2.9 <1.0 82 1600
1.1 9 <1 80 920
<0.1 9.4 <1 82 14
0.14 16 <1 79 9.3
0 .1 18 <1 90 5 .1
<0.1 16 <1 89 2.2
1.1 4.1 <1.0 82 1800
0.6 7.9 <1 84 480
<0.1 24 <1 72 24
<0 .1 8 .1 <1 93 9.2
<0.1 5.9 <1 94 6 .5
1.1 8.1 <1 .0 81 1800
0.58 23 <1 81 80
0.43 58 <1 67 28
3 .1 51 <1 77 27
0 .32 24 <1 84 18
0 .36 26 <1 86 8 .8
0 .29 17 <1 90 <0 .06
2 .2 5.6 <1.0 82 1600
1.1 26 <1 84 69
0 .37 61 <1 75 32
0 .94 30 <1 83 14
0 .39 19 <1 72 9.2
<0 .1 27 <1 84 3.1
2.5 <1.0 <2 .0 83 1800
0 .67 3 .5 <1 78 460
<0 .1 25 <1 84 37
<0 .1 8.9 <1 84 9 .6
<0 .1 14 <1 85 <0.06
<0.1 9.4 <1 80 <0.06
0 .98 2.4 <1 .0 88 650
0.6 5 <1 88 670
<0 .1 16 <1 82 51
0 .6 J 10 <1 82 20
0 .23 J 9.9 <1 83 16
<0 .1 11 <1 83 31
<0 .1 12 <1 79 <0 .06
36 .2 9 .1 NA 99 1389.1
79.1 24.2 NA 97 2051 .1
45.3 12.4 NA 97 2530.1
48.3 6 .7 NA 98 3229.0
31 .8 6 .7 NA 97 1485.3
32 .6 3 .3 NA 97 1273.9
22 .0 5.0 NA 97 678.5
36 .5 9 .3 NA 97 1469.5
46.1 22.3 NA 97 1839.1
30 .4 3.0 NA 84 1193.0
17 .5 2.0 NA 84 1598.4
32 .1 4 .0 NA 86 905 .7
28 .6 3 .3 NA 85 497.5
25 .0 3 .2 NA 84 1247.4
36.1 13.6 NA 84 1461 .6
20.6 4 .0 NA 83 578 .3
28.9 4 .1 NA 83 1264.0
33.5 10.4 NA 83 1194.6
28 .0 4 .6 NA 90 1101.2
29 .1 6 .9 NA 98 705 .3
PAN Sub -Plant Available Nitrogen (Subsurface)
9039324_ 1.XLS\Table 2
TOC PAN -Surf PAN-Sub
(m g/kg ) mg/k g mg/kg
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
870 NA NA
400 NA NA
8530 NA NA
400 NA NA
383 NA NA
296 NA NA
NA NA NA
2260 NA NA
209 NA NA
522 NA NA
3130 NA NA
331 NA NA
NA NA NA
6310 NA NA
296 NA NA
278 NA NA
70 NA NA
90 NA NA
NA NA NA
3860 NA NA
783 NA NA
679 NA NA
278 NA NA
574 NA NA
350 NA NA
NA 433.1 451.2
NA 655.3 694.9
NA 780.5 803 .1
NA 985.0 1009.1
NA 458.6 474 .5
NA 392 .0 408.3
NA 213 .0 224.0
NA 457.4 475.7
NA 583.2 606.3
NA 367.0 382 .2
NA 485.1 493.8
NA 282.1 298.1
NA 158.3 172 .6
NA 382.4 394.9
NA 459.3 477.4
NA 181.7 192.0
NA 389 .1 403 .6
NA 375.5 392.2
NA 340 .5 354.5
NA 224.4 238 .9
Page 1 of 1
9039324_1 .X LS\T able 3
Field
Sam p le ID ID
TestWell 1 Field 12
TestWell 2 Field 28/32
TestWell 3 Field 49
TestWell 4 Field 50
Test Well 9 Field 39
TestWell 11 Field 3
TestWell 13 Field 42
Test Well 14 Field 33
TestWell 15 Field 16
TestWell 16 Field 35
TestWell 18 Field 27
TestWell 20 Field 20
TestWell22 Field 16
TestWell 23 Plant
TestWell 24 Plant
TestWell 25 Field 44/45
TestWell 29 Field 29
TestWell 30 Field 602
Test Well 30 .1 Fie ld 602
TestWell 31 Field602
TestWell 32 Field 602
TestWell 33 Field 602
Test Well 34 Field 602
TestWell 35 NA
Test Well 36 Field 602
TestWell 37 Field 602
TestWell41 Field3
TestWell42A Field 18/19
TestWell 43 Field 25
TestWell 44 Field 26
TestWelf 45 Field 47
TestWell46 Field 61
Test Well 47 Field 61
Test Well48 Field 60
TestWell49 Field 74
TestWell 50 Field 75
TestWell51 111 Field 12
Tes! Well 52 !11 Field 41
Test Well 53 (11 Field 62
Test Well 54 111 Field 503
TestWell 641 Field 602
Test Well 642 Field 602
TestWell 31A Field 602
TestWell 32A Field 602
TestWell 45A Field 47
TestWell 618 Field 61
TestWell61C Field 61
15A NCAC 2L Standard
Notes :
TABLE 3
Groundwater Analytical Results -City Test Wells
City of Rale igh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (m q/Ll
March 2003 July 2003 November 2003 March 2004 July 2004
ns 32.0 13.0 ns ns
ns 16.7 9.8 ns ns
<0 .01 <0 .1 0.1 <0 .1 ns
ns 0 .6 ns ns ns
ns 168.6 ns ns ns
ns 9.5 9.9 ns ns
0 .1 3.4 2.1 <0 .1 4 .7
ns 0.6 5.5 ns ns
ns 37.3 27.8 ns ns
ns 8.7 3.1 ns ns
ns 179.5 130.6 ns ns
1.9 2.2 8.3 2.5 3.4
0.1 0 .2 0.2 ns 0.7
ns ns 12.8 ns ns
ns ns 5.8 ns ns
ns ns 0.1 ns ns
ns 21 .B ns ns ns
ns 5 .B 7 .5 ns ns
ns 5 .B ns ns ns
0.1 <0.1 0 .2 0.2 ns
ns 3.B 4 .8 ns ns
ns 5.8 6 .1 ns ns
ns 49.6 ns ns ns
ns 26.6 ns ns ns
ns 4 .3 3.2 ns ns
ns 2.4 0.4 ns ns
0.6 87.8 15.5 82.7 87.1 /84.9
107 .8 87.2 2 .3 114.7 120.8/ 111 .7
0 .1 <0.1 3 ,5 ns ns
7 .5 2 ,9 2 .3 5.6 4.9
15.4 9 .6 74.B 9.6 17.7 /24 .7
15.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 4.0
30.9 31.2 32 .2 35.3 36 .353134 .743
50.6 43.0 51 .9 56 .B 57.3 I 55 .7
0.5 0 .4 0.7 1.4 4.2
5 .6 37.7 7 ,5 31 .2 34 .9 / 34 ,5
• ns ns ns ns 107.8 / 101.4
ns ns ns ns 79.9/75.4
ns ns ns ns 92.3/68.4
ns ns ns ns 67.7 /73,8
ns 62.8 ns ns ns
ns 79.4 ns ns ns
ns 33.6 ns ns ns
ns 15.8 ns ns ns
ns 5 .4 ns ns ns
ns 2 .2 ns ns ns
ns 3 .5 ns ns ns
10
1) Test Wells 51, 52, 53, 54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7 , GP-11, and GP-20 , re spectively .
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
na -nol analyzed.
ns -not sampled.
NA -Information Nol Available
November 2004 March 2005 July 2005
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
1.9 <0 .10 3.82
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
9.3 1.74 3 .70
<0.1 ns 0 .14
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
77.3/77.4 BO .OB 75.17
113.2/1 13.6 125.10 129.45
ns ns ns
5.0 6.32 6.03
34.4 / 24.1 9.17 56.85
1.2 1.16 1.10
34 .1 / 35 .9 31 .09 32 .52
54 .2 / 53 . 41 .00 37 .25
1.4 2.21 4 .06
28 .7 /28 .5 22 .00 27 .75
101.8/95.7 79.99 77.13
79.1174.5 93.12 76 .41
78.6 /63 .3 59.40 51 ,86
56 .1 /60 .2 42.95 50 .40
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
Page 1 of 1
9039324_ 1.XLS\Ta ble 4
TABLE4
Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA-SSA -Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh , Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (mg/L)
Well ID Location November/
December June 2003 July 2003
2002
MW-100 Field 18 12 15 NA
MW-101 Field 31 160 120 NA
MW-101D Field 31 100 J 97 NA
MW-102 Field 37 86 72 NA
MW-103 Field 46 49 36 NA
MW-104 Field 70 24 35 NA
MW-105 Field 50 11 17 NA
MW-105D Field 50 28 J 23 NA
MW-106 Field 75 2.5 17 NA
MW-106 (Dup) Field 75 NA 18 NA
MW-107 Field 75 <0.1 0 .12 NA
MW-108 Field 75 4.4 18 NA
MW-109 Field 500 54 52 NA
MW-110 Field 500 33 29 NA
MW-111 Field 500 28 17 NA
MW-1110 Field 500 18 see packer test results below
MW-112 Field 201 15 11 NA
MW-113D Material Recov. 21 J 53 NA
MW-114 Field 63 NA 2.6 NA
MW-115 Field 62 NA 22 NA
MW-116 Field 62 NA 5.5 NA
MW-117 Belvin NA 0.26 NA
MW-118 St. James Sub. NA NA 4.3
MW-119 St. James Sub. NA NA 0.65
MW-120 Kin g NA <0.05 NA
MW-121 Fie ld 600 NA 0 .38 NA
MW-122 Field 70 NA 5 NA
MW-122D Field 70 NA 1.7 NA
MW-123D Field 12 NA 120 NA
MW-124D Field 26 NA 0 .29 J NA
MW-124D (Dup ) Field 26 NA 0 .18 J NA
MW-125D Field 600 NA 12 NA
MW-126D Field 61 NA 6.5 NA
MW-127 Field 71 NA <0.05 NA
GP-1 Field 19 22 18 NA
GP-2 Field 12 77 110 NA
GP-2 (Du p) Field 12 74 NA NA
GP-3 Field 6 44 6.6 NA
GP-5 Field 11 29 46 NA
GP-6 Field6 54 35 NA
GP-7 Field 41 58 70 NA
GP-8 Field 63 96 93 NA
GP-9 Field 43 6.7 NA NA
GP-10 Field 48 0.8 0.55 NA
GP-11 Field 63 40 78 NA
GP-12 Field 62 0.12 <0 .05 NA
GP-16 (1) Field 500 60 NA NA
GP-17 Field 500 <0.1 6.8 NA
GP-18(1 ) Field 500 0 .87 NA NA
GP-19 (1) Field 500 <0 .1 NA NA
March/April
2004
15.1
164.1
NS
96 .1
36.4
43.8
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2?:2
NS
31 .8
16.7
NS
7 .8
NS
2.4
32 .1
7.9
NS
NS
3.1
0.4
NS
NS
NS
70 .0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
84.2
NS
NS
55 .5
NS
69 .0
42 .3
24.7
0.4
78 .7
0.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 4
Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA-SSA -Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh , North Carolina
Nitrate (mg/L)
Well ID Location November/
December June 2003 July 2003
2002
GP-20 Field 503 180 62 NA
GP-21 Field 75 2 .2 1.9 NA
GP-22 Field 74 130 6 .9 7.3
MW-1 (MAT REC } Material NA NA 2 .2
MW-3 Recovery NA 53 NA
MW-5 Property NA 0.1 NA
TW-1 Field 12 NS NS NS
TW-11 Field 3 NS NS NS
TW-18 Field 27 NS NS NS
TW-44 Field 26 NA 2.3 NA
TW-48 Field 60 NA 47 NA
TW-30 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-30 .1 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-31A Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-32 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-32A Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-33 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-34 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-35 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-36 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-37 NS NS NS
PZ-1 Neuse River 0.43 NA NA
PZ-2 Neuse River <0 .1 NA NA
PZ-3 Neuse River 22 NA NA
PZ-4 Neuse River 0.12 NA NA
Packer Testing Results
MW-111 D-60-90FT Field 500 NS 19 NS
MW-111 D-90-120FT Field 500 NS 20 NS
PW-39: HEATER-1-40-70FT St. James Sub . NS 11 NS
:,W-39: HEATER-1-70-100F St. James Sub . NS 6 .7 NS
PW-8: (53-72') B. Blowe Res. 20 NS NS
PW-8 : (105-135) B. Blowe Res . 20 NS NS
PW-8: (230-290) B. Blowe Res . 20 NS NS
15A NCAC 2L Standard 10
Notes:
1) Well decommissioned.
March/April
2004
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
38 .5
4.9
181.8
NS
NS
11 .0
5.7
43 .9
2 .6
16.4
5.4
64 .8
37.4
3 .5
2.3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MW -monitoring well; TW -test well ; GP -geoprobe point: PZ -piezometer; PW -private well.
J -Estimated value
Dup -Field duplicate sample
NA -Not analyzed I NS -Not sam pled
9039324_ 1 .XLS\Table 4 Pag e 2 of 2
Location
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
SW-10
SW-11
SW-12
SW-13
SW-14
SW-15
SW-16
SW-17
SW-18
SW-19
SW-20
SW-20 dup
SW-21
SW-22
SW-23
SW-24
SW-25
SW-26
SW-27
SW-28
Notes:
TABLE 5
Surface Water Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (mg/L)
November 2002 June 2003
52 49
0.39 13
52 50
54 47
0 .69 2
54 46
77 83
1.2 1.6
34 36
48 19
19 47
52 41
0.46 1.3
0.21 0.16
20 20
1.7 6.2
5.5 0.97
3 1.7
16 21
3.8 3.3
3.5 NS
0.15 0.18
0.25 1.5
0.72 NS
0.53 0.52
NS 4.6
NS 9.8
NS 14
NS 46
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
Dup. -Duplicate sample
9039324_ 1.XLS\Table 5
September 2005
43
NS
dry
78
NS
70
98
NS
NS
NS
33
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
dry
dry
NS
Page 1 of 1
Parcel Size of
Parcel Number (acres}
119 259.22
120 19 .50
121 3.38
122 1.08
123 1.07
125 15.65
126 8.10
128 211.53
129 13.64
130 210.99
131 44.84
132 8.16
133 16.91
134 20
135 0.03
136 44.34
137 1.60
138 0.56
139 79.19
140 52.61
141 1.71
142 420.23
143 1.0
144 3.44
145 1.0
146 NA
147 1.0
148 1.01
149 NA
150 8.28
151 1.03
152 30.75
153 1 .0
154 NA
155 2.39
Note:
TABLE 6
Description of Proposed Variance Areas
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Actual Land Use
Vacant, forested lot
Agricultural land
Residence and aqricultural
Forested land with residence
A gricultural land
Forested land with a power substation
Forested land
Aoricultural land with small portions of forested land
Forested land with residence
Majority forested and agricultural land and construction and
debris landfill
Forested , a gricultural and residential land
Forested vacant land
Forested land
Residence on aoricultural and forested land
Forested land
Ag ricultural land, small amounts of forested land
Cemetery
Residence
Forested land
Ma iorit v forested and small portion of agricultural land
Residence
Agricultural, forested and approximately 12 buildin gs
Residence
Vacant, wooded lot
Vacant
NA
Residence
Residence
NA
Residence
Residence
Aqricultural-farm , one home and several outbuildin Qs
Vacant
NA
Residence on partiall y forested land
NA: Information not available on Wake County's Geographic Information System.
9037923 .2
Residence?
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Possibly
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Possibl y
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NA
Yes
CITY OF RALEIGH
N euse River W aste W ater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Human Health Risk Assess ment
Prepared by:
/NTERNATJONAL
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
November 2005
EXHIBIT2
EN:ll
t?itifM&trkN&tl
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Chemical Specific Parameters
Table 2. Summary of Potential Exposure Assumptions -Child/Teenager, Wading in Surface Water
Table 3. Summary of Potential Exposure Assumptions -Resident
Table 4. Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Groundwater
Table 5. Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Surface Water
Table 6. Total Potential Hazard Index
S:\PUBSIPROJECnRIRaleigh_Clly of\CAP
Work\Revised
CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessment\111805-
ii November, 2005
EN:ll
ttii#;@k❖f-ttl
• Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997);
The baseline HHRA has been conducted in accordance with the four-step paradigm for human health
risk assessments developed by USEPA (USEPA, 1989). These steps are:
• Data Evaluation and Hazard Identification
• Toxicity Assessment
• Exposure Assessment
• Risk Characterization
1.1.1 Data Evaluation and Hazard Assessment
Groundwater samples were collected in ten sampling events between November 2002 and July 2005
and surface water samples were collected in four sampling events between November 2002 and
September 2005. All samples were analyzed for nitrate, which was detected in the majority of samples
collected from the over 90 groundwater monitoring wells and from the 28 surface water sampling
stations. Groundwater data are summarized in Tables 1-3 and 1-4 and surface water data are
summarized in Tables 1-5 of the CAP (ENSR, 2005). Nitrate is the only compound of potential
concern (COPC) for this HHRA.
1.1.2 Toxicity Assessment
The purpose of the dose-response assessment is to identify the types of adverse health effects a
chemical may potentially cause, and to define the relationship between the dose of a chemical and the
likelihood or magnitude of an adverse effect (response) (USEPA, 1989). Adverse effects are classified
by USEPA as potentially carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic (i.e., potential effects other than cancer).
Dose-response relationships are defined by USEPA for oral exposure and for exposure by inhalation.
Oral toxicity values are also used to assess dermal exposures, with appropriate adjustments, because
USEPA has not yet developed values for this route of exposure. Combining the results of the toxicity
assessment with information on the magnitude of potential human exposure provides an estimate of
potential risk.
The preferred source for dose-response values is the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database (USEPA, 2005). Nitrate has not been evaluated by USEPA for carcinogenicity, and
no carcinogenic dose-response values have been developed. The noncarcinogenic oral dose
response value for nitrate, the Reference Dose (RfD), is available on IRIS. The oral RfD is based on
infant methemoglobinemia associated with exposure to nitrate in drinking water used to prepare
infants' formula. The oral RID for nitrate is also used without adjustment as the dermal RfD. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 200x) reports that oral absorption of
S:IPUBSIPROJECnRIRaleigh_City ol\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov0SIRisk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November. 2005
1-2
EN:R.
tdU¥?t@·l:tltl
nitrate is nearly 100%. Thus, it is not necessary to adjust the oral RfD to account for an absorbed dose.
The dose-response value for nitrate is presented in Table 1.
1.1.3 Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to predict the magnitude and frequency of potential
human exposure to the site COPCs. Potentially complete exposure pathways are based on an
evaluation of the physical conditions at the sit, the distribution of contaminants, and likely human
activity patterns.
1.1.3.1 Receptors and Exposure Routes
Nitrate was detected in Beddingfield Creek and in other tributaries to the Neuse River. The NRWWTP
site is partially fenced, which may reduce unauthorized access and use of the site. However, it is
possible that a trespasser or nearby resident might wade in one of the tributaries to the Neuse River,
located within the site or in Beddingfield Creek. For the purpose of the risk assessment, the receptor
was identified as a child or teenager (aged 7 to 16 years) wading in the surface water. For
noncarcinogenic effects (the only health effect evaluated for nitrate) a child is a more conservative
receptor than an adult, because estimated exposure doses are normalized over the lower body weight
for a child.
Potential exposure to groundwater is not complete at the site. The City of Raleigh has provided
municipal water to all landowners whose groundwater wells were impacted by, or potentially impacted
by, the nitrates contained in the biosolids applied at the site (ENSR, 2005; ENSR, 2003). To provide a
conservative estimate of potential risks, potential future use of site groundwater or downgradient
groundwater for potable or non-potable uses was evaluated. A hypothetical future resident potentially
exposed to nitrate in groundwater used as drinking water was considered. In addition, a hypothetical
future resident using groundwater for a swimming pool was also evaluate~. The receptor evaluated is
a young child (aged 0-6 years). As stated for the child/teenage wader, a child is the most sensitive
receptor for noncarcinogenic effects.
The exposure assumptions used in this HHRA are derived mainly from USEPA guidance documents,
including USEPA Region 4 bulletins (USEPA, 2000), Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997) and
Human Health Exposure Manual (USEPA, 1991b). These assumptions are presented in Table 2.
1.1.3.2 Potential Exposure Doses
To estimate the potential risk to human health that may be posed by the presence of COPCs in
environmental media in the study area, it is first necessary to estimate the potential exposure dose of
each COPC for each receptor. The exposure dose is estimated for each chemical via each exposure
route/pathway by which the receptor is assumed to be exposed. Exposure dose equations combine
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City ol\CAP Wort\Revised CAP _Nov0SIRisk__Assessmenl\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November. 2005
1-3
EN:R .
tbtii¥Z.til .. 6'&t◄
the estimates of chemical concentration in the environmental medium of interest with assumptions
regarding the type and magnitude of each receptor's potential exposure to provide a numerical
estimate of the exposure dose. The exposure dose is defined as the amount of COPC taken into the
receptor and is expressed in units of milligrams of COPC per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-
day). The exposure doses are combined with the toxicity values to estimate potential risks and
hazards for each receptor. Both potential ingestion and dermal exposures to nitrate in groundwater
and surface water were considered. The exposure dose equations are as follows:
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Ingestion of Water (mg/kg-day):
where:
ADD
cw
IR
EF
ED
MF
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
ADD= cw X IR X EF X EDxAAF
BW.xAT
Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Water concentration (mg/L)
Water ingestion rate (Uday)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (year)
Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Dermal Contact with Water (mg/kg-day):
where:
ADD =
cw =
SA =
Kµ =
MF +
ET =
EF =
ED =
ADD CWxSAxKpxAAFxETx EFxEDxCF
BWxAT
Average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
Water concentration (mg/L)
Exposed skin surface area (cm2)
Dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
Exposure time (hours/day)
Exposure frequency (day/year)
Exposure duration (year)
S:IPUBSIPROJECnRIRaleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NoV05\Rlsk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc
1-4
November, 2005
EN:ll.
thiii;~t@•t-Wtl
CF = Unit conversion factor (U103cm 3)
BW = Body weight (kg)
Two chemical-specific factors, the permeability constant (Kp) and absorption adjustment factor (AAF)
are used in the exposure dose equations.
The estimation of exposure doses resulting from incidental dermal contact with groundwater and
surface water requires the use of a dermal permeability constant (Kp) in units of centimeters per hour
(cm/hr). This method assumes that the behavior of compounds dissolved in water is described by
Fick's Law. In Fick's Law, the steady-state flux of the solute across the skin (mg/cm 2/hr) equals the
permeability constant (kp, cm/hr) multiplied by the concentration difference of the solute across the
membrane (mg/cm3). This approach is discussed by USEPA (USEPA, 1989; 2004b).
The estimate of toxicity of a compound, termed the toxicity value, can be derived from human
epidemiological data, but it is most often derived from experiments with laboratory animals. The
toxicity value can be calculated based on the administered dose of the compound (similar to the
human exposure dose) or, when data are available, based on the absorbed dose, or internal dose, of
the compound.
In animals, as in humans, the administered dose of a compound is not necessarily completely
absorbed. Moreover, differences in absorption exist between laboratory animals and humans, as well
as between different media and routes of exposure. Therefore, it is not always appropriate to directly
apply a toxicity value to the human exposure dose. In many cases, a correction factor in the
calculation of risk is needed to account for differences between absorption in the toxicity study and
absorption likely to occur upon human exposure to a compound in an environmental medium . Without
such a correction, the estimate of human health risk could be over-or under-estimated.
The AAF is used to adjust the human exposure dose so that it is expressed in the same terms as the
doses used to generate the dose-response curve in the dose-response study. The AAF is the ratio
between the estimated human absorption for the specific medium and route of exposure, and the
known or estimated absorption for the laboratory study from which the dose-response value was
derived (USEPA, 1989, 2004b). The route of exposure for the toxicity study (oral ingestion of water) is
the same as the oral route evaluated in the HHRA (oral ingestion of surface water, potable water, or
swimming pool water). Therefore an oral MF of 1 is used. It is assumed that dermal absorption is
similar to oral absorption; therefore , a default value of 1 was used for dermal absorption.
The Kp and AAFs for nitrate are presented in Table 1.
S:\PUBSIPROJECnR\Raleigh_Clty of\CAP Wor1<\Revised CAP _Nov051Risk_Assessmentl111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November. 2005
1-5
Et.,t
IW#IN#friiifil
resulting ratio, which is unitless, is known as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for that chemical. The HQ is
calculated using the following equation:
HQ = ADD(mg I kg -day)
RjD(mg/ kg-day)
The target HQ is defined as an HQ of less than or equal to one (USEPA, 1989). When the HQ is less
than or equal to 1, the RfD has not been exceeded, and no adverse noncarcinogenic effects are
expected. If the HQ is greater than 1 , there may be a potential for adverse noncarcinogenic health
effects to occur, however, the magnitude of the HQ cannot be directly equated to a probability or effect
level. The total HI is calculated for each exposure pathway by summing the HQs for each individual
chemical. In this HHRA, in which there is only one COPC, the HQ is equal to the HI.
A summary of the His for the receptors is presented in this section and compared to the USEPA's
target HI of 1. The His are presented in Table 5.
• Child/Teenage Wader-the HI for the child/teenage wader in Beddingfield Creek is 0 .0004 and
the HI for the child/teenage wader in the other tributaries to the Neuse River is 0.002. Neither
of these His exceed the HI limit of 1.0. Therefore, there are no unacceptable risks for this
receptor.
• Hypothetical Future Resident, Potable Water Use -The HI for the hypothetical future resident
using the maximum detected concentration as the EPC is 5.2 and the HI using the average
concentration as the EPC is 1.6. Because the His exceed 1, the potential risk for potable use
of groundwater by a hypothetical future resident is unacceptable.
• Hypothetical Future Resident, Non-potable Water Use (Swimming Pool) -The HI for the
hypothetical future resident is 0.02 using the maximum detected concentration as the EPC and
0.007 using the average concentration as the EPC. Therefore, there are no unacceptable risks
for the hypothetical future resident by the non-potable water pathway.
1.1.5 Uncertainties
The His presented in this HHRA are estimates of potential risk that are useful in regulatory decision
making . It is improper to consider these values as representing actual risk to exposed individuals
because there is an unquantifiable uncertainty associated with them . Numerous assumptions must be
made in each step of the risk characterization process. Some of the assumptions have a firm scientific
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nm.05\Rlsk_Assessmenl\111805-Risk_Assessmenl.doc November. 2005
1-7
EN:R.
t&tiiMZfi❖Xttil
basis, while others do not. Some level of uncertainty is introduced into the risk characterization every
time an assumption is made.
In regulatory risk characterization, the methodology dictates that the analyst err on the side of
overestimating human risk whenever there is a question concerning the appropriate value to assume
for any given parameter. The effect of using numerous parameters that each overestimate the actual
or realistic value is that the risk characterization produces an exaggerated estimate of human risk.
Such an analysis is useful for regulatory decision making, but it does not provide a realistic estimate of
the potential health impacts at commercial or industrial sites. Any one person's potential exposure and
subsequent risk are influenced by many variable parameters, which differ for individuals and
compounds.
Although average concentrations better represent exposure potential over time, the maximum detected
concentration in surface water was used as the EPC. This has the effect of increasing the estimate of
potential risks. Both the maximum and average concentrations in groundwater were used for
evaluation of potential risks posed by groundwater.
The most recent groundwater data (2004 and 2005) were used to develop groundwater EPCs to
evaluate potential future risks from use of the groundwater as a potable or non-potable water source.
However, it is likely that the nitrate concentrations will diminish over time. Therefore, potential future
risks may be overestimated.
1.1.6 Summary
A baseline HHRA was conducted for nitrate in surface water and groundwater at the City of Raleigh
Wastewater Treatment Plant site. Potential receptors were a child/teenage wader at Beddingfield
Creek and the other Neuse River tributaries and a hypothetical future resident using site groundwater
for potable and/or non-potable uses. Exposure assumptions were selected in accordance with USEPA
guidance (USEPA,1989; 1991; 1997; 2004b). EPCs for surface water were maximum detected
concentration from the last three sampling events and the average concentration (temporal and area).
Noncarcinogenic His were calculated for the ingestion and dermal routes of exposure. Based on
comparison of the His to the USEPA limit of 1.0, there were no unacceptable risks for exposure to
surface water or for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable purpose (swimming pool).
However, the His for potable use of groundwater exceeded 1.0, indicating a potentially unacceptable
risk for site groundwater used as drinking water.
1.1.7 References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005. URL:
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/.
S:\PUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Wor!c\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-8
EN3l
t6U#iM·til-bttl
ENSR, 2005. Revised Corrective Action Plan, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
ENSR , 2003. Supplemental Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina .
ENSR, 2002 . Comprehensive Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund : Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C . EPA 540/1-89/002.
USEPA. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals). Interim. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
9285.7-01 B, December.
USE PA. 1991 p. Human Health Exposure Manual, Supplemental Guidance; Standard Default
Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive No. 9285.6-03. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I, II and Ill. EPA/600/P-95/002F. Office of
Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2000. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk
Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Waste Management
Division . Atlanta, GA. Update 05/01/2000. [URL:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/oftecser/healthbul.htm)
USEPA. 2002 . National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. EPA-822-R-02-047. November 2002 .
USEPA. 2004a . 2004 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. EPA 822-R-04-005. Winter 2004.
USEPA. 2004b. Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.
July 2004.
USEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk Information System. URL: http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html.
Accessed November 16, 2005.
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_Clty of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-9
TABLE 1
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, RALEIGH, NC
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS FOR NITRATE Value
Reference Dose 1.6.E+00
Absorption Adjustment Factor (Oral and Dermal) 1.E+OO
Permeability Coefficient 1.E-03
Notes :
Units REFERENCE/NOTES
mg/kg-day USEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk Information Syst,
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html
unitless Assumed value. ASTOR (2005) indicates that or
absorption of nitrate is nearly 100%.
cm/hour USEPA. 2005. Risk Assessment Guidance for~
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Pa
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assess
Default value for inorganics. Exhibit 3-1.
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls
I
11/18/2005
TABLE2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS· CHILD/TEENAGER, WADING IN SURFACE WATER
HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH , NORTH CAROLINA
ChildfTeenager
Wading in Surface Water
Parameter (7 to 16 yrs)
Parameters Used in the Surface Water Pathway -Wading
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year) 45
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr) 10
Surface Water Ingestion Rate (JR) (I/hour) 0 .01
Skin Contacting Medium (SA) (cm•2) 1975
Body Weight (BW) (kg) 45
Exposure Time (El) (hr/day) 1
Notes:
(a) -1 day per week for 39 weeks (9 wannest months) of the year, and 2 days per month for the 3 coldest months of the year.
This is also the USEPA Region 4 default for swimming.
(b) -Wader is assumed to range in age from 7 to 16 (USEPA, 2000). Therefore, total exposure duration is 10 years.
(c) -USEPA, 2000 . US EPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Default value .
(cl) -USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Average surface area of feet and one-quarter legs of males and females aged 7 to 16,
listed in EFH Tables 6-6 to 6-8 .
(e) -USEPA, 2000. US EPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Default value.
(f) -Best professional judgment.
S:IPUBS\PROJEC1\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov051Risk_Assessment\TABLES .xls
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
November, 2005
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS • RESIDENT
H!JMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Parameter
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Swimming Pool water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/day)
Exposure Time Swimming (hour/event)
Skin Contacting Medium (cm2)
Body Weight (SW) (kg)
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Drinking water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/day)
Exposure Time Bathing (hour/event)
Skin Contacting Medium (cm2)
Bodv Weight (BW) (kg)
Notes :
Resident
Child (0 to 6 y rs )
90
6
0.01
1
6600
15
350
6
1
1
6600
15
(a) • 2 day per week for 39 weeks (9 warmest months) of the year, and 4 days per month for the 3 coldest months of the year.
This is also the USEPA Region 4 default value for a swimming pool.
(b) -USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Recommended average for time residing in a household, Table 1-2. (9 years total,
assuming 7 years as an adult and 2 as a child -assumes that the 2 years as a child can occur anywhere between the ages of
o to 6. Therefore, exposure factors for a o to 6 year old child are employed).
(c) • USEPA, 2000 . USEPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance . Default value.
(d) -Best professional judgment.
(e) • USEPA, 2004 . Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual . PartE.
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment Default Value. Bathing exposure time is Reasonable
Maximum Exposure value.
(f) -USEPA, 1991 . Standard Default Exposure Factors.
S:IPUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_AssessmentlTABLES .xls
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(f)
(b)
(f)
(e)
(e)
(f)
November, 2005
TABLE 4
Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Groundwater
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (mg /L
Average for
Each Well
Over Time
Sample ID Field ID November 2004 March 2005 July 2005 (2004-2005)
Test Well 13 Field 42 1.9 0.05 U* 3.82 1.9
Test Well 20 Field 20 9.3 1.74 3.70 4 .9
Test Well 22 Field 16 0.05 U* NS 0.14 0.10
Test Well 41 Field 3 77.4 D* 80.08 75.17 77.5
TestWell42A Field 18/19 113.4 D* 125.10 129.45 122.7
TestWell 44 Field 26 5.0 6.32 6.03 5.8
Test Weil 45 Field 47 29.3 D* 9.17 56.85 31.8
TestWell 46 Field 61 1.2 1.16 1.10 1.2
Test Well 47 Field 61 35.0 D* 31.09 32.52 32.9
Test Well 48 Field 60 53.6 D* 41.00 37.25 44.0
Test Well 49 Field 74 1.4 2.21 4 .06 2.6
TestWell 50 Field 75 28.6 D* 22.00 27.75 26.1
Test Well 51 (1) Field 12 98.8 D* 79 .99 77.13 85.3
Test Well 52 (1) Field 41 76.8 D* 93.12 76.41 82.1
Test Well 53 (1) Field 62 71.0 D* 59.40 51.86 60.7
Test Well 54 (1) Field 503 58.2 D* 42.95 50.40 50.5
Maximum Detect, by Month 113.4 125.1 129.45
Maximum Detect, November 2004-Julv 2005 129.45 39.37
Notes:
1) Test Wells 51, 52, 53, 54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
u• -Reported as not detected. One-half the sample quantitation limit is shown.
D* -Concentration shown is the average of duplicates.
TABLES .xls\4
Average for All
Sam oled Wells
Page 1 of 1
TABLES
Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Surface Water
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (m1~/L
Location November 2002 June 2003 May/June 2004 September 2005
Bettingfield Creek
SW-19 16 21 NS NS
SW-20 3.8 3.3 NS NS
SW-20 dup 3.5 NS NS NS
SW-20, duplicate averaQe 3.65 3.3 NS NS
SW-21 0.15 0.18 NS NS
SW-22 0.25 1.5 NS NS
SW-24 0.53 0.52 NS NS
Maximum Concentration, All Bettingfield Creek Sampling Stations
Other Tributaries, Neuse River
SW-1 52 49 NS 43
SW-2 0.39 13 NS NS
SW-3 52 50 NS d rv
SW-4 54 47 NS 78
SW-5 0.69 2 NS NS
SW-6 54 46 NS 70
SW-7 77 83 NS 98
SW-8 1.2 1.6 NS NS
SW-9 34 36 NS NS
SW-10 48 19 NS NS
SW-11 19 47 NS 33
SW-12 52 41 NS NS
SW-13 0.46 1.3 NS NS
SW-14 0.21 0 .16 NS NS
SW-15 20 20 NS NS
SW-16 1.7 6.2 NS NS
SW-17 5.5 0.97 NS NS
SW-18 3 1.7 NS NS
SW-23 0.72 NS NS NS
SW-25 NS 4.6 NS NS
SW-26 NS 9.8 9.2 # dry
SW-27 NS 14 22 .9 # d ry
SW-28 NS 46 NS NS
Maximum, Other Tributaries Sam pling Stations
Notes:
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
Dup. -Duplicate sample
Maximum
Concentration
21
--
--
3 .65
0.18
1.5
0.53
21
52
13
52
78
2
70
98
1.6
36
48
47
52
1.3
0.21
20
6.2
5.5
3
0.7
4.6
9.8
22.9
46
98
#-Samples were collected May 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, and 26 and June 7 and 9, 2004. The concentrations shown are
averages of the concentrations reported for these multiple sampling events.
TABLES .xls\5 Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6
TOTAL POTENTIAL HAZARD INDEX
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Chemical
Nitrate I
Notes:
lng/Oerm • lngeslion/Dermal Conlacl.
EPC • Exposure Polnl Concenlralion
Surface Water .Child/Teenager
Other Neuse River Potable Water •
Bettlngfleld Creek Trlbutarlea MaxlmumEPC
Ing/Dem,. lng/Derm. Ing/Dem,.
0.0004 0.002 5.2
S:\PUBS\PROJECnRIRaleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessment\TABLES .xls/6
Groun<lwater • Resident !Young Child)
Potable Water. Swimming Pool -Swimming Pool -
Av.rage EPC MaxlmumEPC Average EPC
Ing/Dem,. Ing/Dem,. Ing/Dem,.
1.6 0.02 0.007
January, 2005
EXHIBIT3
TABLE 1 -JOHNSTON COUNlY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
ffqffl~ ·.,..,,Nl;.!J.ec .,.. -" ill, 9', ~ •.·...,.. ""'" ·-~ PJ}DR!SSS ;;., I, -" ~ : Sl"ATE Zll! .
1 WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH 2100 HARMONY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
2 WAUGH, DONALD & WAUGH, JEAN 2610 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
3 BOLEN, HOWARD & BOLEN, MELISSA 2016 RIDGE Cl CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
4 JOHNSON, ROYS & CHARLOTTE M 2008 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 275~09
5 FLEMING, JANET LYNN 2004 FOREST DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8811
6 AVIE CO 1000CCCDR CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
7 MORRIS, SONDRA & GARY 20 16 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
8 ETTRIDGE, JAMES F & JUDITH L 2020 ELIZABETH COUR T CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
9 STRICKER, RALPH & SONDRA 2024 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
10 STAMEY, ROBERT & JODIE 2000 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
11 JENKINS GARY L & JANET H 2012 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
12 STRICKER, WILLIAM MICHAEL 2004 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
13 JOHN SON, TONY LEE & MARTHA P 2008 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
14 PRIVETTE, WIWS E & JANiCE 1925 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
15 EVANS BRUCE L & CAROLYN M 2004 PINEBARK LANE CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
16 WILLIAMS, DONALD K & VIRGINIA 2013 VALLEY CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
17 JEWELL GARY A & RHONDA 2003 PINEBARK LN CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
18 CAUGHMAN CE & REBECCA 2009 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
19 MUNT HERBERT F Ill . 2017 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
20 SHREVE, JAMES DANIEL & MITSY 2000 PINE BARK LN CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
21 SMITH, SANDY M & MATTHEW 2007 PINEBARK LANE CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
22 GRANT, LONNIE G & PATTIE M 2021 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
23 RUSSELL, TRAVIS E & DEBRA 121 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
24 CARROLL, LARRY W JR 125 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
25 JOHNSON, MALCOM DEWITT & CAROL POBOX966 CLAYTON NC 27520-0966
26 BOONE CAROL BEARD 422 BISCAYNE DRIVE WILMINGTON NC 28411-0000
27 HORNE, SARAH BEARD 214 TARPON CT NAGS HEAD NC 27959-0000
28 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 2752~20
29 BENSON, IRENE LF EST &STEVEN 2501 OLD US 70 WEST CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
30 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
31 BENSON IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
32 STATE OF NC C/0 STATE PROPERTY 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH NC 27603-0000
33 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH NC 27603-0000
34 JONES, CHRISTOPHER & ANITA 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8212
35 BELVIN, JUDITH W & LARRY E 321 EMAINST CLAYTON NC 27520-2463
36 JOHNSON, CLARENCE & WIFE 201 MEADOW RUN KNIGHTDALE NC 27520-2463
37 JOHNSON, DAVID IRA & MARNIE 5009 COVERED BRIDGE RD CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
38 PARKER, DONALD A 300 SPINEST BENSON NC 27504-0000
39 PARKER, DONALD A 300SPINEST BENSON NC 27504--0000
40 JAMES M GILBERT INC PO BOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
41 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
42 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
43 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
44 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-000·0
45 NA NA NA NA NA
NOTES:
NA: Parcel owner infonnation not available on Wake County Geographic lnfonnalion System
#9051632v2
EXHIBIT 3
TABLE 2. WAKE COUNTY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
Number. OWNER -~~ -~-~_ .. ijlj, -,., ~ ·= ,,, ,_ IADORESS , ,:-:,o -. -. ~"'·· v' -,, i:t~""' ·. ST.ATE-ZIP-,,
46 FRANKLIN, PATRICIA A 3435 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
47 AUTON, SUSAN M & JERRY L 3524 BALLOT RO CLAYTON NC 2752G-9301
48 DOUGLAS, PHILLIP N & BARBARA S 413 HAROWOOO RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
49 OONA Tl, BRIAN C & DEBORAH M 1316 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
50 OEBOCK, RICHARD M & JOANNE 1320 PINE TRl CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
51 WHITE, DENNIS C & RUTH H 1324 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9324
52 TERRY. AMANDA & RYAN GROULX 1109 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9360
53 LEBING, WYTOLD R & CAROLBARBOUR. SWADE E JR 1304 PIN.E TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9324
54 NA NA NA NA NA
55 CARROLL KATHY LYNN 8500 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9266
56 DEBNAM CATHERINE 5717 MIAl. PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610~529
57 SEAWELL, VIRGINIA D 5529 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-S526
58 TANKARD. ANNE M MCINNES, CORNELIA, STEWART C MCIN'NES 8419 KALB RD RICHMOND VA 23~133
59 BAUCOM. JOHN R JR & MARIE A 4400 AUBURN CHURCH RO GARNER NC Z7529-8765
60 OKAMOTO, ERIC B & JUDITH F 1113 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
61 HEDRILII,_ ROBERT A & PATRICIA 0 4704 STILLER ST RALEIGH NC 27609-5640
62 EDGE OF AUBURN LLC POBOX19808 RALEIGH NC 27619-9808
63 HINZ, KYLE D & KAREN K 3401 DEER RACE LA CLAYTON NC 2752G-OO00
64 BEAVERS, RICHARD W & SHARON ROSE 654 CORBETT RD CLAYTON NC 2752G-8452
65 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFC/O STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
66 BROADWELL BOBBY H & PAMELA S 132a PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9324
67 HUNTER, TERI FULK TRUSTEE 1340 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9324
68 BAKER, LULA ANNE BAKER. TIMOTHY JOEL 3345 STONEY CREEK DR CLAYTON NC 27520-5958
69 SARROCCO, NICHOLAS A & EUGENIA S 7820 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9252
70 BRUFF, MICHAELS & KIMBERLY B 1312 PINETRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9324
71 GAZDA, SHANE GAZDA, MARGERY CARNEY 2704 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
72 AOAMS, JIMMY C & TONDRA E 8428 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
73 GARRETT. DARYL J & RAMONA C 7027 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
74 LEHOCKY, RICHARD D & BETTY A 1336 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9324
75 GIL, PAUL J & DARCY A 2708 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
76 MCLEAN. ROBERTS & JOHNNIE F 1333 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
77 SLAVIN, JAMES A & MARYE 1205 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9381
78 DEBNAM SHIRLEY H 5700 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-S528
79 MCCLUNG, DOUGLAS E & AMY E 420 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
80 BARBOUR. SWADE E JR HEIRS 326 LOMBAR ST CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
81 MALARKEY. WIWAM J & CECELIA GALE 1325 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9345
82 DEBNAM, RETHA M, DEBNAM. CHRISTOPHER HENRY W DEBNAM 1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DR WAXrtAW NC 21173-6610
83 PHILLIPS. LESTER L PHIWPS, REBECCA 2700 BALLOT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9304
84 WOO. HEA K & CHUN I 342.5 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27~5931
85 BALL DOUGLAS 1027 HWY 70 W SUrrE 225 GARNER NC 27529-0000
BB TALTON, MARGARET B 2728 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-92 14
87 MCKINNON, SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708M~LPLANTATIONRD RALEIGH NC 27610-S528
88 O'ALLAIRD. DANIEL & EMMA 2436 NEUSEHILL LN RALEIGH NC 27610-9102
89 MORGAN, ELIZABETH B POBOX4721 CHAPEL HILL NC 27515-4721
90 LONG BRANCH FARM LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
9 1 BAUCOM. JULIAN & MARLENE 3021 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
92 HAWLEY WILLIAM J & ROBERTA L 2709 EMMETT CREST CT f'JAYTON NC 27520-9322
93 DUNN, PH YLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNlE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
94 DAUGHERTY. GLADYS YOUNGDANIEL HOLLAND 572 BOGGS RANCH RD GRAHAM NC Z725l-OOOO
95 BAUCOM. WILL~M BYRD POBOX248 CtAYTON NC 27528--0248
96 BAUCOM, CLIFTON P 3005 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
97 MIESCH, JOHN F & LINDA T 3420 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9307
98 DANIELS, EARL & JOELINE Y 5717 M~L PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
99 ROBERTSON.JETHRO, ETHEL BARBOUR 1009 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
100 BIDDIX, THOMAS L & DEBORAH W 1117 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
101 CHAMPION, ROBERT & MONA 2700 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 2752G-9322
102 MARRINER, LOUIS & FRANCES OWENS 1125 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9360
103 QUINN, POLLY S PO BOX132 HINESBURG VT 05461-0132
104 MCCARDLE. VAN R & CHERYL M 1105 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9360
105 FREEMAN, DANNA F 1101 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9380
106 BAUCOM, JULIAN M 3021 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-S539
107 PRICE. RALPH L & BEVERLY W 1201 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9361
108 MCKINNON SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH" NC 27610~528
109 REED, CHARLES E 7020 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
110 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFC/O STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
111 KELLY, JOSEPH A & JOAN B 1332 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
112 BELL, IAN & ELMA C 1308 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 2752G-9324
113 JONES. CHRISTOPHER & ANITA A 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8212
114 PBR GROUP LLC RTE 2 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-0000
115 PERKINS, MARVIN CLAUDE & SUSAN J 6200 M~L PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
116 RHODES. WILLIAM T & GWYN K 3751 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 2752G-6541
118 GILBERT, JENNIFER P 273C BLUE POND RD CLAYTON NC 27520-7493
NOTES:
NA: Parcel owner information not avaiable on Wake County Geographic Information System
#S051632V2
EXHIBIT 3
TABLE 3 -WAKE COUNTY VARIANCE PARCELS AND CITY OF RALEIGH PROPERTY
Number ,,. OWNER ->rO· ~• T. -, ~ -. ADDRESS ~,; CITY -·. \'P SUTE ZIPl ,~ .,
119 NC STATE OF C/O PROPERTY CONTROL OFFICE 9001 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-9001
120 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
121 ADAMS, PAUL M HEIRS C/O WANDA S ADAMS EXECUTRIX 8404 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
122 ADAMS, DAL TON HICKMAN ADAMS, GEORGIA M COOPER 8401 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9265
123 NICHOLSON, CHEYNEY A POBOX33065 RALEIGH NC 27638-3065
124 RALEIGH CITY OF POBOX590 RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
125 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO ATTN W H KEITH CX1 G PO BOX 14042 ST PETERSBU RG FL 33733-4042
126 WHEELER, PAM ELA ANN WHEELER, BRIAN KEITH 6029 MIAL PLANTATION RD RAL EIG H NC 27610-8534
127 NA NA NA NA NA
128 RALEIG H CITY OF POBOX590 RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
129 COW ING, BETTY B 8100 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9258
130 MATERIAL RECOVERY LLC 421 RALEIGH VIEW RD RALEIGH NC 27610-4623
131 HOPKINS JOHN H 2293 STANDING ROCK RD CAMDENTON MO 65020-4626
132 BAUCOM JOHN R JR 4400 AUBURN CHURCH RO GARNER NC 27529-8765
133 HINTON, JAMES E 333 LAF AYETTE AVE />PT 121 BROOKLYN NY 11238-1337
134 BAUCOM WILLIAM B & ANN R POBOX248 CLAYTON NC 27528-0248
135 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
136 RALEIGH CITY OF 222 W HARGETT ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1316
137 TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORIGINAL RR 1 KNIGHTDALE NC 27545-9801
138 DANIELS EARL & JOELINE Y 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
139 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF C/O DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
140 NC STATE OF 1321 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-1321
141 RALEIGH CITY OF 222 W HARGETT ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1316
142 RALEIGH CITY OF POBOX590 RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
143 ADAMS JERRY WAYNE ADAMS BRENDA DIANNE 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
144 HASH , DAVID W & LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
145 BROWN, SHERRY ADAMS & STEPHEN DALE 135 RIDGE WAYLN CLAYTON NC 27520-8084
146 NA NA NA NA NA
147 BROWN, SYBLE B 8529 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
148 FRISON BRENDA J 8549 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
149 NA NA NA NA NA
150 HASH, DAVID W & LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
151 YOUNG, EVELYN C 8537 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
152 RHODES, WILLIAM T & GWYN K 3751 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
153 ADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE D MADAMS JR 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
154 NA NA NA NA NA
155 OSBORN ARNOLD L JR 6208 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
NOTES:
NA : Parcel owner Information not available on Wake County Geographic Information System
#905 1632"2
CITY OF RALEIGH
Neuse River W aste W ater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, N orth Carolina
Revis e d Correc t ive Act io n P la n
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
December 2005
Etal
th?Md&W4W +
• Bedrock in this area typically consists of granitic rock with fractures near the interface of
PWR and bedrock. The number and size of the fractures generally dissipate with depth
while voids and vugs are common in shallow rock zones when weak exfoliation soil zones
are encountered near PWR.
Hydrogeoloqy
Hydrogeologically, the Site is situated in a meta-igneous hydrostratigraphic unit of the eastern
Piedmont of North Carolina (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Two general hydrostratigraphic units (saprolite
and PWR/upper bedrock) characterize the regional hydrogeology. The upper saprolite unit is an
unconfined aquifer that transmits water downward to the lower semi-confined PWR and fractured
confined crystalline bedrock aquifer unit. Groundwater yields often range from 2 to 20 gallons per
minute (gpm) within the unit (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Groundwater occurs where saprolite and
localized sedimentary/alluvial deposits along the Neuse River overlie bedrock. Groundwater
movement in the saprolite is controlled by groundwater divides associated with ridges and streams.
The typical flow of groundwater occurs from upland areas (ridgelines) to perennial streams. The
underlying granitic rocks are known to have lower hydraulic conductivities than either saprolite or PWR
and controls deep groundwater or regional groundwater flow conditions. The PWR lies between
saprolite and bedrock units and groundwater movement flows both within the material matrix and
through fractures. Groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to intersecting sets of water-bearing
fractures and joints (Hamed and Daniel, 1989).
Hydraulic properties of the saprolite and PWR zones were evaluated using rising and falling head slug
test methods. Hydraulic conductivity (K) values for the shallow aquifer ranged from 1.3 x 10-a to
6.4 x 10-3 centimeters per second (cm/sec). K values for PWR wells ranged from 4.4 x 10.s to
1.1 x 10-3 cm/sec. A transmissivity of 4.6 x 10·5 square centimeters per day (cm2/day) (1.3 square feet
per day [W/day]) was obtained for well MW-126d (ENSR, 2003).
Quantification of groundwater flow directions and rates has been provided by a calibrated, three-
dimensional groundwater flow model. Quantification of the movement and discharge locations of
nitrogen originating from the biosolids application fields has been provided by a three-dimensional
transport model that uses the flow model to compute groundwater flow velocities. Both of these
models are documented in the CSA (ENSR, 2002) and the SSA (ENSR, 2003)), and have been
reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's Aquifer Protection Section.
1.3 ECS Investigation
In April 2002, Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS) was contracted by CORPUD fo investigate
the occurrence of nitrate in groundwater at the Site. The findings of the ECS investigation are
summarized in the Report of Investigations (ECS, 2002a). The investigation focused on seven
biosolids land application areas (including Fields 4, 5, 11, 12, 17-22, 47, 48, 74, 75, 519, and 520).
Results of the soil analysis indicated that in general, ammonia, total organic carbon (TOG) and total
S:IPUBSIPROJECTIR\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
1-4 December, 2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
,.
DRAFT Rick and Jay s chaI!g es VeYaion June 19, 2007
July 3, 2007
10 MEMQRANDJIM:
11
12
13 TO:
14
15
16 FROM:
17
18
Dr. Ken Rudo, Ph.D, Toxicologist
Division of Public Health-OEES
Alan Clark, Chief, Planning Section
DRAFT
19 SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Proposed Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0202
20 Groundwater Quality Standards and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) for the City of Raleigh
21 Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) for Land Application Fields at its Neuse
22 River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP}, Raleigh, Wake County, North
23 Carolina{Permit Number WQ000l 730}.
24
2 s Attached for your review and comment is a variance request on behalf of the City of Raleigh
26 Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) from ENSR International. This request is for a variance
27 from the pmbihitiao ta pJ1rsue a natural attennatinn corrective action plan (CAP) Permitted
28 facilities are not allowed ta pursue any CAP, \vbicb proposes natural attenuation or limited
29 corrective action to the Gromtdwate1 Quality Standaid for Nitrate The CAP and affects thirty-five
30 (35) parcels of.land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP} that..the city uses
31 to land apply wastewater treatment plant residuals under a ·permit (WQ00O 1730) that was issued by
32 the Division of Water Quality. The CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
33 (NRWWTP) has a permit to land apply discharge wastewater treatment plant residuals to-tire
34 subsmface via landfarming and inigation and applies wastes on numerous fields under the
3.5 conditions written into the . permit within its compliance boundary. Permitted operations are
3 6 conducted on city properties and surrounding properties in an area of mixed commercial, industrial,
37 and residential property in southeastern Wake County. The Division has currently suspended the
38 application afresidJ1als until such time as the Division approves otherwise
3 9 The variance request is to allow the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and
40 treatment of groundwater containing Nitrate n,ig1atingtbat bas migrated beyond the limits of the
41 Compliance Rmmdary, as required by 15A NCAC 2r OJ 06 (d)(2), and to apply the requirements of
42 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) to this site_ Nitrate from non-discharge disposal operations has migrated
4 3 outside of the permitted compliance boundary to the southwest of the facility. This rule specifies
44 that a person may submit a corrective action plan for a "non-permitted site", that specifies a cleanup
45 plan under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). This type of cleanup allows for corrective action without
1
DRAFT Rick and Jays changes Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
1 " ... requiring groundwater remediation to the standards". Under 15A NCAC 2L, this type of
2 corrective action cannot be applied to exceedences at permitted facilities where substances have
3 migrated outside compliance boundaries defined in 15A NCAC 2L .0107, unless a variance is
4 granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The CORPUD wants to apply the conditions of 15A NCAC
5 2L .0106(k) to existing permitted wastewater treatment land disposal operations at its Neuse River
6 Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) where discharges of groundwater impacted by
7 n:itra:teNitrates wj)l migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the
8 groundwater is not going ta he used for a water supply. Tn areas near the facility, where the fotnre
9 use of the groundwater wit) he for a potable supplye, CORPI ID has implemented an active
10 treatment system designed ta more rapidly remove the n:i:trateNitrate from the groundwater
11 Residents in this area have been connected ta municipal water by CQRPIID in the interim
12 The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) believes that groundwaters
13 downgradient from the facility are exceeding the current standard but can be attenuated and restored
14 by passive natural processes in the subsurface. If granted by the Environmental Management
15 Commission, the variance will require implementation of corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L.
16 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for downgradient plume containment
1 7 and long term monitoring of Nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as specified under 15A NCAC 2L
18 .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard for Nitrate of 10
19 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted that the
2 o cleanup requirements for Nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and
21 no other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
2 2 The supporting information for this variance request is contained in two reports titled as
23 follows:
24
25 • "Corrective Action Variance Application, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater
2 6 Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina December 1, 2005" and will be referred to in this
27 letter as the December J, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" and is also referred
28 to as the variance request;
29
30 • "City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh, ·North Carolina,
31 Revised Corrective Action Plan, ENSR International, December 2005" and will be referred
32 to in this letter as December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan
33
34
3 s The Division of Water Quality requests that that-the Division of Public Health evaluate the
3 6 attached information to support the risk assessment for this proposed variance. Relevant portions of
37 the reports discussed above are included with this letter. In order to meet the requirements in 15A
38 NCAC 2L .0113, the utility submitted the following supporting information to demonstrating
3 9 demonstrate that the variance will not endanger public health and safety for the following reasons:
40
41
42
43
44
1. The permitted operations at this facility (Permit Number WQ000l 730) have been
conducted since 1976 and the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
will be overseeing permitted land application operations and the conditions related to
this variance request until the facility is no longer in use, which is not likely occur for
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
DRAFT Rick and Ja s chan es Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
decades to come. The current estimated life of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant is 30 years.
2. The utility has fully delineated which properties are included in this variance request.
There areihe. thirty-five parcels ofland included :within this variance request are listed in
Table # 6 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application with parcel
sizes and land uses discussed. These properties are shown in Figure # 2 of the variance
request.
3. The CORPUD City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has determined
the direction and rate of flow of groundwater that would be affected by granting a
variance. Page 1-4 and Page 1-5 of the December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan
shows that groundwater is generally moving in the direction of the Neuse River and its
tributaries around the site. Page 4 of the request states that the movement of groundwater
through soils and subsurface materials as the site is approximately a rate of "1.3 square
feet per day", which is. a significantly 1e)ative)y low rate of movement for this
bydrogeologic setting.
4. Based on data from monitoring wells, there is sufficient impact to on-site groundwaters
to war1ar1t a vmiance to the Gronndwatet Quality Stm1dard for Nitrate. The City of
Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD). investigated groundwater analytical
results from monitoring wells on-site and these are discussed on Page # 4 and Page # 5
of the variance request. Monitoring well data for Nitrate is shown in Table # 3 for Test
Wells (IW) from March 2003 to July 2005. Results from Monitoring Wells (MW) are
foundin Table # 4 for Nitrate from late 2002 through the spring of 2004. These tables
demonstrate that wells around Fields 50 and 500 consistently have concentrations of
Nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. It is these
land application fields for-whichthat the CORPUD believes have caused significant
impacts to downgradient properties outside of compliance boundaries. Analysis of
groundwater samples from various ficlds...shows exceedences of the Groundwater Quality
Standard for Nitrate at fifteen fields (Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, .
100, 201, 500 and 503 which are located near the compliance boundary. Four onsite
monitoring wells and a former water supply well (PW-22) have exceedences of the
Nitrate standard. The utility believes that off-site nitlate Nitrate impacts to groundwater
associated with biosolids in the vicinity of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road
does not extend east of Shotwell Road and Mial Plantation Road. (See Table # 3 and
Table# 4 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application and Figure 3
from the December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan). Table # 1 of the report titled
December J, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application shows the locations or
monitoring wells and test wells at this facility.
5. The utility has investigated the off-site impacts to area drinking water wells to meet the
criteria of ISA NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c)(4). There are no downgradient water wells that are
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
DRAFT
6.
7.
Rick and Jay s changes Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
known to be in use for drinking water supply at this time. All of these properties are now
on the City of Raleigh's public water supply system. The CORPUD conducted sampling
starting in 2002 of private water supply wells located to the southeast ofodjacent to the
facility. Of the thirty-six water supply wells initially sampled, seven showed
concentrations of Nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per
liter in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. As a result of the initial sampling effort and to evaluate
water use in light of proposing a variance, the utility expanded its monitoring to forty-
five properties and sampled wells on a quarterly basis. The City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Deprutment (CORPUD) ruialyzed the data it obtained ru1d belie\les that the
exceedences of the Grnundwatet Quality Standard for Nitrate in the se\1en water wells
are a combination of septic systems, upgradient fertilizer application, and upgradient
biosolids applications that rue unrelated to cities permitted operations. There are thirty-
nine properties that were served by thirty-eight water supply wells, of which thirty-seven
have been "deconnnissioned"pen:mmently abandoned in accordance with the state's rules
and all of these properties have been connected to the City of Raleigh Public Water
Supply System. The owner of the one property where the well has not been abandoned is
on city water but refused the offer to have the well abandoned. Analytical data from the
monitoring wells located across Beddingfield Creek indicates that migration of nitrate-
impacted groundwater under the stream is not likely occurring. (See Page 5 and Page 6
of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application for a more detailed
discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
The utility has conducted further analysis of Nitrate concentrations from this site to
support its findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows that the utility has
conducted ru1 extensivea risk analysis of the impacts of Nitrate to neighboring properties.
A discussion of this risk assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and
continues onto Page # 9 of the request. The company CQRPJID examined various
pathways of exposure using the most sensitive human receptors to determine the most
conservative risk pathway. The exposure pathways analyzed included a young child
exposed to Nitrate from water used in a swimming pool, a child and a teenager wading
in the surface water, and the use of groundwater containing Nitrate as a source of
irrigation supply. Data analysis of these pathways did not indicate an unacceptable risk
of exposure to the Nnitrates from the facility. The only pathway for which risk analysis
showed a possible impact was consumption .o£groundwater. However, there are no wetts
property owners in the vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant .that....are using groundwater as a source of drinking water where nitrate Nitrate
exceeds or is predicted to exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 (103). It must be noted that the city will continue to monitor NitrateNitrate levels
in g1on11dwate1 at the compliance boundary as required by permit for as long as Nitrate
concentrations in groundwater are above the 10 milligrams per liter standard to ensure
protection of public health and the environment. .
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has submitted information
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
DRAFT
8.
9.
Rick and Ja s chagg_es Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
demonstrating that land application of residuals from the wastewater treatment process
on existing fields that are in use will continue to be an effective means of addressing
these permitted activities. Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the request discusses land
application of Nitrate and soils at this facility. The utility has conducted analytical soil
sampling to determine the soil profile for nittateNitrate at the time this variance was
requested. The utility took samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west) and Field
500 (southeast) and found that Nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet and 8
feet below the ground surface. The implication of this is that Nitrates from the permitted
operations are accumulating through mechanisms such as infiltration via slow water
movement through the soil and anion exchange. In addition, Page 7 notes that the site
assessment work by ENSR International considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in
2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to support this variance request. The study
concluded that the Nitrogen applied to these field was "adequate to excessive" for crop
production and will support plant life.
There wottld be no foreseeable smface water impacts fiom granting a variance for this
facility. Table# 5 of the variance request shows the results of surface waster sampling
from -November 2002 through September 2005 at twenty-eight separate locations. These
locations are mapped out on Figure 1 in this variance. The direction of groundwater flow
through this portion of the facility is toward a tributary of the Neuse River identified in
the variance request as Beddingfield Creek. This water body is classified as Class C
NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water). There is no nittateNitrate surface water standard for
this class of surface water. This body of water empties into the Neuse River, which is
classified as Water Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) and the surface water
standard for Water Supply V NSW is 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrate levels in nearby
surface water suggests that groundwater discharges to streams and tributaries of the
Neuse River, however, Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River did not exceed the 15A
NCAC 2B Surface Water Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. A discussion of surface
water sampling and the implications of results found are located on Page # 6, Page # 8
and Page# 9 of the variance request.
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has also investigated the
potential for euthrophication of the Neuse River as a result of granting the variance
request. Under certain ambient conditions, additional Nitrate in a surface water body
may result in the occurrence of algal blooms that can deteriorate water quality. Based on
the data contained in the variance request, CORPUD has agreed that as a condition for
approval of the variance it will account for this potential impact. . The utility bas
indicated that it will accept a specification in its wastewater discharge permit to account
for the excess amount of Nitrogen estimated to enter the Neuse River from groundwater
discharge. Where the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is
exceeded for Nitrate, the CORPUD will be required to count toward its annually-
reported amount of discharged Nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by its
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP), but al.sa_the amount of
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DRAFT Rick and Jay s changes Vcn!ion June 19, 2007 DRAFT
oi1rateN:itrate associated with the groundwater discharge to the Nuese and it's tributaries
added wider the p10posed permit condition once the variance is granted. The annual
amount of Nitrate that computer modeling predicts will be discharged to the Neuse River
via groundwater as a result of violations of the Groundwater Quality Standard for
Nitrate~ will be used as the basis for this determination subject to actual field
measurements and groundwater monitoring. The goal of this effort will be so-that
CORPUDs wastewater treatment and disposal operations never contribute more
Nitrogen to the Neuse River than what is currently allocated under its NeDE.S_non=
discharge permit.
10. The utility has provided a listing of property owners, well owners, and former well
owners affected by this variance request as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9).
Figure # 2 lists the properties and ownership of them around the Neuse River Waste
Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). Exhibit# 3 of the request also shows which parcels
of land are in Wake County, Johnson County and those that are owned by the State of
North Carolina.
19 Please review the attached report and provide David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section
2 o with a recommendation regarding the risk assessment of this variance request. Mr. Hance may be
21 contacted at 733-5083 (ext. 587) and he is in the Archdale Building Room 625aa. Tfyou would like
22 to meet with Aquifer Protection Section staff to forther discuss the variance request, particularly
23 regarding technical aspects of the variance, please contact Mr Hance to arrange such a meeting If
24 possible, the Planning Section would like to receive your recommended response by Tuesday, July
25 31, 2007. If you need my assistance please call me at extension 570. Upon receiving your
2 6 recommendation, this information will be incorporated into the variance request packet and be
27 forwarded to the Director of the Division of Water Quality for review pursuant to title ISA NCAC
20 2L .0113(d). If the Director deems the information to support this variance request complete, DWQ
29 will proceed to public notice and hearing under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) of the rule. Pursuant to
30 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(e), at least 30 days must pass between the time public notice is given on a
31 variance request and a public hearing is held. The hearing will be held in Wake County at an
3 2 available public facility that will be discussed in the notice.
33 Per the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113, variance requests must receive final action by
34 the Environmental Management Commission. In proposing this variance request, the City of
35 Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has proposed two alternatives to addressing Nitrate
3 6 migration outside of its existing compliance boundary and these are as follows:
37
38 Alternative# J Corrective Action Pursuant to J SA NCAC 21,: Groundwater Extraction and
39 Enhanced Uenitrification along the Compliance Boundary with Discharge to the Neuse River
4 o Waste Water Treatment Plant:
41
42 This alternative would involve the construction of 426 extraction wells installed along
4 3 portions of the compliance boundary where the Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate has been
44 exceeded or is anticipated to be exceeded. Enhanced denitrification involves the injection (pressure
6
DRAFT Rick and Jay s chang es Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
1 or gravity feed) of biodegradable carbon electron donor, such as com syrup or sodium lactate via
2 injection wells to· create in-situ anaerobic zones to denitrify nitrateNitrate enriched plumes of
3 groundwater beyond the compliance boundary. The goal of using this method would be to stimulate
4 the growth of microbes that would use the nih ateNitrate as groundwater passes through these zones
5 from the land application fields.
6
1 Alternative# 2 -A Variance Under JSA NCAC 21, ,0113 that will Result in Groundwater
a Containment in Fields SQ and SQQ, Discharge to North Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plant
9 or land application and T,ong-Term Monitoring of Other Areas;
10
11 Based on the best available information, Nitrate exceedences have occurred beyond the
12 compliance boundary for this facility near Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is directed at
13 controlling additional offsite migration of Nitrate into impacted areas through installation of a
14 )jmjted number of groundwater extraction we11s . If this alternative is applied short term extraction
15 of groundwater combined with ; natural remedial processes or attenuation and degradation in the
16 subsurface will control and break down Nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring will be conducted
11 over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences of the Nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard
1a have occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under permit.
19
20
21 Comparing the Effects of Alternative# J and Alternative# 2 the Neuse River Waste Water
22 Treatment Plant (NRWWTP):
23
24
25
26
27
The following table was developed from the information submitted by the CORPUD in
variance request and shows a comparison of the effect of using either Alternative # 1 or Alternative
# 2 for as follows: ~
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE # 1: ALTERNATIVE # 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Number of New Wells 426 pumping wells around the 22 new groundwater extraction
Constructed entire facility wells installed downgradient from
(Including the construction of 195 Field 500
new injection wells under .
15A NCAC 2C .0200)
Additional Groundwater 128 wells 39 wells
Monitoring (20 monitoring wells, 20 injection (10 monitoring wells and 29 extraction
(Sampling conducted three times per wells, and 88 recovery wells) wells)
vear for the life of the Droiect)
Surface Water Sampling 10 locations 2 locations
(Sampling conducted three times per
vear for the life of the vroiect)
Reduction of stream base flow Hi f!h None
7
1
2
DRAFT Rick and Ja y s
into the Neuse River
Estimated Costs
(Over the estimated 30 year life of the
facilitv)
chanq es Ve~s±eft a~fle :1:9, z e 0--'t-DRAFT
$ 79 Million Dollars $ 9 Million Dollars
3 If a variance is not granted, the utility will be required to address Nitrate levels outside
4 compliance boundaries at this site by using Alternative # 1 in the table, which City of Raleigh
s Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) believes is the Best Available Technology (BAT) per 15A
6 NCAC 2L .0106(j). If Alternative# 1 is applied to its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant, the
7 bulk of this cost would be in the form oLcapital costs over a period of the first three years of the
8 project and represents " .... approximately 30 to 90 percent of its total capital budget in the next few
9 years.
10 Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(6) and (7), the applicant has submitted information in
11 this variance request to support the finding that the cost of applying BAT to this site is a "serious
12 financial hardship" on CORPUD without an equal or greater public benefit. The permittee does not
13 believe that any public benefit can be gained through the implementation of a Corrective Action
14 Plan relying on active remedial technology to cleanup groundwaters outside of permitted boundaries
1s far a majority of the site. A variance would allow concentration of Nitrate to remain at levels near
16 the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and allow the processes of natural degradation and attenuation to act upon
11 residual concentrations at this site. For a more detailed discussion of the economics of both
18 alternatives, of the implementation of corrective action Alternative # 1, and a variance under
1 9 Alternative # 2 with application of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k), see Page 9 through Page 14 of the
20 December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application
21
22
23 cc :
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Jeff Manning
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor)
Rick Bolich
David Hance
8
I
DRAFT
the well has not been abandoned is on city water but refused the offer to have the well
abandoned. Analytical data from the monitoring wells located across Beddingfield
Creek indicates that migration of nitrate-impacted groundwater under the stream is not
likely occurring. (See Page 5 and Page 6 of the December I, 2005 Corrective Action
Variance Application for a more detailed discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
6. The utility has conducted further analysis of Nitrate concentrations from this site to
support its findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance A pp lication" shows that the utility has
conducted a risk analysis of the impacts of Nitrate to neighboring properties. A
discussion of this risk assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and continues
onto Page # 9 of the request. The CORPUD examined various a'.t ays · o~xposure _ ~'O ~
using the most sensitive human receptors to determine the o 'coiiservative risk ~~
pathway. The exposure pathways analyzed included a young chi exposed to Nitrate _ I
from water used in a swimming pool, a child and a teenager wading in ~ surface water,~~
and the use of groundwater containing Nitrate as a source of irrigation supply. Data &r, .. d a
analysis of these pathways did not indicate an unacceptable risk of exposure to the
Nitrates from the facility. The only pathway for which risk analysis showed a possible
impact was consumption of groundwater. However, there are no property owners in the
vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant that are using
groundwater as a source of drinking water where Nitrate exceeds or is predicted to
exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in ISA NCAC 2L .0202 (103). It must be
noted that the city will continue to monitor Nitrate levels as required by permit for as
long as Nitrate concentrations in groundwater are above the 10 milligrams per liter
standard to ensure protection of public health and the environment.,(_
7. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has submitted information
demonstrating that land application of residuals from the wastewater treatment process
on existing fields that are in use will continue to be an effective'·-means of addressing
, these :p.ermitted activities. Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the request discusses land
• , ! _ .. -·;. appficqtion. o f; Nitrate"~g. j oj~ at tbis. facility . The utility has conducted analytical soil
:-<''. I'' •• ,:;.; .•.'. sampling to determine the soil profi le 'fo~ Nitrate ~t the tin:i'~ this varianc ~ was requested.
1 , , .,. • The utility took samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west) and Field 500
(southeast) and found that Nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet and 8 feet
below the ground surface. The implication of this is that Nitrates from the permitted
operations are accumulating through mechanisms such as infiltration via slow water
movement through the soil and anion exchange. In addition, Page 7 notes that the site
assessment work by ENSR International considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in
2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to support this variance request. The study
concluded that the Nitrogen applied to these field was "adequate to excessive" for crop
production and will support plant life.
\,J..)Y\-¥-A
8. Table # 5 of the variance request shows the results of surface waster sampling from
November 2002 through September 2005 at twenty-eight separate locations. These
4
discharges of groundwater impacted by Nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto
adjacent properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply. In areas near the
facility, where the future use of the groundwater will be for a potable supply, City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Department (CORPUD) has implemented an active treatment system designed to more rapidly
remove the Nitrate from the groundwater. Residents in this area have been connected to municipal
water by CORPUD in the interim.
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) believes that groundwaters
downgradient from the facility are exceeding the current standard but can be attenuated and restored by
passive natural processes in the subsurface. If granted by the Environmental Management Commission,
the variance will require implementation of corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will
lead to changes in the permit that will allow for downgradient plume containment and long term
monitoring of Nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as specified under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The
proposed variance request will not change the required standard for Nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter
that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted that the cleanup requirements
for Nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and no other substance
monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The supporting information for this variance request is contained in two reports titled as follows:
• "Corrective Action Variance Application, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, December 1, 2005" and will be referred to in this letter as the
December 1. 2005 Corrective Action Variance A pp lication" and is also referred to as the
variance request;
• "City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, Revised
Corrective Action Plan, ENSR International, December 2005" and will be referred to in this
letter as December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan.
The Division of Water Quality requests that the Division of Public Health evaluate the attached
information to support the risk assessment for this proposed variance. Relevant portions of the reports
discussed above are included with this letter. In order to meet the requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0113,
the utility submitted the following supporting information to demonstrate that the variance will not
endanger public health and safety for the following reasons:
1. The permitted operations at this facility (Permit Number WQ000l 730) have been conducted
since 1976 and the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) will be
overseeing permitted land application operations and the conditions related to this variance
request until the facility is no longer in use, which is not likely occur for decades to come.
The current estimated life of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant is 30
years.
2. The utility has fully delineated which properties are included in this variance request. The
thirty-five parcels ofland included within this request are listed in Table# 6 of the December
l. 2005 Corrective Action Variance A pplication ·with parcel sizes and land uses discussed.
These properties are shown in Figure # 2 of the variance request.
2
more detailed discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
6. The utility has conducted further analysis of Nitrate concentrations from this site to support
its findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the "December
1. 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows that the utility has conducted a risk
analysis of the impacts of Nitrate to neighboring properties. A discussion of this risk
assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and continues onto Page # 9 of the
request. The CORPUD examined various pathways of exposure using the most sensitive
human receptors to determine the most conservative risk pathway. The exposure pathways
analyzed included a young child exposed to Nitrate from water used in a swimming pool, a
child and a teenager wading in surface water near the facility, and the use of groundwater
containing Nitrate as a source of irrigation supply. Data analysis of these pathways did not
indicate an unacceptable risk of exposure to the Nitrates from the facility. The only pathway
for which risk analysis showed a possible impact was consumption of groundwater.
However, there are rib property owners in the vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment, Plant that are using groundwater as a source of drinking water where
Nitrate exceeds or is predicted to exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC
2L .0202 (103). It must be noted that the city will continue to monitor Nitrate levels as
required by permit for as long as Nitrate concentrations in groundwater are above the 10
milligrams per liter standard to ensure protection of public health and the environment.
7. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has submitted information
demonstrating that land application of residuals from the wastewater treatment process on
existing fields that are in use will continue to be an effective means of addressing these
permitted activities. Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the request discusses land application of
Nitrate and soils at this facility. The utility has conducted analytical soil sampling to
determine the soil profile for Nitrate at the time this variance was requested. The utility took
samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west) and Field 500 (southeast) and found that
Nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet and 8 feet below the ground surface. The
implication of this is that Nitrates from the permitted operations are accumulating through
mechanisms such as infiltration via slow water movement through the soil and anion
exchange. In addition, Page 7 notes that the site assessment work by ENSR International
considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in 2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to
support this variance request. The study concluded that the Nitrogen applied to these field
was "adequate to excessive" for crop production and will support plant life.
8. Table # 5 of the variance request provides surface water analytical results from November
2002 through September 2005. These locations are mapped out on Figure 1 in this variance.
The direction of groundwater flow through this portion of the facility is toward a tributary of
the Neuse River identified in the variance request as Beddingfield Creek. This water body is
classified as Class C NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water). There is no Nitrate surface water
standard for this class of surface water. This body of water empties into the Neuse River,
which is classified as Water Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) and the surface water
standard for Water Supply V NSW is 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrate levels in nearby surface
4
water suggests that groundwater discharges to streams and tributaries of the Neuse River,
however, Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River did not exceed the 15A NCAC 2B Surface
Water Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. A discussion of surface water sampling and the
implications of results found are located on Page # 6, Page # 8 and Page # 9 of the variance
request.
9. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Depar1ment (CORPUD) has also investigated the
potential for euthrophication of the Neuse River as a result of granting the variance request.
Under certain ambient conditions, additional Nitrate in a surface water body may result in the
occurrence of algal blooms that can deteriorate water quality. Based on the data contained in
the variance request, CORPUD has agreed that as a condition for approval of the variance it
will account for this potential impact. The utility has indicated that it will accept a
specification in its wastewater discharge permit to account for the excess amqunt of Nitrogen
estimated to enter the Neuse River from groundwater discharge. Where the Groundwater
Quality Standard in ISA NCAC 2L .0202 is exceeded 1,fo r · 'trate, the CORPUD will be
required to count toward its annually-reported amolll):t\c) sc ged Nitrogen not only the
amount actually discharged by its Neuse River Waste ;Nat ea ent Plant (NRWWTP),
but also the amount of Nitrate associated with the groun ar e to the Neuse and
it's tributaries once the variance is granted. The annual o te that computer
modeling predicts will be discharged to the Neuse River vi•~IIQ· as a result of
violations of the Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate, will e use asis for this
determination subject to actual field measurements and groundwater mo ring. The goal of
this effort will be that CORPUDs wastewater treatment and disp al operations never
contribute more Nitrogen to the Neuse River than what is currently allocated under its
NPDES discharge permit. The potential for euthrophication is discussed on Page# 12 and
Page# 13 of the variance request.
10. The utility has provided a listing of property owners, well owners, and former well owners
affected by this variance request as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9). Figure # 2
lists the properties and ownership of them around the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP). Exhibit # 3 of the request also shows which parcels of land are in Wake
County, Johnson County and those that are owned by the State of North Carolina.
Please review the attached report and provide David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section with a
recommendation regarding the risk assessment of this variance request. Mr. Hance may be contacted at
733-5083 (ext. 587) and he is in the Archdale Building Room 625aa. If you would like to meet with
Aquifer Protection Section staff to further discuss the variance request, particularly regarding technical
aspects of the variance, please contact Mr. Hance to arrange such a meeting. If possible, the Planning
Section would like to receive your recommended response by Friday, July 27, 2007. If you need my
assistance please call me at extension 570. Upon receiving your recommendation, this information will
be incorporated into the variance request packet and be forwarded to the Director of the Division of
Water Quality for review pursuant to title 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(d). If the Director deems the
information to support this variance request complete, DWQ will proceed to public notice and hearing
under 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(e) of the rule. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e), at least 30 days must
5
pass between the time public notice is given on a variance request and a public hearing is held. The
hearing will be held in Wake County at an available public facility that will be discussed in the notice.
Per the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113, variance requests must receive final action by the
Environmental Management Commission. fu proposing this variance request, the City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Department (CORPUD) has proposed two alternatives to addressing Nitrate migration outside
of its existing compliance boundary and these are as follows:
Alternative # 1 -Corrective Action Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L: Groundwater Extraction and
Enhanced Denitrification alon g the Compliance Bounda ry with Discharge to the Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant:
This alternative would involve the construction of 426 extraction wells installed along portions
of the compliance boundary where the Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate has been exceeded or
is anticipated to be exceeded. Enhanced denitrification involves the injection (pressure or gravity feed)
of biodegradable carbon electron donor, such as com syrup or sodium lactate via injection wells to
create in-situ anaerobic zones to denitrify Nitrate enriched plumes of groundwater beyond the
compliance boundary. The goal of using this method would be to stimulate the growth of microbes that
would use the Nitrate as groundwater passes through these zones from the land application fields.
Alternative # 2 -A Variance Under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 that will Result in Groundwater
Containment in Fields 50 and 500, Discharge to North Ralei gh Waste Water Treatment Plant or
land app lication and Lon g-Term Monitorin g of Other Areas:
Based on the best available information, Nitrate exceedences have occurred beyond the
compliance boundary for this facility near Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is directed at controlling
additional offsite migration of Nitrate into impacted areas through installation of a limited number of
groundwater extraction wells. If this alternative is applied short-term extraction of groundwater
combined with natural remedial processes or attenuation and degradation in the subsurface will control
and break down Nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring will be conducted over the remaining areas of
the site where exceedences of the Nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard have occurred at or beyond the
compliance boundary under permit.
Com parin g the Effects of Alternative # 1 and Alternative # 2 the Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP):
The following table was developed from the information submitted by the CORPUD in variance
request and shows a comparison of the effect of using either Alternative # 1 or Alternative # 2 for as
follows:
6
For a more detailed discussion of the economics of both alternatives, of the implementation of corrective
action Alternative# 1, and a variance under Alternative# 2 with application of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k),
see Page 9 through Page 14 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance App lication.
cc: Jeff Manning
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor)
Rick Bolich
David Hance
8
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) believes that groundwaters
downgradient from the facility are exceeding the current standard but can be attenuated and restored
by passive natural processes in the subsurface. If granted by the Environmental Management
Commission, the variance will require implementation of corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L.
0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for downgradient plume containment
and long term monitoring of Nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as specified under 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard for Nitrate of 10
milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted that the
cleanup requirements for Nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and
no other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
The supporting information for this variance request is contained in two reports titled as
follows:
• "Corrective Action Variance Application, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina December 1, 2005" and will be referred to in this
letter as the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" and is also referred
ta as the variance request;
• "City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina,
Revised Corrective Action Plan, ENSR International, December 2005" and will be referred
to in this letter as December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan
The Division of Water Quality requests that that the Division of Public Health evaluate the
attached information to support the risk assessment for this proposed variance. Relevant portions of
the reports discussed above are included with this letter. In order to meet the requirements in 15A
NCAC 2L .0113, the utility submitted the following supporting information to demonstrating that
the variance will not endanger public health and safety for the following reasons:
1. The permitted operations at this facility (Permit Number WQ0001730) have been
conducted since 1976 and the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
will be overseeing permitted land application operations and the conditions related to
this variance request until the facility is no longer in use, which is not likely occur for
decades to come. The current estimated life of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant is 30 years.
2. The utility has fully delineated which properties are included in this variance request.
There are thirty-five parcels of land included in this variance request are listed in Table#
6 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application with parcel sizes and
land uses discussed. These properties are shown in Figure # 2 of the variance request.
3. The CORPUD City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has determined
the direction and rate of flow of groundwater that would be affected by granting a
variance. Page 1-4 and Page 1-5 of the December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan
2
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
shows that groundwater is generally moving in the direction of the Neuse River and its
tributaries around the site. Page 4 of the request states that the movement of groundwater
through soils and subsurface materials as the site is approximately a rate of "1.3 square
feet per day", which is a significantly low rate of movement.
4. Based on data from monitoring wells, there is sufficient impact to on-site groundwaters
to warrant a variance to the Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate. The City of
Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) investigated groundwater analytical
results from monitoring wells on-site and these are discussed on Page # 4 and Page # 5
of the variance request. Monitoring well data for Nitrate is shown in Table # 3 for Test
Wells from March 2003 to July 2005. Results from Monitoring Wells (MW) are found
Table # 4 for Nitrate from late 2002 through the spring of 2004. These tables
demonstrate that wells around Fields 50 and 500 consistently have concentrations of
Nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. It is these
land application fields for which the CORPUD believes have caused significant impacts
to downgradient properties outside of compliance boundaries. Analysis of groundwater
samples from various shows exceedences of the Groundwater Quality Standard for
Nitrate at fifteen fields (Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47; 50, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 100, 201, 500
and 503 which are located near the compliance boundary. Four onsite monitoring wells
and a former water supply well (PW-22) have exceedences of the Nitrate standard. The
utility believes that off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater associated with biosolids in
the vicinity of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road does not extend east of
Shotwell Road and Mial Plantation Road. (See Table# 3 and Table# 4 of the December
1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application and Figure 3 from the December 2005
Revised Corrective Action Plan). Table # 1 of the report titled December 1, 2005
Corrective Action Variance Application shows the locations or monitoring wells and test
wells at this facility.
5. The utility has investigated the off-site impacts to area drinking water wells to meet the
criteria of 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c)(4). There are no downgradient water wells that are
known to be in use for drinking water supply at this time. All of these properties are now
on the c;ity of Raleigh's public water supply system. The CORPUD conducted sampling
starting in 2002 of private water supply wells located to the southeast of the facility. Of
the thirty-six water supply wells initially sampled, seven showed concentrations of
Nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per liter in 15A
NCAC 2L .0202. As a result of the initial sampling effort and to evaluate water use in
light of proposing a variance, the utility expanded its monitoring to forty-five properties
and sampled wells on a quarterly basis. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
(CORPUD) analyzed the data it obtained and believes that the exceedences of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate in the seven water wells are a combination of
septic systems, upgradient fertilizer application, and upgradient biosolids applications
that are unrelated to cities permitted operations. There are thirty-nine properties that
were served by thirty-eight water supply wells, of which thirty-seven have been
3
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
"decommissioned" with the state's rules and all of these properties have been connected
to the City of Raleigh Public Water Supply System. The owner of the one property
where the well has not been abandoned is on city water but refused the offer to have the
well abandoned. Analytical data from the monitoring wells located across Beddingfield
Creek indicates that migration of nitrate-impacted groundwater under the stream is not
likely occurring. (See Page 5 and Page 6 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action
Variance Application for a more detailed discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
6. The utility has conducted further analysis of Nitrate concentrations from this site to
support its findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows that the utility has
conducted an extensive risk analysis of the impacts of Nitrate to neighboring properties.
A discussion of this risk assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and
continues onto Page # 9 of the request. The company examined various pathways of
exposure using the most sensitive human receptors to determine the most conservative
risk pathway. The exposure pathways analyzed included a young child exposed to
Nitrate from water used in a swimming pool, a child and a teenager wading in the
surface water, and the use of groundwater containing Nitrate as a source of irrigation
supply. Data analysis of these pathways did not indicate an unacceptable risk of exposure
to the nitrates from the facility. The only pathway for which risk analysis showed a
possible impact was consumption groundwater. However, there are no wells property
owners in the vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant are
using groundwater as a source of drinking water where nitrate exceeds or is predicted to
exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (103). It must be
noted that the city will continue to monitor Nitrate levels in groundwater at the
compliance boundary as required by permit for as long as Nitrate concentrations in
groundwater are above the 10 milligrams per liter standard to ensure protection of public
health and the environment. .
7 . The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has submitted information
demonstrating that land application of residuals from the wastewater treatment process
on existing fields that are in use will continue to be an effective means of addressing
these permitted activities . Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the request discusses land
application of Nitrate and soils at this facility. The utility has conducted analytical soil
sampling to determine the soil profile for nitrate at the time this variance was requested.
The utility took samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west) and Field 500
(southeast) and found that Nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet and 8 feet
below the ground surface. The implication of this is that Nitrates from the permitted
operations are accumulating through mechanisms such as infiltration via slow water
movement through the soil and anion exchange. In addition, Page 7 notes that the site
assessment work by ENSR International considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in
2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to support this variance request. The study
concluded that the Nitrogen applied to these field was "adequate to excessive" for crop
production and will support plant life.
4
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
8. There would be no foreseeable surface water impacts from granting a variance for this
facility. Table # 5 of the variance request shows the results of surface waster sampling
from November 2002 through September 2005 at twenty-eight separate locations. These
locations are mapped out on Figure 1 in this variance. The direction of groundwater flow
through this facility is toward a tributary of the Neuse River identified in the variance
request as Beddingfield Creek. This water body is classified as Class C NSW (Nutrient
Sensitive Water). There is no nitrate surface water standard for this class of surface
water. This body of water empties into the Neuse River, which is classified as Water
Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) and the surface water standard for Water
Supply V NSW is 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrate levels in nearby surface water suggests
that groundwater discharges to streams and tributaries of the Neuse River, however,
Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River did not exceed the ISA NCAC 2B Surface
Water Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. A discussion of surface water sampling and
the implications of results found are located on Page # 6, Page # 8 and Page # 9 of the
variance request.
9. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has also investigated the
potential for euthrophication of the Neuse River as a result of granting the variance
request. Under certain ambient conditions, additional Nitrate in a surface water body
may result in the occurrence of algal blooms that can deteriorate water quality. Based on
the data contained in the variance request, CORPUD has agreed that as a condition for
approval of the variance it will account for this potential impact. The utility will accept
a specification in its wastewater discharge permit to account for the excess amount of
Nitrogen estimated to enter the Neuse River from groundwater discharge. Where the
Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is exceeded for Nitrate, the
CORPUD will be required to count toward its annually-reported amount of discharged
Nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by its Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP), but the amount added under the proposed permit
condition once the variance is granted. The annual amount modeling predicts will be
discharged to the Neuse River via groundwater as a result of violations of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate will be used as the basis for this determination
subject to actual field measurements and groundwater monitoring. The goal of this effort
will be so that CORPUDs wastewater treatment and disposal operations never contribute
more Nitrogen to the Neuse River than what is currently allocated under its non-
discharge permit.
10. The utility has provided a listing of property owners, well owners, and former well
owners affected by this variance request as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9).
Figure # 2 lists the properties and ownership of them around the Neuse River Waste
Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). Exhibit# 3 of the request also shows which parcels
of land are in Wake County, Johnson County and those that are owned by the State of
North Carolina.
5
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
Please review the attached report and provide David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section
with a recommendation regarding the risk assessment of this variance request. Mr. Hance may be
contacted at 733-5083 (ext. 587) and he is in the Archdale Building Room 625aa. If possible, the
Planning Section would like to receive your recommended response by Tuesday, July 31, 2007. If
you need my assistance please call me at extension 570. Upon receiving your recommendation, this
information will be incorporated into the variance request packet and be forwarded to the Director
of the Division of Water Quality for review pursuant to title 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(d). If the Director
deems the information to support this variance request complete, DWQ will proceed to public
notice and hearing under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) of the rule. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(e),
at least 30 days must pass between the time public notice is given on a variance request and a public
hearing is held. The hearing will be held in Wake County at an available public facility that will be
discussed in the notice.
Per the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113, variance requests must receive final action by
the Environmental Management Commission. In proposing this variance request, the City of
Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has proposed two alternatives to addressing Nitrate
migration outside of its existing compliance boundary and these are as follows:
Alternative# J Corrective Action Pursuant to JSA NCAC 21,• Grmmdwater Extraction aud
Enhanced Denitrificatiou along the Compliance Rmmdary with Discharge to the Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant;
This alternative would involve the construction of 426 extraction wells installed along
portions of the compliance boundary where the Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate has been
exceeded or is anticipated to be exceeded. Enhanced denitrification involves the injection (pressure
or gravity feed) of biodegradable carbon electron donor, such as corn syrup or sodium lactate via
injection wells to create in-situ anaerobic zones to denitrify nitrate enriched plumes of groundwater
beyond the compliance boundary. The goal of using this method would be to stimulate the growth
of microbes that would use the nitrate as groundwater passes through these zones from the land
application fields.
Alternative # 2 - A Variance Under JSA NCAC 21, ,0113 that will Result in Groundwater
Containment in Fields SQ aud SQQ, Discharge to North Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plaut
or land application and Long-Term Monitoring of Other Areas·
Based on the best available information, Nitrate exceedences have occurred beyond the
compliance boundary for this facility near Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is directed at
controlling additional offsite migration of Nitrate into impacted areas. If this alternative is applied,
natural remedial processes or attenuation and degradation in the subsurface will break down Nitrate
over time. Long-term monitoring will be conducted over the remaining areas of the site where
exceedences of the Nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard have occurred at or beyond the
compliance boundary under permit.
6
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
Comparing the Effects of Alternative # J and Alternative # 2 tbe Neuse Biver Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NBWWTP):
The following table was developed from the information submitted by the CORPUD in
variance request and shows a comparison of the effect of using either Alternative # 1 or Alternative
# 2 for as follows:
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE# 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Number of New Wells 426 pumping wells around the 22 new groundwater extraction
Constructed entire facility wells installed downgradient from
(Including the construction of 195 Field 500
new injection wells under
15A NCAC 2C .0200>
Additional Groundwater 128 wells 39 wells
Monitoring (20 monitoring wells, 20 injection (10 monitoring wells and 29 extraction
(Sampling conducted three times per wells, and 88 recovery wells) wells)
vear for the life of the oroiectl
Surface Water Sampling 10 locations 2 locations
(Sampling conducted three times per
vear for the life of the oroiect)
Reduction of stream base flow High None
into the Neuse River
Estimated Costs $ 79 Million Dollars $ 9 Million Dollars
(Over the estimated 30 year life of the
facili"•J
If a variance is not granted, the utility will be required to address Nitrate levels outside
compliance boundaries at this site by using Alternative # 1 in the table, which City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) believes is the Best Available Technology (BAT) per 15A
NCAC 2L .0106G). If Alternative# 1 is applied to its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant, the
bulk of this cost would be in the form capital costs over a period of the first three years of the
project and represents " .... approximately 30 to 90 percent of its total capital budget in the next few
years."
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(6) and (7), the applicant has submitted information in
this variance request to support the finding that the cost of applying BAT to this site is a "serious
financial hardship" on CORPUD without an equal or greater public benefit. The permittee does not
believe that any public benefit can be gained through the implementation of a Corrective Action
Plan relying on active remedial technology to cleanup groundwaters outside of permitted
boundaries. A variance would allow concentration of Nitrate to remain at levels near the 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 and allow the processes of natural degradation and attenuation to act upon residual
7
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
concentrations at this site. For a more detailed discussion of the economics of both alternatives, of
the implementation of corrective action Alternative# 1, and a variance under Alternative# 2 with
application of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k), see Page 9 through Page 14 of the December 1, 2005
Corrective Action Variance Application
cc: Jeff Manning
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor)
Rick Bolich
David Hance
8
Note:
To:
From:
Thursday. June 28, 2007
Alan Clark
David Hance ~
Subject: Proposed CORPUD Variance: 2nd Draft ofthe letter for the Division of Public
Health (DPH) is ready for your review and signature
I
I have completed incorporating your edits and changes into the letter for the . proposed variance
for the City of Raleigh 'Public Utilities Department (CORPUD). I inserted the headings, edits, and
refoi:matted as recommended. I also did a spell check and a word searches for "nitrates, nitrogen and
city" so that I would capture everything that needed changes; I also addressed this to Dr. Rick Langley
at the DPH and I inserted Ken Rudo on the "copy li_st" on the last page per our discussion at the staff
meeting we· had this past Tuesd~y.
If you are ok with what is in this revised letter, please sign this and attach the supporting
materials I gave you for DPH review. Give me a call or send an email and I will pick this up from
you.
I will make sure this packet gets to Dr. Langley and get copies of the memorandwn all the
other persons on the list on Page # 8. ·
.,,
Tentative Schedule for the Variance for the City of Raleigh
Here is a Draft tentative work schedule of the steps to finalize the variance
1. July 3, 2007:
2. July 17, 2007:
3. July 24, 2007:
* 4. July 31, 2007:
*5. August 6, 2007:
Staff sends memorandum to Ken Rudo (This letter gives him one
month)
Staff gets public notice and Director's memorandum written up for
management review.
Staff gets hearing location set up. Mailings Notices per 15A NCAC
2L .0113 (e)(l) (B-F) for adjacent property owners and others are made
ready once the hearing is set up
DWQ Planning Gets Rudo's response back from him
Get the Director's review for completeness per 15A NCAC
2L .0113(d). Send the variance request package w/ Rudo's response, the
memorandum for the Director, and public notice. The Director must si gn
the public notice -to go forward with this.
6. Between August 7th -August 12 th : Get Notice filed with the 'N and O' Legal Ads per
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l). Assume we
g et this in on Saturda y, Aug ust 1 I t".
7. September 11, 2007: Public Hearing held in the evening at7 PM in a Wake
County location. Comment Period BEGIN& Per 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(f), all comments received " ... within 30 Days following the date
of the public hearing shall be considered ... ".
8. Between September 11 th and October 11 th : Hearing officers works on comments received from
Hearing if any. If written comments are received
before October 11 th
, then he works them into the
record of hearing and report to the EMC GWC.
9. October 11, 2007: Comment Period ENDS.
1
*10. October 12th through October lih: Hearing officers finalized comments, responses and report.
(Only 4 working days!)
11. October 18, 2007: Groundwater Committee Packet with Hearing Officers Report to the Director
for concurrence to the go to the Groundwater Committee for the
November 7, 2007 Meeting.
+12. October 24, 2007: EMC Groundwater Committee Packet with Variance request mailed to
members.
* 13. November 7, 2007: EMC Groundwater Committee Approval. (NO 30-DAY WAIVER)
*14. January 10, 2007: Full EMC Approval
The asterisk(*) notes things that can derail the variance. If dates
are missed or if we get significant public response, milestones to
complete work on this variances could be delayed.
+-There is no waiver of the EMC 30 Day rule in this schedule. This is because the EMC's filing
deadline for items that go before them in November 2007 is on the same day the public comment
period ends (October 11. 2007). Ifit is felt that a November 2007 approval date from the full
Commission is in order, then we need to have some assistance from the D WQ Administration 011
this.
2
Re: [Fwd: Re: [City ofRaleigh -groundwater variance]]
I of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [City of Raleigh -groundwater variance]]
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:26:47 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Carl Bailey
<[e-mail]>, j eff manning <j ef£[e-mail]>
Hey, guys, in talking to Jeff, it's clear I don't have a good understanding of this process, and I'm not sure
that Coleen does either. Jeff has this variance listed as an item to discuss at our June 26 coordination
meeting along with PHGs and a couple other things, so let's plan to take it up there.
Alan
Alan Clark wrote:
David, per Coleen, we have to have this variance package ready to submit to the GWC in
September. I don't know how long Ken Rudo needs to review the package and respond, nor what
others materials, if any, we need to compile to get it to the GWC. In your opinion (based on past
experience with Ken's review), when must this request go to Ken to ensure that we meet Coleen's
deadline?
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject:Re: [Fwd: City of Raleigh-groundwater variance]
Date:Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:22:08 -0400
From:Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
To:Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
CC:jeff manning <[e-mail]>
References:<467A886A.3010107 @ncmail.net>
Alan -we need to have this before the Commission no later than
September. I initially understood that it would be before them in
July. If we have sufficient time to get a response from Ken and put the
package together in accordance with our deadlines for committees, then
early July is fine. Coleen
Alan Clark wrote:
> Coleen,
> Would an early July timeframe for getting this request to Ken Rudo
> work? We've just received a draft letter from David, for my signature,
> to go to Ken. In addition, David has requested feedback from APS staff
> by June 26.
>
> We were concerned about how much of a priority this is from your
> standpoint and whether we're missing a commitment you had made to
> someone else. Is this something that can go out in early July? If
> so, that would take some pressure off down here. However, if it needs
> to get out sooner, I'll be glad to help Jeff out by getting an
> expedited review through APS.
>
> Thanks, Alan
~,.. I
6/21/2007 4:38 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: [City ofRaleigh-groundwater variance]]
2 of2 6/21/2007 4:38 PM
[Fwd: Re: [City of Raleigh -groundwater variance]]
I of I
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [City of Raleigh-groundwater variance]]
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:48:01 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>, jeff manning
<[e-mail]>
David, per Coleen, we have to have this variance package ready to submit to the GWC in September. I
don't know how long Ken Rudo needs to review the package and respond, nor what others materials, if
any, we need to compile to get it to the GWC. In your opinion (based on past experience with Ken's
review), when must this request go to Ken to ensure that we meet Coleen's deadline?
Alan
--------Original Message --------
Subject:Re: [Fwd: City of Raleigh-groundwater variance]
Date:Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:22:08 -0400
From:Coleen Sullins <Coleen.Sullins @ncmail.net>
To:Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
CC:jeff manning <j [e-mail]>
References:<467 A886A.3010107 @ncmail.net>
Alan -we need to have this before the Commission no later than
September. I initially understood that it would be before them in
July. If we have sufficient time to get a response from Ken and put the
package together in accordance with our deadlines for committees, then
early July is fine. Coleen
Alan Clark wrote:
> Coleen,
> Would an early July timeframe for getting this request to Ken Rudo
> work? We've just received a draft letter from David, for my signature,
> to go to Ken. In addition, David has requested feedback from APS staff
> by June 26.
>
> We were concerned about how much of a priority this is from your
> standpoint and whether we're missing a commitment you had made to
> someone else. Is this something that can go out in early July? If
> so, that would take some pressure off down here. However, if it needs
> to get out sooner, I'll be glad to help Jeff out by getting an
> expedited review through APS.
>
> Thanks, Alan
6/21/2007 4:39 PM
CORPUD variance comments
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD variance comments
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:41:24 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
David,
Attached are my comments, suggested edits, etc. for the memo that is going to Dr.
Rudo. Rick may have other comments. I will be out oft he office later this
afternoon until next Monday, in the event you have any questions.
Jay
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay [e-mail]> j
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
readonlyPermitsWQ0001730CORPUD-LetterRudo.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
6/20/2007 11 :04 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
July 3, 2007
10 MEMORANDUM:
11
12
13 TO: Dr. Ken Rudo, Ph.D, Toxicologist
Division of Public Health -OEES 14
is
16 FROM: Alan Clark, Chief, Planning Section
17
18
19 SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Proposed Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0202
Groundwater Quality Standards and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) for the City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) for Land Application Fields at ifs Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP), Raleigh, Waj{e County;North
Carolina{Permit Number WQ000l 730}.
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Attached for your review and comment is a variance request on behalf of the City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) from ENSR International.· This request is f~r a variance
from the prohibition ta pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) Permitted
facilities are not a11owed to pursue any CAP, which proposes natural atternfatian or limited
corrective action to the 61oundwate1 Quality Standard fo1 Nittate The CAP :and affects thirty-five
(35) parcels land at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) the city uses to land
apply wastewater treatment plant residuals under a permit (WQO00l 730) that was issued by the
Division of Water Quality. The CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
has a permit to land apply dischaige wastewater treatment plant residuals to the subsUiface· via
landfarming aitd inigation and applies wastes on numerous fields under the conditions written into
the permit within its compliance boundary. Permitted operations are conducted on city properties
and surrounding properties in an area of mixed commercial, industrial, and res_idential property in
southeastern Wake County. The Division bas currently suspended the application of residuals until I
such time as the Division approves otherwise
The variance request is· to allow the City of Raleigh to forgo active remediation and
treatment of Nitrate migrating beyond the limits of the Compliance Boundary, as required by I 5 A ,.
NCAC 2T. 0106 (d)(2), and to apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). Nitrate from
non-discharge disposal operations has migrated outside of the permitted compliance boundary to the
southwest of the facility. This rule specifies that a person may submit a corrective action plan for a
"non-permitted site", that specifies a cleanup plan under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). This type of
cleanup allows for corrective action without " ... requiring groundwater remediation to the
1
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
1 standards". Under 15A NCAC 2L, this type of corrective action cannot be applied to exceedences
2 at permitted facilities where substances have migrated outside compliance boundaries defined in
3 15A NCAC 2L .0107, unless a variance is granted under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The CORPUD
4 wants to apply the conditions of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) to permitted wastewater treatment land
5 disposal operations at its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) where discharges
6 of groundwater impacted by nitrates will migrate into adjacent smface waters, or onto adjacent
7 properties where the groundwater is not going to be used for a water supply. Tn areas near the
8 facility, where the future use of the groundwater wm he far a potable supple, CGRPIID has
9 implemented an active treatment system designed to more rapidly remove the nitrate from the
10 groundwater Residents in this area have been connected to municipal water by CGRPIID in the
11 interim
12 The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) believes that groundwaters
13 downgradient from the facility are exceeding the current standard but can be attenuated and restored
14 by passive natural processes in the subsurface. Tf gran~ed by the Environmental Management
15 Commission, the variance will require implementation of corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L.
16 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for downgradient plume containment
1 7 and long term monitoring of Nitrate in lieu of a ful~ scale cleanup as specified under 15A NCAC 2L
18 .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required standard for Nitrate of 10
19 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It must be noted that the
2 o cleanup requirements for Nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this variance request and
21 no other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
22 The supporting information for this variance request is contained in two reports titled as
23 follows:
24
25 • "Corrective Action Variance Application, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater
2 6 Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina December 1, 2005" and will be referred to in this
2 7 letter as the December J, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" and is also referred
28 to as the variance request;
29
30 • "City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina,
31 Revised Corrective Action Plan, ENSR International, December 2005" and will be referred
32 to in this letter as December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan
33
34
3 5 The Division of Water Quality requests that that the Division of Public Health evaluate the
3 6 attached information to support the risk assessment for this proposed variance. Relevant portions of
3 7 the reports discussed above are included with this letter. In order to meet the requirements in 15A
38 NCAC 2L .0113, the utility submitted the following supporting information to demonshating
3 9 demonstrate that the variance will not endanger public health and safety for the following reasons:
40
41
42
43
44
1. The permitted operations at this facility (Permit Number WQ000l 730) have been
conducted since 1976 and the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
will be overseeing permitted land application operations and the conditions related to
this variance request until the facility is no longer in use, which is not likely occur for
2
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I 115
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
DRAFT
2.
3.
4.
5.
Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
decades to come. The current estimated life of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant is 30 years.
The utility has fully delineated which properties are included in this variance request.
There are thirty-five parcels of land included in this variance request are listed in Table #
6 of the December f, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application with parcel sizes and
land uses discussed. These properties are shown in Figure# 2 of the variance request.
The CORPUD City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has determined
the direction and rate of flow of groundwater that would be affected by granting a
variance. Page 1-4 and Page 1-5 of the December 2005 Revised Corrective Action Plan
shows that groundwater is generally moving in the direction of the Neuse River and its
tributaries around the site. Page 4 of the request states that the movement of groundwater
through soils and subsurface materials as the site is approximately a rate of "1.3 square
feet per day", which is a significantly low rate of movement.
Based on data frorn monitming wells, there is s~fficient impact to on-site groundwaters
to wanaut a variance to the Groundwater Quality Standard fot Nitrate. The City of
Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) investigated groundwater analytical
results from monitoring wells on-site and these are discussed on Page # 4 and Page # 5
of the variance reqU;est. Monitoring well data for Nitrate is shown in Table # 3 for Test
Wells from March 2003 to July 2005. Results from Monitoring Wells (MW) are found
in Table # 4 for Nitrate from late 2002 through the spring of 2004. These tables
demonstrate that wells around Fields 50 and 500 consistently have concentrations of
Nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of IO milligrams per liter. It is these
land application fields for which the CORPUD believes have.caused significant impacts
to downgradient properties outside of compliance boundaries. Analysis of groundwater
samples from various .fie.lds_shows exceedences of the Groundwater Quality Standard for
Nitrate at fifteen fields (Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 100, 201, 500
and 503 which are located near the compliance boundary. Four onsite monitoring wells
and a former water supply well (PW-22) have exceedences of the Nitrate standard. The
utility believes that off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater associated with biosolids in
the vicinity of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road does not extend east of
Shotwell Road and Mial Plantation Road. (See Table # 3 and Table # 4 of the December
1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application and Figure 3 from the December 2005
Revised Corrective Action Plan). Table # I of the report titled December J , 2005
Corrective Action _Variance Application shows the locations or monitoring wells and test
wells at this facility.
The utility has investigated the off-site impacts to area drinking water wells to meet the
criteria of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4). There are no downgradient water wells that are
known to be in use for drinking water supply at this time. All of these properties are now
on the City of Raleigh's public water supply system. The CORPUD conducted sampling
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
DRAFT
6.
7.
Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
starting in 2002 of private water supply wells located to the southeast of the facility. Of
the thirty-six water supply wells initially sampled, seven showed concentrations of
Nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per liter in 15A
NCAC 2L .0202. As a result of the initial sampling effort and to evaluate water use in
light of proposing a variance, the utility expanded its monitoring to forty-five properties
and sampled wells on a quarterly basis. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
(CORPUD) analyzed the data it obtained and believes that the exceedences of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate in the seven water wells are a combination of
septic systems, upgradient fertilizer application, and upgradient biosolids applications
that are unrelated to cities permitted operations. There are thirty-nine properties that
were served by thirty-eight water supply wells, of which thirty-seven have been
''deconnnissioned"permanently abandoned in accordance with the state's rules and all of
these properties have been connected to the City of Raleigh Public Water Supply
System. The owner of the one property where the well has not been abandoned is on city
water but refused the offer to have the well abandoned. Analytical data from the
monitoring wells located across Beddingfield Creek indicates that migration of nitrate-
impacted groundwater under the stream is not likely occurring. (See Page 5 and Page 6
of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application for a more detailed
discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
The utility has conducted further analysis of Nitrate concentrations from this site to
support its findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows that the utility has
conducted an extensive risk analysis of the impacts of Nitrate to neighboring properties.
A discussion of this risk assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and
continues onto Page # 9 of the request. The company examined various pathways of
exposure using the most sensitive human receptors to determine the most conservative
risk pathway. The exposure pathways analyzed included a young child exposed to
Nitrate from water used in a swimming pool, a child and a teenager wading in the
surface water, and the use of groundwater containing Nitrate as a source of irrigation
supply. Data analysis of these pathways did not indicate an unacceptable risk of exposure
to the nitrates from the facility. The only pathway for which risk analysis showed a
possible impact was consumption groundwater. However, there are no wells property
owners in the vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant .that_are
using groundwater as a source of drinking water where nitrate exceeds or is predicted to
exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (103). It must be
noted that the city will continue to monitor Nitrate levels in groundwate1 at the
compliance boundary as required by permit for as long as Nitrate concentrations in
groundwater are above the 10 milligrams per liter standard to ensure protection of public
health and the environment ..
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has submitted information
demonstrating that land application of residuals from the wastewater treatment process
on existing fields that are in use will continue to be an effective means of addressing
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
' 1!5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
these permitted activities. Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the request discusses land
application of Nitrate and soils at this facility. The utility has conducted analytical soil
sampling to determine the soil profile for nitrate at the time this variance was requested.
The utility took samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west) and Field 500
(southeast) and found that Nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet and 8 feet
below the ground surface. The implication of this is that Nitrates from the permitted
operations are accumulating through mechanisms such as infiltration via slow water
movement through the soil and anion exchange. In addition, Page 7 notes that the site
assessment work by ENSR International considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in
2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to support this variance request. The study
concluded that the Nitrogen applied to these field was "adequate to excessive" for crop
production and will support plant life.
8. Thete would be no foteseeable surface water impacts :from granting a vruiance fot this
facility. Table # 5 of the variance request shows the results of surface waster sampling
from -November 2002 through September 2005 at twenty-eight separate locations. These
locations are mapped out on Figure 1 in this variance. The direction of groundwater flow
through this facility is toward a tributary of the Neuse River identified in the variance
request as Beddingfield Creek. This water body is classified as Class C NSW (Nutrient
Sensitive Water). There is no nitrate surface water standard for this class of surface
water. This body of water empties into the Neuse River, which is classified as Water
Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) and the surface water standard for Water
Supply V NSW is 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrate levels in nearby surface water suggests
that groundwater discharges to streams and tributaries of the Neuse River, however,
Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River did not exceed the 15A NCAC 2B Surface
Water Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. A discussion of surface water sampling and
the implications qf results found are located on Page # 6, Page # 8 and Page # 9 of the
variance request.
9. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has also investigated the
potential for euthrophication of the Neuse River as a result of granting the variance
request. Under certain ambient conditions, additional Nitrate in a surface water body
may result in the occurrence of algal blooms that can deteriorate water quality. Based on
the data contained in the variance request, CORPUD has agreed that as a condition for
approval of the variance it will account for this potential impact. The utility will accept
a specification in its wastewater discharge permit to account for the excess amount of
Nitrogen estimated to enter the Neuse River from groundwater discharge. Where the
Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is exceeded for Nitrate, the
CORPUD will be required to count toward its annually-reported amount of discharged
Nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by its Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP), but al.s.o_the amount of nitrate associated with the
grrnmdwater discharge ta the N:uese and it's tributaries added under the ptoposed pennit
condition: once the variance is granted. The annual amount of Nitrate that computer
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
modeling predicts will be discharged to the Neuse River via groundwater as a result of
violations of the Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate,, will be used as the basis for
this determination subject to actual field measurements and groundwater monitoring.
The goal of this effort will be scrthat CORPUDs wastewater treatment and disposal
operations never contribute more Nitrogen to the Neuse River than what is currently
allocated under its NPDES tt0rr-discharge permit.
10. The utility has provided a listing of property owners, well owners, and former well
owners affected by this variance request as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9).
Figure # 2 lists the properties and ownership of them around the Neuse River Waste
Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). Exhibit# 3 of the request also shows which parcels
of land are in W ak:e County, Johnson County and those that are owned by the State of
North Carolina.
16 Please review the attached report and provide David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section
1 7 with a recommendation regarding the risk assessment of this variance request. Mr. Hance may be
18 contacted at 733-5083 ( ext. 587) and he is in the Archdale Building Room 625aa. If you would like
19 to meet with Aquifer Protection Section staff to forther discuss the variance request, particularly
2 o regarding technical aspects of the variance, please contact Mr Hance to arran~e snch a meeting If
21 possible, the Planning Section would like to receive your recommended response by Tuesday, July
22 31, 2007. If you need my assistance please call me at extension 570. Upon receiving your
2 3 recommendation, this information will be incorporated into the variance request packet and be
24 forwarded to the Director of the Division of Water Quality for review pursuant to title 15A NCAC
25 2L .0113(d). If the Director deems the information to support this variance request complete, DWQ
26 will proceed to public notice and hearing under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) of the rule. Pursuant to
27 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e), at least 30 days must pass between the time public notice is given on a
2 8 variance request and a public hearing is held. The hearing will be held in W ak:e County at an
2 9 available public facility that will be discussed in the notice.
30 Per the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113, variance requests must receive final action by
31 the Environmental Management Commission. fu proposing this variance request, the City of
32 Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has proposed two alternatives to addressing Nitrate
33 migration outside of its existing compliance boundary and these are as follows:
34
35 Alternative# J -Corrective Action Pursuant to JSA NCAC 21,: Groundwater Extraction and
36 Enhanced Uenitrification along the Compliance Rmmdary with Discharge to the Neuse River
3 7 Waste Water Treatment Plant;
38
3 9 This alternative would involve the construction of 426 extraction wells installed along
4 o portions of the compliance boundary where the Groundwater Quality Standard for Nitrate has been
41 exceeded or is anticipated to be exceeded. Enhanced denitrification involves the injection (pressure
42 or gravity feed) of biodegradable carbon electron donor, such as com syrup or sodium lactate via
43 injection wells to create in-situ anaerobic zones to denitrify nitrate enriched plumes of groundwater
44 beyond the compliance boundary. The goal of using this method would be to stimulate the growth
6
DRAFT Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
1 of microbes that would use the nitrate as groundwater passes through these zones from the land
2 application fields.
I 3
4 Alternative# 2 -A Variance Under JSA NCAC 21, ,0113 that wm Result in Groundwater
s Containment in Fields SQ and SQQ, Discharge to North Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plant
6 or land application and J,ong-Term Monitoring of Other Areas;
7
s Based on the best· available information, Nitrate exceedences have occurred beyond the
9 compliance boundary for this facility near Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is directed at
10 controlling additional offsite migration of Nitrate into impacted areas through installation of a
11 limited number of grmmdwater extraction we)ls. If this alternative is applied short tenn extraction
12 of groundwater combined with -;-natural remedial processes or attenuation and degradation in the
13 subsurface will control and break down Nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring will be conducted
14 over the remaining areas of the site where exceedences of the Nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard
1s have occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary under perinit.
16
17
1s Comparing the Effects of Alternative# J and Alternative# 2 the Neuse River Waste Water
19 Treatment Plant (.NRWWTP);
20
21 The following table was developed from the information submitted by the CORPUD in
22 variance request and shows a comparison of the effect of using either Alternative# 1 or Alternative
2 3 # 2 for as follows:
24
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE# 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Number of New Wells 426 pumping wells around the 22 new groundwater extraction
Constructed entire facility wells installed downgradient from
(Including the construction of 195 Field 500
new injection wells under
15A NCAC 2C .0200)
Additional Groundwater 128 wells 39 wells
Monitoring (20 monitoring wells, 20 injection (IO monitoring wells and 29 extraction
(Sampling conducted three times per wells, and 88 recovery wells) wells)
vear for the li fe o f the nro iectJ
Surface Water Sampling 10 locations 2 locations
(Sampling conducted three times per
vear for the li fe o f the Dro iect)
Reduction of stream base flow High None
into the Neuse River
7
1
2
DRAFT
Estimated Costs
(Over the estimated 30 year life of the
facilitv)
Version June 19, 2007 DRAFT
$ 79 Million Dollars $ 9 Million Dollars
3 If a variance is not granted, t11e utility will be required to address Nitrate levels outside
4 compliance boundaries at this site by using Alternative # 1 in the table, which City of Raleigh
5 Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) believes is the Best Available Technology (BAT) per 15A
6 NCAC 2L .0106(j). If Alternative# 1 is applied to its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant, the
7 bulk of this cost would be in the form nLcapital costs over a period of the first three years of the
8 project and represents " .... approximately 30 to 90 percent of its total capital budget in the next few
9 years.
10 Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c)(6) and (7), the applicant has submitted information in
11 this variance request to support the finding that the cost of applying BAT to this site is a "serious
12 financial hardship" on CORPUD without an equal or greater public benefit. The permittee does not
13 believe that any public benefit can be gained through the implementation of a Corrective Action
14 Plan relying on active remedial technology to cleanup groundwaters outside of permitted boundaries
15 for a majority of the site. A variance would allow concentration of Nitrate to remain at levels near
16 the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and allow the processes of natural degradation and attenuation to act upon
17 residual concentrations at this site. For a more detailed discussion of the economics of both
18 alternatives, of the implementation of corrective action Alternative # 1, and a variance under
19 Alternative # 2 with application of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k), see Page 9 through Page 14 of the
2 o December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application
21
22
23 cc:
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Jeff Manning
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor)
Rick Bolich
David Hance
8
CORPUD Variance -Rudo Letter
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance -Rudo Letter
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:25:41 -0400
To: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
See your in box -it has a note on it.
dh
********************************************************************************
jeff manning wrote:
David-
Do I have this in my email inbox and just overlooked it?
David Hance wrote:
I have completed the Letter to Ken Rudo - I will be going over it on Friday to
look for edits and things like that.
David Hance
X. 587
6/19/2007 7:25 PM
Variance Request: The Draft Ken Rudo Letter at DPH / City of Raleigh
1 of 1
Subject: Variance Request: The Draft Ken Rudo Letter at DPH / City of Raleigh
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:36:55 -0400
To: J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
HelJo guys,
Here is the read only version of the letter that I have got together for Dr. Rudo concerning the City of
Raleigh Variance Request.
I have sent this on to my supervisor Jeff Manning for review. If anything in this looks wrong or we need
more -let me know real soon. If possible, by this Friday, on June 22nd.
david hance
Content-Type: application/ms word ! readonlyPermits WQ0001730CORPUD-LetterRudo.doc Content-Encoding: base64
6/19/2007 7:37 PM
The CORPUD variance: Figure # 3 and More detail Discussion
l of2
' , Subject: The CORPUD variance: Figure# 3 and More detail Discussion
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:32:51 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Got it! We will move it on!
dh
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
I am not sure we can get it by the end of June. We will try to get it by then, but rather than wait,
why don't we proceed with moving this along and if we get the map(s) by the time Dr. Rudo
completes his review, we can forward them to him.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I got your call this morning. I was on leave yesterday. After a few hours of thought, I believe
both tyP es of maps that you spoke of would be helpful in communicating the site information·
for this variance request.
The issue right now is timing. I have gotten a draft letter to Rudo and am going over it right
now. It will go to my supervisor for review very soon.
If we can get what you are talking about in the next two weeks, I think it would be good to have
that for Ken Rudo. Reason being is that it would help him visualize the variance request and
make his review easy as opposed to having a meeting with Ken Rudo, Rick Bolich, you and me
and maybe somebody outside. (Imagine all of us trying to explain everything to him and cross
match a least two maps from what we have!).
The big question: Can the the two maps you spoke of with a listing of well owners,
property identifiers, showing wells within 1/2 mile, abandoned wells, and wells within the
compliance boundaries be done before the end of June 2007?
If this cannot be done in in this period of time, then maybe we can just send what we have to
Rudo and see what questions come back.
I definitel y believe it would be helpful to have what you s poke of in your phone call at the
public hearing and for the hearing officer. Based on the approvals needed in the rule 15A
NCAC 2L .0113 and the notice periods that would at be some point down the road.
Tell me what you think. There is some pressure on this as you know.
6/1 'i/?007 'i·'iO PM
The CORPUD variance: Figure # 3 and More detail Discussion
David Hance
Env. Spec.
733-5083 x. 587
6/15 /2007 5:50 PM
CORPUD Variance: Some more from my end about the map of well ...
1 of2
~ Subject: CORPUD Variance: Some more from my end about the map of well owners & the table
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun2007 10:49:15 -0400
To: Peter <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Levitas, Steve" <[e-mail]>,
"Crisp, Dale" <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>
Peter,
Rick is in the field most of this week, so I wanted to pass along the
latest (and hopefully last) request for information concerning the City
of Raleigh variance request. I believe he corresponded with you so if
this email adds to any confusion, please call. He shared your response
with me and I am not sure the figure submitted (Fig. #3) meets our needs.
Below is an email we received from David Hance, who is in charge of
verifying the submittal is compliant with the rules and consistent with
previous submittals from across the State. In essence, he has indicated
that we are in need of a figure representing all the well locations
(e.g. Fig 3) that has identifiers next to the well (parcel or PIN
numbers) that correspond to a table listing the well owner information
(name, address, etc.) Figure 3 appears to only list the wells outside,
but within 500 feet of the compliance boundary. I recall there may have
been another map locating wells belonging to people who were included in
the sampling plan and eventually connected to City water.
I believe it would help if all the wells, including those that belonged
to people connected to City water, were located on a single map. The map
should be keyed to a table as specified above. It would be helpful if
the table had a column indicating whether or not the private well had
been abandoned.
This information will be useful as part of a public hearing and for the
EMC presentation. If the table could be imbedded in the figure, great.
If the resolution or font size would make it hard .to read, then a
revised table keyed to a revised figure would be more appropriate.
We would likely need 3 copies of the map or one copy and an electronic
version which we can print on our plotter. If you have any questions
please call either Rick or me at 791-4200.
Thanks
Jay Zimmerman
Jay and Rick,
I think I can add a little bit more to help you in your discussions with
the CORPUD on this.
I was developing the Rudo memorandum this morning and looked over the
binders today with a "fresh eye".
They utility did submit a map in Figure 3 of the variance, however, it
only shows well locations on parcels but no parcel number or information
about who the owner is. There is no correlation between that chart and
the Table# 1 in the variance request.
In Figure 1-2 in the Revised Corrective Action Plan they have listed the
well status for 27 properties in a property owners list on the chart
6/15/2007 5:49 PM
CORPUD Variance: Some more from my end about the map of well ...
2 of2
.. . . . but no wells are shown on the chart they sent. Note that table
Table# 1 that were well owners and number of well owners in the
variance do match up with the information in the Revised Corrective
Action Plan Figure 1-2 Chart.
I believe they have not submitted information in a format that meets the
rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c) (4) in that it is confusing and broken up a
table listing and two large charts. It is confusing to me and would be
confusing trying to explain all of it.
It would be very good if we could get a revised Figure# 3
that has a small table listed in it showing parcel numbers that
corresponds to each well, well owners name and street address. They also
should list the parcel numbers on the parcels where water supply wells
and abandoned water supply wells represented in Figure# 3. This will
correlate the Table# 1 with the map!
Doing this will help move things along.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay [e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
6/15/2007 5:49 PM
Re: CORPUD variance: Response to Jay Zimmerman's Phone call abo ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD variance: Response to Jay Zimmerman's Phone call about Figure# 3 and More
detail
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:56:55 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
I am not sure we can get it by the end of June. We will try to get it by then, but rather than wait, why
don't we proceed with moving this along and if we get the map(s) by the time Dr. Rudo completes his
review, we can forward them to him.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I got your call this morning. I was on leave yesterday. After a few hours of thought, I believe both
types of maps that you spoke of would be helpful in communicating the site information for this
variance request.
The issue right now is timing. I have gotten a draft letter to Rudo and am going over it right now. It
will go to my supervisor for review very soon.
If we can get what you are talking about in the next two weeks, I think it would be good to have that
for Ken Rudo. Reason being is that it would help him visualize the variance request and make his
review easy as opposed to having a meeting with Ken Rudo, Rick Bolich, you and me and maybe
somebody outside. (Imagine all ofus trying to explain everything to him and cross match a least two
maps :from what we have!).
The big question: Can the the two maps you spoke of with a listing of well owners, property
identifiers, showing wells within 1/2 mile, abandoned wells, and wells within the compliance
boundaries be done before the end of June 2007?
If this cannot be done in in this period of time, then maybe we can just send what we have to Rudo
and see what questions come back.
I definitely believe it would be helpful to have what you sp oke ofin your phone call at the public
hearing and for the hearing officer. Based on the approvals needed in the rule 15A NCAC 2L .01 _13
and the notice periods that would at be some point down the road.
Tell me what you think. There is some pressure on this as you know.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
733-5083 X. 587
6/15/2007 5:49 PM
Re: CORPUD variance: Response to Jay Zinnnerman's Phone call abo ...
2 of2
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Ja [e-mail]> ·
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
6/15/2007 5:49 PM
CORPUD variance: Response to Jay Zimmerman's Phone call about F ...
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD variance: Response to Jay Zimmerman's Phone call about Figure # 3 and More detail
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:26:30 -0400
To: J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Jay,
I got your call this morning. I was on leave yesterday. After a few hours of thought, I believe both types
of maps that you spoke of would be helpful in communicating the site information for this variance
request.
The issue right now is timing. I have gotten a draft letter to Rudo and am going over it right now. It will
go to my supervisor for review very soon.
If we can get what you are talking about in the next two weeks, I think it would be good to have that for
Ken Rudo. Reason being is that it would help him visualize the variance request and make his review
easy as opposed to having a meeting with Ken Rudo, Rick Bolich, you and me and maybe somebody
outside. (Imagine all ofus trying to explain everything to him and cross match a least two maps from
what we have!).
The big question: Can the the two maps you spoke of with a listing of well owners, property
identifiers, showing wells within 1/2 mile, abandoned wells, and wells within the compliance
boundaries be done before the end of June 2007?
If this cannot be done in in this period oftim~, then maybe we can just send what we have to Rudo and
see what questions come back.
I definitel y believe it would be helpful to have what you sp oke of in your phone call at the public hearing
and for the hearing officer. Based on the approvals needed in the rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113 and the
notice periods that would at be some point down the road.
Tell me what you think. There is some pressure on this as you know .
David Hance
Env. Spec.
733-5083 X. 587
6/14/2007 6:29 PM
CORPUD City of Raleigh Variance Request UPdate
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD City of Raleigh Variance Request UPdate
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:08:05 -0400
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
I have completed the Letter to Ken Rudo - I will be going over it on Friday to look
for edits and things like that .
David Hance
x. 587
6/14/2007 6:08 PM
Re: variance-response
1 of 1
Subject: Re: variance-response
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:36:44 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks
David Hance wrote:
I got something from Jay that was missing. I think I can get this to you on Tuesday
afternoon June 12th.
david hance
*********************************************************************************************
jeff manning wrote:
Daivd,
What is the status of getting the letter to me for review?
I need to factor it into my workload
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
I am writting it up and looking the materials related to the risk assessment to make
sure what I am saying is correct.dh
jeff manning wrote:
Hi David,
Just checking on the status of your letter to Ken Rudo.
Jeff
6/8/2007 1 :49 PM
Re: variance-response
1 of 1
Subject: Re: variance-response
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:30:55 -0400
To: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
I got something from Jay that was missing. I think I can get this to you on Tuesday afternoon
June 12th.
david hance
*********************************************************************************************
jeff manning wrote:
Daivd,
What is the status of getting the letter to me for review?
I need to factor it into my workload
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
I am writting it up and looking the materials related to the risk assessment to make
sure what I am saying is correct.dh
jeff manning wrote:
Hi David,
Just checking on the status of your letter to Ken Rudo .
Jeff
6/8/2007 1 :31 PM
CORPUD Variance: Some more from my end about the map of well ...
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Some more from my end about the map of well owners & the table
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:06:41 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Jay and Rick,
I think I can add a little bit more to help you in your discussions with the CORPUD
on this.
I was developing the Rudo memorandum this morning and looked over the binders today
with a "fresh eye".
They utility did submit a map in Figure 3 of . the variance, however, it only shows
well locations on parcels but no parcel number or information about who the owner is.
There is no correlation between that chart and the Table# 1 in the variance request.
In Figure 1-2 in the Revised Corrective Action Plan they have listed the well status
for 27 properties in a property owners list on the chart ..... but no wells are shown
on the chart they sent. Note that table Table# 1 that were well owners and number of
well owners in the variance do match up with the information in the Revised
Corrective Action Plan Figure 1-2 Chart.
I believe they have not submitted information in a format that meets the rule 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c) (4) in that it is confusing and broken up a table listing and two
large charts. It is confusing to me and would be confusing trying to explain all of
it.
They probably have the information to meet the rule ..... but ... it just needs to
place it in a format that will communicate better and meet the rule. It would be
very good if we could get a revised Figure# 3 that has a small table listed in it
showing parcel numbers that corresponds to each well, well owners name and street
address. They also should list the parcel numbers on the parcels where water supply
wells and abandoned water supply wells represented in Figure# 3. This will correlate
the Table # 1 with the map! ·
Doing this will help move things along.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
6n/2007 12:07 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email o ...
I of6
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email on 6/1/07 w/ a question(?)
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:50:09 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, jeff manning <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>
Regarding the map in #1.a., we have an extra copy which we will forward to you, although I understand you may
have the map which was misslabled by the consultant (I'll ask Rick to verify). We have also requested an electronic
copy from the consultant. Regarding #1.c., all wells that have been, or may have been impacted by the City's nitrate
plume, have been connected to city water. Some of the exisiting wells may not have been abandoned, such as the
well owned by the former M&R landfill, who may be using their well for purposes other than potable supplies.
Raleigh also connected many wells near their fields that were outside of the plumes pathway, including a number of
wells upgradient of the facility. We are satisifed Raleigh has addressed concerns related to private wells, so their is
little additional info we can provide. I will follow-up with Rick on this and let you know if we find out differently.
As far as a hearing location, the Wake County Commons off of Poole Rd. might be a good location as it is
convenient and has plenty of parking. Also, Alan Klimek promised to keep the neighbors apprised of any hearing
regarding Raleigh, specifically any related to the application of residuals to the Cities fields. Although this hearing
isn't related to the application of residuals, it may not be a bad idea to notify by letter, the people who had impacted
wells or were connected to City water. We may be able to assist with this or get the City to assist. Let us know.
You may wish to contact Joanne Rutkofske at 733-0026, ext 315 for a contact at the Wake Co. Commons. She has
used them several times for Drillers Day training events. Call either Rick or me if you have any questions or need
assistance.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
Thank you for the information you gave me in this email. It does help me get some perspective.
>>> Here is m y resp onse to your questions on this<<<
1. Items needed from the RRO or the CORPUD in Order to Proceed on the City of Raleigh Variance
Request -Refer to the "Barebones Document" I sent to you last week. Here is 'what I have' .... and .... 'what I
need':
a. Need-Question# 1 deals with a missing item. We need a map showing where private drinking water
wells are within one-half mile of the facility and it should correspond to the information in Table# I of the
CORPUD Variance request. The rule requires that drinking water wells be identified on a map. I could not find
this map in the materials Rick sent me. We need to have the· CORPUD get us a map before I
can proceed to Rudo, unless someone can show me what I have missed in the material
I have read.
b. Got -Rick responded to Question # 2 last week and gave me what I needed .
c. Need -Deals with Question # 3 on the Barebones document. Rick was going to look into the question
about the two active wells and their relative location to the affected fields . He told me that he believes they are
not near the site and would not be affected by the nitrate from the CORPUD facility but he was going to
confirm this with a GIS map and get back to me -which was late last week.
6/5/2007 I 0:34 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email o ...
2 of6
2. Answers to Jay Zimmerman's questions about how to proceed: I will send the risk assessment stuff to
Rudo and get his response on this. Once we have a response from him, I will set up a public hearing and get
the variance request materials, a summary and a public notice of this variance to Coleen for signature. I will
also get a hearing officer's designation memorandum together for Coleen Sullins to sign. Our hearing officers
have generally come from APS Supervisor Staff regional offices outside of the region where the variance is
under consideration, which means you cannot serve as the hearing officer.
3. Things that need to be discussed further bv staff: We have NOT gotten Ted Bush's
recommendation as to the person on the DWQ-APS Staff that he would want to have to hearing officer.
We had batted around names such as David May and Landon Davidson -but this was in the context of gw
incident variances that ended up being transferred to the Division of Waste Management under the 2007
Reorganization and APS has no responsibility for these anymore.
Once I get the my memorandum out to Ken Rudo, I will work on getting a hearing officer. Also .... we will
need an adequate hearing location for the hearing. Question: Do ou know of a good place for a hearing ?
(Generally, we don't get many people at our variance hearings and the highest attendance was for a paint
factory a few years ago in Charlotte at about 20 people. However, this is a variance request from the City of
Raleigh and I have not had any hearings on matters like this in Wake County before).
Once I get everything from you in Rick I can complete things at my end. I am working on the memorandum to
Ken Rudo in the meantime. If you need to talk to me about this further, please call 733-5083 x. 587 or send
an email response.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning
*********************************************************************************************'
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks David as that was very helpfull. Now I understand Dr. Rudo's role a little better in this situation.
As for the permission, my only concern was that the rules require notification of the variance plan, not
permission to carry it out. While I definitely agree permission would be preferable (and I think we have it
from most), it isn't essential. We have approved many a CAP proposing natural attenuation where the
adjacent property owner didn't want a plume under their property and unless they could identify how they
were harmed (harm to property values not relavant to our rules) we went ahead with paln approval, which
the Director signed. So, if the propety owners disagree with the proposed CAP, we would have to discuss
the issue with the hearing officer to ensure a consistent approach.
Can I assume at this point you have the info you need to proceed to the next step? Can you walk me
through it as it has been a while? Does Collen appoint a hearing officer first or does it go the the
Groundwater Committee as an informational item?
Thanks,
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Here are some more comments and thoughts to Ja y 's email on May 31st:
6/5/2007 10:34 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email o ...
3 of6
*******************************
1. Role of DPH -OEES and Dr. Rudo: As a matter of our process for evaluating variances, any of
these handled by the Division of Water Quality have always given the Division of Public Health an
opportunity to review the variance request, prior to public notice and hearing for many practical
reasons. You will note that the variance requires that the variance applicant demonstrate in his request
that granting a variance " ... will not endanger public health and safety ... " as specified under 15A
NCAC 2L .l 13(c)(4). This demonstration also includes health and environmental effects from
exposures to groundwater contaminants.
Furthermore, if you will remember the variance request and supporting reports contain water well
data from private wells and a detailed risk assessment of various exposure pathways supplied by the
CORPUD where potential impacts could occur. The utility evaluated exposures from intruders,
persons going into the creek wading, and the groundwater exposure pathway downgraident from the
facility. Rudo does have the background to look at exposure models and monitoring data and water
well data to form an opinion on the risk. From what I remember reading in the variance, this request
proposes to allow the Nitrate to go outside of compliance boundaries and the permitted operations at
this treatment plant will be ongoing and continue for many decades to come.
Note also that this variance needs to proceed to public notice and hearing per requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). It would not be good for DWQ to go to hearing and have the state's main health
protection agency opposing it based on what it may have heard from someone, saw in a new article, or
out of ignorance of the facts. If there is something that we have missed it would be good to have that
involvement from them as we have always had. Having a letter from DPHs expressing support, no
objections or no comments on this matter could help prevent a lot of confusion at hearing. This project
could very well get some level of public attention as you well know.
(Note that I am developing a letter to Rudo per Jeff's instructions that would
provide DPH with only (1) the well data, ((2) risk assessment information; (3)
and other relevant p ortions of the CORPUD request to assist him. My intent would
be to ask for his response a month after the letter is signed and sent. We could also
meet with him if he has significant questions.)
2. As for 'Permission' of Adjacent Property owners: I think you are correct. I do not know of
any law or policy that requires p ermission from adjacent land owners to have substances go across
properties. Our variance Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) specifies extensive efforts to provide notice to
adjacent property owners of the hearing .... so .... one would assume that those concerns would be
attended to there by the hearing officer. Of course .... I think it would give our Division and the
permittee a great level of comfort if all of the adjacent properties were to agree to the variance or
express that they have no objections prior to hearing.
If you look.at 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (q) it specifies that a corrective action plan that permits the
migration of contaminants onto adjacent properties " ••• shall not affect any private right of action by
any party which may be effected by that contamination". By looking at this, the rule implies that
migration of substances across property lines would be assumed as a part of a corrective action plan
{ especially one that CORPUD would follow through on (i.e. KLM) after the variance is granted}.
At this point, I think it comes down to (a) how the downgraident property owners will react to the
variance request for applying the KLM rule to a permitted facility; and (b) how they would react to a
variance that is currently or could potentially allow for migration of Nitrate into groundwater above
the GW Standard beneath their property; and ( c) the value the EMC places on property owner
permission & public reaction (if any) in the variance request when it comes to them for review.
At many of our hearings we had on permitted facilities and incidents -no adjacent property
owners attend even when we go all out to get notice to them. Something else I just thought about ---In
a practical sense ... Nitrate is a nutrient and even if a person uses groundwater for non-drinking
6/5/2007 10:34 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email o ...
4 of6
purposes as a source of irrigation supply or for a car washing would nitrate above the standard would
a well owner using his well or installing a well for that purpose see this as a problem? Hmm!
3. Deed Recordation, Deed Restrictions , and Land Use Restrictions & DWM variances: These
thoughts come to you as a result of my last emails that I sent on that subject. As you know, at DWM
sites they have significant laws regarding deed recordation, deed restrictions, specifying certain
notices be given, and land use restrictions when adjacent properties are involved CAPS under the
UST Program, Hazardous Waste and Other Programs.
Back in February 2007 when they met with Carl and myself they expressed their intent is to
apply these laws to variance requests for incident sites, as applicable!
After these discussions , I did some searches of the NC General Statutes for laws of this kind as the y
apply to non-discharge permits and have found nothing related to these facilities.
The two big questions that could come up at hearing or be brought up by the hearing officer for the
CORPUD variance and these are:
a. Why does the DWM require deed recordation & deed restrictions and other things and DWQ
does not?; and
b. How would a new downgraident property owner or land owner know that a variance had ever
been granted to CORPUD if there is no legal trail in a deed? How would they know where to look?
These matters under# 2 and # 3 sound kind oflegal to me. Do you want to bring this up to Ted Bush
prior to hearing?
********************************
Sorry, I may be muddying the waters with all of this. There has not been a variance granted for a
facility of this type for this kind of activity and it is important to make sure the right policy is set up
front since we may get more if these if one is approved by the Commission.
In the mean time, I will continue to search the NC Statutes and Bills for the stuff under Numbers # 2
and 3 above. I co pied Ted Bush on this since he mi ght find this interesting .
David Hance
DWQ Planning
733-5083 x. 587
*************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks David and this helps us focus our comments. Attached are comments from us regarding
your most recent line of questions. I hope this addresses any remainig concerns and thanks for
helping us polish this up and get it ready for the next phase.
On a different note, I still do not understand Dr. Rudo's role as he is not really in a position or, in
my opinion qualified, to assess risk related to contaminant movement in the groundwater. The
potential for exposure to nitrates is related to use of the groundwater and it's role in recharging the
surface waters. All wells impacted by the nitrates, with I believe one exception, have been
connected to city water and the wells permanently abandoned. I believe there is one well owner
that has refused to allow connection to city water (I also recall their well was not impacted above
6/5/2007 10:34 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmennan's email o ...
5 of6
the nitrate standard, but could be wrong). In addition, wells not at risk and for which there was
no data to suggest they were impacted by the Cities activities , were connected to City water to
:further alleviate residents concerns. I agree the groundwater pathway is an important, if not the
most important, driver, however, Dr. Rudo would not be the appropriate person to evaluate this
issue -we would. Maybe I am misunderstanding his role though.
Also, while we have received letters from adjacent property owners concerning the variance, I
could not fing a regulatory reference for their permission as· a required component of the variance.
In looking at the rule it would seem to me that even if they disagreed, permission would not be
necessary. Can you help clarify these latter two issues so I am prepared to discuss if needed?
Thanks
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I have gone over the original set of questions that I sent you and Rick on April 27, 2007.
I have p ared down these to three "bare bones" questions that I think need to be answered
before we gi ve Dr. Ken Rudo a look at the risk assessment work for this. There are three
total. Question # 1 is big in that I have not found a map in variance materials that corresponds
to the listing of private well owners in the variance request.
Dr. Ken Rudo will be looking at a variance request in light of the risk assessment they
conducted, potential exposures of nitrate, and impacts on drinking water wells as a result of
placing a variance for the faci1ity and its spray fields. The risk assessment in the variance
materials from CORPUD indicate that the groundwater pathway is important and is a driver
behind needing a variance. Groundwater Standards in the groundwater resource could be
exceeded for some time under a variance of this type even though natural remediation would
ultimately degrade nitrate concentrations.
My questions are attached in the word document you see here. If these are resolved I
think this can go forward.
As for my previous submittal to you and Rick from April 27, 2007 ....... the discussion about
Deed Recordation in Question# 8 was to let you know of that development at DWM and the
meeting we had with the staff. Note that the Division of Waste Management will be
requiring this on its variances since there has been significant legislation related to sites. Your
last email answered that question and you indicated that the subject has not been brought up.
Question # 9 from that document was a comment on what a variance is for-the permit and
the permitted activity and not the land. It would not be like a reclassification of the
groundwater resource.
The other questions were to clarify maps, diagrams and information to help me understand
the materials. These questions may need to be answered to help out the hearing officer when
this goes to hearing. Prior to April 27, 2007, I had not asked any of these questions to the
RRO staff or anyone else.
6/5/2007 10:34 AM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email o ...
6of6
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay.Zimmerman~ tn cmail.net> ·
Environ.metal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
I DWQ/ Aquifer Protection Section
6/5/2007 10 :34 AM
Re~COR;PDp Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email o ...
1 of5
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email on 6/1/07 w/ a question(?)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:16:02 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <jay'[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,jeffmanning <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>
Jay,
Thank you for the information you gave me in this email. It does help me get some perspective.
>>> Here is my response to your questions on this<<<
1. Items needed from the RRO or the CORPUD in Order to Proceed on the City of Raleigh Variance
Request -Refer to the "Barebones Document" I sent to you last week. Here is 'what I have' .... and .... 'what I
need':
a. N e-ed-Question # 1 deals with a missing item. We need a map showing where private drinking water wells
are within one-half mile of the facility and it should correspond to the information in Table# 1 of the CORPUD
Variance request. The rule requires that drinking water wells be identified on a map. I could not find this map in
the materials Rick sent me. We need to have the CORPUD get us a map before I can proceed
to Rudo, unless someone can show me what I have missed in the material I have read.
b. Got -Rick responded to Question # 2 last week and gave me what I needed .
c. Need -Deals with Question# 3 on the Barebones document. Rick was going to look into the question
about the two active wells and their relative location to the affected fields. He told me that he believes they are
not near the site and would not be affected by the nitrate from the CORPUD facility but he was going to confirm
this with a GIS map and get back to me -which was late last week.
2. Answers to Jay Zimmerman's questions about how to proceed: I will send the risk assessment stuff to
Rudo and get his response on this. Once we have a response from him, I will set up a public hearing and get the
variance request materials, a summary and a public notice of this variance to Coleen for signature. I will also get
a hearing officer's designation memorandum together for Coleen Sullins to sign. Our hearing officers have
generally come from APS Supervisor Staff regional offices outside of the region where the variance is under
consideration, which means you cannot serve as the hearing officer.
3. Things that need to be discussed further bv staff: We have NOT gotten Ted Bush's recommendation
as to the person on the DWQ-APS Staff that he would want to have to hearing officer. We had batted
around names such as David May and Landon Davidson -but this was in the context of gw incident variances·
that ended up being transferred to the Division of Waste Management under the 2007 Reorganization and APS
has no responsibility for these anymore.
Once I get the my memorandum out to Ken Rudo, I will work on getting a hearing officer. Also .... we will
need an adequate hearing location for the hearing. Question: Do ou know of a good place for a hearing?
(Generally, we don't get many people at our variance hearings and the highest attendance was for a paint
factory a few years ago in Charlotte at about 20 people. However, this is a variance request from the City of
Raleigh and I have not had any hearings on matters like this in Wake County before).
Once I get everything from you in Rick I can compiete things at my end. I am working on the memorandum to
Ken Rudo in the meantime. If you need to talk to me about this further, please call 733-5083 x. 587 or send an
email response.
6/4/2007 5:16 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmennan's email o ...
2 of5
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning
******************************************************************************************~
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks David as that was very helpfull. Now I understand Dr. Rudo's role a little better in this situation. As
for the permission, my only concern was that the rules require notification of the variance plan, not
permission to carry it out. While I definitely agree permission would be preferable (and I think we have it
from most), it isn't essential. We have approved many a CAP proposing natural attenuation where the
adjacent property owner didn't want a plume under their property and unless they could identify how they
were harmed (harm to property values not relavant to our rules) we went ahead with paln approval, which
the Director signed. So, if the propety owners disagree with the proposed CAP, we would have to discuss
the issue with the hearing officer to ensure a consistent approach.
Can I assume at this point you have the info you need to proceed to the next step? Can you walk me through
it as it has been a while? Does Collen appoint a hearing officer first or does it go the the Groundwater
Committee as an informational item?
Thanks,
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Here are some more comments and thoughts to Jay 's email on Mav 31st:
*******************************
1. Role of DPH -OEES and Dr. Rudo: As a matter of our process for evaluating variances, any of
these handled by the Division of Water Quality have always given the Division of Public Health an
opportunity to review the variance request, prior to public notice and hearing for many practical
reasons. You will note that the variance requires that the variance applicant demonstrate in his request
that granting a variance " ... will not endanger public health and safety ... "as specified under 15A NCAC
2L .l 13(c)(4). This demonstration also includes health and environmental effects from exposures to
groundwater contaminants.
Furthermore, if you will remember the variance request and supporting reports contain water well
data from private wells and a detailed risk assessment of various exposure pathways supplied by the
CORPUD where potential impacts could occur. The utility evaluated exposures from intruders, persons
going into the creek wading, and the groundwater exposure pathway downgraident from the facility.
Rudo does have the background to look at exposure models and monitoring data and water well data to
form an opinion on the risk. From what I remember reading in the variance, this request proposes to
allow the Nitrate to go outside of compliance boundaries and the permitted operations at this treatment
plant will be ongoing and continue for many decades to come.
Note also that this variance needs to proceed to public notice and hearing per requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). It would not be good for DWQ to go to hearing and have the state's main health
protection agency opposing it based on what it may have heard from someone, saw in a new article, or
out of ignorance of the facts. If there is something that we have missed it would be good to have that
6/4/2007 5:16 PM
Re; CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J . Ziinmerman's email o ...
3 of5
involvement frotn them as we have always had. Having a letter from DPHs expressing support, no
objections or no comments on this matter could help prevent a lot of confusion at hearing. This project
could very well get some level of public attention as you well know.
(Note that I am developing a letter to Rudo per Jeff's instructions that would
provide DPH with Q!!J;y (1) the well data, ((2) risk assessment information; (3) and
other relevant p ortions of the CORPUD request to assist Ilim. My intent wo-µld be to
ask for his response a month after the letter is signed and sent. We could also meet
with him if he has significant questions.)
2. As for 'Permission' of Adjacent Property owners: I think you are correct. I do not know of any
law or policy that requires p ermission from adjacent land owners to have substances go across
properties. Our variance Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113( e) specifies extensive efforts to provide notice to
adjacent property owners of the hearing .... so .... one would assume that those concerns would be
attended to there by the hearing officer. Of course .... I think it would give our Division .and the
permittee a great level of comfort if all of the adjacent properties were to agree to the variance or
express that they have no objections prior to hearing.
If you look at 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (q) it specifies that a corrective action plan that permits the
migration of contaminants onto adjacent properties " ... shall not affect any private right of action by
any party which may be effected by that contamination". By looking at this, the rule implies that
migration of substances across prop e rty lines would be assumed as a part of a corrective action plan
{ especially one that CORPUD would follow through on (i.e. KLM) after the variance is granted}.
At this point, I think it comes down to (a) how the downgraident property owners will react to the
variance request for applying the KLM rule to a permitted facility; and (b) how they would react to a
variance that is currently or could potentially allow for migration of Nitrate into groundwater above the
GW Standard beneath their property; and ( c) the value the EMC places on property owner permission
& public reaction (if any) in the variance request when it comes to them for review.
At many of our hearings we had on permitted facilities and incidents -no adjacent property owners
attend even when we go all out to get notice to them. Something else I just thought about ---hi a
practical sense ... Nitrate is a nutrient and even if a person uses groundwat~r for non-drinking purposes
as a source of irrigation supply or for a car washing would nitrate above the standard would a well
owner using his well or installing a well for that purpose see this as a problem? Hmm!
3. Deed Recordation , Deed Restrictions, and Land Use Restrictions & DWM variances: These
thoughts come to you as a result ofmy last emails that I sent on that subject. As you know, at DWM
sites they have significant laws regarding deed recordation, deed restrictions, specifying certain notices
be given, and land use restrictions when adjacent properties are involved CAPS under the UST
Program, Hazardous Waste and Other Programs.
Back in February 2007 when they met with Carl and myself they expressed their intent is to
apply these laws to variance requests for incident sites, as applicable!
After these discussions , I did some searches of the NC General Statutes for laws of this kind as the y
a pp ly to non-discharge p ermits and have found nothing related to these facilities.
The two big questions that could come up at hearing or be brought up by the hearing officer for the
CORPUD variance and these are:
a. Why does the DWM require deed recordation & deed restrictions and other things and DWQ
does not?; and
b. How would a new downgraident property owner or land owner know that a variance had ever
been granted to CORPUD if there is no legal trail in a deed? How would they know where to look?
These matters under# 2 and # 3 sound kind oflegal to me. Do you want to bring this up to Ted Bush
6/4/2007 5:16 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's email o ...
4 of5
prior to hearing?
********************************
Sorry, I may be muddying the waters with all of this. There has not been a variance granted for a facility
of this type for this kind of activity and it is important to make sure the right policy is set up front since
we may get more if these if one is approved by the Commission.
In the mean time, I will continue to search the NC Statutes and Bills for the stuff under Numbers# 2
and 3 above. I copied Ted Bush on this since he might find this interesting.
David Hance
DWQ Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*********************************************************************************** *
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks David and this helps us focus our comments. Attached are comments from us regarding
your most recent line of questions. I hope this addresses any remainig concerns and thanks for
helping us polish this up and get it ready for the next phase.
On a different note, I still do not understand Dr. Rudo's role as he is not really in a position or, in
my opinion qualified, to assess risk related to contaminant movement in the groundwater. The
potential for exposure to nitrates is related to use of the groundwater and it's role in recharging the
surface waters. All wells impacted by the nitrates, with I believe one exception, have been
connected to city water and the wells permanently abandoned. I believe there is one well owner
that has refused to allow connection to city water (I also recall their well was not impacted above
the nitrate standard, but could be wrong). In addition, wells not at risk and for which there was no
data to suggest they were impacted by the Cities activities , were connected to City water to further
alleviate residents concerns. I agree the groundwater pathway is an important, if not the most
important, driver, however, Dr. Rudo would not be the appropriate person to evaluate this issue -
we would. Maybe I am misunderstanding his role though.
Also, while we have received letters from adjacent property owners concerning the variance, I
could not fing a regulatory reference for their permission as a required component of the variance .
In looking at the rule it would seem to me that even if they disagreed, permission would not be
necessary. Can you help clarify these latter two issues so I am prepared to discuss if needed?
Thanks
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I have gone over the original set of questions that I sent you and Rick on April 27, 2007.
6/4/2007 5:16 PM
Re: GORPUI;> Variance Request: Response to J. Zimmerman's emailo ...
5 of5
I have p ared down these to three "bare bones" questions that I think need to be answered before
we give Dr. Ken Rudo a look at the risk assessment work for this. There are three total.
Question # 1 is big in that I have not found a map in variance materials that corresponds to the
listing of private well owners in the variance request.
Dr. Ken Rudo will be looking at a variance request in light of the risk assessment they
conducted, potential exposures of nitrate, and impacts on drinking water wells as a result of
'placing a variance for the facility and its spray fields. The risk assessment in the variance
materials from CORPUD indicate that the groundwater pathway is important and is a driver
behind needing a variance. Groundwater Standards in the groundwater resource could be
exceeded for some time under a variance of this type even though natural remediation would
ultimately degrade nitrate concentrations.
My questions are attached in the word document you see here. If these are resolved I
think this can go forward.
As for my previous submittal to you and Rick from April 27, 2007 . .. .... the discussion about
Deed Recordation in Question # 8 was to let you know of that development at DWM and the
meeting we had with the staff. Note that the Division of Waste Management will be requiring
this on its variances since there has been significant legislation related to sites. Your last email
answered that question and you indicated that the subject has not been brought up.
Question# 9 from that document was a comment on what a variance is for-the permit and the
permitted activity and not the land. It would not be like a reclassification of the groundwater
resource.
The other questions were to clarify maps, diagrams and information to help me understand the
materials. These questions may need to be answered to help out the hearing officer when this
goes to hearing. Prior to April 27, 2007, I had not asked any of these questions to the RRO staff
or anyone else.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
6/4/2007 5:16 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
1 of5
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/07 -Your questions
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:03: 17 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, jeff manning <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>
Thanks David as that was very helpful!. Now I understand Dr. Rudo's role a little better in this situation. As
for the permission, my only concern was that the rules require notification of the variance plan, not
permission to carry it out While I definitely agree permission would be preferable (and I think we have it
from most), it isn't essential. We have approved many a CAP proposing natural attenuation where the
adjacent property owner didn't want a plume under their property and unless they could identify how they
were harmed (harm to property values not relavant to our rules) we went ahead with pain approval, which
the Director signed. So, if the propety owners disagree with the proposed CAP, we would have to discuss
the issue with the hearing officer to ensure a consistent approach.
Can I assume at this point you have the info you need to proceed to the next step? Can you walk me through
it as it has been a while? Does Collen appoint a hearing officer first or does it go the the Groundwater
Committee as an informational item?
Thanks,
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Here are some more comments and thoughts to Jav 's email on May 31st:
*******************************
1. Role of DPH -OEES and Dr. Rudo: As a matter of our process for evaluating variances, any of
these handled by the Division of Water Quality have always given the Division of Public Health an
opportunity to review the variance request, prior to public notice and hearing for many practical
reasons. You will note that the variance requires that the variance applicant demonstrate in his request
that granting a variance " ... will not endanger public health and safety ... " as specified under 15A NCAC
2L .l 13(c)(4). This demonstration also includes health and environmental effects from exposures to
groundwater contaminants.
Furthermore, if you will remember the variance request and supporting reports contain water well
data from private wells and a detailed risk assessment of various exposure pathways supplied by the
CORPUD where potential impacts could occur. The utility evaluated exposures from intruders, persons
going into the creek wading, and the groundwater exposure pathway downgraident from the facility.
Rudo does have the background to look at exposure models and monitoring data and water well data to
form an opinion on the risk. From what I remember reading in the variance, this request proposes to
allow the Nitrate to go outside of compliance boundaries and the permitted operations at this treatment
plant will be ongoing and continue for many decades to come. ·
Note also that this variance needs to proceed to public notice and hearing per requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). It would not be good for DWQ to go to hearing and have the state's main health
6/4/2007 5:17 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
2 of5
protection agency opposing it based on what it may have heard from someone, saw in a new article, or
out of ignorance of the facts. If there is something that we have missed it would be good to have that
involvement from them as we have always had. Having a letter from DPHs expressing support, no
objections or no comments on this matter could help prevent a lot of confusion at hearing. This project
could very well get some level of public attention as you well know.
(Note that I am developing a letter to Rudo per Jeffs instructions that would
provide DPH with only (1) the well data, ((2) risk assessment information; (3) and
other relevant p ortions of the CORPUD request to assist him. :My-intent would be to
ask for his response a month after the letter is signed and sent. We could also meet
with him if he has significant questions.)
2. As for 'Permission' of Adjacent Property owners: I think you are correct. I do not know of any
law or policy that re quires p ermission from adjacent land owners to have substances go across
properties. Our variance Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113( e) specifies extensive efforts to provide notice to
adjacent property owners of the hearing .... so .... one would assume that those concerns would be
attended to there by the hearing officer. Of course .... I think it would give our Division and the
permittee a great level of comfort if all of the adjacent properties were to agree to the variance or
express that they have no objections prior to hearing.
If you look at 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (q) it specifies that a corrective action plan that permits the
migration of contaminants onto adjacent properties " ... shall not affect any private right of action by
any party which may be effected by that contamination". By looking at this, the rule implies that
migration of substances across pro p e rty lines would be assumed as a part of a corrective action plan
{especially one that CORPUD would follow through on (i.e. KLM) after the variance is granted}.
At this point, I think it comes down to (a) how the downgraident property owners will react to the
variance request for applying the KLM rule to a permitted facility; and (b) how they would react to a
variance that is currently or could potentially allow for migration of Nitrate into groundwater above the
GW Standard beneath their property; and ( c) the value the EMC places on property owner permission &
public reaction (if any) in the variance request when it comes to them for review.
At many of our hearings we had on permitted facilities and incidents -no adjacent property owners
attend even when we go all out to get notice to them. Something else I just thought about ---In a
practical sense ... Nitrate is a nutrient and even if a person uses groundwater for non-drinking purposes
as a source of irrigation supply or for a car washing would nitrate above the standard would a well
owner using his well or installing a well for that purpose see this as a problem? Hmm!
3. Deed Recordation, Deed Restrictions, and Land Use Restrictions & DWM variances: These
thoughts come to you as a result ofmy last emails that I sent on that subject. As you know, at DWM
sites they have significant laws regarding deed recordation, deed restrictions, specifying certain notices
be given, and land use restrictions when adjacent properties are involved CAPS under the UST
Program, Hazardous Waste and Other Programs.
Back in February 2007 when they met with Carl and myself they expressed their intent is to
apply these laws to variance requests for incident sites, as applicable!
After these discussions , I did some searches of the NC General Statutes for laws of this kind as the y
a pply to non-discharge permits and have found nothing related to these facilities.
The two big questions that could come up at hearing or be brought up by the hearing officer for the
CORPUD variance and these are:
a. Why does the DWM require deed recordation & deed restrictions and other things and DWQ does
not?; and
6/4/2007 5:17 PM
Re: CORfUD Vapance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ •..
3 of5
b. How would a new downgraident property owner or land owner know that a variance had ever
been granted to CORPUD if there is no legal trail in a deed? How would they know where to look?
These matters under# 2 and # 3 sound kind oflegal to me. Do you want to bring this up to Ted Bush
prior to hearing?
********************************
Sorry, I may be muddying the waters with all of this. There has not been a variance granted for a facility
of this type for this kind of activity and it is important to make sure the right policy is set up front since
we may get more if these if one is approved by the Commission.
In the mean time, I will continue to search the NC Statutes and Bills for the stuff under Numbers# 2
and 3 above. I copied Ted Bush on this since he might find this interesting .
David Hance
DWQ Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
6/4/2007 5:17 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
4 nf"i
Thanks David and this helps us focus our comments. Attached are comments from us regarding
your most recent line of questions. I hope this addresses any remainig concerns and thanks for
helping us polish this up and get it ready for the next phase.
On a different note, I still do not understand Dr. Rudo's role as he is not really in a position or, in my
opinion qualified, to assess risk related to contaminant movement in the groundwater. The potential
for exposure to nitrates is related to use of the groundwater and it's role in recharging the surface
waters. All wells impacted by the nitrates, with I believe one exception, have been connected to
city water and the wells permanently abandoned. I believe there is one well owner that has refused
to allow connection to city water (I also recall their well was not impacted above the nitrate
standard, but could be wrong). In addition, wells not at risk and for which there was no data to
suggest they were impacted by the Cities activities , were connected to City water to further
alleviate residents concerns. I agree the groundwater pathway is an important, if not the most
important, driver, however, Dr. Rudo would not be the appropriate person to evaluate this issue -we
would. Maybe I am misunderstanding his role though.
Also, while we have received letters from adjacent property owners concerning the variance, I could
not fing a regulatory reference for their permission as a required component of the variance. In
looking at the rule it would seem to me that even if they disagreed, permission would not be
necessary. Can you help clarify these latter two issues so I am prepared to discuss if needed?
Thanks
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I have gone over the original set of questions that I sent you and Rick on April 27, 2007.
I have pared down these to three "bare bones" questions that I think need to be answered before
we gi ve Dr. Ken Rudo a look at the risk assessment work for this. There are three total.
Question # 1 is big in that I have not found a map in variance materials that corresponds to the
listing of private well owners in the variance request.
Dr. Ken Rudo will be looking at a variance request in light of the risk assessment they
conducted, potential exposures of nitrate, and impacts on drinking water wells as a result of
placing a variance for the facility and its spray fields. The risk assessment in the variance
materials from CORPUD indicate that the groundwater pathway is important and is a driver
behind needing a variance. Groundwater Standards in the groundwater resource could be
exceeded for some time under a variance of this type even though natural remediation would
ultimately degrade nitrate concentrations.
My questions are attached in the word document you see here. If these are resolved I
think this can go forward.
As for my previous submittal to you and Rick from April 27, 2007 ....... the discussion about
Deed Recordation in Question # 8 was to let you know of that development at DWM and the
meeting we had with the staff. Note that the Division of Waste Management will be requiring
n/A./7007 "i· 17 PM
Re: CORPµD Varjance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/ ...
5 of5
this on its variances since there has been significant legislation related to sites. Your last email
answered that question and you indicated that the subject has not been brought up.
Question # 9 from that document was a comment on what a variance is for-the permit and the
permitted activity and not the land. It would not be like a reclassification of the groundwater
resource.
The other questions were to clarify maps, diagrams and information to help me understand the
materials. These questions may need to be answered to help out the hearing officer when this
goes to hearing. Prior to April 27, 2007, I had not asked any of these questions to the RRO staff
or anyone else.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
6/4/2007 5: 17 PM
CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/07 ...
1 of4
$ubject: CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/07 -Your questions
,. From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:34:03 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: jeffmanning <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
Jay and Rick,
Here are some more comments and thoughts to Jay 's email on May 31st:
*******************************
1. Role of DPH -OEES and Dr. Rudo: As a matter of our process for evaluating variances, any of these
handled by the Division of Water Quality have always given the Division of Public Health an opportunity
to review the variance request, prior to public notice and hearing for many practical reasons. You will note
that the variance requires that the variance applicant demonstrate in his request that granting a variance
" ... will not'endanger public health and safety ... " as specified under 15A NCAC 2L .l 13(c)(4). This
demonstration also includes health and environmental effects from exposures to groundwater
contaminants.
Furthermore, if you will remember the variance request and supporting reports contain water well data
from private wells and a detailed risk assessment of various exposure pathways supplied by the CORPUD
where potential impacts could occur. The utility evaluated exposures from intruders, persons going into the
creek wading, and the groundwater exposure pathway downgraident from the facility. Rudo does have the
background to look at exposure models and monitoring data and water well data to form an opinion on the
risk. From what I remember reading in the variance, this request proposes to allow the Nitrate to go
outside of compliance boundaries and the permitted operations at this treatment plant will be ongoing and
continue for many decades to come.
Note also that this variance needs to proceed to public notice and hearing per requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). It would not be good for DWQ to go to hearing and have the state's main health
protection agency opposing it based on what it may have heard from someone, saw in a new article, or out
of ignorance of the facts. If there is something that we have missed it would be good to have that
involvement from them as we have always had. Having a letter from DPHs expressing support, no
objections or no comments on this matter could help prevent a lot of confusion at hearing. This project
could very well get some level of public attention as you well know.
(Note that I am developing a letter to Rudo per Jeffs instructions that would
provide DPHwith only (1) the well data, ((2) risk assessment information; (3) and
other relevant p ortions of the CORPUD request to assist him. My intent would be to
ask for his response a month after the letter is signed and sent. We could also meet
with him if he has significant questions.)
2. As for 'Permission' of Adjacent Property owners: I think you are correct. I do not know of any law
or policy that req uires p ermission from adjacent land owners to have substances go across properties. Our
variance Rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) specifies extensive efforts to provide notice to adjacent property
owners of the hearing . . . . so .... one would assume that those concerns would be attended to there by the
hearing officer. Of course .... I think it would give our Division and the permittee a great level of comfort
if all of the adjacent properties were to agree to the variance or express that they have no objections prior
to hearing.
If you look at 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (q) it specifies that a corrective action plan that permits the
5/31/2007 6:37 PM
CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/07 ...
2 of4
migration of contaminants onto adjacent properties " ••• shall 11ot affect any private riglit of action by any
party which may be effected by that contamination". By looking at this, the rule implies that migration of
substances across prop erty lines would be assumed as a part of a corrective action plan { especially one that
CORPUD would follow through on (i.e. KLM) after the variance is granted}.
At this point, I think it comes down to (a) how the downgraident property owners will react to the
variance request for applymg the KLM rule to a permitted facility; and (b) how they would react to a
variance that is currently or could potentially allow for migration of Nitrate into groundwater above the
GW Standard beneath their property; and ( c) the value the EMC places on property owner permission &
public reaction (if any) in the variance request when it comes to them for review.
At many of our hearings we had on permitted facilities and incidents -no adjacent property owners
attend even when we go all out to get notice to them. Something else I just thought about ---In a practical
sense ... Nitrate is a nutrient and even if a person uses groundwater for non-drinking purposes as a source
of irrigation supply or for a car washing would nitrate above the standard would a well owner using his
well or installing a well for that purpose see this as a problem? Hmm!
3. Deed Recordation , Deed Restrictions , and Land Use Restrictions & DWM variances: These
thoughts come to you as a result ofmy last emails that I sent on that subject. As you know, at DWM sites
they have significant laws regarding deed recordation, deed restrictions, specifying certain notices be
given, and land use restrictions when adjacent properties are involved CAPS under the UST Program,
Hazardous Waste and Other Programs .
.Back in February 2007 when they met with Carl and myself they expressed their intent is to apply
these laws to variance requests for incident sites, as applicable!
After these discussions , I did some searches of the NC General Statutes for laws of this kind as the y
apply to non-discharg e p ermits and have found nothing related to these facilities.
The two big questions that could come up at hearing or be brought up by the hearing officer for the
CORPUD variance and these are:
a. Why does the DWM require deed recordation & deed restrictions and other things and DWQ does
not?; and
b. How would a new downgraident property owner or land owner know that a variance had ever been
granted to CORPUD if there is no legal trail in a deed? How would they know where to look?
These matters under # 2 and # 3 sound kind of legal to me. Do you want to bring this up to Ted Bush prior
to hearing?
********************************
Sorry, I may be muddying the waters with all of this. There has not been a variance granted for a facility of
this type for this kind of activity and it is important to make sure the right policy is set up front since we
may get more if these if one is approved by the Commission.
In the mean time, I will continue to search the NC Statutes and Bills for the stuff under Numbers # 2 and 3
above. I cop ied Ted Bush on this since he mi ght find this interesting .
David Hance
DWQ Planning
733-5083 X. 587
**************************************************************************************
5/31/2007 6:37 PM
CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/07 ...
3 of4
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks David and this helps us focus our comments. Attached are comments from us regarding your
most recent line of questions. I hope this addresses any remainig concerns and thanks for helping us
polish this up and get it ready for the next phase.
On a different note, I still do not understand Dr. Rudo's role as he is not really in a position or, in my
opinion qualified, to assess risk related to contaminant movement in the groundwater. The potential
for exposure to nitrates is related to use of the groundwater and it's role in recharging the surface
waters. All wells impacted by the nitrates, with I believe one exception, have been connected to city
water and the wells permanently abandoned. I believe there is one well owner that has refused to
allow connection to city water (I also recall their well was not impacted above the nitrate standard, but
could be wrong). In addition, wells not at risk and for which there was no data to suggest they were
impacted by the Cities activities , were connected to City water to further alleviate residents concerns.
I agree the groundwater pathway is an important, if not the most important, driver, however, Dr. Rudo
would not be the appropriate person to evaluate this issue -we would. Maybe I am misunderstanding
his role though.
Also, while we have received letters from adjacent property owners concerning the variance, I could
not fing a regulatory reference for their permission as a required component of the variance. In looking
at the rule it would seem to me that even if they disagreed, permission would not be necessary. Can
you help clarify these latter two issues so I am prepared to discuss if needed?
Thanks
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I have gone over the original set of questions that I sent you and Rick on April 27, 2007.
I have p ared down these to three "bare bones" questions that I think need to be answered before
we give Dr. Ken Rudo a look at the risk assessment work for this. There are three total. Question
# 1 is big in that I have not found a map in variance materials that corresponds to the listing of
private well owners in the variance request.
Dr. Ken Rudo will be looking at a variance request in light of the risk assessment they conducted,
potential exposures of nitrate, and impacts on drinking water wells as a result of placing a
variance for the facility and its spray fields. The risk assessment in the variance materials from
CORPUD indicate that the groundwater pathway is important and is a driver behind needing a
variance. Groundwater Standards in the groundwater resource could be exceeded for some time
under a variance of this type even though natural remediation would ultimately degrade nitrate
concentrations.
My questions are attached in the word document you see here. If these are resolved I think
5/31/2007 6:37 PM
CORPUD Variance Request: Response to Jays PM email on 5/31/07 ...
4 of4
this can go forward.
As for my previous submittal to you and Rick from April 27, 2007 .... ... the discussion about
Deed Recordation in Question # 8 was to let you know of that development at DWM and the
meeting we had with the staff. Note that the Division of Waste Management will be requiring this
on its variances since there has been significant legislation related to sites. Your last email
answered that question and you indicated that the subject has not been brought up.
Question # 9 from that document was a comment on what a variance is for-the permit and the
permitted activity and not the land. It would not be like a reclassification of the groundwater
resource.
The other questions were to clarify maps, diagrams and information to help me understand the
materials. These questions may need to be answered to help out the hearing officer when this goes
to hearing. Prior to April 27, 2007, I had not asked any of these questions to the RRO staff or
anyone else.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
'it~ 1 /7007 6·17 PM
Questions on City of Raleigh Variance for Jay Zimmerman 5/30/07
1. I did not locate a map in the variance materials that corresponds to Table # 1 and shows the
location of drinking water wells within½ mile radius of the site as specified under 15A NCAC
2L .0l 13(c)(4) " ... details of well construction ... ". Is this somewhere in the materials and I
can't find it or do we need to get this from CORPUD and/or their consultants?
2. Figure 1-2 of the Variance Request shows Parcel # 130 as owned by "Materials Recovery LLC".
There is nothing in the request that I can find that shows consent for the variance has been
granted by this landowner. If the City of Raleigh does not have consent, then what is the
effect of that? I asked the question because I don't know what consent means in permitting
sense. (I don't recall the rule or the statute requiring consent for a variance, however, it could be
an issue raised public hearing by adjacent parties).
3. Table # 1 of the Variance Request, there are two residences discussed and identified as "Johnnie
High" and "Glenda Watkins" in the table located on Mial Plantation Road. Where are these
residences in relation to the fields proposed for variance? The city believes that Nitrate
Levels in these private wells are the result of fertilizer use. Is that what the RRO believes is
true about these wells?
NDPermit WQ0001730 1
City of Raleigh variance and streamlined questions
1 of2
Subject: City of Raleigh variance and streamlined questions
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:06:29 -0400
To: J [e-mail]
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Jay,
I have gone over the original set of questions that I sent you and Rick on April 27, 2007.
I have p ared down these to three "bare bones" questions that I think need to be answered before we gi ve
Dr. Ken Rudo a look at the risk assessment work for this. There are three total. Question # 1 is big in
that I have not found a map in variance materials that corresponds to the listing of private well owners in
the variance request.
Dr. Ken Rudo will be looking at a variance request in light of the risk assessment they conducted,
potential exposures of nitrate, and impacts on drinking water wells as a result of placing a variance for
the facility and its spray fields. The risk assessment in the variance materials from CORPUD indicate
that the groundwater pathway is important and is a driver behind needing a variance. Groundwater
Standards in the groundwater resource could be exceeded for some time under a variance of this type
even though natural remediation would ultimately degrade nitrate concentrations.
My questions are attached in the word document you see here. If these are resolved I think this
can go forward.
As for my previous submittal to you and Rick from April 27, 2007 ... . ... the discussion about Deed
Recordation in Question# 8 was to let you know of that development at DWM and the meeting we had
with the staff. Note that the Division of Waste Management will be requiring this on its variances since
there has been significant legislation related to sites. Your last email answered that question and you
indicated that the subject has not been brought up.
Question# 9 from that document was a comment on what a variance is for-the permit and the permitted
activity and not the land. It would not be like a reclassification of the groundwater resource.
The other questions were to clarify maps, diagrams and information to help me understand the materials.
These questions may need to be· answered to help out the hearing officer when this goes to hearing. Prior
to April 27, 2007, I had not asked any of these questions to the RRO staff or anyone else.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
F Content-Type: application/msword
barebonesQuestionsforRRO-CORPUD_._ do __ c ___ _ Content-Encoding: base64
==------------=========-===-=:::c------:==·-=-········ ··--
5/30/2007 5:06 PM
City of Raleigh variance and streamlined questions
2 of2 5/30/2007 5:06 PM
Cover memo for City ofRal Variance request
l of 1
Subject: Cover memo for City ofRal Variance request
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 May2007 15:32:11 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David-
If you will send me your cover memo to Ken Rudo by early next week (say, Tuesday), I
will be able to review it and get it back to you.
JEff
Reply to Corpud e mail
I of2
Subject: Reply to Corpud email
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 17:47: 10 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Jay,
I will try to get to this on Wednesday afternoon. I will be out helping my family in the morning and I think I
respond more fully to you after I have a chance to look over everything again.
david hance
******************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David;
Rick forwarded the attached to me for review and we have looked over your comments. Given the length
of time that has elapsed since we originally sent it to you, and the significance of this variance, could you
streamline your comments to reflect only those necessary for us to proceed with the request. I believe I
have spoken to you before and I recall you indicated some of the comments were for your own
information, however, in the interest of time I would ask that the questions to which you seek answers be
limited to those necessary for the variance request to proceed. I'd be happy to discuss any other questions
at another time. Of note is the question #8, concerning notice of a variance. The variance, if granted, only
allows Raleigh to forgo active treatment as a mechanism of restoring groundwater. They are not asking
for a variance from a numeric standard, which I see would require a deed recordation. The goal of this
CAP is to restore the groundwater to the sta,ndard for Nitrate through passive means, the progress of which
is to be monitored. There is nothing in the rule that I am aware of that requires deed recordation.
Pursuant to the rules, the people whose property is affected by the variance and those adjacent to it are to
be notified of the public hearing per 2L .0113(e)(l)(E), correct? If Raleigh was to be required to obtain
permission to record the variance on the deeds of each affected property it would be impossible to obtain
the variance in my opinion. Also, I am a little confused by some of the other questions as I thought we had
answered them previously. Am I right? Please advise us of the questions you think are necessary for
you to proceedc tot he next step and let me or Rick know if any questions.
Thanks,
Jay
.Subject:
Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit WQ0001730) ----
see attachment
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
5/29/2007 5 :4 7 PM
Reply to Corpud email
2 of2
Date:
Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:41:31 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <rick. [e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello Rick and Jay,
I have been over the paperwork for the proposed City of Raleigh Variance
for Permit# WQ000l 730 (CORPUD).
See the attached document in word. If we need to speak or meet about
this -let me know.
In mean time I will "fit in" getting parts of the letter to Dr. Ken Rudo
at DPH completed. We have DPH review the risk assessment work on
variances before we go to hearings. The answers to many of the
questions I have in the attachment will help me finish off that letter.
It will help me communicate effectively with him and with staff her.
David Hance
Env Spec.
DWQ Planning
733-5083 X. 587
5/29/2007 5:47 PM
Re : [Fwd: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Reques ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit
WQ0001730) ----see attachment]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11 :36: 11 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
David,
Rick forwarded the attached to me for review and we have looked over your comments. Given the
length .of time that has elapsed since we originally sent it to you, and the significance of this variance,
could you streamline your comments to reflect only those necessary for us to proceed with the request. I
believe I have spoken to you before and I recall you indicated some of the comments were for your own
information, however, in the interest of time I would ask that the questions to which you seek answers
be limited to those necessary for the variance request to proceed. I'd be happy to discuss any other
questions at another time. Of note is the question #8, concerning notice of a variance. The variance, if
granted, only allows Raleigh to forgo active treatment as a mechanism of restoring groundwater. They
are not asking for a variance from a numeric standard, which I see would require a deed recordation.
The goal of this CAP is to restore the groundwater to the standard for Nitrate through passive means, the
progress of which is to be monitored. There is nothing in the rule that I am aware of that requires deed
recordation. Pursuant to the rules, the people whose property is affected by the variance and those
adjacent to it are to be notified of the public hearing per 2L .0l 13(e)(l)(E), correct? If Raleigh was to
be required to obtain permission to record the variance on the deeds of each affected property it would
be impossible to obtain the variance in my opinion. Also, I am a little confused by some ofthe other
questions as I thought we had answered them previously. Am I right? Please advise us of the questions
you think are necessary for you to proceedc tot he next step and let me or Rick know if any questions.
Thanks,
Jay
Subject:
Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit WQO00l 730) ----
see attachment
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri , 27 Apr 2007 16:41:31 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello Rick and Jay,
I have been over the paperwork for the proposed City of Raleigh Variance
5/29/2007 5:44 PM
Re : [Fwd : Questions on the propos ed City of Raleigh Variance Reques ...
2 of 2
for Permit# WQ000 1730 (CORPUD).
See the attached document in word. If we need to speak or meet about
this -let me know.
In mean time I will "fit in" getting parts of the letter to Dr. Ken Rudo
at DPH completed. ·we have DPH review the risk assessment work on
variances before we go to hearings. The answers to many of the
questions I have in the attachment will help me finish off that letter.
It will help me communicate effectively with him and with staff her.
David Hance
Env Spec.
DWQ Planning
733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay [e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/ Aquifer Protection Section
5/29/2007 5 :44 PM
::urrent status of the 2 L Variance for City ofRaleigh
I nf' 1
Subject: Current status of the 2 L Variance for City of Raleigh
From: David Hance <David [e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:33:19 -0400
1 To: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
You will recall that we discussed this before the last EMC Groundwater Committee meeting in May
2007. The only variances that are on our future agendas list for July 2007 are the two from the
Division of Waste Management.
As for the City of Raleigh variance ..•... a while back I had sent an email to Rick Bolich at the
DWQ-APS Raleigh Regional Office with some questions as a result of my review of the materials for
that variance. The questions I asked Rick were to h e lp me understand the variance request since
this is quiet a complicated facility . After I sent him the email, I called his voice mail and he had
a lot of field work coming up and would not be in the office for some time. I also gave a call to
Jay Zimmerman's voice mail as well.
I have have not heard from Rick as of yet but planned to call him up to see where things are at with
him.
In the mean time, I started a letter to Ken Rudo at the Division of Public Health -OEES that would
get to him the risk assessment information from the variance request materials that he needs to
review. We send these letters to Rudo to get his either his support for a variance or at least to
see if he has any objections to variances we send up . Variances go to public hearing per 15A NCAC
2L .0113 so that is quite an important step. I have been working on this letter in between other
assignments. As you know, much of my time has been spent on the economic analysis for the change in
the Arsenic GW Standard in 2L, the EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting in July '07 , and more recently
the MQP.
David Hance
x. 587
jeff manning wrote:
David ,
What about City of Ral variance request?
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
It looks like the Groundwater Committee will need a meeting.
DWM has at least one action item (a variance) that may need to go before the EMC GWC and we
have one followup to the May 2007 Meeting that could be presented as an informational item.
david hance
***********************************************************************************************
Lois Thomas wrote:
Hello Everyone
Coleen needs to know all of you are going to have a committee meeting in July or not?
Please respond asap . Thank you.
CJ'1Al'1r\f'\"'7 11 ."1"1 A'a.l
~urrent status of the 2 L Variance for City of Raleigh
1 nf 1
Subject: Current status of the 2 L Variance for City of Raleigh
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 May2007 11:33:19 -0400
To: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
You will recall that we discussed this before the last EMC Groundwater Committee meeting in May
2007. The only variances that are on our future agendas list for July 2007 are the two from the
Division of Waste Management.
As for the City of Raleigh variance ...... awhile back I had sent an email to Rick Bolich at the
DWQ-APS Raleigh Regional Office with some questions as a result of my review of the materials for
that variance. The questions I asked Rick were to help me understand the variance request since
this is quiet a complicated facility. After I sent him the email, I called his voice mail and he had
a lot of field work coming up and would not be in the office for some time. I also gave a call to
Jay Zimmerman's voice mail as well.
I have have not heard from Rick as of yet but planned to call him up to see where things are at with
him.
In the mean time, I started a letter to Ken Rudo at the Division of Public Health -OEES that would
get to him the risk assessment information from the variance request materials that he needs to
review. We send these letters to Rudo to get his either his support for a variance or at least to
see if he has any objections to variances we send up. Variances go to pi.u,lic hearing per 15A NCAC
2L .0113 so that is quite an important step. I have been working on this letter in between other
assignments. As you know, much of my time has been spent on the economic analysis for the change in
the Arsenic GW Standard in 2L, the EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting in July '07, and more recently
the MQP.
David Hance
x. 587
jeff manning wrote:
David,
What about City of Ral variance request?
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
It looks like the Groundwater Committee will need a meeting.
DWM has at least one action item (a variance) that may need to go before the EMC GWC and we
have one followup to the May 2007 Meeting that could be presented as an informational item.
david hance
***********************************************************************************************
Lois Thomas wrote:
Hello Everyone
Coleen needs to know all of you are going to have a committee meeting in July or not?
Please respond asap. Thank you.
t:J,..Al"'l'\I'\,_, 11 _ _.,A A'l.lr
Re: Committee Meetings/ GW Committee
I n£1
Subject: Re: Committee Meetings/ GW Committee
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:52:33 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David,
What about City of Ral variance request?
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
It looks like the Groundwater Committee will need a meeting.
DWM has at least one action item (a variance) that may need to go before the· EMC GWC and we
have one followup to the May 2007 Meeting that could be presented as an informational item.
david hance
***********************************************************************************************
Lois Thomas wrote:
Hello Everyone
Coleen needs to know all of you are going to have a committee meeting in July or not?
Please respond asap. Thank you .
r ,,,., A ,,,nn~ ◄ ◄ ..., .-. A. -.. 1
[Fwd: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request ...
Subject: [Fwd: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit WQ000l 730) ----see attachment]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:53:00 -0400
To: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>
Look at the attachment I just sent Jay and Rick at the RRO. The last two items# 8 and# 9 will interest you .
David Hance
x. 587
Subject: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit WQ0OOl 730)----see attachment
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:41 :31 -0400
To: [e-mail], RickBolich <[e-mail]>
Hello Rick and Jay,
I have been over the paperwork for the proposed City of Raleigh Variance
for Permit# WQ0001730 {CORPUD).
See the attached document in word. If we need to speak or meet about
this -let me know.
In mean time I will "fit in" getting parts of the letter to Dr. Ken Rudo
at DPH completed. We have DPH review the risk assessment work on
variances before we go to hearings. The answers to many of the
questions I have in the attachment will help me finish off that letter.
It will help me communicate effectively with him and with staff her .
David Hance
Env Spec.
DWQ Planning
733-5083 x. 587
. 'Content-Type: message/rfc822 Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit WQOOOl 730)-see attachment . .
: Content-Encodmg: 7b1t
I [ Content-Type: application/msword ;v ARianceCORPUD-RRO-interrogatories.doc
, Content-Encoding: base64
.J
1 nf 1 • '1/?7/?007 '1·'i~ PM
Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Pe ...
I of l
Subject: Questions on the proposed City of Raleigh Variance Request (WQ Permit WQ000I 730) ----
see attachment
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:41:31 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello Rick and Jay,
I have been over the paperwork for the proposed City of Raleigh Variance
for Permit# WQ0001730 (CORPUD).
See the attached document in word. If we need to speak or meet about
this -let me know.
In mean time I will "fit in" getting parts of the letter to Dr. Ken Rudo
at DPH completed. We have DPH review the risk assessment work on
variances before we go to hearings. The answers to many of the
questions I have in the attachment will help me finish off that letter.
It will help me communicate effectively with him and with staff her .
David Hance
Env Spec.
DWQ Planning
733-5083 x. 587
Iv ARianceCORPUD-RRO-interrogatories.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
GW Permits Variance: City of Raleigh Variance/ Official Letter has ...
1 of 1
Subject: GW Permits Variance: City of Raleigh Variance/ Official Letter has Gone to the Division &
Discussion
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11 :56:35 -0500
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Jay and Rick,
The official letter from the City of Raleigh has gone in to the DWQ Administration. It is recorded in
their computer files and I received a CC Version of this memorandum.
A copy of it will be forwarded to David Moreau, Chairman of the Environmental Management
Commission, and I got this information from Linda Jones at DWQ 9th floor.
Note that no other information arrived at the DWQ Administrative Offices. Only the letter.
I have the variance package, reports and the RRO recommendations here in my office. With this
official memorandum, the DWQ Planning Section will be looking over this package for completeness
prior to the required review by the Director under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d).
You will recall that you wanted to submit some information regarding a monitoring plan for this
variance. It would be very helpful to myself and the staff here to have this with the materials and soon as
you can get it to me. I will be discussing this variance with my management in the near future.
If you need to speak to me further on this my phone is 733-5083 x. 587.
David Hance
Env. Spec. II
DWQ-Planning Section
?/?/?007 11 ·&;,7 AM
Non Discharge Permit Variance: City of Raleigh -The offical stuff ha ...
1 of 1
Subject: Non Discharge Permit Variance: City of Raleigh-The offical stuff has come in!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:38:40 -0500
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
The memorandum we have been waiting for on the has come into us and to the DWQ. A
copy will go to David Moreau per discussion with Linda Jones.
David Hance
,.,,,.,,,...f\n~ 11 . ...,n A'llx
Correspondence No. 1479
Division of Water Quality
Correspondence Control System Printed: 0210212007 ---
Correspondence Date: 01/29/2007 Log Date: 02/01/2007 Due Date:
Type letter
To:
From
Subject:
Dr. David Moreau, EMC c/o Ala·n Klimek
H. Dale Crisp, Raleigh Public Utilities Dir., City of Raleigh
City of Raleigh Variance Request, Neuse River WWTP biosolids land application
permit non-discharge permit #WQ0001730; requesting variance from rules in
Title 15A, subchapter 02L for implementation of City's CAP; the CAP isnecessary
due to groundwater quality nitrate nitrogen exceedances associated with previous
over-application of biosolids on agricultural fields under permit no. WQ0001730
Instructions: contact Robert Massengill, Asst. Public Utilities Director of Steve Levitas of
Kilpatrick Stockton ;
cc's to David Hance, et al
Correspondence Referral Actions
Referred To: Alan
Date: 02/01/2007
Instructions:
Action: copy to Lois
Answered Date:
Cross-References to:
Cross-Referenced by:
CJity <9/ Cflaleigh
:North etu-oltna
January 29, 2007
Dr. David H. Moreau
Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission
c/o Mr. Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
161 7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Reference: City of Raleigh Variance Request
.jfj} 1 200,
Wf.TER QUALITY
PLANNmG BRANCH
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Land Application
Non-Discharge Permit# WQ000l 730
Dear Dr. Moreau,
·'
I am writing on behalf of the City of Raleigh (City) to request a variance from the
Environmental Management Commission's (EMC) rules in Title 15A, Subchapter 02L of
the North Carolina Administrative Code for the implementation of the City's Corrective
Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is necessary due to groundwater quality nitrate nitrogen
exceedances associated with the previous over-application of biosolids on the agricultural
fields under permit number WQ000l 730 located at the City's Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant.
With this letter, the City is submitting the Corrective Action Variance Application
(Variance Application) that provides the information required by 15A NCAC 02L
.0113(c). The City's CAP has been approved by DWQ on the condition that the EMC
grant the City a variance from certain EMC rules, as detailed in the enclosed Variance
Application. The City believes that it's conditionally approved CAP is appropriate given
the nature of the groundwater quality exceedance, that it is more economically reasonable
than a typical CAP that conforms to the EMC's current rules and yet is fully protective of
public health and the environment.
The City is very appreciative of the EMC's time and attention to this important matter.
If you have any immediate questions regarding the Variance Application, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Robert Massengill, Asst. Public Utilities Director at (919) 857-
4540 or Steve Levitas of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP at [phone], the City's legal
consultant in this matter.
Sincere o/~R ;t({(f~
H. Dale Cris , P .E.
Raleigh Rub · c Utilities Director
Enclosures
Cc: David Hance (DWQ-Planning Section)
City Manager
Asst. Public Utilities Director -Massengill
Reuse Superintendent
Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent
Bill Doucette
Steve Levitas
US20(l{l 967~-141 I
RECEIVED/
AQUIFERPROTE~\~ I DWQ . JA · N SECTION
N 3 1 2007
[Fwd: Variance Request/Residuals Pennit]
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: Variance Request/Residuals Pennit]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:12:35 -0500
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
City of Raleigh Variance letter coming in .
dh
Subject: Variance Request/Residuals Permit
From: "Crisp, Dale" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:26:09 -0500
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: "Allen, Russell" <[e-mail]>, "Massengill, Robert"
<[e-mail]>, "Woody, Tim" <[e-mail]>, "Lynch, TJ"
<[e-mail]>, "Steve Levitas" <[e-mail]>, "Bill Doucette"
<[e-mail]>
Thanks Carolyn.
David,
Attached is the letter the Dr. Moreau and the EMC requesting the variance Carolyn and Steve have been
discussing with you and others at DWQ on behalf of the City. We will hand deliver the signed original to Alan's
Office and a signed copy to you tomorrow. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Dale.
H. Dale Crisp
H. Dale Crisp, P.E.
Raleigh Public Utilities Director
One Exchange Plaza, Suite 620
(919)-857-4540 fax [phone]
WI ER
USEII
WISELY®
From: Bachl, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:02 PM
To: Crisp, Dale
Subject: FW: Variance Request/Residuals Permit
1/30/2007 6:22 PM
(Jity 0/ CE_aleigh
9'/orth Garollna
January 29, 2007
Dr. David H. Moreau
Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission
c/o Mr. Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Reference: City of Raleigh Variance Request
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Land Application
Non-Discharge Permit # WQ000l 730
Dear Dr. Moreau,
I am writing on behalf of the City of Raleigh (City) to request a variance from the
Environmental Management Commission's (EMC) rules in Title 15A, Subchapter 02L of
the North Carolina Administrative Code for the implementation of the City's Corrective
Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is necessary due to groundwater quality nitrate nitrogen
exceedances associated with the previous over-application of biosolids on the agricultural_
fields under permit number WQ000l 730 located at the City's Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant.
With this letter, the City is submitting the Corrective Action Variance Application
(Variance Application) that provides the information required by 15A NCAC 02L
.0l 13(c). The City's CAP has been approved by DWQ on the condition that the EMC
grant the City a variance from certain EMC rules, as detailed in the enclosed Variance
Application. The City believes that it's conditionally approved CAP is appropriate given
the nature of the groundwater quality exceedance, that it is more economically reasonable
than a typical CAP that conforms to the EMC's current rules and yet is fully protective of
public health and the environment. ·
The City is very appreciative of the EMC's time and attention to this important matter.
US2000 9672442. l
If you have any immediate questions regarding the Variance Application, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Robert Massengill, Asst. Public Utilities Director at (919) 857-
4540 or Steve Levitas ofKilpatrick Stockton LLP at [phone], the City's legal
consultant in this matter.
Sincerely,
H . Dale Crisp, P.E.
Raleigh Public Utilities Director
Enclosures
Cc: David Hance (DWQ-Planning Section)
City Manager
Asst. Public Utilities Director -Massengill
Reuse Superintendent
Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent
Bill Doucette
Steve Levitas
lJS200fJ 9672442 I
Re: Question?
1 of 1
··Subject: Re: Question?
From: Linda Jones <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:21:34 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Nothing comes up on my tracking system.
David Hance wrote:
Has a letter arrived to your office from the City of Raleigh regarding a variance
request to the 2L rules?
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
x. 587
Room 625aa
Linda Jones
Executive Assistant
DENR
Division of Water Quality
1/26/2007 9:54 AM
Question?
~Subject: Question?
1 of 1
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17 :44:24 -0500
To: Linda Jones <[e-mail]>
Has a letter arrived to your office from the City of Raleigh regarding a variance
request to the 2L rules?
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
x. 587
Room 625aa
1/25/2007 5:44 PM
Variance Request: Heads up/ RRO variance for City of Raleigh/ Upd ...
Subject: Variance Request: Heads up/ RRO variance for City of Raleigh/ Update follows ....
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 18Jan 2007 14:38:09 -0500
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Jay and Rick,
I just got a phone call from Kenny Waldrop in the City of Raleigh .
He is reviewing the variance letter that we requested the city provide to meet the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b).
This confirms that there is significant movement on this matter and I would be
expecting it to come our way up here in the Archdale Building very soon.
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
1 /1 Q/'H\fl'7 'l.~O 01\K
Re: Variance Request: Permitted Location/City of Raleigh CORPUD--...
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Variance Request: Permitted Location/City of Raleigh CORPUD----Heads up
From: Jay Zimmerman <j [e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:30:58 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Carolyn works for Steve Levitas, attorney for the City of Raleigh. I will ask Rick
to get the revised monitoring plan to you, so consider it to be an Addinfo item,
before sending it to Alan.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Rick and Jay,
I wanted to let you fellows know about this.
I got a call this afternoon from Carolyn Bacyl who works for the consulting firm
with the City of Raleigh that is working on this variance request.
She wanted to know where things are at. I told her that the one thing that we have
not received in this variance package is a memorandum from the City of Raleigh
formally requesting a variance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. You will recall that we
never got this in the original packet from the City of Raleigh. To expedite this,
the Raleigh Regional Office sent a template letter to the Dale Crisp@ CORPUD for
him to fill in before the Christmas break.
Carolyn told me that they are aware of this and she will follow up with Dale on
the formal letter.
In another related matter, Jay Zimmerman let me know that the Raleigh Regional
Office wanted to submit some additional information on the monitoring plan for
this site and that you wanted that to get to her before the Director of DWQ sees
the packet I have in my office.
It looks like there could be some movement on this matter in the near future.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]> i
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
1 /1 F./?(1(17 .d_,<;Q l>M
Variance Request: Pennitted Location/City of Raleigh CORPUD----...
1 of 1
Subject: Variance Request: Permitted Location/City of Raleigh CORPUD----Heads up
From: David Hance <David.Hance@.ncmail.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:23:07 -0500
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Rick and Jay,
I wanted to let you fellows know about this.
I got a call this afternoon from Carolyn Bacyl who works for the consulting firm with
the City of Raleigh that is working on this variance request .
She wanted to know where things are at. I told her that the one thing that we have
not received in this variance package is a memorandum from the City of Raleigh
formally requesting a variance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. You will recall that we never
got this in the original packet from the City of Raleigh. To expedite this, the
Raleigh Regional Office sent a template letter to the Dale Crisp@ CORPUD for him to
fill in before the Christmas break.
Carolyn told me that they are aware of this and she will follow up with Dale on the
formal letter.
In another related matter, Jay Zimmerman let me know that the Raleigh Regional Office
wanted to submit some additional information on the monitoring plan for this site and
that you wanted that to get to her before the Director of DWQ sees the packet i
have in my office.
It looks like there could be some movement on this matter in the near future.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
1/16/2007 3:23 PM
Permit .,jariance/CORPUD City of Raleigh Permitted Location/ Jay's ...
1 of3
Subject: Permit Variance/CORPUD City of Raleigh Permitted Location/ Jay's email w/ my reply
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:30:17 -0500
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
To Ja and Rick:
Thank you for timely comments on this variance request gentlemen.
I want you to know that the questions raised were from m yself alone. As I had figured, you guys had already put in
some significant thought into the three questions I asked.
My goal was to have this information handy for me to make it easy for you in the Regional Office ... just in case a
general question came up that I could quickly answer. This would avoid the the normal and sometimes unnecessary
"back and forth" that goes on between different offices in our Division.
I differ to your judgment on these matters in terms of the RRO providing additional information in the variance. It
appears Jay's email on 1/5/07 that you would like to address my question # 3 now.
Note that I have yet to receive a letter from the Ci ty of Ralei gh " ... addressed to the Chairman of the Environmental
Management Commission in care of the Director ... " ofDWQ pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (b ). Alan Klimek has
not yet seen the variance request and until that information arrives from the City of Raleigh, I have nothing for him to
officially log this request in. I would think that means that the regional office can submit additional
information as it sees fit. (I will check upstairs on Monday in the PM to see if they have sent it to him).
Note also that Carl Bailey is no longer involved in this work. Jeff Manning is the supervisor over this. If you need to
contact him directly for something he is at 733-5083 x. 579 and his email is [e-mail]. I must also
let you know that it would be best not to copy Jeff Manning on emails to me unless there is some significant need to
involve him in a matter. He is trying to minimize his email traffic. Note also that he is responsible for examining and
analyzing legislation that comes down from Jones Street for our Division. With the legislators coming to town in a
few weeks he should be very busy with a lot of work coming his way from them. I can communicate with Jeff
Manning on the variance and if I need your assistance, you will be contacted.
Have a good weekend,
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
I've talked to Rick at length about the variance and your comments and you have some very good points. I
believe he has addressed the first point adequately and with respect to the second question, we did not
specifically propose a range of actions although what Rick has eluded to is on target. If you would like for us to
elaborate on #2, and that it become part of the variance package PRIOR to proceeding to Alan, please advise .
We had thought that we could offer comments directly to the hearing officer regarding the "what if' question #2.
Regarding question #3 we did not propose a specific scope of monitoring and the package reflects what the City
of Raleigh would like to do. If it is appropriate we would like to modify the monitoring plan to include our
recommendations for monitoring which will likely include Raleigh's proposal with potential additions. As in #2,
we had thought our recommendations would be addressed at a later time, however, it may be better to get our
recommendations formalized and for them to become part of the variance "record" PRIOR to it going to Alan for
scheduling of a hearing. Thoughts to the above??
1/5/2007 5:10 PM
Permit Variance/CORPUD City of Raleigh Permitted Location/ Jay's ...
') nf' '.l.
Also, if you have any other comments once you begin to dig into this variance package it would be helpful to us
and more productive if you could list all you questions at one time, rather than through a series of emails. I'm
afraid we may lose track of "who owes what answers to whom". I hope this is acceptable.
Please advise on the above.
Thanks
Jay
Rick Bolich wrote:
David;
I've offered my comments to the items you mentioned in the following message. My comments are inserted
in the margins of the message. These are MY views and may not reflect those ofRRO-APS and others. We
will provide a more formal response once Jay and i have had a chance to discuss this.
Happy New Year!
rb
David Hance wrote:
Rick:
I just read over (that is, read again) your letter that accompanied all of the materials you sent for the
Variance Request for the City of Raleigh. This is for that permit at the Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant.
On the last page of your memorandum it discusses conditional approval of the variance request based on
the 'estimated flux of nitrate' into the Neuse River via groundwater. The Raleigh Regional Office-APS
Staff is further proposing that the allowance of the groundwater discharge be offset by what I understand
as a deduction or a reduction in the amount of nitrate from the permitted effluent outfall (i.e. I would
guess NPDES).
I have not looked at the associated materials as of yet because we are still waiting for a response from
Dale Crisp, however, I am thinking ahead to some questions that my management (or their management)
might ask when this goes before them.
I think It would be good to have thought these out in advance of that so here they are:
1. Have you discussed this variance with your counterparts in the DWQ-RRO-Surface Water
Protection Section? /(I would think that they would be supportive of it)./
We have discussed this with them. They are supportive of this approach.
2. In the event the the nitrate flux does not follow the flow and transport model discussed, what is the
range of actions the RRO would consider to address this?
In the event that the nitrate flux does not decrease in a manner consistent with the predictions from the
numerical model, i believe we would then consider 1) revoking the variance and require active remediation
1/5/2007 5 :30 PM
'
Permit ,;ariance/CORPUD City of Raleigh Permitted Location/ Jay's ...
3 of3
at the compliance boundary for the entire site, or 2) require a new variance that would have a nutrient "debit"
schedule based on on-site measurements and/or trends in historical data.
3 . The last sentence discussed continuing "research and monitoring" at the site to improve the accuracy
of the nitrate flux into the river. Would existing staff and budget resources be sufficient to do this?
Would this be considered a normal part ofRRO permits activity?
I think we intended continuing "research and monitoring" to be performed by the City to monitor the
performance of the proposed remedial actions. DWQ's involvement in this process would be relatively
minor, although we would encourage the City to take advantage of the information that the current "research
consortium" (DWQ, USGS , and NCSU) have obtained so far and hope that the City would expand on this to
the extent necessary.
You can send an email reply or send a fax to me at 919-715-5637 .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
Env.Spec.11
733-5083 X. 587
II
COMP ANY OR PUBLIC INSTITUTION LETTERHEAD
(Date)
Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission
c/o Mr. Allen W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Reference: Variance Request
(Neme of Permittee, Adt!ress and WQ PermiJ Number)
Dear Mr. Klimek,
(A brief paragraph stating thet they are formally requesting and variance. Also include
phone numbers of consultant(s) and/or lhe facility contact person for the variance
request)
Sincerely,
(Typed name and Signature of Person Making the Variance Request)
Other relevant signatures and typed names and signatures)
{Note: Make sure there are appropriate seals on the document as needed}
cc: David Hance (DWQ-Planning Section)
Permits Variance: The City of Raleigh Variance and Proper Person to ...
Subject: Permits Variance: The City of Raleigh Variance and Proper Person to Send it to Per the
Requirement of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:56:40 -0500
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: J [e-mail]
Rick,
There is a note with the City of Raleigh Letterhead on it in the variance request
materials as you suspected
However, it was addressed to "Jay Zimmerman". in the DWQ-APS not to the Chairman of
the EMC in care of the Director as required under the rule (15A NCAC 2L .0113(b)).
I think my Shell Letter I sent you is very straightforward and will very much guide
the staff there at the city in getting this requirement met. Another short letter
with the City of Raleigh letterhead on it will suffice at meeting that requirement.
If you want a fax copy of the letter, send me your fax number and I will get it on to
you.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Re: City of Raleigh Variance-Some additional paperwork to meet a p ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance-Some additional paperwork to meet a procedural matter on this.
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:09:55 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks David. Could you do me a favor? Could you double check in the looseleaf
binder titled "Variance Application" to see if there's something like that in there?
I vaguely remember something like that, but i may be thinking about the resolution
from the City Council. I don't have a copy of that document here in our office, we
can"t find the other two copies.
If you could just double check to be sure and let me know, i'll forward a copy of the
letter to Dale for him to sign and submit to the Director.
Thanks;
rb
David Hance wrote:
Rick,
The following is a procedural matter_ related to the City of Raleigh Variance
Request. This has nothing to do with the data and your review.
We need some paperwork from the City of Raleigh. If you look at 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(b) you will see that variances are filed by letter and are mailed to the
" ... Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission care of the
Director ... ".We have a lot of paperwork from the City of Raleigh to the regional
staff. I do not see anything to the Chairman in these materials you sent me a
couple of weeks back or in the original request that was sent in December 2005.
*Question# 1: Has Dale Crisp sent anything to you guys that I do not have?
Question# 2: Has Dale Crisp sent something directly to the Director of DWQ (If so
when did this happen?)*
Note that I have checked with Linda Jones at the Division of Water Quality to see
if paper has been logged in at the Division. We have nothing from December 2005
through January 2006 when this variance first showed up.
If we do not have this paperwork we need a one page document to complete the
package I have here and so the DWQ can log this in. To make this easy for you in
case you need to call up CORPUD on this, I have attached in word a Sample Shell
Letter that the Permittee can fill out and send back. I have cc-ed me on this so
I will know when the Director gets it so I can talk with the 9th Floor on this
variance when it comes in. My address is the same as Alan Klimek's except I am
in the DWQ-Planning Section so they can copy me on this.
Once I get this we can officially get things going on the variance.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
12/20/2006 11 :20 AM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance-Some additional paperwork lo meet a p ...
2 of2 12/20/2006 11 :20 A~
Re: Variance for Pemritted Location: City of Raleigh-CORPUD Perm ...
1 nf1
Subject: Re: Variance for Permitted Location: City of Raleigh -CORPUD Permit from your November
14, 2006 recommendation / questions I have
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:03:13 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>
David,
I've talked to Rick at length about the variance and your comments and you have some very good points.
I believe he has addressed the first point adequately and with respect to the second question, we did not
specifically propose a range of actions although what Rick has eluded to is on target. If you would like
for us to elaborate on #2, and that it become part of the variance package PRIOR to proceeding to Alan,
please advise. We had thought that we could offer comments directly to the hearing officer regarding
the "what if' question #2. Regarding question #3 we did not propose a specific scope of monitoring and
the package reflects what the City of Raleigh would like to do. If it is appropriate we would like to
modify the monitoring plan to include our recommendations for monitoring which will likely include
Raleigh's proposal with potential additions. As in #2, we had thought our recommendations would be
addressed at a later time, however, it may be better to get our recommendations formalized and for them
to become part of the variance "record" PRIOR to it going to Alan for scheduling of a hearing. Thoughts
to the above??
Also, if you have any other comments once you begin to dig into this variance package it would be
helpful to us and more productive if you could list all you questions at one time, rather than through a
series of emails. I'm afraid we may lose track of "who owes what answers to whom". I hope this is
acceptable.
Please advise on the above.
Thanks
Jay
Rick Bolich wrote:
David;
I've offered my comments to the items you mentioned in the following message. My comments are
inserted in the margins of the message. These are MY views and may not reflect those of RRO-APS
and others. We will provide a more formal response once Jay and i have had a chance to discuss
this.
Happy New Year!
rb
David Hance wrote:
1 IA /')f\f\'7 A .')0 D11.A'
Re: Variance for Permitted Location: City of Raleigh-CORPUD Perm ...
' )
~ of3
Rick:
I just read over (that is, read again) your letter that accompanied all of the materials you sent for
the Variance Request for the City of Raleigh. This is for that permit at the Neuse River Waste
Water Treatment Plant.
On the last page of your memorandum it discusses conditional approval of the variance request
based on the 'estimated flux of nitrate' into the Neuse River via groundwater. The Raleigh
Regional Office-APS Staff is further proposing that the allowance of the groundwater discharge
be offset by what I understand as a deduction or a reduction in the amount of nitrate from the
permitted effluent outfall (i.e. I would guess NPDES).
I have not looked at the associated materials as of yet because we are still waiting for a response
from Dale Crisp, however, I am thinking ahead to some questions that my management ( or their
management) might ask when this goes before them.
I think It would be good to have thought these out in advance of that so here they are:
1. Have you discussed this variance with your counterparts in the DWQ-RRO-Surface Water
Protection Section? /(I would think that they would be supportive of it)./
We have discussed this with them. They are supportive of this approach.
2. In the event the the nitrate flux does not follow the flow and transport model discussed,
what is the range of actions the RRO would consider to address this?
In the event that the nitrate flux does not decrease in a manner consistent with the predictions from
the numerical model, i believe we would then consider 1) revoking the variance and require active
remediation at the compliance boundary for the entire site, or 2) require a new variance that would
have a nutrient "debit" schedule based on on-site measurements and/or trends in historical data.
3. The last sentence discussed continuing "research and monitoring" at the site to improve the
accuracy of the nitrate flux into the river. Would existing staff and budget resources be
sufficient to do this? Would this be considered a normal part ofRRO permits activity?
I think we intended continuing "research and monitoring" to be performed by the City to monitor the
performance of the proposed remedial actions. DWQ's involvement in this process would be
relatively minor, although we would encourage the City to take advantage of the information that the
current "research consortium" (DWQ, USGS, and NCSU) have obtained so far and hope that the
City would expand on this to the extent necessary.
1 IA /"tt').r\"7 A _-,n n-. K
Re: Variance for Pennitted Location: City of Raleigh -CORPUD Perm ...
l of2
Subject: Re: Variance for Permitted Location: City of Raleigh -CORPUD Permit from your November
14, 2006 recommendation / questions I have
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:34:12 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: JAY ZIMMERMAN <JA [e-mail]>
David;
I've offered my comments to the items you mentioned in the following message. My
comments are inserted in the margins of the message. These are MY views and may not
reflect those of RRO-APS and others. We will provide a more formal response once Jay
and i have had a chance to discuss this.
Happy New Year!
rb
David Hance wrote:
Rick:
I just read over (that is, read again) your letter that accompanied all of the
materials you sent for the Variance Request for the City of Raleigh. This is for
that permit at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant.
On the last page of your memorandum it discusses conditional approval of the
variance request based on the 'estimated flux of nitrate' into the Neuse River via
groundwater. The Raleigh Regional Office-APS Staff is further proposing that the
allowance of the groundwater discharge be offset by what I understand as a
deduction or a reduction in the amount of nitrate from the permitted effluent
outfall (i.e. I would guess NPDES).
I have not looked at the associated materials as of yet because we are still
waiting for a response from Dale Crisp, however, I am thinking ahead to some
questions that my management (or their management) might ask when this goes before
them.
I think It would be good to have thought these out in advance of that so here
they are:
1. Have you discussed this variance with your counterparts in the
DWQ-RRO-Surface Water Protection Section? /(I would think that they would be
supportive of it)./
We have discussed this with them. They are supportive of this approach.
2. In the event the the nitrate flux does not follow the flow and transport
model discussed, what is the range of actions the RRO would consider to address
this?
In the event that the nitrate flux does not decrease in a manner consistent with the
predictions from the numerical model, i believe we would then consider 1) revoking
the variance and require active remediation at the compliance boundary for the entire
site, or 2) require a new variance that would have a nutrient "debit" schedule based
on on-site measurements and/or trends in historical data.
3. The last sentence discussed continuing "research and monitoring" at the site
to improve the accuracy of the nitrate flux into the river. Would existing staff
and budget resources be sufficient to do this? Would this be considered a normal
part of RRO permits activity?
I think we intended continuing "research and monitoring" to be performed by the City
12/29/2006 3:38 PM
Re: Variance for Permitted Location: City of Raleigh -CORPUD Perm ...
2 of2
to monitor the performance of the proposed remedial actions . DWQ's involvement in
this process would be relatively minor, although we would encourage the City to take
advantage of the information that the current "research consortium" (DWQ, USGS, and
NCSU) have obtained so far and hope that the City would expand on this to the extent
necessary .
You can send an email reply or send a fax to me at 919-715-5637.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
Env. Spec. II
733-5083 x. 587
II
12/29/2006 3:38 PM
Groundwater variance letter
1 _J:' 1
Subject: Groundwater variance letter
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:02:30 -0500
To: Dale Crisp <[e-mail]>
CC: "Woody,Tim" <[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN
<JA [e-mail]>, Steve Levitas <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>
Dale;
The 2L variance request for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant land
application fields has been submitted to the DWQ Central Office for review. We
received notice from the Central Office that a letter directly to the Chairman of the
EMC, in care of the Division Director, requesting the variance is required. There is
a similar letter in the original variance application, but that letter is addressed
to Jay.
I've attached a MSWord shell document that may be used for this purpose. Please
complete this letter as soon as possible and cc Jay.
Thanks;
Rick Bolich
~~ !l Content-Type: application/octet-stream
amplePermitsGWvaranceLettertoDirector.docll ..... . . b 6 I_Content-Encodmg: ase 4 _
. --
,..,,..,, ,..,nn,:: 'l.1'7 n•1r
[PERMITTEE LETTERHEAD]
(Date)
Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission
c/o Mr. Alan W . Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Reference: Variance Request
(Name of Permittee, Address and WQ Permit Number)
Dear Mr. Klimek,
(A brief paragraph stating that they are formally requesting and variance. Also include
pho,ne numbers of consultant(s) and/or the faclliity contactperson for the variance
request)
Sincerely,
(Typed name and Signature of Person Making the Variance Request)
Other relevant signatures and typed names and signatures)
{Note: Make sure there are appropriate seals on the document as needed}
cc: David Hance (DWQ-Planning Section)
SamplePem1i1.sGWvaranceLettertoDirector-l
A Groundwater Variance package?
I of I
Subject: A Groundwater Variance package?
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:34:46-0500
To: Lirn:la Chavis <[e-mail]>
Linda,
Have you seen a package from the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section -Raleigh Regional
Office? It would be from Rick Bolich and Jay Zimmerman and it would concern a
Groundwater 2L Rule variance from the City of Raleigh permitted location. There is
a lot of materials associated with this and I would think nobody either here or on
the 9th Floor could miss it.
I wanted to contact you first before I get a hold of the Regional Office Staff about
this one just to make sure we don"t already have the work over here.
david hance
x. 587
11/29/2006 10:34 AM
Re: A Groundwater Variance package?
1 of 1
Subject: Re: A Groundwater Variance package?
From: Linda Chavis <Linda.Chavis@ncmaiLnet>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:41:16 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
I have not seen it David. Was it suppose to come in the mail from them? If so, I
will keep and eye out for it.
David Hance wrote:
Linda,
Have you seen a package from the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section -Raleigh Regional
Office? It would be from Rick Bolich and Jay Zimmerman and it would concern a
Groundwater 2L Rule variance from the City of Raleigh permitted location. There
is a lot of materials associated with this and I would think nobody either here or
on the 9th Floor could miss it.
I wanted to contact you first before I get a hold of the Regional Office Staff
about this one ---just to make sure we don't already have the work over here.
david hance
X. 587
Linda Chavis <[e-mail]>
Administrative Assistant
Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
11/29/2006 10 :57 AM
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
11/14/2006
Page 2 of 3
WA1E.R Q!JAUH
'-"1 \NG BRANCH
The only current known receptor for groundwater in the area of the variance is the Neuse
River and its local tributaries. All homes in the area of the variance that had been served by well
water and were believed to have been impacted, or have the potential to be impacted in the future
were connected to Raleigh municipal water and their former wells have been abandoned. The source
for Raleigh municipal water is Falls Lake, which is not threatened by the groundwater
contamination.
Also attached are responses to RRO comments on the Variance Application received by the
APS-RRO on March 31, 2006; May 25, 2006; and October 19, 2006. The APS-RRO has reviewed
the information submitted and has determined that the application is complete and complies with the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113. Specifically:
1) A copy of a resolution ("Resolution 2005 -734") passed by the Raleigh City Council on
November 15, 2005 that authorizes COPRUD to apply for a variance. A copy of this
resolution is included as "Exhibit 1" in the December 1, 2005 Variance Application.
2) A description of the past activities that resulted in a discharge of contaminants to the
groundwater is contained in the December 1, 2005 Variance Application (page 4) ..
3) A description of the proposed area for which the variance is requested is contained on
page 7 of the Variance Application. A detailed location map of the proposed area to be
covered by the variance is included in the Variance Application as Figure 2.
4) Supporting information intended to establish that the proposed variance will not
endanger the public health and safety, including health and environmental affects from
the potential exposure to groundwater contaminants is included in the Variance
Application as "Exhibit 2". This exhibit is a baseline human health risk assessment. The
locations of wells within a one-half mile radius of the site and their associated well
construction information are included in the correspondence from CORPUD dated May
25, 2006 and October 19, 2006 (attached).
5) Supporting information to establish that the requirements of 15A NCAC 02L .0106(k)
cannot be achieved by utilizing the best available technology economically reasonable is
included in the Variance Application on pages 9 through 12. This section of the
Variance Application identifies specific remedial alternatives and the costs associated
with each alternative.
6) Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce serious financial
hardship without equal or greater public benefit is included in the Variance Application
on pages 12 and 13.
7) There have been no Special Orders issued in connection with contaminants in the
proposed area.
8) A list of the names and addresses of property owners within the proposed area of the
variance and property owners adjacent to the land application fields is included on Figure
2 of the Variance Application.
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
11/14/2006
Page3 of 3
• I
The RRO supports this variance on the condition that the estimated flux of nitrate into the
Neuse River via groundwater discharge is offset by deducting the equivalent amount of nitrate from
the NRWWTP's permitted effluent outfall. Estimates of the nitrate flux into the Neuse River via
groundwater discharge have been computed by a groundwater flow and transport model, the results
of which are included in Appendix G of the September 15, 2003 Supplemental Site Assessment
Report, recently revised in Attachment B of HDR Engineering's letter dated August 25, 2006 to
Chonticha McDaniel of the DWQ Land Application Permitting Unit. The RRO supports continuing
research and monitoring at the site to improve the accuracy of determining the groundwater nitrate
flux into the river.
cc: Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Rick Rowe -Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Greg Bright-Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
11/14/2006
Page 2 of 3
The only current known receptor for groundwater in the area of the variance is the Neuse
River and its local tributaries. All homes in the area of the variance that had been served by well
water and were believed to have been impacted, or have the potential to be impacted in the future
were connected to Raleigh municipal water and their former wells have been abandoned. The source
for Raleigh municipal water is Falls Lake, which is not threatened by the groundwater
contamination.
Also ·attached are responses to RRO comments on the Variance Application received by the
APS-RRO on March 31, 2006; May 25, 2006; and October 19, 2006. The APS-RRO has reviewed
the information submitted and has determined that the application is complete and complies with the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113. Specifically:
1) A copy of a resolution("Resolution 2005 -734") passed by the Raleigh City Council on
November 15, 2005 that authorizes COPRUD to apply for a variance. A copy of this
resolution is included as "Exhibit l" in the December 1, 2005 Variance Application.
2) A description of the past activities that resulted in a discharge of contaminants to the
groundwater is contained in the December 1, 2005 Variance Application (page 4) ..
3) A description of the proposed area for which the variance is requested is contained on
page 7 of the Variance Application. A detailed location map of the proposed area to be
covered by the variance is included in the Variance Application as Figure 2.
4) Supporting information intended to establish that the proposed variance will not
endanger the public health and safety, including health and environmental affects from
the potential exposure to groundwater contaminants is included in the Variance
Application as "Exhibit 2". This exhibit is a baseline human health risk assessment. The
locations of wells within a one-half mile radius of the site and their associated well
construction information are included in the correspondence from CORPUD dated May
25, 2006 and October 19, 2006 (attached).
5) Supporting information to establish that the requirements of 15A NCAC 02L .0106(k)
cannot be achieved by utilizing the best available technology economically reasonable is
included in the Variance Application on pages 9 through 12. This section of the
Variance Application identifies specific remedial alternatives and the costs associated
with each alternative.
6) Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce serious financial
hardship without equal or greater public benefit is included in the Variance Application
on pages 12 and 13.
7) There have been no Special Orders issued in connection with contaminants in the
proposed area.
8) A list of the names and addresses of property owners within the proposed area of the
variance and property owners adjacent to the land application fields is included on Figure
2 of the Variance Application.
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
11/14/2006
Page3 of 3
The RRO supports this variance on the condition that the estimated flux of nitrate into the
Neuse River via groundwater discharge is offset by deducting the equivalent amount of nitrate from
the NRWWTP's permitted effluent outfall. Estimates of the nitrate flux into the Neuse River via
groundwater discharge have been computed by a groundwater flow and transport model, the results
of which are included in Appendix G of the September 15, 2003 Supplemental Site Assessment
Report, recently revised in Attachment B of HDR Engineering's letter dated August 25, 2006 to
Chonticha McDaniel of the DWQ Land Application Permitting Unit. The RRO supports continuing
research and monitoring at the site to improve the accuracy of determining the groundwater nitrate
flux into the river.
cc: Ted Bush-APS Section Chief
Rick Rowe -Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Greg Bright-Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Draft Letter/ City ofRaleigh Variance Request (RRO) -You sent met ...
Subject: Draft Letter/ City of Raleigh Variance Request (RRO) -You sent me this morning
(WQ001730)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:31:14-0500
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Rick,
I looked over the Draft Letter and I saw nothing in the 11/2/06 draft that glared at
me as incorrect with respect to the 15A NCAC 21 .0113 rule.
I saw no edits off hand ether. Of course, not having the full package with all the
referred to attachments makes it a bit difficult to get the feel of this.
Once we have a total packet in the house here, it would be much easier to understand
what you are communicating.
My only comment off hand is that this looks like a new kind of variance request
altogether. Not you typical site.
When everything is ready get this on to me .
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
11 /1 /?()flt:. Ll.-'.l.1 Dl\,f
Re: V~£..iance Guidance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 -response to your ...
1 of3
Subject: Re: Variance Guidance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 -response to your question
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:06:13 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David;
Please take a look at the attached DRAFT version of the Raleigh variance memo. Let
me know what you think and any recommendations on how to make it better. I made a
lot of references to the CSA and CAP documents that the City submitted. If we have
to re-enter all of that info., the memo will be MUCH longer. Of course, i'd rather
not have to do that because it will take several days. But, if that's what we
need ......... .
rb
·David Hance wrote:
Rick,
There is no new guidance on variances for 2L. I have been working on getting
previous staff comments for the draft that you have here in your email. The 2L
Stakeholders Process, standards issues and other things have been a major factor
in delaying the completion of the next draft.
So----the answer is that the draft you have shown me in this email is current.
David Hance
DWQ -Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
***********************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
David;
We are preparing a 2L variance request for the City of Raleigh's land
application fields . Is there any more recent guidance that supersedes the
forwarded memo's?
Thanks;
rb
Subject:
[Fwd: Re: Variances and Proposed Draft Variance Guidance Document/ for APS
Comment and discussion]
From:
Jay Zimmerman <j a y [e-mail]>
Date:
Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:35:06 -0500
To:
Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
1 1 /1 J""Jf\f\£ n.") 1 A Tl 6
Re: Variance Guidance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 -response to your. ..
To:
Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Subject:
re: Variances and Proposed Draft Variance Guidance Document/ for APS Comment
and discussion
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:18:13 -0500
To:
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Betty Wilcox
<Bett v [e-mail]>, [e-mail],
Sherri.Knig [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], Jay [e-mail], Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Kim Colson
<[e-mail]>
To:
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Betty Wilcox
<Bett y [e-mail]>, [e-mail],
Sherri.Knig [e-mail], David.May @ncmail.net, [e-mail],
[e-mail], ~[e-mail], Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Kim Colson
<[e-mail]>
CC:
Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
To Aquifer Protection Section Supervisors and Program Leaders in the DWQ APS:
On February 11th, I was informed that the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section
(APS) Supervisors met last week for a regular quarterly meeting to discuss
issues relevant to your operations.
It is my understanding that the Draft 2004 Variance Guidance Document for
Variances under lSA NCAC 2L .0113 was discussed by the APS Regional Supervisors
and Parker Lincoln Staff at this meeting.
You will recall that the draft variance guidance document had been sent out to
APS Supervisors in August 2004 with a request for comments. You will also
recall that during the reorganization in the late summer and fall, the highest
work priority at the APS was addressing changes to the Section as a result of
dealing the DWQ Reorganization. I was told by my management at the time to
cease work on the Variance Document until those matters had been fully dealt
with and until I was informed that the APS staff was ready to address this
issue again.
I have now been informed that the APS staff is ready to re-examine that
document that I wrote on 7/26/04.
Attached is this document and the memorandum from Ted Bush that went out on
August 4, 2004. All of these documents are in word for windows.
I am again re-sending this to you with a request for comments and changes you
think would be appropriate. I have comments from two of the regional offices
from that time. If you have comments or additional comments, please get them to
me. Once I have all of the comments then they will be reviewed and all
necessary changes will be addressed. If I need additional information or
assistance, APS staff will be contacted. I would prefer to get your comments
to the document electronically as an email attachment since these are more
easily handed .
11 /1 !')f\f\/:. 0-'l 1 A l\,f
Re: Vv,'iance Guidance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 -response to your ...
/*If possible, I would greatly appreciate getting comments back from you on the
attachment on or before 5 PM; Wednesday, March 23, 2005. */
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
Archdale Bldg. Room -625K
work phone: [phone] x. 587
Fax: [phone]
1icoRPUD 2L Variance Request Memo.doc
Content-Type: -application/msword I
Content-Encoding: base64
---=---=----•·---· ... . ·-. . ----·• . ... --.
1 1 11 ,,.,nf\£ n_,., 1 A~,
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Hance DATE:
FROM: Rick Bolich
THROUGH: Jay Zimmerman
SUBJECT: Variance Request, City of Raleigh, NC
Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
11/1/2006
Enclosed is a copy of the Variance Application received by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) Aquifer Protection Section's (APS) Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) on December 1,
2005, which was submitted by the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) for a
variance from the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) for the area around the land application
waste disposal fields owned by the City of Raleigh and located adjacent to the Neuse River Waste
Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) in Wake County, North Carolina. The variance would allow
City to be eligible to submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for remediation of groundwater using
natural attenuation for portions of the site that are not subject to "active treatment" covered by the
existing approved CAP. 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) is currently not applicable to permitted facilities,
such as biosolids application fields.
CORPUD began land applying biosolids (sewage sludge) on the designated fields in 1980
under a permit issued by the DWQ (Permit #WQO00 1730). Groundwater monitoring required under
permit #WQ000l 730 revealed concentrations of nitrate that exceed state and federal groundwater
quality standards beyond the permitted compliance boundary. A Notice of Regulatory Requirements
(NORR) was issued to CORPUD by DWQ on November 20, 2001, which formally notified
CORPUD of the groundwater quality exceedences. A Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) for
the area affected by the nitrate contamination was submitted on December 31, 2004. fu order to
address certain deficiencies in the original CSA, a Supplemental Site Assessment report was
prepared and submitted on September 15, 2003. A Corrective Action Plan was submitted on
February 8, 2005 and a revised CAP was subsequently submitted on December 1, 2005. Conditional
approval of the revised CAP was issued to CORPUD on July 19, 2006. Conditional approval of the
CAP was granted pending approval of this variance.
The_ only current known receptor for groundwater in the area of the variance is the Neuse
variance and property owners adjacent to the land application fields is included on Figure
2 of the Variance Application.
The RRO supports this variance on the condition that the estimated flux of nitrate into the
Neuse River via groundwater discharge is offset by deducting the equivalent amount of nitrate from
the NRWWTP's permitted effluent outfall. Estimates of the nitrate flux into the Neuse River via
groundwater discharge have been computed by a groundwater flow and transport model, the results
of which are included in Appendix G of the September 15, 2003 Supplemental Site Assessment
Report, recently revised in Attachment B of HDR Engineering's letter dated August 25, 2006 to
Chonticha McDaniel of the DWQ Land Application Permitting Unit. The RRO supports continuing
research and monitoring at the site to improve the accuracy of determining the groundwater nitrate
flux into the river.
cc: Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Rick Rowe -Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Greg Bright-Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Mr. H . Dale Crisp, P.E.
5/1/2006
Page 2 of 2
We have also reviewed the "Revised Corrective Action Variance Application" that was
submitted to the RRO on March 31, 2006. The figure showing the locations of private wells within a
½ mile radius of the application fields is mislabeled. This figure should be designated to be "Figure
3" in order to be consistent with the text. Well construction details for the wells in the ½ mile radius
are not included in the Revised Corrective Action Variance Application. The Variance Application
appears to be complete with the exception of the afore-mentioned well construction details. Upon
receipt of the well construction details, we will forward the Variance Application to the DWQ
Director for approval.
Please submit the above-required information to the RRO by May 31, 2006.
cc:
Sincerely, ()
<;?.JL1~:---
s. ;([dmmerrnan, P.G.
Regional Supervisor
David Hance, Aquifer Protection -Central Office
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality
David Y. Parker, Jr., Chief, Eastern Enforcement Section, USEPA
James Giattina, Director, Water Management Division, USEPA
Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality
Ted Bush, P.E., Chief, Aquifer Protection Section
Ken Schuster, Raleigh Regional Supervisor, Surface Water Protection Section
Steve Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.
Re : Variance Request: City of Raleigh-Memorandwn Received / Ques ...
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Variance Request: City of Raleigh-Memorandum Received/ Questions, comments, and a
request
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:09:06 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
You are correct in that we requested additional information from the City. I will ask Rick Bolich to
make sure we copy you on any correspondence involving the variance request.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
Got the Dale .Crisp memorandum dated February 20, 2006 from the City of Raleigh PUD on the
vanance.
It appears they need to submit more information before we can proceed. Is that your take on it?
When they submit the materials this please make sure I am 'cc' on letters and a copy of the
attachments are sent to me.
Once we get a complete package from them, the Planning Section will get a letter to Dr. Ken Rudo
so that he can look at the risk assessment information.
david hance
9-733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay.Zimmerman(el,ncmail.net>
Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DENR/DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
2/27/2006 9:54 AM
Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E.
2/20/2006
Page 2 of 3
occurs or can be reasonable predicted to occur considering hydrogeologic conditions, modeling, or
other available evidence." Please submit a letter to our office modifying the variance request to
reflect the above.
We have reviewed the CAP that was also submitted to the RRO on December 1, 2005 and
offer the following comments:
1) The Certification for the Submittal of a Corrective Action Plan form (GW-1 00(k))
that was submitted along with the CAP and sealed by William H. Doucette, Jr. has
been modified from the original form. Modifications to this form are not
permitted, as specified on the form itself. An rm-modified GW-1 00(k) form will
need to be submitted.
2) The CAP does not contain copies ofletters and certified mail receipts that verify
compliance with the notification requirements specified in 15A NCAC 02L
.0114(b).
3) The CAP does not contain a schedule for the implementation and operation of the
Corrective Action Plan. While we recognize that the scheduling of the CAP
activities will be subject to change, we must have a detailed schedule submittal as
part of the CAP.
4) Although it appears that most property owners in the area have been connected to
Raleigh municipal water service, property owners must give written consent for
the contaminants to migrate onto property not served by public water supplies.
Please verify that all property upon which the contaminant plume is expected to
migrate onto are served with public water service, or provide written consent for
the plume to migrate onto their property from any property owners not served by
public water supplies.
5) Information contained in the September, 2003 Supplemental Site Assessment
Report prepared by ENSR International on behalf of CORPUD indicated that two
drainage swales within fields 60 and 61 that discharge into the portion of the
Neuse River classed as Water Supply 5 NSW contain Nitrate above 10 milligrams
per liter. This constitutes a violation of 15A NCAC 2B .0200, and would not be
pennitted under a "k" CAP. CORPUD will need to supply current data that this
violation is not now occurring, and is not expected to occur in the future in order
for the CAP to be approved by the Director. Otherwise, CORPUD may be
required to also obtain a variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)(5).
Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P .E.
2/20/2006
Page 3 of 3
6) The proposed monitoring plan for evaluating performance of the groundwater
extraction system and natural attenuation is inadequate. Additional monitoring
wells will need to be installed down-gradient from the extraction wells in Field
#50. The monitoring plan needs to include wells from throughout the entire site
and not just in the vicinity of groundwater extraction system. Please specify the
identities of the monitoring wells and surface water sampling points that will
constitute the CAP monitoring plan. The groundwater flow and transport
computer model should be updated with input from the CAP monitoring data and
re-run on an annual basis in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the CAP and the
validity of the model.
Please submit the above-required information to the RRO by March 31, 2006.
cc:
Qely, Lt-
S. ~merman, P.G.
Regional Supervisor
David Hance, Aquifer Protection -Central Office
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality
David Y. Parker, Jr., Chief, Eastern Enforcement Section, USEP A
James Giattina, Director, Water Management Division, USEP A
Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality
Ted Bush, P.E., Chief, Aquifer Protection Section
Ken Schuster, Raleigh Regional Supervisor, Surface Water Protection Section
Steve Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.
RECENED/DENR/DWQ
AQUIFFR PROTECTION SECTION
H:8 2 2 200ti
Variance request from the City of Raleigh
..
of 1
Sublect: Variance request from the CityofRaleigh
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:23:56 -0500
To: DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>
CC: JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>
David;
On December 1, 2005 we received a request for a variance from lSA NCAC 2L .0106(k)
from the City of Raleigh. The variance request covers the area around the city's
land application fields beyond the Compliance Boundary where Nitrate concentrations
exceed or are predicted to exceed the 2L standard of 10 milligrams per liter.
We are in the process of reviewing this variance request. We will furnish you with a
copy of the request via interoffice mail or hand-delivered copy. Let me know if you
need anything else at this point .
Thanks;
rb
Variance request from the City of Raleigh ·
of 1
Subject: Variance request from the City of Raleigh
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:23:56 -0500
To: DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>
CC: JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>
David;
On December 1 , 2005 we received a request for a varianbe from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
from the City of Raleigh. The. variance request covers the area around the city's
land application fields beyond the Compliance Boundary where Nitrate concentrations
exceed or are predicted to exceed the 2L standard of 10 milligrams per liter.
We are in the process o,f· reviewing this variance request. We will furnish you with a
copy of the request via interoffice mail or hand-delivered copy. Let me know if you
need anything else at this point.
Thanks ;
rb
------· ------· -----
Legibly print , please!' Public Hearing Re g istration Form
Hearing Co RO U D {/ Qq etnc:e-. Date ~Y_II_-J _ _,,+-,t _o...,..;1_-_
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be
heard during this public hearing. This information is necessary in order that you
be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will be ~or-
rectly entered in the hearing record.
Name -~W __ >L_~_>_t-9-\/"';__l__,___tS~· ~----=g"'-~,9~~~t _C=-o;;a.._..,v1 _____ _ Title .....,l ...,_f',.,__I-.J __ O_\I\)'"--"~--'-'---~--
Employer/Representing -------------------=-------------
Mailing Address +, ~ 2_0 0 LO Js. ~/( <:..001 \2,Q •
City and State K f) L,.__~f c.. Jd-d C 'Zip Code 2--7:: ~ )o
Yes No
Do you wish to be heard? If your presentation will exceed three minutes,
please submit three copies of your statement to the hearing clerk along
with this registration form.
Legibly print , please!· Public Hearing Re g istration Form
Hearing ____,(..._-_'..,..Oa..._\2-_\_7 _u_·D __ '-/_-Q.-_•_v_~_a.,_~_~_Gt._· _____ _ Date 9 !s lot ---'-,r-"~,~--'---
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be
heard during this public hearing. This
be given•an oppor.tunity to speak and so
rectly entered in the hearing record.
inf~rmation is necessary in order that you
that your name and affiliation will be cor-
Name ~ Lev~ Title -----------
Employer /Representing • l I'/ ,n lrtr-lU-c Sf-ot.i<N/1
-'I/
Mailing Address 3. 7 S { ~P; t/\,IJv ii /lve-t1 ·Y'<-
City and State (Z_l)C.(.,, 1\_-11 ('v L ---'-~--=------.,-t -'r-j -'----'----------Zip Code 2-70 / ,.,_
Yes No
✓no you wish to be heard? If your presentation will exceed three minutes,
please submit three copies of your statement to the hearing clerk along
with this registration form.
iegibly print , please!· Pu~lic Hearing Re g istration Form
Hearing C0 1' po·v Vcu---:co-tCe Date __ 9'-'-/-~--... ~_0_'1--__
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be
heard during this public hearing. This information is necessary in order that you
be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will be cor-
rectly entered in the hearing record.
Name Qi he-l-o r-o e5,{-TitJ.e -------
Employer/Representing
Mailing Address /DO/ ?-J ~f1-5o_,{J,,. Sfr-eaf--______ .__ ____________________________ _
City and State _ __._;2.......;;d\.___,_l_e.i__..~5'-J,...__ __ /V_;;;__(__ __ · _____ _ ·zip Code 2 7 b o-3
Yes No
_L Do you wish to be heard? If your presentation will exceed three minutes,
please submit three copies of your statement to the heariri.g clerk along
with this registration form.
Legibly print , please!· Public Hearing Re g istration Form
Hearing c.,_oe,_ PUO V C,l..,i \. a..,.v~ --------------------------Date _a_1_{5_/0_"1 __ _
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be
heard during this public hearing. This information is necessary in order that you
be given•an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will be cor-
rectly entered in the hearing record.
Name . l;(l_b<!_f<-{ h c_ L f7 t? tV Title , -----------
Employer/Representing
Mailing Address ~/'-"3=-::::3==3=====fJ=l=IU==e====~=====L--==============================
City and State _ __.Q __ L._A-"-(_-'--J-o __ A-l __ -1,~"--=-I_C _____ _
(
175-'!0 Zip Code er o1 ---------
Yes No
~ Do you wish to be heard? If your presentation will exceed three minutes,
please submit three copies of your statement to the hearing clerk along
with this registration form.
Legibly print , please!· Pu~lic Hearing Re g istration Form
Hearing --==c =-_0;;;_''9--.._\)_,_\J.::::_\\j..aL.......1\----10..._.'_~~-· _U_1
____ _
i; ,. '
Date f/>lo t: -...s..+, ....;.._...;.,----"-......... ---
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be
heard during this public hearing. This information is necessary in order that you
be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will be ~or-
rectly entered in the hearing record.
Name r-}tJA'JJd.5 /~ __, <;i4.J'v.}_:/(Jo/1 r~ Title ______ _
Em~l~yer/Representing ~/~ d!Z~ if f1
Mailing Address ~f~ ,,~u ,~J~-J~id{~
City and State cJ;;-/,.,7'-i.,,,,, J ,;\ f ,c::53; 'Zip Code A 7 ,f: 2.S:,
Yes No
V Do you wish to be heard? If your presentation will exceed three minutes,
please submit three copies of your statement to the hearing clerk along
with this registration form.
Legibly print , please!· Public Hearing Re g istration Form
Hearing C.,,,0 (2_ () Ll t) \( Q Y 1.. a....,'\r\ 0 --------------~"'------------Date __ r/_~_,/o___,__::,_
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be
heard during this public hearing. This information is necessary in order that you
be given •an oppor.t;unity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will be cor-
rectly entered in the hearing record.
Name )f 1'c./J CVJA Jh ti cA1,//v1 Title ________ _
Employer/Representing ___ J_~_.;.Ec;..;....M---'1''--.....,f)......:L::><.....<:./1=----------------
Mailing Address )-7-.11 W-fi,/LI elul
City and State -----~:~"-TC_'-_,.,;;,_~_'-►t-""T'l_-_--'-_,:~~~~~A,//:~r~~~~~~~~~~-Z-i_p_C_o_d_e_ ...... _d::~u~:,__/-__ ). ________ ~---=
Yes No
V Do you wish to be heard? If your presentation will exceed three minutes,
please submit three copies of your statement to the hearing clerk along
with this registration form.