WQ0013808_PC-2019-0042_20190724 (3)

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REOUEST
Case Number: PC-2019-0042 County: Guilford
Assessed Party: Kotis Properties, Inc.
Permit No.: WO0013808 Amount assessed: $5,564.88
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the "Request
For Remission, Waiver ofRizht to an Administrative Hearin., and Stipulation of Facts " form to request
remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that you believe support your request
and are necessary for the Director to consider in determining your request for remission. Please be aware
that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors listed below as they may relate
to the reasonableness of the amount of the civil penalty assessed. Requesting remission is not the proper
procedure for contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements
contained in the civil penalty assessment document. By law [NCGS 133-215.6A(f)] remission of a civil
penalty may be granted when one or more of the following five factors applies. Please check each factor
that you believe applies to your case and provide a detailed explanation, including copies of supporting
documents, as to why the factor applies (attach additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS 143B-282.1(b) were
wrongfully Uplied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are included
in the attached penalty matrix and/or listed in the civil penalty assessment document);
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the violation
(i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future
occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the violation was
unavoidable or something you could not prevent or prepare for);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary remedial
actions (i.e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing the
activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COUNTY OF GUILFORD
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
KOTIS PROPERTIES, INC. )
PERMIT NO. WQ0013808 ) FILE NO. PC-2019-0042
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $5,564.88 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Resources dated, July 24, 2019, the undersigned, desiring
to seek remission of the civil penalty, does hereby waive the right to an administrative hearing in the
above -stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment document. The
undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission of this civil penalty
must be submitted to the Director of the Division of Water Resources within thirty (30) days of receipt of
the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will be allowed after thirty
(30) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the day of , 2018.
Signature
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
ENFORCEMENT CASE ASSESSMENT FACTORS
Violator: Kotis Properties, Inc.
County: Guilford
Case Number: PC-2019-0042
Permit Number: W00013808
ASSESSMENT FACTORS
1. The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public health, or to
private property resulting from the violation:
An unknown volume of partially treated wastewater has continually been allowed to bypass a majority of
treatment, including the rest of the sandfilter, the wetland treatment cells, chlorination, and
recirculation. The bypass exists from the sandfilter into the wet weather storage lagoon (which is
designed to store fully treated wastewater prior to irrigation and does not receive chlorination again
prior to irrigation). Any irrigation completed out of the wet weather storage lagoon contains an unknown
volume ofpartially treated wastewater that has not received chlorination.
2. The duration and gravity of the violation:
The bypass was first documented during the January 30, 2018 compliance inspection and included NOV-
2018-PC-0085. It has been ongoing and unclear as to when it began.
Exceedance of application rates was documented in the 712812015 inspection and 1012512016 inspection.
The current exceedance of 12-month loading rate has reached a 93% calculated exceedance in one of the
zones.
3. The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality:
Unknown damage likely caused to groundwater and runoff to surface water. The 12-month loading has
been exceeded in all irrigation zones — a calculated exceedance of 93% in one of the zones — and
irrigation events include an unknown volume of only partially treated wastewater. Additionally, irrigation
during the 12-inch snow event in the area likely resulted in runoff of all wastewater irrigated during that
period.
4. The cost to rectify the damage:
The cost of either installation of new sandfilter or the engineering certification that modifications
stipulated in the response to the April 20, 2019 NOV/NOI to the sandfilter allow it to continue to operate
as designed.
5. Amount of money saved by noncompliance:
Pump and haul of the wastewater would have mitigated the repeated over application of the irrigation
zone and therefore prevented the exceedances and ponding. Additionally, repairs to the sandfilter have
been delayed since first documenting the issue during the January 20, 2018 compliance inspection.
Response to the April 30, 2019 NOV/NOI stated that the ORC "installed numerous small holes in the
fabric to get the filter to function as planned (for water to be applied at the top of the filter
and travel vertically down through the filter to the recirculating underdrain system). " WSRO is
concerned that this repair/modification to the sand filter fabric was done as a cost-cutting measure to

prevent spending the money to properly repair or reinstall the sand filter fabric. This modification may
need to be engineer certified to show the sandfilter can operate as designed.
6. Whether or not the violations were committed willfully or intentionally:
The WSRO considers the subject violations to have occurred due to negligence and as a cost -savings
effort. Pump -and -haul and proper, timely repairs to the sandfilter would have negated many of the
violations. The irrigation events completed during inclement weather were completely negligent in that
the 12-inch snow event had been forecasted, and after a site visit was conducted 2 days after the snow
fell, irrigation totals were increased from 1, 357 gpd, per zone (zones 1 and 2), to 1, 875 gpd, per zone
(zones I and 2).
7. The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs over which the
Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority; and
The facility received an NOV from the Division on March 13, 2018 concerning violations of permit
conditions related to a bypass, over application, and more. Exceedance of application rates was
documented in the 712812015 inspection and 1012512016 inspection. Incomplete records were documented
during the January 30, 2018 compliance inspection and included NOV-2018-PC-0085.
8. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
Staff Member 1-10.0 hours Total Field/Investigation Time $303.00
Mileage Total — 57 Total miles @ $0.49/mile $27.93
Supervisor — 3 hours Enforcement Review Time $133.95
Administrative Costs $100.00
Total Cost $564.88
cu Signed by:
7/24/2019 [�-'ME225C94EA
T5mdcrr...
Date Lon Snider

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
CIVIL PENALTY REMISSION FACTORS
Case Number: PC-2019-0042 Region: Winston-Salem County: Guilford
Assessed Entity: Kotis Properties, Inc. Permit: WQ0013808
❑ (a) Whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors were wrongly applied to the
detriment of the petitioner:
❑ (b) Whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from
the violation:
❑ (c) Whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident:
❑ (d) Whether the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations:
❑ (e) Whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions:
DECISION (Check One)
Request Denied ❑
Full Remission ❑ Retain Enforcement Costs? Yes ❑ No ❑
Partial Remission ❑$ (Enter Amount)
Director Date