NCG140043_EPA Ltr re NOV_20200108

„solo sr41.
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY�� Q •yW REGION 4 `�
o Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z�Ftirq�PRote°�•�2 61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JAN 082020
CERTIFIED MAIL 7018 2290 0000 6353 8871
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RECEIVED
Concrete Supply Co., LLC JAN 13 2020
ATTN: Mr. Henry Batten, President DENR-LAND QUALITY
3823 Raleigh Street STORMWATER PERMITTING
Charlotte,North Carolina 28206
Re: Notice of Violation and Opportunity to Show Cause Pursuant to Section 309(a)of the Clean
Water Act(CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1319
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Nos.: SCR005476(Simpsonville, SC
Plant), SCR005527(Spartanburg, SC Plant), SCR005480(Greer, SC Plant),NCG 140046
(Lincolnton,NC Plant), and NCG140043 (South Charlotte,NC Plant)
Dear Mr. Batten:
In December 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 conducted Compliance
Stormwater Evaluation Inspections(CSWEIs)at the following industrial sites for which Concrete
Supply Co., LLC (CSC)is the owner and/or operator: 1438 Old Stage Road, Simpsonville, Greenville
County, South Carolina 29681 (Mauldin Plant), and 475 Simuel Road, Spartanburg, Spartanburg
County, SC 28299 (Spartanburg Plant). On March 19,2019, the EPA conducted a CSWEI at CSC's
industrial site located at 831 Madison St, Lincolnton,North Carolina(Lincolnton Plant). In May 2019,
the EPA conducted CSWEIs at the following CSC industrial sites: 1401 Highway 101, Greer, South
Carolina(Highway 101 Plant) and 400 Minuet Lane, Charlotte,North Carolina(South Plant). The
purpose of these CSWEIs was to evaluate CSC's compliance with the requirements of Sections 301 and
402(p) of the Clean Water Act(CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 and 1342(p); the regulations promulgated
thereunder at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26; and either the State of South Carolina's NPDES General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, SCR000000(SC Permit)or the State of
North Carolina's NPDES General Permit for Ready-Mix Concrete, Permit No. NCG 140000 (NC
Permit), as applicable.
Mauldin Plant
The CSWEI conducted at the Mauldin Plant,the Report of which the EPA transmitted to CSC on
February 8, 2019, and subsequent investigative efforts have revealed that CSC failed to comply with
Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26; and the
SC Permit. Specifically, the EPA hereby notifies CSC, pursuant to Section 309(a)of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1319(a), of the following alleged violations:
Internet Address(URL)•http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable•Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper(Minimum 30%Postconsumer)

1. "Discharges of pollutants"from "point sources"within the Site to "navigable waters"of the
United States (as such terms are defined in Section 502 of the CWA, 33 U.S.0§1362) not
authorized by an NPDES permit are in violation of Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §1311.
Part 1.3 of the SC Permit states that "All Existing Discharges...are required to meet the
requirements outlined in Section 1.3.1 in order to obtain authorization to discharge under this
permit."Part 1.3.1.a.iv of the SC Permit states that the permittee must submit a complete and
accurate Notice of Intent. During the EPA's inspection, the permittee was observed discharging
water from recycled concrete storage through an undocumented source on the northeastern side
of the Mauldin Plant Site. CSC was discharging industrial wastewater from the use of municipal
water sprayed onto an aggregate pile through Outfall No. 003.
2. Part 2.1 of the SC Permit requires that control measures must be selected, designed, installed
and implemented as enumerated in part 2.1.2 of the Permit. Part 2.1.2.2 of the Permit requires
the Permittee to employ good housekeeping practices for areas that are potential sources of
pollutants. Part 5.1.4 of the SC Permit requires that a description of the control measures
installed and implemented at the Site be included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). Part 8.E.2 of the SC Permit requires that as a part of a good housekeeping
program, Permittees under Sector E implement measures, like regular sweeping or other
equivalent measures, to minimize the discharge of spilled cement and aggregate material from
paved portions of the site. The SWPPP provided during EPA's inspection did not identify the
control measures for the Mauldin Plant Site. During the inspection, the EPA observed that
neither sweeping nor other equivalent measures were being regularly implemented on the paved
surfaces at the Mauldin Plant Site to reduce pollution in runoff from paved areas.
3. Part 4.2.1.a of the SC Permit requires quarterly visual assessments of stormwater discharges
from each permitted outfall. During the EPA's inspection, stormwater was observed discharging
from Outfall No. 001, even though it had been reported by CSC that it had stopped monitoring
and evaluating discharges.
4. Part 5 of the SC Permit requires that if a SWPPP was prepared for a previous version of the
permit, the SWPPP must be reviewed and updated to implement all provisions of the new
Permit within 90 days after the effective date of the permit. The SWPPP provided during the
EPA's inspection was last updated in 2010.
5. Part 5.1.1 of the SC Permit requires that the Pollution Prevention Team be identified in the
SWPPP. The SWPPP provided during the EPA's inspection did not identify the members of the
Pollution Prevention Team.
6. Part 5.1.5.1.a.i of the SC Permit requires that the SWPPP contain a schedule for regular
pickup and disposal of waste materials, along with routine inspections for leaks and condition
of drums, tanks, and containers (good housekeeping practices). The SWPPP provided during
the EPA's inspection contained neither procedures nor schedules for good housekeeping
practices.
7. Part 5.1.5.1.a.ii of the SC Permit requires that the SWPPP contain a schedule for preventative
maintenance of best management practices (BMP) controls. The SWPPP provided during the
EPA's inspection did not contain a schedule for preventive maintenance of BMP controls.

8. Part 5.1.5.2.a of the SC Permit requires that the SWPPP document procedures for conducting
the four types of analytical monitoring specified by the Permit, where applicable, including
benchmark monitoring, effluent limitations monitoring, impaired waters monitoring, and
other monitoring required by the Department. The SWPPP provided during the EPA's
inspection did not contain the required sampling event procedures.
9. Part 5.1.5.2.e of the SC Permit requires that the SWPPP document procedures for performing,
as appropriate, the three types of inspections specified by the Permit: the routine facility
inspections required by section 4.1, quarterly visual inspections of storm water discharges as
required by section 4.2, and comprehensive site inspections required by section 4.3. The
SWPPP provided during the EPA's inspection did not contain procedures for inspection events.
10. Part 5.4.e of the SC Permit requires the retention of records concerning the maintenance and
repair of control measures for three years. During the EPA's inspection, no records of
maintenance or repairs to control measures were kept on-site.
11. Part 6.1.1 of the SC Permit specifies that applicable monitoring requirements apply to each
outfall authorized by the Permit. During the EPA's inspection, CSC staff reported that it had
stopped monitoring discharges from Outfall No. 001 because it was "bermed off." Inspectors
noted water leaving the site through Outfall No. 001.
12. Part 6.1.3a of the SC Permit requires sampling of runoff generated by a storm event that
follows the preceding measurable storm event by at least 72 hours. Part 6.1.3.6 of the Permit
requires that you must identify the date and duration in hours of the rainfall event, rainfall
total in inches, and time since the previous measurable storm event or the absence of
measurable precipitation in the 72 hours preceding the monitoring event. No records were
provided during the inspection supporting that samples were collected at the appropriate time to
allow for the necessary elapse of time from the previous measurable event.
13. Part 6.2.c of the SC Permit requires that monitoring events follow the appropriate analytical
methodology from 40 C.F.R. Part 136. During the inspection, the EPA observed no equipment
for pH testing at the Mauldin Plant Site. CSC staff reported that pH strips were being used for
some pH testing which is neither an approved test method under Part 136 nor had there been an
approved request for an alternate test method. Additionally, some of the contract laboratory pH
test results were reported as having been outside of the normal pH standard holding time.
14. Part 6.2.1.2 of the SC Permit requires that benchmark sampling be conducted quarterly for
the first four quarters that the Permit is in effect, as delineated in SC Permit part 6.1.7. Part
8.E.4 of the SC Permit, in Table 8.E-1 contains benchmark sampling concentrations for Total
Suspended Solids, at 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and pH, at 6.0-9.0. During the records
review portion of the EPA's inspection, records of benchmark sampling were not available for
the first and second calendar quarters of calendar year 2018.
15. Part 6.2.1.2.6 of the SC Permit triggers review of selection, design, installation and
implementation of control measures after an exceedance of the benchmark values averaged
over 4 quarters. Subsequently,part 6.2.1.2.6 of the SC Permit requires either continuation of
quarterly monitoring until no exceedance occurs, or determination that no further reductions
are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best
industry practice. In either case, monitoring for benchmark parameters must continue for

four additional quarters. The review of the monitoring data during the EPA's inspection found
four TSS samples collected for calendar year 2017 averaged 158 mg/L, over the 100 mg/L
benchmark. Sampling should have continued into 2018 until the four-quarter average dropped
below the benchmark. Sampling did not continue as required; no record of consideration of
changes in practice or management were recorded in the required records to substantiate
decisions about consideration of changes to BMPs.
Spartanburg Plant
The CSWEI conducted at the Spartanburg Plant,the Report of which the EPA transmitted to CSC on
February 8, 2019, and subsequent investigative efforts have revealed that CSC failed to comply with
Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26; and the
SC Permit. Specifically,the EPA hereby notifies CSC,pursuant to Section 309(a) of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. § 1319(a), of the following alleged violations:
1. Part 5 of the SC Permit requires that a SWPPP be reviewed and updated to implement all
provisions of the new Permit when it is reissued, either prior to submittal of a Notice of Intent
(NDI) or within 90 days after the effective date of the Permit. The SWPPP provided during the
EPA inspection was generated in 2011 and signed July 20,2012. The SW Permit was reissued to
the Spartanburg Plant on September 1, 2016.
2. Part 5.1.2 of the SC Permit requires the SWPPP to include a site description which includes a
site map providing information on, but not limited to, the structural control measures, the
locations of potential pollutant sources, direction of stormwater flows and stormwater
conveyances, and locations of receiving waters and municipal separate stormwater sewer
systems (MS4). During the EPA's inspection,it was discovered that the concrete washout basin
shared by CSC and Archer Western was not identified on the SWPPP map or elsewhere in the
SWPPP. The map of the Spartanburg Plant sent via email to the EPA did not identify the Archer
Western tenant facility, which was draining stormwater from Sector E activities to the CSC
stormwater collection system and is therefore a potential pollutant source. The location identified
as Outfall No. 001 was observed as having eight pipes at one location, believed to be seven
outlets and one conveyance to another pipe flowing below grade. The SWPPP map does not
identify any of the additional conveyances. Inspectors also observed three outfall pipes, not
identified on the facility's site map, in the vicinity of Outfall 002 along the western end of the
site
3. Part 4.2 of the SC Permit requires a visual assessment of a stormwater discharge for each
calendar quarter for the duration of the permit. Quarterly visual assessments of a stormwater
discharge for the first three calendar quarters of 2018 were not provided.
4. Part 6.2.1.2 of the SC Permit requires that benchmark sampling be conducted quarterly for
the first four quarters that the permit is in effect as delineated in SC Permit Part 6.1.7. Part
8.E.4 of the SC Permit, Table 8.E-1, contains benchmark sampling concentrations for Total
Suspended Solids, at 100 milligrams per liter,and pH, at 6.0-9.0. CSC obtained permit
coverage on 6/26/17 after which benchmark monitoring should have been performed at all
stormwater outfalls during the 3rd quarter of 2017 (July-Sept),4th quarter 2017 (Oct-Dec), 1st
quarter 2018 (Jan-Mar), and 2nd quarter 2018 (Apr-Jun). CSC was unable to provide records of
benchmark monitoring at Outfall No. 002 for the first two calendar quarters of 2018 and failed to
perform any benchmark monitoring at Outfall No. 001.

Highway 101 Plant
The CSWEI conducted at the Highway 101 Plant, the Report of which the EPA transmitted to CSC on
August 15, 2019, and subsequent investigative efforts have revealed that CSC failed to comply with
Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26; and the
SC Permit. Specifically, the EPA hereby notifies CSC, pursuant to Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1319(a), of the following alleged violations:
1. Part 5.1.7 of the SC Permit requires the permittee to sign and date the SWPPP implemented at
its site. The SWPPP provided during the EPA's inspection was neither signed nor dated by the
responsible official.
2. Part 5.2 of the SC Permit requires the SWPPP be revised and modified to address the various
triggering conditions identified in Parts 3.1 and 3.2. The SWPPP provided during the EPA
inspection had not been updated to reflect the current conditions at the site. Specifically, the EPA
discovered during the inspection that the facility was no longer operating as a satellite operation
but was a fully operational facility and additional BMPs had been implemented at the site
including a gravel berm above the catchment pond and hay bales at Outfall No. 2.
3. Part 5.1.1 of the SC Permit requires that the Pollution Prevention Team be identified in the
SWPPP. The SWPPP did not identify the members of the Pollution Prevention Team.
4. Part 2.1.2.9 of the SC Permit establishes minimum employee training requirements for
permittees. Outlined in these training requirements are the types of employees that require
training and the topics for discussion. The training records provided during the inspection for
2016 through 2018 failed to cover the necessary topics identified in the permit.
5. Part 5.1.3.4 of the SC Permit requires permittees to perform and document annual evaluations
for the presence of non-stormwater discharges and ensure that discovered non-stormwater
discharges are eliminated. During the inspection, CSC was unable to provide annual non-
stormwater discharge certifications.
6. Part 5.1.4 of the SC Permit requires the SWPPP include a description of the control measures
implemented at the site which includes the type and of the measures implemented at the site to
achieve numeric and non-numeric effluent limits. A review of the SWPPP provided during the
inspection revealed that the SWPPP did not contain a current list of the control measures that
were implemented at the site during the inspection.
7. Part 5.1.5.1.a of the SC Permit requires the SWPPP include schedules and procedures for
various control measures including good housekeeping and preventative maintenance
measures. A review of the SWPPP provided during the inspection revealed that the necessary
descriptions were not provided for all of the housekeeping and maintenance measures.
Specifically, neither the periodic sweeping operations described by facility personnel nor the
schedule and procedures for the clean out of the catchment pond and drying area were included
in the SWPPP.
8. Part 6.1.3 of the SC Permit requires permittees to document information pertaining to
monitoring events including, but not limited to, the date and duration of the rain events. A

review of the sampling data provided during the inspection failed to consistently document
sample collection times and rainfall data.
.9. Part 6.2.1.2 of the SC Permit requires quarterly benchmark monitoring be performed until
there is an average of four consecutive quarters below the permitted benchmarks. A review of
the sampling data provided during the inspection showed missing benchmark monitoring data for
• the first three quarters of permit coverage.
10. Part 5.4.h of the SC Permit requires permittees to maintain records and documentation of any
corrective action taken problems were discovered and modification occurred. A review of the
records provided during the inspection showed inconsistent documentation of the corrective
measures taken in response to triggering events.
11. Part 2.1.2.3 of the SC Permit requires permittees to perform maintenance activities at the
implemented control measures at the site. During the inspection, areas of the site were observed
in need of housekeeping measures and control measures were observed in need of maintenance.
These deficient areas attributed to the sediment trail observed from Outfall No. 1.
Lincolnton Plant
The CSWEI conducted at the Lincolnton Plant,the Report of which the EPA transmitted to CSC on May
28, 2019, and subsequent investigative efforts have revealed that CSC failed to comply with Section 301
of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26; and the NC Permit.
Specifically, the EPA hereby notifies CSC,pursuant to Section 309(a)of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1319(a), of the following alleged violations:
1. Part III.2.a of the NC Permit requires that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP)
include a Stormwater Management Strategy. Part of this this Stormwater Management
Strategy is a Feasibility Study. The SPPP reviewed during the inspection provided procedures
for conducting the feasibility study, but provided no documentation of having performed a
Feasibility Study or the findings from the Study.
2. Part III.2.b of the NC Permit requires that the SPPP include a table or summary of the
capacities of above ground storage tanks and their secondary containment. The SPPP
reviewed during the inspection did not include a table or summary of the above-ground tanks and
their secondary containment.
3. Part III.2.c of the NC Permit requires the SPPP to include a listing and rationale for the
selected BMPs at the site and that this summary be reviewed and updated annually. During the
inspection, the EPA observed that the facility had installed a structure to divert stormwater away
from Outfall No. 2. The SPPP reviewed during the inspection discussed neither the elimination
of the outfall nor the structure implemented to'divert water from the Outfall.
4. Part III.8 of the NC Permit requires the permittee to review and update its SPPP annually or
whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation, site drainage, maintenance, or
configuration of physical features which may have a significant effect on the potential
discharge. The SPPP provided during the inspection was last updated in 2011 and did not reflect
the current conditions of the Lincolnton Plant.

5. Part 111.9 of the NC Permit requires that the permittee to implement the SPPP and all
appropriate BMPs consistent with the previsions of the permit, in order to control
contaminants entering surface waters via stormwater. This includes the performing and
documenting of monitoring, inspections, training, maintenance activities, and housekeeping
activities. During the inspection, CSC personnel were unable to provide documentation of
housekeeping measures, including routing cleaning and sweeping,performed at the Lincolnton
Plant. The inspection records provided by CSC did not document the inspection of all of
stormwater systems. Specifically, CSC failed to provide records of the inspection of the berms
and diversions implemented at the Lincolnton Plant. Attributable to the insufficient
housekeeping and maintenance,the EPA observed that: areas around the conveyor and silos with
significant accumulation of sediment along the ground; the structure that was installed to divert
water from Outfall No. 2 was not water tight;and sediment had accumulated to the height of the
discharge pipe at Outfall No. 1.
6. Part IV,Section D of the NC Permit requires that the permittee to monitor process waste water
discharges quarterly within the first 30 minutes of discharge. CSC personnel stated during the
inspection that monitoring samples had not been collected at the site for the past five years.
During the inspection, Outfall No. 1 was observed as having evidence of recent discharges
including the accumulation of sediment to the level of the discharge pipe, water marking along
the berm above the height of the discharge pipe,and sediment trail down gradient of the outfall.
7. Part IIL2.b of the NC Permit requires secondary containment devices connected to stormwater
conveyance systems be controlled by a manually active valve with a locking mechanism.
During the inspection, the EPA observed that the secondary containment structure around the
bulk storage tanks had a manual valve with the handle removed, but no locking mechanism.
.South Plant
The CSWEI conducted at the South Plant,the Report of which the EPA transmitted to CSC on May 28,
2019, and subsequent investigative efforts have revealed that CSC failed to comply with Section 301 of
the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26; and the NC Permit.
Specifically,the EPA hereby notifies CSC,pursuant to Section 309(a)of the CWA, 33 U.S.C..
§ 1319(a), of the following alleged violations:
1. Part III.1 of the NC Permit requires that the SPPP include a narrative description of the
potential pollutant sources and that they be identified on a site map. The SPPP obtained during
the inspection did not provide information on the concrete truck rinsing operation that occurred
outside of the washout basin.
2. Part III.8 of the NC Permit requires the permittee to review and update its SPPP annually or •
whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation,site drainage, maintenance, or
configuration of physical features which may have a significant effect on the potential
discharge. The SPPP provided during the inspection was last updated in 2011 and did not reflect
the current conditions of the site. Specifically,the plan did not reflect the removal of the
retention pond, the additional diversion berm on the north side of the South Plant, or the
operation and maintenance requirements for the CO2 treatment system.

3. Part III.2.a of the NC Permit requires that the SPPP include a Stormwater Management
Strategy. Part of this this Stormwater Management Strategy is a Feasibility Study which
includes an evaluation of eliminating or reducing the exposure of materials and processes to
stormwater. The SPPP reviewed during the inspection did not include a feasibility study that
evaluated the option of minimizing the exposure of materials and processes by the diversion of
runoff.
4. Part III.2.b of the NC Permit requires that the SPPP include a table or summary of the
capacities of above ground storage tanks and their secondary containment. The SPPP
reviewed during the inspection did not include a table or summary of the above ground tanks and
their secondary containment.
5. Part III.4 of the NC Permit requires that the SPPP include details of the frequency and
method for maintaining stormwater controls. The SPPP reviewed during the inspection did not
provide details for the frequency and method of cleaning the concrete washout basins or for the
routine cleaning operations for the managing of dust accumulation.
6. Part IV of the NC Permit requires effluent monitoring samples be collected as grab samples
collected within the first 30 minutes of discharge. The effluent monitoring records provided
during the inspection noted that samples for the following days were not obtained within the first
30 minutes of discharge: March 18, 2019; October 26, 2018; September 27, 2018; March 6,
2018; and December 20, 2017.
7. Part IV.D of the NC Permit establishes effluent limits for process wastewater discharges. The
effluent monitoring records provided during the inspection showed exceedances during the
following monitoring events: March 8, 2019(pH and TSS exceedances); October 26,2018 (pH
and TSS exceedances); March 6, 2018 (pH exceedance); December 20, 2017 (pH exceedance);
September 11, 2017 (TSS exceedance); May 23, 2017 (TSS exceedance); March 28, 2017 (pH
exceedance); and January 15, 2016(pH exceedance).
Until compliance with the CWA is achieved, CSC is considered to be in violation of the CWA and may
be subject to enforcement action pursuant to Section 309 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319. This Section
provides for the issuance of administrative penalty and/or compliance orders and the initiation of civil
and/or criminal actions.
The EPA requests that representatives of CSC contact the EPA within seven (7) business days of
receipt of this letter to arrange a meeting in this office to show cause why the EPA should not take
formal civil enforcement action against CSC for these violations and any other potential violations,
including the assessment of appropriate civil penalties. In lieu of appearing in person, a telephone
conference may be scheduled. CSC should be prepared to provide all relevant information with
supporting documentation pertaining to the violations, including but not limited to any financial
information which may reflect an inability to pay a penalty. CSC has the right to be represented by legal
counsel.
Please be aware that the EPA may use information provided during the meeting or telephone conference
in any enforcement proceeding related to this matter. Failure to schedule a show cause meeting may
result in a unilateral enforcement action against CSC. Notwithstanding the scheduling of a show cause
meeting, the EPA retains the right to bring further enforcement action under Section 309 of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. § 1319, for the violations cited therein or for any other violation of the CWA.

Please contact Mr. Ahmad Dromgoole at(404) 562-9212 to arrange a show cause meeting or if you have
any questions or concerns. Legal inquiries should be directed to Ms. Suzanne Armor, Associate
Regional Counsel, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Carol L. Kemker, Director
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division
cc: Mr. Brian Wisnewski
Water Pollution Compliance Manager, SCDHEC
Ms. Annett Lucas
Stormwater Program Supervisor, NCDEQ