NC0024244_LV-2014-0094_20140616

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
John E. Skvarla, 111
Secretary
Junc 16., 201.4
CEIJiF!EDMML 7010 0290 0000 4565 2285
RETURN RL( EJP1 REQUESTED
Mr. Raymond Allen, City Manager
City of Albemarle
Post Office Box 190
Albemarle, 'North Carol' 28002-0190
SUBJECT: Notice of Violation and Assessment of Civil
Penalty for Violations of N.C,. General Statute
143-215,1(a)(6) and NPDES Permit No, NC0024244
Long Creek WWTP
Stanly County
Case No, LV-201.4-0 9.
Dear Mr, Allen:
This letter transmits a Notice of Violation and assessment of civil penalty in the amount of
$1,149.22 ($1,000.00 civil penalty + $149,22 enforcement costs) against the City of Albemarle„
This assessment is based upon the following facts: A review has been conducted of the self -
monitoring data reported for December 2013. This review has shown the subject facility to be in
violation. of the discharge limitations found in NPDES Permit No, NC0024244. The violations are
summarized in Attachment A to this letter.
Based upon the above facts, I conclude as a matter of law that the City of Albemarle violated
the terms, conditions, or requirements of NPDES Permit No., NC0024244 and North. Carolina General
Statute (G.S.) 143-215.1((6) in the manner and extent shown in Attachment A, A civil penalty may
be assessed in accordance with the maximums established by G,S,. 143-115,6A(a)(2),
Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in accordance with authority
provided by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and -the Director
of the Division of Water Resources, I, Michaell,„ Parker, Regional Supervisor for the Mooresville
Region, hereby make the following civil -penalty assessment against the City of Albemarle:
Mooresville RENtonal Office
ocatiort: 610 East Center Ave„ Sifile 301 Mooresville, 5C 281'15
Ptiorie OA) 6.63-1699 Fax [phone] customer Service: 0477-623-6748
interne!, httpsii,tportat ficilenr,iotigfwebmiq

(4)
1 „O t} 00 _ ... 1�'or l.,_.... of the one l) ics)lattcrn of (:1.5. 1.43-215.1(a)(6) and
7,OO24244, for discharging Waste into the
in violation of the permit monthly average
efflrtent limit for total. wereurv.
The degree an
`{ ►'I` L CIVIL PENALTY
l'nfc,rcerrrrtt Gists
TOTAL .AMOI.lN'T 1)UE
in ilctc:rtr fining the amount of the penalty l have taken in
elusions of l a and tl e factors se}t forth at ti.S l 1 13-282.. I (b),
o the natural resources i)f the State,
private property resulting froriz the v'i+rlations;
The duration and gravity of'the icalations.
The effect on ground of surface water quantity or qual.
The cost of rectifying the damage;
[he amount of money saved b' noncompliatriee.;
Whether the violations were committed willfully or intet�tronai11 ;
`1 he prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply
the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authorit
The e st to the State of the enforcement procedures,
exte
gttal ty,
thirty lays of receipt of this notice, you must do one of the folio Mg:
Submit payment of the pcna
Payment should be niade directly tc.
blie heal
order otthe Department cif Lnviroi lent and Natural
esources t`ifra rant zrtctude waiverforeclose further
enforcement action fir any continuing i r new viol,
lle,ase submit payment to the attentio
W'astevater 13rar�e:h
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1()17
OR
2. bnit a vi ritten request for remission including a detailed justification for such re
hat a request for ren i,ssic n is limited to consideration of the five factors
below as they arras relate to the reasonableness tr.ft.he. amount of the penalty assessed. feel

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. Because a
remission request forecloses the option. of an administrative hearing, such a request musthe
accompanied by a waiver of your right to an administrative hearing and a stipulation that no factual Or
legal issues are in dispute. 'Please prepare a detailed statement that establishes why you believe the
civil penalty should be remitted, and submit it to the Division of Water Resources at the address listed
'below. n determining whether a„remission request will be approved, the following factors shall be
considered:
whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in G.S. 1.43B-282.1(b) ;we e
wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner;
(2) whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from
the violation;
(3) whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(4) whether the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations; or
(5) Whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions,
Please note that all inftrmation presented„in support of your request for remission must be
submitted in writin.g. The Director of the Division of Water Resources will :review your eviden.ce and
inform. you of his decision in the matter of your remission request. The ;response will provide details
regarding case status, directions for payment,. and provision for further appeal of the penalty to the
'Environmental 'Management Commission's (S.oni.mitte,e on Civil Penalty Remissions (Cornmittee).
Please he advised that the Committee cannot consider information that was not pari,. of the original
remission request considered by the Director. 'Therefore, it is 'very important that you. prepare a
complete and thorough stateinent in support of your request for remission.
In order to request remission, you must. complete and submit the enclosed. "Waiver of Right to
an Administrative Hearing and Stipulation of Facts" form within thirty (30) days of receipt of this
notice. Ihe Division of Water Resources also requests that you complete and submit the enclosed
“Justifi.cation for Remission Request." 'Both forms should be submitted to the following a.ddress:
Wastewater Branch
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
OR
3. File a petition for an administrative hearing with the Office of.Administra Hearings:
If you wish to contest an.y statement; in the attached assessment document you must file a
petition for an administrative hearing. Youmay obtain the petition form from the Office of
Administrative Hearings. You must file the petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings
within thirty (30) days of receipt. ofthis notice. A petition is considered filed when it is received in
the Office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office of Administrative
Hearin.gs accepts ;filings ,Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m.. and 5:00 p.m.,

except for official state holidays. The petition may be filed by facsimile (fax) or electronic mail by an
attached file (with restrictions) - provided. the signed original, one (1.) copy and a filing fee (if a filing
fee is required by NC(iS §150B-23,2) is received in the Office of Administrative Hearings within
seven (7) busines:s days -following the faxed or electronic transmission., You. should contact the
Office of .Administrative Hearings with, all questions regarding the filing fee andlOr the details of the
filing process. The mailing address and telephone and fax numbers for the Office of Ad.ministrative
I:lead-rigs are as follows:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
.Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
'Tel: [phone]
Fax [phone]
One (1) of the petition must also he served on DENR as follows:
Mr, Lacy PresnelL, General Counsel
DENR.
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1.601
Please indicate the case number 'as :found on page one of this letter) on the petition.
Failure to exercise one of the options above within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice, as
evidenced by an internal date/time received stamp (not a postmark), will result in this matter being
referred to the Attorney General's Office for collection of the penalty through a civil action.
Please be advised that additional penalties may be assessed for violations that occur after the
review period of this assessment. If you have any questions about this civil penalty assessment please
contact staff -in the Mooresville Regional Office at (704) 66-1699,
Michael 1.. Parker, Regional Supervisor
'Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDENR
Al L\CIR1INK
cc: Mooresville Regional Office Compliance File wi attachments
Raleigh Compliance/Enforcement File v attachments
Central 1iles (MSC 1617-basement) wf attachments

STATE OF NORTH CAROIIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COUNTY OF ST„ANUY
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST
CITY OF ALBEMARLE
PER -MIT NO. NC0024244
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATioN OF FACTS
FILE NO. LV-2 14-0091
Having been assessed civil. penalties totaling $1,10.22 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Resources dated June 1.6, 201.4, the undersigned,
desiring to seek remission of the civil penalties, does hereby waive the right to an administrative
hearing in the abo e-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 30 days
of receipt of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will he
allowed after 30 days from the receipt of the notice of assessment
'This the day of
ADDRESS
TIELEPHONE
BY
2014

JC. STIF
DWR Case Number: LV-2014-0091.
Assessed Party: City of Albernttrle
County: Stanly
Permit Number: NC00242.44
Amount Assessed* $1,1.49..i
N I{CatR. RE vIISSION REQ1 6FS1
Please use this turtxo wloett regttestin rentissiun of this civil
I c ctue t I car,Rerrlt sine l '` rrogcr t tco c tt tcrirxr".inr
t remission of this civil penalty, ou should attach merits that you. believe
support your request and are necessary for the Direct tr to consider in evaluating your request for
remission. Please he aware that a request for remission is litrtited to consideration of the five ''actors
listed. below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the cavil penalty assessed.
R.equesttn.g remission is not the proper procedure tn
`or contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or
" � l
the accuracy of tt.ny= of the factual statements contained. in the civil penalty assessment docurrtent.
Pursuant to N.C.(143E-282J (c), remission of a civil penalty may he granted only when on.e 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)..
(d)
thew .c.ty l penalty assessment
wrontlully" applied to thedetriment of
in the civil penalty assessment document);
violator_pro
Lion
the violation wa
was unavoidable or sornething
abated cc
ator had Trot be
assess
i.S. 14 B 282.1(h). were
ti tors are lin'ted
ntal damage resulting tr yin the
v)Ok to correct the virolatu n and p
n accident
t prevent or pre
anv pre"t toes vino
payment eowf thr iy it penalty will pre - :t t payment f`c r t remaining neces ry reined al
actions Via. e., plrlirer how payment al elvi1 penalty rt ll prevent you r rrr c!rstorming
the activities rtcet°s.ctr , to achieve compliance).
EX.PLANATIt?N
addition rl pages a5° net e,ssa

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT FACTORS
Violator: Citv of Albe arle
Facility: Long Creek WWTP
County: Stanly
Case Number: LV-2014-0091
Permit Number: NC0024244
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;
The discharge of mercury in excess of the monthly average permit limit could potentially lead to
aquatic toxicity as well as bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms such as fish with eventual transfer to
humans; all NC waters are impaired for mercury due to elevated fish tissue concentrations. In the
TMDL developed to address this impairment WVVTPs were given mercury limits. The plant
discharged 4,24 MGD (monthly average).
2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
There were three mercury samples collected in December (12.3 ng L, 13.0 ng/L and 24.6 ng/L)
resulting in a monthly average mercury concentration of 16.6 ng/L. This exceeded the permit limit of
12.0 ng/L by 38.6%.
3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
The effect on the receiving stream is unknown. Discharges of mercury in excess of the monthly
average permit limit could potentially lead to aquatic toxicity as well as bioaccumulation in aquatic
organisms such as fish and transfer to humans; all NC waters are impaired for mercury due to
elevated fish tissue concentrations
4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
The cost is unknown
5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
The amount of money saved by noncompliance is unknown. However, the permittee has begun
additional polymer and coagulant additions, after a DWR TA site visit in early December and the City
notes that this has helped them stay compliant with permit limits in January through March 2014.
Therefore, the money saved by noncompliance could be equivalent to the cost of these chemicals for
the month,
6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
The Division of Water Resources has no evidence that the violations were committed willfully or
intentionally. The permittee noted in their NOV response that additional sampling within the collection
system has occurred in the past 12 months at both controllable and uncontrollable locations in
addition to the Hwy 52 WTP. There has not been one source of the mercury identified through the
sampling so continued identification of sources will continue, Addition of polymers and coagulants at

the recommendation of DWR staff has reduced the mercury concentrations in the effluent in the first
quarter of 2014,
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
There have been 29 previous CPAs for the Long Creek WWTP with five CPAs issued in the past
twelve months,
Case Number
LV-2.014-0046
SP-2014-0001
LV-2014-0020
LV-2014-0014
SP-2013-0011
De
cription
,49.22 limit vial v ati©n for mercury; penalty waspaid in
250.00 SOC limit violation for TSS; penalty paid in fu
,649.22 limit violation for mercuypenalty paid in full
649.22 limit violation for mercury; penalty paid in full
,000.00 SOC limit violations for TSS, penalty paid in full
8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
The cost to the Division of Water Resources is $14922.
Michael L. Parker, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDENR

NPDES DMR Violation Penalty Worksheet
Facility:
Previous Violations:
Proposed
Multiplier:
Response
Information:
DMR
{ Information:
._._ WWTP DMR:
5 Reduced Penalties:
125 NOV-NRE
Response:
December 2013
Yes NoL
Flo
None were reduced
DMR
Comments:
4.24 MGD
Yes No
I
The City of Albemarle NOV-NRE response was received on May 20, 2014, for
the mercury violation. The response regarding the mercury violation noted
that additional sampling within the collection system has occurred in the past
12 months at both controllable and uncontrollable locations in addition to the
Hwy 52 WTP. There has not been one source of the mercury identified
through the sampling so continued identification of sources will continue. The
permittee did note that a TA visit by MRO staff on December 6, 2013,
recommended enhanced flocculation in the sludge clarifiers and thickeners
and the City responded by incorporating coagulants and polymers at these
treatment points and also in the waste activated sludge lines prior to these
process points, These changes have enabled the City stay in compliance with
the mercury limit beginning January 2014 through March 2014.
There was one monthly average mercury violation (16,6 ng/L — 38 6% over
limit of 12 ng/L) for three sampling events (12.3 ng/L, 13.0 ng/L and 24.6
ng/L). DMR acknowledges the mercury violation and notes the "results of the
first two samples were elevated due to poor settleability in the clarifiers, The
results of the third sample was high due to a high flow (rain) event the
previous day. Thee WWTP is still feeding coagulants at the clarifiers on an
intermittent basis to achieve better settleability."
Previous CPAs in Jan. 2013, Sept -13, Oct-13, and Nov-13 for permit limits
Previous and Dec.-12 and Sept. 13 for SOC limit violations. The January, September,.
Violation October, and November 2013 CPAs were for mercury violations (as were
Information: CPAs in Aug,-12, July-12, Oct,-11, Sept.-11, Nov.-09, Mar.-09, Jan.-09, and
May-08; nine (9) total).
There was one weekly average TSS violation (SOC limit); penalty assessed since
conditions of paragraph 4 of S10-010 were not met to excuse penalty.
There was one monthly average mercury violation (21.1%) over the limit. The
permittee noted on the January 2013 DMR and in the NOV-2013-LV-0096
response that the WWTP is currently undergoing construction and that this activity
has stirred up a large amounts of solids, which increased the mercury
concentrations in the WWTP effluent. The permittee notes that the mercury
concentrations were reduced in February and March 2013 after the new filters were
placed in service, However, previous information provided by the permittee notes
that solids in the contact chamber were due to old sludge and not solids generated
by the WWTP upgrade. In addition, the monthly average TSS concentration in
January 2013 was 22.0 mg/L, which is well within the permit limits for the WWTP
and also just above the concentrations that would be expected were the new filters
operating at optimal performance (-15.0 mg/L),
Page 1 of 2
Rev. 0, 1-10/14

Sept-1
Nov-1
NPDES ©'MR Violation Penalty Worksheet
There was one monthly average mercury violation (31.3% over limit) under
NC0024244, There was also one weekly average violation and a monthly average
TSS violation under the City's SOC; three of three penalized. September DMR
notes, "The Long Creek WWTP exceeded the permitted limits for TSS (1 weekly
avg, & monthly avg.). During this time the Citty's Hwy 52 WTP had a backlog of
alum sludge accumulated in its sedimentation basin which were fed into the
collection system too fast, The City has slowed down this feed rate at the WTP and
began feeding a coagulent to help settle out these solids in the clarifiers, We also
exceeded our monthly avg, limit for mercury. We have began monitoring our
largest user for mercury on a monthly basis and sampling for mercury elsewhere in
our collection system."'
There was one monthly average mercury violation (51 A over limit) for two
sampling events (18.0 ng/L and 18.2 ng/L; permit limit is 12 ng/L), DMR states,
"The Long Creek WWTP exceeded the NPDES permit for mercury. The staff at the
WWTP continues to look for sources of mercury in the collection system and
improve the efficiency of the WWTP."
There was one monthly average mercury violation (24.3 ng/L - 102.1% over limit of
12 ng/L) for two sampling events (24.0 ng/L and 24.5 ng/L). There was also one
TSS violation of monthly average SOC limit of 35.0 mg/L (39.5 mg/L) - DMR
addendum acknowledges the TSS and mercury violations. It notes the WWTP
"continues to experience inhibitory problems with our biological process from the
backlog of alum sludge dumped into the collection system during September and
October 2013. The abundance of solids being absorbed by our biological mass
interferes with metals adsorption, floc formation, and disinfection. We continue to
add coagulants at the clarifiers. We also began adding coagulants to our sludge
wasted to the sludge thickeners to aid in reducing the alum sludge solids being
recycled into the plant during the sludge thickening process,"
Other Relevant Discharge of backwash solids from Hwy 52 WTP to Long Creek WWTP
Information: I started on 9/6/13; discharge was redirected because of SOC for WTP.
I $1,500,00
$1,875,00 i
ultipiier
used
Proposed
Penalty
f Final Penal
Notes: A w:,r
Penalty
Outcome:
Increase
Decrease
Same Q'
Page 2 of 2
Rev, 0, 1-10/14

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOt-ATIONS for:
PERMIT: NC0024244
FACILITY: City of Albemarle - Long Creek WWTP
COUNTY: Stanly
Report Date: 04/22/14
Page: 5 of 6
REGION: Mooresville
Limit Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL I
REPORT PPI LOCATION
12 -2013 001 Effluent
PARAMETER
Mercury, Tota IasH
Concentration
VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED
DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE % OVER LIMIT
12131/13 Monthly
VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
ngll 12 16,63 38,61 Monthly Average Exceeded None Vb
PERMIT; NC0041718 FACILITY: Norwood Clearview LLC - Clearview at Misenheimer
COUNTY: Stanly REGION; Mooresville
mit Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL / VIOLATION UNIT OF
REPORT PPI LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE
CALCULATED
LIMIT VALUE
OVER LIMIT VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
12 -2013 001 Effluent Coliform„ Fecal MF, M-FC 12/16/13 Weekly tt/100m1 400'�'' 880� 120 Daily Maximum Exceeded None
Brath,44.5C
PERMIT: NC0043532 FACILITY: Stanly County - West Stanly WWTP
COUNTY: Stanly REGION: Mooresville
Limit Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL /
VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED
REPORT PPI LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE % OVER LIMIT
12 -2013 002 Effluent pH
VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
12)30/13 3 X week su 6 5,89 1,83 Daily Minimum Not Reached None