Charlotte Water NCG11 Comments

CHARLOTTE
Wt)TER
May 16, 2023
Ms. Brittany Cook (via email)
Mr. Isaiah Reed
NCDEQ— Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Subject: Charlotte Water Comments-Draft NPDES General Permit for Treatment Works (NCG110000)
Ms. Cook and Mr. Reed:
Recently the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality— Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land
Resources ("DEMLR") posted the Draft NPDES General Permit for Treatment Works ("NCG110000",
"NCG11", or"Draft Permit") on DEMLR's website. Charlotte Water(CLTWater) is a department of the
City of Charlotte, which owns and operates 5 facilities that are covered by this permit. CLTWater has
significant interest regarding this Draft Permit. This letter provides CLTWater's comments for your
consideration and to make specific requests regarding the final NCG11 permit. We have underlined our
specific requests throughout the document for easy reference.
Extension of Public Comment Period
CLTWater respectfully requests that DEMLR extend the public comment period for a minimum of 30 days.
CLTWater monitored the DEMLR website consistently and carefully leading up to the release of this Draft
Permit, and first noticed that it was posted on 04/17/23. To our knowledge DEMLR provided no outreach
or stakeholder engagement regarding this permit prior to the opening of the comment period. There are
many facilities across North Carolina (NC)that will be affected by the proposed changes in this Draft
Permit. By DEMLR allowing only 30 days to assess the significant changes and make substantive
comments, CLTWater does not have the necessary time to review the numerous and substantial changes
to the Draft Permit and is unable to adequately assess the resources necessary to fully comply with
NCG11 upon issuance. Without a minimum 30-day extension to the comment period, CLTWater will be
forced to appeal the permit. We respectfully request this extension without waiving CLTWater's right to
appeal if unacceptable conditions remain in NCG11.
CLTWater heard significant changes were being considered to NCG11 and engaged DEMLR staff in
September of 2022 regarding the potential changes. CLTWater specifically asked whether outreach
efforts were anticipated, such as webinars or meetings, that would detail expected changes. In DEMLR's
email response dated September 27, 2022, we were advised to continue"...keeping an eye on the
General Permits section of our website for updates/public notice links as the time approaches next year
for further information." Additionally, CLTWater staff routinely receive email communications via
DEMLR's email listserv, however no notification or any additional information was released prior to the
issuance of the Draft Permit. Stakeholders were notified via email on the same day as the opening of the
Charlotte Water 5100 Brookshire Blvd,Charlctte,NC 28216 charlottewater.org
R!?? Operated by the City of Charlotte

30-day comment period. For these reasons, CLTWater feels that DEMLR did not appropriately engage
the regulated community.
Restructuring of the General Permit
DEMLR has decided to completely restructure the format of NCG11. Absent substantive stakeholder
engagement, this may seem insignificant to DEMLR. However, CLTWater recently completed extensive
updates to our facility Integrated Contingency Plans (ICP) to meet both NCG11 and Federal SPCC
requirements, and there are numerous references in the document to specific sections of NCG11. These
references aid staff in understanding how NCG11 drives many of the practices at our facilities. If the
Draft Permit remains as written, many of these updates will instantly be outdated. This imposes
unnecessary administrative costs on a Publicly Owned Treatment Works heavily invested in protecting
the waters of NC. CLTWater requests that DEMLR revert to the current permit format, incorporating new
requirements as necessary within the existing permit structure.
Part B-5— Evaluation of Stormwater Outfalls
Part B-5 of NCG11 (and any associated language) is overly restrictive, placing onerous requirements on
the permittee without significant benefits, and should revert to the language used in past iterations of
NCG11. CLTWater has numerous outfalls that discharge groundwater year-round. CLTWater expects
many other municipalities across the state have this same condition since most water resource recovery
facilities are situated along waterways low in elevation, and inherently close to the water table. It stands
to reason that outfalls (ditches and channels) in this landscape position will carry some groundwater.
Requiring the permittee to"...identify the source and record whether the discharge is otherwise permitted
by rule..." is unclear. Groundwater being discharged continually through an outfall could conceivably
contain constituents that have never been present onsite at the facility. Discharged groundwater could be
the result of impacts and contributions to the aquifer from miles away. Identifying the source will require
extensive and expensive groundwater studies.
Additionally, requiring the permittee to"On an annual basis...evaluate the environmental significance of
the non-stormwater discharges and include a summary written record and certification statement..." is
problematic. To conduct this evaluation and to be required to perform it annually would be burdensome
and expensive, yielding little environmental benefit. As with surface water, groundwater characteristics
may change over time, driving CLTWater to assume an extensive annual evaluation could be required.
CLTWater does not have the specialized staff to make this proposed annual evaluation, requiring the
need to hire an external environmental consultant.
Part B-7— Facility Inspections
Part B-7 of the Draft Permit is confusing and unclear about what DEMLR expects. DEMLR entitles the
section "Facility Inspections", but then refers only to BMP inspections. BMP evaluations are currently
addressed in Part II.A.2(c)of NCG11, and Facility Inspections are addressed in Part II.A.5. Is DEMLR
intentionally merging these two separate practices?
In Part B-7(a), DEMLR now requires all facility inspection results to be signed but does not indicate who
should be responsible for this. Is this at the same level of signing an eDMR, or would operational staff at
the facility be sufficient?
Charlotte Water 510-1 RrookshirF�Rluri,Charlotte,NC 39216 rharlottewater.org
t Operated by the City of C-zarlotte

Part B-7(b) seems to be dealing with structural BMPs related to sediment control at the facility. Many of
the BMPs at CLTWater facilities are procedural, but since this section is addressing "Facility Inspections",
would this also apply?
CLTWater requests that Part B-7 be removed from the permit, and the clear and concise language of the
current NCG11 (references above) be retained.
Part B-10—Solvent Management Plan
Without stakeholder engagement, DEMLR has developed a new requirement that is not applicable to
Treatment Works. Water resource recovery facilities only use solvents in small quantities. CLTWater
facilities address the small quantities of solvents housed on site by updating and maintaining Integrated
Contingency Plans. The current version of NCG11 (via Part II.A.1 and II.A.2) already requires that
owners identify potential pollutants and inspect the facility to ensure they are not reaching the stormwater
system. CLTWater suspects DEMLR is trying to apply to Treatment Works, a standard that better suits
other industrial categories. This `one size fits all' approach is unsuitable and will force reallocation of
resources to an endeavor that will yield no appreciable pollution prevention results.
The requirement to make a certification that no solvents have been "...exposed to rainfall or stormwater
runoff..." with each discharge monitoring report is problematic. If a solvent spill does occur, CLTWater
would work to report it appropriately, but could not knowingly make such a certification, as it would be
contradictory. CLTWater would then be unable to provide the required certification if a spill were to occur
at our facility, causing us to be non-compliant with NCG11.
CLTWater requests that Part B-10 (and all associated language throughout the permit) be removed.
Part B-11 - Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Program
The current version of NCG11 says that the Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Program
"...shall establish schedules of inspections, maintenance, and housekeeping activities..." CLTWater feels
DEMLR is increasing the workload of water resource recovery facility staff without providing any evidence
that suggests the current approach is lacking.
Part B-11(b) requires development of a plan for disposal of lubricants and fuel. Since this is already
regulated by federal law, it is unnecessary in this permit.
CLTWater requests that Part B-11 be removed from the permit, and the clear and concise language of
the current NCG11 (Part II.A.4) be retained.
Part B-12 - Employee Training
CLTWater has, at times, used online training modules to train facility staff regarding stormwater issues.
This section of the permit requires a trainee's "signature." We respectfully request this language be
amended to allow for completion of electronic sessions. We suggest the following: "The training shall be
documented by the date, signature (or if performed electronically, an individual identifier such as an
employee ID number), and printed or typed name of each employee trained."
Charlotte Water 510-1 RrookshirF�Rluri,Charlotte,NC 39216 rharlottewater.org
t Operated by the City of C-zarlotte

This section is overly proscriptive in items (a)-(I). POTW's can prioritize and train on the most important
stormwater issues at their specific facility, and time spent on the activities listed in (a)-(I) could detract
from training on core functions at the Treatment Works that could have more potential to affect
stormwater quality. Requiring the permittee to train on specific topics such as spent solvent
management, sanding, painting, blasting procedures, used battery management, etc. is not an efficient
use of the limited training hours available.
CLTWater requests that items (a)through (1) be deleted from this section.
Part B-16 -Annual On-Line SWPPP Certification
An annual on-line certification is unnecessary. CLTWater maintains this certification on site, and it is
available for inspection by DEMLR. Other permit-required documentation is maintained on site, not
requiring annual submittal. As with other requirements in this Draft Permit, this needlessly adds to the
administrative workload for CLTWater, creates more opportunities for non-compliance, and provides no
further protections to the waters of NC.
CLTWater requests that Part B-16 (and all associated language throughout the permit) be removed.
Part C-3 - Residuals Management
Part C-3 of the Draft Permit is redundant. Residuals at water resource recovery facilities are regulated by
DEQ through NPDES (point source) and Non-Discharge permits. CLTWater needs to understand the
basis for the inclusion of this requirement in NCG11, when it is already covered by other permits. This
adds to the administrative workload for CLTWater, creates more opportunities for non-compliance, and
provides no further protections to the waters of NC.
CLTWater requests that Part C-3 (and all associated language throughout the permit) be removed.
Part C-4 -Corrective Actions
Clarity is needed in this part of the Draft Permit. DEMLR needs to elucidate "...a facility fails to perform
satisfactorily..." If the intent is to respond to permit non-compliance, then this should be explicitly stated.
The terms"nuisance condition" and "facility", if they are to remain in NCG11, must be clearly defined in
Part J of NCG11. As it stands, these are subjective terms, and lend themselves to misinterpretation and
increased risk for all permittees.
CLTWater requests that Part C-4 be significantly edited, and the necessary definitions be added to the
Draft Permit.
Part C-5 - Draw Down of Treatment Facilities for Essential Maintenance
Clarity is needed in this part of the draft permit. Is "Treatment Facilities" referring to stormwater control
measures (SCM)? If so, the language needs to be standardized throughout the permit to avoid
confusion.
Charlotte Water 510-1 RrookshirF�Rluri,Charlotte,NC 39216 rharlottewater.org
t Operated by the City of C-zarlotte

Proceeding with the assumption that this part is referring to SCMs, this language puts CLTWater in an
untenable position. It's possible that SCMs may need to be drawn down for maintenance in order to
maintain compliance, however, there seems to be no provision for this. A POTW cannot draw down if
benchmark values aren't met, but won't meet benchmark values during the next rain event if maintenance
is not performed. Pumping potentially large volumes of water back into the wastewater treatment train is
rarely feasible.
Finally, the requirements in Part C-5 are overly proscriptive. CLTWater has a significant stake (from the
compliance standpoint and financially)to properly maintain SCMs. At one of our five facilities CLTWater
has over 20 SCMs. Drawdowns performed by CLTWater would take significant time and resources away
from other necessary activities, and if performed by a third party may be prohibitively expensive.
CLTWater requests that Part C-5 (and all associated language throughout the permit) be removed.
Parts C-6 (Bypasses of Stormwater Treatment Facilities), C-7(Upsets), & C-8 (Required Notice for
Bypass or Upset)
CLTWater seeks significant clarification of the language in these parts of the permit. Is the term
"Stormwater Treatment Facilities" referring to SCMs? CLTWater suggests clarifying the term by providing
a definition in Part J of NCG11.
New language has been added to the initial statement in Part C-6. Enforcement action can now be taken
against a permittee for a bypass "...unless the permittee provides engineering evidence..." that the three
enumerated criteria are met. The term "engineering evidence" is ambiguous and will likely lead to
inconsistent enforcement across the state, as each DEMLR region informally defines this term for their
permittees on a case-by-case basis. Charlotte Water requests that the phrase "unless the permittee
provides engineering evidence"be deleted from Part C-6.
CLTWater requests that Parts C-6, C-7, & C-8 be clarified with specific language and definitions or
deleted from the permit entirely.
Part D-1 —Visual Inspections
Section (b) requires that qualitative monitoring be performed with each analytical monitoring event. As
detailed later in this letter, CLTWater contends that visual monitoring is sufficient.
Section (d) requires an evaluation of"Deposition at or immediately below the outfall." Many Treatment
works are located along waterways that routinely deposit sediment along their route. CLTWater has
numerous stormwater outfalls that are along creekbanks where deposition is constantly present, or
immediately below the outfall which is not an indication of the soil stability at our water resource recovery
facility, but merely a natural function of the stream.
CLTWater requests that Part D-1(b) and the eighth bullet point in Part D-1(d) be deleted.
Part E—Analytical Monitoring of Stormwater Discharges
Charlotte Water 510-1 RrookshirF�Rluri,Charlotte,NC 39216 rharinttewater.org
t Operated by the City of C-zarlotte

CLTWater has numerous concerns regarding this portion of the Draft Permit. CLTWater disagrees that
analytical monitoring is warranted and exacts a high cost while providing little to no additional
environmental benefit.
Operational/Financial Costs
CLTWater has a duty to wisely use ratepayer dollars to fund work, which includes the use of staff
time. The staff at our water resource recovery facilities fully utilize all available work hours to
maintain plant operations, requiring an external third party be hired to provide these analytical
monitoring services. With no prior preliminary draft permit discussion held between DEMLR,
Charlotte Water or other POTWs across the state, Charlotte Water has had insufficient time to
procure these services. Additionally, since CLTWater was unaware of these new requirements,
appropriate funding has not been requested and may not be available. In this instance, DEMLR
seems to have not considered the costs associated with their proposals, nor the actions or
resources that are required by municipalities to achieve compliance upon permit issuance.
Technical Basis
In the Draft Factsheet, DEMLR asserts that"...Regional Office staff inspections have identified
problems at facilities in the treatment of industrial, commercial, or municipal sewage treatment.
Particularly, is the event that the sewage treatment lines can, and have been found to leak...into
the stormwater conveyance system." This statement seems to broadly categorize all Treatment
Works facilities into the same group with this alleged violator(s). CLTWater asserts that, along
with many other municipalities across the state, it does not fit into this category. Because of this,
CLTWater is requesting details on the specific cases that are referred to by DEMLR. CLTWater
contends that pursuing enforcement actions against the alleged violator(s)would be more
effective than applying such broad and resource-intensive requirements (quarterly or greater
analytical monitoring, reporting of benchmark exceedances to DEMLR Regional Offices, and
possible development of Action Plans)to an entire industrial sector.
In the Draft Factsheet, DEMLR acknowledges that Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) requirements can be met through the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Since this is the case, and has been the
approach for some time, please provide CLTWater with the rationale for why BMPs are now
inadequate.
There was not information provided regarding how the benchmark value for fecal coliform was
established. DEMLR cites the Class C water quality standard of 200/100 ml for fecal coliform but
does not explain how an instantaneous benchmark value of 1,000/100 ml relates to this. The
water quality standard for fecal coliform in class C waters [15A NCAC 02B .0211(7)] states that
"...violations of this Item are expected during rainfall events..." Without some type of statistical
relationship, it is hard to see how DEMLR determined this benchmark value. DEMLR correctly
points out in the Draft Factsheet that in-stream values (water quality standards) aren't practical for
a stormwater benchmark. CLTWater agrees with this statement and is trying to ascertain what
makes the proposed benchmark value more valid. Please provide us with the technical basis for
this benchmark value, since it was not included in the Draft Factsheet.
When reviewing requirements for TSS, CLTWater does not understand the rationale undergirding
the benchmark value of 100 mg/L (for most permittees). 15A NCAC 02B .0211(8) provides no
numeric water quality standard, thus DEMLR seems to be establishing this benchmark value
based on:
Charlotte Water 510-1 RrookshirF�Rluri,Charlotte,NC 39216 rharlottewater.org
t Operated by the City of C-zarlotte

1. A 30-year-old study, and
2. The fact that DEMLR uses it in other industrial stormwater permits
Neither of these directly relate to North Carolina's water quality standard, and the latter seems to
be included only because it has been included in other industrial stormwater permits, which is not
a technical basis.
For pH, the NC water quality standard is 6.0-9.0 s.u. Since most water quality standards allow for
mixing zones, it is hard to imagine a situation where a Treatment Works facility would cause a
water quality standard violation with typical stormwater discharges. In order to impact most
streams (post-mixing) a spill of an on-site chemical would likely have had to occur. These types
of situations are addressed by the Draft Permit elsewhere.
Based on the imposed costs and without providing a sound technical basis that outlines the need for such
requirement, CLTWater requests that Part E (and all associated language throughout the permit) be
deleted.
Part G —Other Occurrences that must be Reported
For the purposes of maintaining an accurate permit document, please correct the spelling of the word
`Occurrence' in the title of this section. Also, the text refers to "Table 6 below", but the table is entitled
"Table 7: Other Occurrences that Shall Be Reported." Please reconcile this discrepancy.
On the first row of Table 7, CLTWater would like clarification on the phrase "Visible sediment deposition in
a stream or wetland." Does DEMLR intend for this to only apply to sedimentation that is caused by the
permittee? If so, this should be clearly stated. Otherwise, this entire row is beyond the scope of this
industrial stormwater permit and should be deleted.
Part H-15—Action Plan Submittal and Approval
This part of the permit deals with the requirement to develop an Action Plan once a permittee enters Tier
Three. CLTWater is requesting that this section be removed from the permit, in accordance with our"Part
E -Analytical Monitoring of Stormwater Discharges" comments above.
Part 1-1(c)—Compliance Schedule
This part of the permit provides facilities that have existing permits 6 months to implement all changes to
the SWPPP. CLTWater will need an extended timeframe to implement all the extensive changes to the
SWPPP that DEMLR has proposed in this iteration of the Draft Permit. Arranging for analytical monitoring
alone would take significant time, staff, and financial resources. CLTWater will need adequate time to
adjust staff work assignments, train employees, amend budgets, obtain cost estimates, address safety
concerns, and develop required documentation.
CLTWater requests that Part 1-1(c) be amended to allow for implementation over 24 months.
Charlotte Water 510-1 RrookshirF�Rluri,Charlotte,NC 39216 rharinttPwater.org
t Operated by the City of C-zarlotte

Part J— Definitions
The `Bypass'definition needs clarification. What is the definition referring to by stating "...or the diversion
of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility including the collection system..."? Is this
addressing the stormwater system on site, or the wastewater treatment train? There are legitimate
situations where bypassing the stormwater collection system is warranted and appropriate. Spill
response is an obvious situation where bypass of the stormwater collection system (and potentially
SCMs)would be needed to protect infrastructure. Clearly, the contaminant would need to be treated
elsewhere, but bypassing the system needs to be addressed more specifically in this definition.
The term "nuisance condition", if it is to remain in NCG11, must be clearly defined in this part of the
permit.
The term "Stormwater Treatment Facilities" is vague and unclear. If it is to remain in NCG11, it must be
clearly defined in this part of the permit.
Closing Comments
CLTWater appreciates your consideration of our requests and comments. While in agreement with many
of the comments submitted by the North Carolina Water Quality Association, our comments are specific to
CLTWater's needs and expectations. If you have any questions or require further information concerning
this letter, please feel free to contact Shannon Sypolt, Water Quality Program Administrator, at(704) 336-
4581 or me at [phone].
Respectfully,
5. .[,
Joseph Lockler
Operations Chief, Charlotte Water
CC:
Ron Hargrove- Deputy Director, Charlotte Water
Shannon Sypolt-Water Quality Program Administrator, Charlotte Water
Maggie Macomber—Technical Services Manager, Charlotte Water
Karen Weatherly-Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney's Office
Charlotte Water 510-1 RrookshirF�Rluri,Charlotte,NC 39216 rharinttewater.org
t Operated by the City of C-zarlotte