NC0024937_Response to Notice (LV-2023-0125) _20230607

CHARLOTTE
W4JER
June 5, 2023 RECEIVED
JUN 0 7 N23
Wastewater Branch
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Charlotte Water, Sugar Creek WWTP — Notice of Violation with Civil Penalty (LV-2023-0125)
To Whom it May Concern:
Recently the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water Resources ("DWR")
issued a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Civil Penalty ("NOV") to the Charlotte Water
("CLTWater") Sugar Creek WWTP. This letter, in conjunction with the Justification for Remission
Request form is being provided to support the CLTWater request for full remission of the entire civil
penalty.
Incomplete Information Provided by DWR
The NOV package received by CLTWater did not include the "Division of Water Resources — Civil Penalty
Assessment' form. This form (referenced in section (a) of the Justification for Remission Request)
details DWR's rationale and supporting information for the 8 assessment factors listed at NCGS 1436-
282.1(b). In the absence of this form CLTWater is unclear how the Sugar Creek WWTP event rises to a
Tier 3 enforcement action (DWR's highest enforcement action.) If DWR declines to provide full remission
of the entire civil penalty amount, CLTWater respectfully requests that this document be provided along
with an additional 30 days for CLTWater to respond to the NOV.
Conditions Beyond CLTWater's Reasonable Control
The condition(s) that caused the reduced UV transmittance are still not known. CLTWater believes the
UV interference was caused by an unauthorized discharge into the collection system. The rapid onset of
the reduced transmittance (Figure 1) is one indicator that this was likely the result of an unauthorized
discharge. Within 4 hours transmittance plummeted from greater than 70% to nearly 30%. This rapid
decrease in transmittance occurred even though the CLTWater operations staff reacted and manually
placed the UV system in 'Maintenance' mode between 18:00hrs and 19:00hrs on 01/02/23. Maintenance
mode means the UV system was operating with all lamps on at 100% power. The sudden loss of
sufficient UV transmittance was not a situation that could have been prepared for or prevented. During
this initial phase of the incident, and throughout the following 24 hours, there was nothing additional
CLTWater staff could have done to correct the conditions that caused the violation of our daily maximum
fecal coliform limit.
Charlotte Water 5100 Brookshire Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28216 charlottewater.org
tv� Operated by the City of Charlotte

CLTWater has Invested Significant Resources
In response to this incident, CLTWater has voluntarily invested significant resources in attempting to
identify the cause(s). CLTWater pretreatment staff have spent many hours inspecting Significant
Industrial Users (SIUs) in the basin. This included site visits and inspection of various production related
records. CLTWater staff has contacted vendors, collected various samples, and performed numerous
analytical tests attempting to determine the cause of the interference. Analyses include COD, iron, total
dissolved solids (TDS), screens of various volatile organic compounds, and a suite of standard metals.
Had any anomalies been identified in this data, this would have helped to further direct the investigation.
However, to date, CLTWater has been unable to determine the source of the interference. The summary
of CLTWater's investigative efforts can be found in Attachment #1.
Even though CLTWater has not been able to identify the cause, this should not discount the significant
costs incurred upon the utility. CLTWater has continued to monitor this situation with the hope to
eventually find evidence that will identify and control the discharge source. As of the date of this letter,
CLTWater has calculated that nearly $3,000 has been spent investigating this incident and cleaning
components of the treatment plant's UV disinfection system. CLTWater has already paid a high price for
this incident, and the additional civil penalty is unnecessary. Payment of this civil penalty by CLTWater is
a poor allocation of funds. CLTWater ratepayers and the waters of NC are better served if this $703.03 is
available for additional investigation, analysis, and response to this incident (possibly preventing future
occurrences).
Lastly, CLTWater requests that DWR consider the intent of the civil penalty. DWR's Guidance for Tiered
Enforcement document (dated September 2019) uses this language... "To better assure a return to
compliance, enforcement tools such as CPAs ... are expected to be used..." This is not a situation where
CLTWater experienced lingering problems, and thus required an impetus to return to compliance.
CLTWater has taken this matter seriously, responded quickly to address the issue, and were fully back in
compliance on the following day, without any involvement of DWR or any other regulatory agency.
Sugar Creek WWTP Compliance History
CLTWater has not exceeded the daily maximum limit of 1,000 cfui100mL in over a decade (Figure 2).
Figure 2 represents 2,576 samples, where only 1 has exceeded the current daily maximum permit limit.
The Sugar Creek WWTP has not been assessed a civil penalty for any violation in the recent past.
CLTWater believes it has been greater than 7 years since a civil penalty has been assessed for any
parameter by DWR. The Sugar Creek WWTP has been designated as an 'Exceptionally Performing
Facility' by DWR for nearly 10 years, allowing for reduced NPDES permit monitoring frequencies. Without
DWR's "Civil Penalty Assessment" form, CLTWater is unable to determine whether our long history of
excellent compliance was taken into consideration, when issuing a Tier 3 NOV with Civil Penalty.
The Sugar Creek WWTP has earned Peak Performance Awards from the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies for about two decades. In 2020 and 2021 Sugar Creek WWTP earned Platinum status
(the highest award possible) and has applied for Platinum for 2022 as well. This is a testament to the
high level of skill and care that CLTWater staff utilize to operate this facility around the clock, and on
every day of the year.
Charlotte Water 5100 Brookshire Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28216 charlottewater.org
d? operated by the City of Charlotte

CLTWater appreciates the opportunity to share these comments and attach documents as supporting
information to the Justification for Remission Request. If you have any questions or require further
information concerning this submission, please feel free to contact Shannon Sypolt, Water Quality
Program Administrator, at [phone] or me at [phone].
Respectf ly,
Joseph ockler
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 — Senior Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney's Office
Charlotte Water 5100 Brookshire Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28216 charlottewater.org
Operated by the City of Charlotte

Case Number:
Assessed Party:
Permit No.:
JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
LV-2023-0125
Charlotte Water
NC0024937
County: Mecklenburg
Amount Assessed: $703.03.
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the "Request For Remission,
Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, 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
evaluating 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 violations) occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual
statements contained in the civil penalty assessment document. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14313-282. t(c), remission of a civil
penalty maybe granted only when one or more of the following five factors apply. 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).
C1,arl4e- W.4er
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 14313-282. 1 (b) were wrongfully applied to the
detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are 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:
Please see CLTWater's response letter (and associated attachments) dated June 2, 2023.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
Charlotte Water )
Charlotte -Sugar Creek WWTP )
PERMIT NO. NCO024937 ) CASE NO. LV-2023-0125
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $703.03 for violation(s) as set forth in the assessment document of the Division
of Water Resources dated May 4, 2023, 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 (30) days from the receipt of the
notice of assessment.
This the 2nd
day of June
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
Joseph Lockler, Operations Chief
5100 Brookshire Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28216
TELEPHONE
[phone]
20 23

Pens
■ Z PLC -SHISH W TRANSMrrrANCE
Figure I
SCADA Transmittance Trend (Portions of January 2"d and 3rd)
95
90
95
eo
u-o moo 18:00 20M
New Chart Chart Length 7 Days 0 Hm 0 Min 0 Sec PK-
zzoo oo:oo ozoo a:oo oc�o 0"0 1000 1zoo
[Mon Jan 02 12:41:27 EST 2023 - Tue Jan 03 20 02:04 EST 2023]
Charlotte Water 5100 Brookshire Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28216 charlottewater.org
ILI' Operated by the City of Charlotte

Figure 2
Sugar Creek WWTP Daily Fecal Coliform Results
Feee) CoOtorm Reudts (pact 10+ yee) ___
Dow ( IlIrM3 to 4-AIM)
. S.I" fwICaWK tab
Charlotte Water 5100 Brookshire Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28216 charlottewater.org
�° operated by the City of Charlotte

Attachment #1
System Protection Investigation Report (Investigation # 2023-005)
Charlotte Water 5100 Brookshire Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28216 charlottewater.org
operated by the City of Charlotte

\ _ 1 ♦Y ". 111 Y l 1 "r,V 1 Vl /
System Protection Investigation Report
Investigation number, Investigator name and email address will auto -populate
when report is submitted.
System Protection
Investigation Number
2023-005
Investigator's Name
Daley, Sarah
WVVTP Basin
SUGAR CREEK WWTP
Incident Date
O1/02/2023
Investigation Name
Sugar Creek UV transmittance
Investigator's Email
Address
[e-mail]. nc.
us
[incident Reporting Information
Date & Time Received
Address
01 /06/2023 01 :30:00
5301 CLOSEBURN RD
PM
City
Person/Agency Name
CHARLOTTE, NC
SHANNON SYPOLT
Zip Code (5 Digit)
Company/Department
28210
CLTWATER EMD
Phone Number
704-634-6984
Contact Person
DONNA SLACHCIAK
Title
WWTP Supervisor
Phone Number
704-361-0203
Fax Number
704-552-8739

VL 1 Y • L11 ill Y L,J II �{.LLLVlI 1�VF/Vl L
1 "r'L L -
Type of Complaint (select all that apply)
❑ r__ Spill ❑
Blockage Overflow Illegal
Dumping
❑ Description Field
Other
Nature of Complaint (explain in detail)
Odor Color
WWTP Impact
Type Nature of Complaint Here
Shannon Sypolt, (CLTWater EMD Water Quality) contacted Sarah Daley (CLTWater System Protection)
on 1 /6/23 to report that Donna Slachciak (Sugar Creek WWTP supervisor) had let him know that
Sugar Creek WWTP experienced low UV transmittance from 112 -1 /3 2023. The transmittance
dropped off around 19:30 on 112. Lamps were put on 100% power in response. The Effluent was
reported as crystal clear with no odors. The lab collected a fecal on 1 /3 at 0938 and Sugar Staff
collected a sample for fecal at 1300. Other lab data such as TSS and CBOD were low. Intensity
sensors were all changed, all sleeves were cleaned and new lamps had been installed on both
channels Bank B on 1 2/1 /22.
The WWTP exceeded its daily fecal coliform limit on 1 /3/23.
UV transmittance returned to normal after about 24 hours, at 18:00 on 1 /3/23.
This issue is now recurring, with similar incidents reported by the WWTP in February and April 2023.
Additional I
Observations
Type Observations Here
Initial Actions
Type initia/Actions Here
Samples were collected at the UV Channel for 624/625, HCD screen, and Metals.
Stephanie Price (CLTWaterSP) contacted SIU Barnhardt on 1 /6/23 as they have been suspected of
impacting UV transmittance in the past due to the use of citric acid in their process. They reported
that they were closed from 12/23/22 - 1 /3/22. They drained their Ludell pit and in -process pipes
during this time- this would have been typical process water discharge. Flow records confirmed
minimal flow from the facility during that time period.
Compliance Specialists were instructed to contact SIUs in the basin to ask if any of them use Ferric
Chloride or Citric Acid as these chemicals have been known to impact UV transmittance.

i usv -—i
Initial Recommendations
Type InNai Recommendations Here
Contact SIUs in the basin about chemical usage and any upsets or operational issues.

\,1 A TV Vl 111 ♦ VJ"5"VlVll A�-J Vl k
1 LL�v T V1 l
1 .. I I 1 1 1 1 .. I n 11 IT T - IT-. IT T .. n T T 11 I/ 1 /--

vL I. • • vI Iaa v vu�a�u.avaa ...[ a L
I u51 J V, /
Analytical data collected at the UV channel did not provide any information as to a potential source
of the transmittance issue.
On 1 /6/2023, Stephanie Price reached out to Barnhardt manufacturing company regarding their
operations from Friday, December 30th through Monday, January 2nd. Stephen Sherill, EHS
Specialist, informed Stephanie that the facility was closed from Friday, December 23rd through
Tuesday, January 3rd for the holiday as well as maintenance. Flow records were sent on 1 /9/2023 to
confirm closure. Records showed flow was drastically decreased but there was still approximately
7000 gallons a day of flow recorded, they said this was due to the Ludell pit and in -process pipes
being drained during maintenance. This facility does utilize citric acid in its process.
Over the course of January 2023 Kevin Heavner (CLTWaterSP) contacted Orbit, Greasecycle, HazMat,
and UniFirst to inquire about their usage of FeC13. Of these industries, only Orbit uses a significant
quantity. Orbit is permitted for the addition of FeC13 as part of their pretreatment system, but the
primary usage for it was to address high phosphorus. Because Orbit was not having issues with
phosphorus in the past they had stopped adding FeC13 in 2022, but began using it on 1 /9/2023.
Orbit did not discharge during the first week of January due to a broken pipe that had frozen.
On 21712023, A.Z. Williams (CLTWaterSP) contacted both A.O. Smith Corporation and Allied Plating
Finishing to ask if either had ferric chloride or citric acid as part of their chemical inventory. Both
A.O. Smith and Allied Plating responded to the inquiry and said that they did not use ferric chloride
or citric acid at their respective facilities at all and that no new chemicals had been added to their
production process.
On 2/8/2023, Stephanie Price contacted Cargill to find out if they use ferric chloride or citric acid at
their facility. Daniel Imouda, facility leader, responded that citric acid is used in their oil processing
at -10 ppm when mixed with oil. The citric acid is kept in secondary containment and there were no
spills at the time of the event.
Shannon Sypolt contacted S Daley on 2113122 to report that Sugar Creek WWTP had experienced
decreased UV transmittance and increased effluent ammonia on 2110/23.
On 2/22/2023 at 0958, A.Z. Williams received a call on the System Protection emergency phone
from Donna Slachciak (Sugatr Creek Plant Manager/ORC). Slachiciak reported that the Sugar Creek
WWTP was experiencing transmittance issues. She said that it had gone from roughly 35 to the low
20's within 2 hours. Slachiak said that they hadn't noticed any abnormalities in the smell or
appearance of the wastewater and that most everything else seemed normal at the plant in terms of
operation. Slachciak mentioned that the plant's weekly sampling was being conducted. Williams
asked Slachciak to collect four samples from the influent and from the UV. Slachiack said that she
could get samples from the primary clarifier influent (PCI) in lieu of the influent. Williams told
Slachciak that he was currently in the field but would be traveling to the Sugar Creek WWTP as soon
as possible. At 1 1 1 7, A.Z. Williams and Hayden Giler (CLTWater SP) arrived at the Sugar Creek WWTP.
They met with Stuart Grogin (Senior WW Operator IV). Grogin took Williams and Giler to the lab to
relinguish the samples that had been collected. Grogin relinguished (2) 1 liter amber bottles
collected from the PCI and (2) 1 liter amber bottles from the FCE. Grogin was able answer several
questions that Williams asked. Grogin said that the PCE Ammonia was relatively high, around 35

..a.., a • • va aai v wu�u�ivaa a.v�va �
mg/I on 2/21 /23 at 1333 but the basin Ammonia didn't spike. This may be in part because around
the same time the valves on the blowers opened all the way up which is atypical. Grogin said that 3
blowers kicked on; it seemed that oxygen demand had increased. The blowers ran from 1420 on
2/21 to 0000 on 2/22. There was no noteble odors at the UV during this latest upset. Sugar Creek
WWTP has not received any new shipments of Aluminum Sulfate or Magnesium Hydroxide in several
weeks. Grogin said that that he hasn't noticed any unsusal growth on equipment and apparatuses at
the plant. Grogin, Williams, and Giler colleced 2 more samples at both the FCE and PCI. All samples
were free of abnormal odors and appearance. Williams and Giler left the Sugar Creek WWTP at 1220
to take the samples collected to the Environmental Services Facility. The lab was asked to perform
COD, Metals, Iron, TDS, HCD, 624, and 625 analysis.
February sample results appeared consistent with what is typical for the sample sites. Minimal iron
data is available for comparison- the Water Quality group agreed to add iron to the analyte list when
metals samples are collected at the PCI and FCE.
On 4/26/2023 at 1 1 32, Stephanie Price received a call on the System protection emergency phone
from Donna Slachciak (Plant Manager/ORC). Slachciak reported that the Sugar Creek WWTP was
experiencing UV transmittance issues. The issue was first noticed during the night shift on the day
prior and two samples were collected from UV effluent. Slachciak stated that when they arrived for
the morning shift the UV transmittance number was back to normal but had dropped back down
later in the morning. Slachciak collected two samples from UV effluent. Slachciak stated that the
operators noticed an orange tint in the wastewater in the cascades. Stephanie Price, Corey Roberts,
and Hayden Giler met with Slachciak and Stuart Grogin (Senior WW Operator IV) at 1205 at the
plant's effluent. Slachciak stated that the foam at the end of the cascades was thicker than normal.
She also stated that they did not see the orange tint anywhere else in the plant or in the rags in the
trash can from the bar screens. Slachciak and Grogin took Price, Giler, and Roberts to the lab to
relinquish the sample. Slachciak relinquished 4 amber bottles to Price who took them to the
Environmental Services facility. The lab was asked to perform COD, Metals, Iron, TDS, HCD, 624,
and 625 analyses.
On 4/27/2023 Stephanie Price and Hayden Giler went to Cargill Inc. at 1200 and met with Jordan
Sanchez. Sanchez was able to walk Price and Giler to the wastewater flow meter and flume. No odors
were noticed at the flume or unusual color. Jordan stated that there had been no upsets with their
pretreatment system or any spills within the last week. Price requested that Sanchez send the flow
records for the last week and copies of their wastewater sampling log. Price also asked if they kept a
log of chemical dosage of the citric acid used in their production process. Sanchez is going to
investigate this and send copies if there is a log. No evidence of a spill was observed during the site
visit.
On 4/27/2023 Stephanie Price and Hayden Giler went to Barnhardt Manufacturing at 1300 and met
with Stephen Sherill. Sherill was able to walk Giler and Price to the wastewater meter and flume. The
discharge in the flume was an orange color that Sherill stated was not abnormal for them. There
were no odors noticed. Price requested that Sherill send the flow records for the last week and
copies of their wastewater sampling log. Price also asked if they kept a log of chemical dosage of the
citric acid used in their production process. Sherill is going to investigate this and send copies if
there is a log. Sherill stated that there had been no spills or issues with the wastewater pretreatment

�L. „ V. .- J I.5U........ F1V.,
i "5a , W. i
system in the past week. No evidence of a spill was observed during the site visit.
On 4/27/2023 Kevin Heavner and Corey Roberts went to HazMat Environmental Services at
approximately 10:50 and met with Neil Danziger. A tour of the treatment area was performed to
observe Pipe 001 as well as the flume and flowmeter. Neil reported that there has been no unusual
business, and much of their discharge has come from the large amount of recent rain. We observed
the discharge was clear and showed no signs of foaming. Discharge records and flow meter readings
are attached below.
On 4/27/2023 Kevin Heavner and Corey Roberts went to Greasecycle at approximately 1 1:10 and
met with Erik Evans. A tour of the treatment area was performed to observe Pipe 001 as well as the
flume and flowmeter. Erik reported that there have been no issues whatsoever and that they have
steadily been expanding their grease trap business; the increased flow has helped stabilize their
treatment process. Through their added controls they have also had a reduction in max flow
violations (none in the previous month). During the visit the dewatering trailer was not present and
there was no flow to observe. Flow data for the past 3-4 days was requested- the industry has a
Signature meter so this was submitted digitally. Flow meter reports are attached below.
On 4/27/2023 Kevin Heavner and Corey Roberts went to Carolina Bioenergy Facility (formerly Orbit)
at approximately 1 1 :30 and met with Miguel Lugo. A tour of the site was performed to observe Pipe
001 as well as the flume and flowmeter. Miguel reported that the site hast not discharged in a few
days due to ongoing upgrades. Pictures from the flow meter are included attached.
On 4/28/2023 Kevin Heavner went to UniFirst at 13:30 and met with Jeff Dabbs. A tour of the site
was performed to observe Pipe 001 as well as the flume and flowmeter. Jeff reported that the site
has not had any significantly different flows, if anything they have been a bit slow recently. During a
discussion about possible colorJeff indicated that the site does use various dyes, small half pound
dry additions which are added to colored towels. Jeff initially stated that the the dyes have not been
used in "months and months," but on further inquiry indicated that they are supposed to be used
with each batch of towels to help them stay looking new, but implied that this has not been done
consistently. When pressed Jeff couldn't clearly state exactly how frequently the dyes are used but
the flume did not show signs of staining or dye and available process samples showed no color. Jeff
reiterated that there had been no change to their operations. Pictures from the flow meter as well as
site pictures are included below.
Sample results from 4/26 appeared consistent with typical results from the UV channel.

\iL l ♦T U1 111Y VJLI�LLL1V11 1\VF./Vl l
1 "r,- V V1 l
Investigation Documents
0 1)
Analytical Data
010323_S-SPEC_FINAL-230103010 (002).PDF
SUGARS-PCI-S-FCE-02.2 2.2 3-DATA.PDF
SUGAR-UVEFFLUENT_04.2 5.23-DATA.PDF
Correspondence
Field Notes
Images
SCADA IAN 2-3 EVERYTHING 24 HR.1PG
SCADA UV IAN 2 1300 TO IAN 3 2000.IPG
SCADA TRANSMITTANCE 2.22.23.IPG
SUGAR EFFLEUNT 4.26.23.IPG
CBF 4-27-23.PDF
HAZMAT 4-27-23.PDF
GREASECYCLE 4-28.PDF
UNIFIRST 4-28.PDF
Investigation Supplemental Report
Supporting Docs
Timeline
Video
1 • // / 1 1 1 •. / • h / I /1 T T T RT.. !1 TT 11 //'1 I/�/�/�1

vLi ♦r vi illy-,.lE....... i wYvi .
Supplemental Observations/Actions/Recommendations (page 2)
Type Supplemental Information Here
1 .. // 1 1 1 1 .. / • !� / A TT T /T /T T.. !l TT 1/ / /1 //1 A.1�1

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
sectelary
RICHARD E. ROGERS. JR.
Director
Certified Mail # 7020 3160 0000 3283 0038
Return Receipt Requested
Angela D Charles, Director
Charlotte Water
4222 Westmont Dr
Charlotte, NC 28217-1030
a SID
ryY WN
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
May 4, 2023
SUBJECT: Notice of Violation and Assessment of Civil Penalty
for Violations of North Carolina General Statute (G.S.) 143 -215. 1 (a)(6)
and NPDES WW Permit No. NCO024937
Charlotte Water
Charlotte -Sugar Creek WWTP
Case No. LV-2023-0125
Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Charles:
This letter transmits a Notice of Violation and assessment of civil penalty in the amount of $703.03 ($520.00 civil penalty
+ $183.03 enforcement costs) against Charlotte Water.
This assessment is based upon the following facts: a review has been conducted of the Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) submitted by Charlotte Water for the month of January 2023. This review has shown the subject facility to be in
violation of the discharge limitations and/or monitoring requirements found in NPDES WW Permit No. NC0024937. The
violations, which occurred in January 2023, are summarized in Attachment A to this letter.
Based upon the above facts, I conclude as a matter of law that Charlotte Water violated the terms, conditions or
requirements of NPDES WW Permit No. NCO024937 and G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) in the manner and extent shown in
Attachment A. In accordance with the maximums established by G.S. 143-215.6A(a)(2), a civil penalty may be assessed
against any person who violates the terms, conditions or requirements of a permit required by G.S. 143-215.1(a).
D North Can.Mna UtPYlmnN of UnFw�nwxal (Z,uF1Y I OF"M—l%Valtt Rt+ to
k1k.—Ak Replma 01W, I h10 Cash Cemet AI I—. Suat Yn 1 Lh�aew7e, Na Ih Grd�na 1NIi5
`..�rii �.��--.�+y 707 M1N.•+9

Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in accordance with authority provided by the
Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality and the Director of the Division of Water Resources, 1, Andrew
H. Pitner, Assistant Regional Supervisor, Mooresville Regional Office hereby make the following civil penalty assessment
against Charlotte Water:
$520.00 1 of 1 violations of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) and Permit No. NC0024937, by discharging wastewater
into the waters of the State in violation of the Permit Daily Maximum for Coliform, Fecal MF,
MFC Broth, 44.5 C
520.00 TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY
183.03 Enforcement Costs
703.03 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining the amount of the penalty I have taken into account the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and the factors set forth at G.S. 143B-282.1(b), which are:
(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;
(2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
(3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
(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
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice, you must do one of the following: RECEIVED
(1) Submit payment of the penalty,
(2) Submit a written request for remission, OR
(3) Submit a written request for an administrative hearing ��'� `3
Option 1: Submit payment of the penalty: NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Payment should be made directly to the order of the Department of Environmental Quality (do not include waiver
form). Payment of the penalty will not foreclose further enforcement action for any continuing or new violation(s).
Please submit payment to the attention of.
Wastewater Branch
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617

Option 2: Submit a written request for remission or mitigation including a detailed justification for such
request:
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. Because a remission request forecloses the option of an administrative hearing,
such a request must be accompanied by a waiver of your right to an administrative hearing and a stipulation and
agreement 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.
In determining whether a remission request will be approved, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS 14313-282.1(b) was 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 evidence presented in support of your request for remission must be submitted in writing. The
Director of the Division of Water Resources will review your evidence and inform you ,of his decision in the matter of
your remission request. The response will provide details regarding the case status, directions for payment, and
provision for further appeal of the penalty to the Environmental Management Commission's Committee on Civil Penalty
Remissions (Committee). Please be advised that the Committee cannot consider information that was not part of the
original remission request considered by the Director. Therefore, it is very important that you prepare a complete and
thorough statement in support of your request for remission.
In order to request remission you must complete and submit the enclosed "Request for Remission of Civil_ Penalties,
Waiver of Rijzht to an Administrative Hearing and Stipulation of Pacts" form within thirty (30) days of receipt of this
notice The Division of Water Resources also requests that you complete and submit the enclosed "Justification for
Remission Request."
Both forms should be submitted to the following address:
Wastewater Branch
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617

Option 3: File a petition for an administrative hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings:
If you wish to contest any statement in the attached assessment document you must file a petition for an administrative
hearing. You may 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 of this notice. A petition is considered filed
when it is received in the Office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office of Administrative
Hearings 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 maybe 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 NCGS § 150B-23.2) is received in the
Office of Administrative Hearings within seven (7) business days following the faxed or electronic transmission. You
should contact the Office of Administrative Hearings with all questions regarding the filing fee and/or the details of the
filing_ process.
The mailing address and telephone and fax numbers for the Office of Administrative Hearings are as follows:
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 6714
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
One (1) copy of the petition must also be sewed on DEQ as follows:
Mr. William F. Lane, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
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 letter, 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, please contact Wes Bell with the Division of Water Resources staff of the Mooresville Regional
Office at [phone] or via email at _°.Q_j1 6,
Sincerely,
CA
Ooc//u��S��ig����n��eduby:
F181 FROA2D84M...
Andrew H. Pitner, P.G., Assistant Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Mooresville Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
ATTACHMENTS
Cc: WQS Mooresville Regional Office - Enforcement File (Laserfiche)
NPDES Compliance/Enforcement Unit - Enforcement File (Laserfiche)

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
Case Number:
LV-2023-0125
Assessed Party:
Charlotte Water
Permit No.:
NC0024937
County: Mecklenburg
Amount Assessed: $703.03
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the `Request For Remission,
Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, 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
evaluating 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. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143B-282.1(c), remission of a civil
penalty may be granted only when one or more of the following five factors apply. 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 N.C.G.S. 143B-282.1(b) were wrongfully applied to the
detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are 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 frorn performing the activities necessary to achieve
compliance).
EXPLANATION:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADNIINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
} STIPULATION OF FACTS
Charlotte Water }
Charlotte -Sugar Creek WWTP }
PERMIT NO. NCO024937 } CASE NO. LV-2023-0125
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $703.03 for violation(s) as set forth in the assessment document of the Division
of Water Resources dated May 4.2023, 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 (30) days from the receipt of the
notice of assessment.
This the
day of
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
SIGNATURE
20

ATTACHMENT A
Charlotte Water
CASE NUMBER: LV-2023-0125
PERMIT: NCO024937 REGION: Mooresville
FACILITY: Charlotte -Sugar Creek WWTP COUNTY: Mecklenburg
LIMIT VIOLATION(S)
SAMPLE LOCATION:
Outfall 001 - Effluent
Violation Report
Unit of Limit Calculated % Over Violation Penalty
Date Month/Yr
Parameter
Frequency Measure Value Value Limit Type Amount
1/3/2023 1-2023
Coliform, Fecal MF,
2 X week #/100ml 1000 2,350 135.0 Daily $520.00
MFC Broth, 44.5 C
Maximum
Exceeded