NCG110012_MONITORING INFO_20130211

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
NCG PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
/v
DOC TYPE
❑ HISTORICAL FILE
MONITORING REPORTS
DOC DATE
❑ Q u Ig D a) I
YYYYM M DD

F I'LE
-Ala
MUM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality .
Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P.E. John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
February 11, 2013
Ms. Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Superintendent — Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Sugar Creek WWTP
Stormwater Permit No. NCG1 10012
Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Jarrell:
Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the subject
facility on February 7, 2013. Please inform the facility's Operator -in -Responsible (ORC) of our findings by
forwarding a copy of the enclosed report.
The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Wes Bell at [phone], or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
-Michael L. Parker
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
Enclosure:
Inspection Report
cc: Rusty Rozzelle, MCWQP
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Customer Servioe: 1-877-623.6748
Internet: www ricwaterquahty.org
NorthCarotina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity t Affirmative Action Employer - 30% Recycled110 o Post Consumer paper

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCG110012 Effective: 06/01/08 Expiration: 05/31/13 Owner: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Chariotte-Sugar Creek WWTP
County: Mecklenburg ,
5301 Closeburn Rd
Region: Mooresville
Charlotte NC 28217
Contact Person: Jacqueline A Jarrell Title: Superintendent Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Certification: Phone:
On -site representative
Donna Marie Slachciak
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative
Shannon Stephen Sypolt
Phone: [phone]
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 02107/2013
Primary Inspector: Wesley N Bell
Secondary Inspector(s):
Entry Tim 09:40 AM
�- _�•C.'�
Exlt Time: 11:55 AM
f l
phone: [phone]
Ext.2192
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Municipal WWTP > 1 MGD, Stormwater Discharge, COC
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
N Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: NCG110012 Qwnor - Facility: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Inspection Date: 02/07/2013 Inspection Typo: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Page: 2

i
Permit: NCG110012 Owner - Facility: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Inspection Date: 02/07/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) map?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
■
❑
❑
❑
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: CMU has developed an Integrated Contingency Plan (SWPPP and SPCC)
for this facility. The records were organized and well maintained. Employee training
was performed in November 2012 and facility stormwater inspections were performed in
June 2012 and October 2012.
Qualitative Monitoring Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Qualitative monitoring events were performed in June 2012 and December
2012.
Analytical Monitoring Yea No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
# Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring from Vehicle Maintenance areas? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:
Permit and Outfalls Yes No NA NE
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Were all outtalls observed during the inspection? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# If the facility has representative outfall status, is it properly documented by the Division? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Page: 3

Permit: NCG110012 Owner - Facility: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Inspection Date: 02/07/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges?
Comment: Overall, the site grounds were well maintained. The facility staff have
identified a total of fourteen stormwater outfalls (#13 previously removed); however, only
thirteen will need to evaluated during rainfall events. Note: Outfali #15 is exempt due to
area only used for vehicle parking.
The last evaluation for non-stormwater discharges was performed in July 2012.
Page: 4

June 28, 2009
vvn
J U L 6 2009
Ms. Marcia Allocco
DENR/DWQ/Water Quality Section [�
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit NCG110012,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Response to comments in Inspection Report
Dear Ms. Allocco:
CMU received the inspection report dated June 5, 2009 relating to the Stormwater Compliance
Evaluation Inspection at the Sugar Creek WWTP completed on May 19, 2009. With this letter, we are
responding to specific items in the "Additional Comments" section of the report. The specific item
numbers are 2,4, and 5.
2. Outfall 50 receives piped runoff from a treatment area of the plant and has a direct conveyance to
the receiving stream. This .should be addressed immediately.
This treatment area is referring to is near the grit facility. There is not an illicit connection (plant drain
connected to storm drain) here. I believe the concern was that if the grit removal equipmerit overflowed, there
is nothing to stop the flow from reaching the stormwater collection system and going directly into creek. Ms.'
Maggie Macomber discussedthis situation with Ms.'Hood in a telephone conversation following-the'inspection.
Ms. Macomber suggested that the area be evaluated for possible improvements. We would then make the
improvements as part of our Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Macomber followed up with an email
following the phone conversation that included the following statement
- We discussed your concerns about possible equipment overflows at the grit facility and that we can
consider ways in our CIP process to prevent any overflows from reaching the outfall."
This, in fact is what we will do in order to correct this situation. Sugar Creek will be undergoing extensive work
for both improvements and expansion. We will determine the extent of what needs to be done and then
determine how we will make it and when it can be done. We can provide a status to you as we determine what
improvements can be made.
4. A discharge was observed at #8 with a TRC value of 170ug/I.
The permit allows for non -contaminated groundwater and potable water to enter the stormwater collection
system. One thing we are doing is running tests to determine if the water is potable. This is the TRC test. We
can also run tests to determine if the water could be groundwater. We will begin to test for nitrates and
alkalinity at Sugar Creek along with TRC, as we do at our other plants to help determine the type of water. Low
nitrate and high alkalinity is an indication that it is not plant or process (process/NPW) water.
In addition, We will repair potable water pipes as we find the leaks if it is financially feasible to do so..•For'
persistent potable water leaks that we are not able to repair, we will continue to run TRCs every six months to
confirm that it is still potable. If it is not potable, then we will run the other tests to rule out process/NPW
flows. If the flow is process/NPW then we will find the leak and correct it. All sampling records will be kept in
the SWPPP.
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E. • Environmental Management Division r Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive • Charlotte, NC 28217 0 704/336-4460 0 Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

5. Most outfalls at Sugar Creek WWTP East could not be viewed due to the overgrowth of vegetation.
With the WWTP's proximity to the receiving stream and potable water line leaks that have occurred,
the headwalls should be kept so that they are easy to view.
We will ensure adequate access to all outfalls for inspection and monitoring by adding this task to our facility
maintenance program required by the Stormwater General Permit. We will perform the maintenance activity
(bush hogging) every fall and spring and other times as necessary.
I hope that my explanations provide the information you requested. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me at 704-336-4460.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Environmental Management Division Supt.
C: Robert Krebs, NCDWQ - Mooresville
Rusty Rozzelle, LUESA
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E. • Environmental Management Division • Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive • Charlotte, NC 28217 • 704/336-4460 • Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
June 5, 2009
Ms. Jaqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Environmental Management Superintendent
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
4000 Westmont Drive
'Charlotte, NC 28217
Subject: Notice of Deficiency
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCG 110012
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Jarrell:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the
subject facility on May 19, 2009 by Ms. Donna Hood of this Office.
This report is being issued as a Notice of Deficiency due to conditions found at the subject facility on the day of
the inspection. It is requested that a written response be submitted to this Office by July 6, 2009 addressing
numbers 2, 4, and 5 in the Additional Comments section. In responding, please address your comments to the
attention of Ms. Marcia Allocco.
The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions concerning this report, please
do not hesitate to contact Ms. Hood or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
'Robert B. Krebs
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
Enclosure
cc: Rusty Rozelle, MCWQP
DH
Mooresville Regional office
Location: 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 One
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina
Internet: www.ncmaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity', Af4rmativs Action Employer - 50% Racycle l0% Post Consumer paper +' ' F' PI M11i1

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCG110012 Effective: 06/01/08 Expiration: 05/31/13 Owner: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Charlotte -Sugar Creek WWTP
County: Mecklenburg 5301 Close Burn Rd
Region: Mooresville
Charlotte NC 28210
Contact Person: Jacqueline A Jarrell Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
24 hour contact name Roy Purgason Phone: [phone]
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 05/1912009 ntry Time: 09/01'' E /lime. 1 C:30 PM
E
Primary Inspector: Donna Hood, %1 } df Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):y ''i� %� Ext.2193
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type. Municipal WWTP > 1MGD, Stormwater Discharge, COC
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: NCGI10012 Owner - Facility: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Inspection Date: 0511912009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
During the inspection the following issues were raised with the following outfalls:
1. It was noted that some outfalls at the facility did not meet the State requirements for monitored outfall status. They are
numbers 12 and 14 on Sugar Creek WWTP West area. Recommendations are as follows:
#12-currently receives runoff from Tyvola Road -not required to be monitored for this permit
#14-currently receives runoff from overland flow -not required to be monitored for this permit
Monitoring at these outfalls may be required per City of Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County requirements. Those
agencies should be consulted for those determinations. The monitoring status at these two outfalls may change after the
new WWTP is built at Sugar Creek. Both should be re-evaluated as the expansion ensues.
2. Outfall 5o receives piped runoff from a treatment area of the plant and has a drect conveyance to the receiving
stream. This should be addressed immediately.
3. Outfall 13 receives flow from adjacent neighborhoods as well as a treatment area of the WWTP. Monitoring should
occur prior to the neighborhood's stormwater commingling with the WWTP stormwater.
4. A discharge was observed at #8 with a TRC value of 170 ug/L.
5. Most outfalls at Sugar Creek WWTP East could not be viewed due to the overgrowth of vegetation. With the WWTP's
proximity to the receiving stream and potable water line leaks that have occurred, the headwalls should be kept so that
they are easy to view.
Page: 2

11
Permit: NCG110012 Owner - Facility: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Inspection Date: 05/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan?
# Does the Plan include a General Location (UISGS) map?
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"?
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
# Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
# Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
# Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
# Is the. Plan reviewed and updated annually?
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented?
Comment: The SPPP was last updated in 04/2009. The plan was last certified on
5.26.2009.
Qualitative Monitoring
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually?
Comment: The facility currently stores records on site. All monitoring has been
performed as required by the permit.
Permit and Outfalls
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site?
# Were all outfalls observed during the inspection?
# If the facility has representative outfall status, is it properly documented by the Division?
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges?
Comment: A discharge was seen on the day of the inspection at outfall #8. The TRC
value on the discharge was 170 ug/L. Due to the age of some of the piping, the facility
has had problems with potable water line leaks. These leaks have been doumented to
have entered the stormwater collection system. Many outfalls were covered by
vegetation at the time of the inspection.
- alp •IA \IC
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■•❑❑❑
❑ N ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 3

4D
CCOD
C 4AJR1.j0 'M_
June 28, 2009
Ms. Marcia Allocco JUL 6 2009
DENR/DWQ/Water Quality Section
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Subject; Compliance Evaluation Inspection Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit NCG110012,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Response to comments in Inspection Report
Dear Ms. Allocco:
CMU received the inspection report dated June 5, 2009 relating to the Stormwater Compliance
Evaluation Inspection at the Sugar Creek WWTP completed on May 19, 2009. With this letter, we are
responding to specific items in the "Additional Comments" section of the report. The specific item
numbers are 2,4, and 5.
2. Outfall 50 receives piped runoff from a treatment area of the plant and has a direct conveyance to
the receiving stream. This should be addressed immediately.
This treatment area is referring to is near the grit facility. There is not an illicit connection (plant -drain
connected to storm drain) here. I believe the'concern was that if the grit removal equipment overflowed, there
is nothing to stop the flow from reaching the'stormwater collection system,and going directly into creek. Ms.
Maggie Macomber discussed this situation with Ms. Hood in a telephone conversation following the inspection.
Ms. Macomber suggested that the area be evaluated for possible improvements. We would then make the
improvements as part of our Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Macomber followed up with an email
following the phone conversation that included the following statement
• We discussed your concerns about possible equipment overflows at the grit facility and that we can
consider ways in our CIP process to prevent any overflows from reaching the outfall."
This, in fact is what we will do in order to correct this situation. Sugar Creek will be undergoing extensive work
for both improvements and expansion. We will determine the extent of what needs to be done and then
determine how we will make it and when it can be done. We can provide a status to you as we determine what
improvements can be made.
4. A discharge was observed at #8 with a TRC value of 170ug/I.
The permit allows for non -contaminated groundwater and potable water to enter the stormwater collection
system. One thing we are doing is running tests to determine if the water is potable. This is the TRC test. We
can also run tests to determine if the water could be groundwater. We will begin to test for nitrates and
alkalinity at Sugar Creek along with TRC, as we do at our other plants to help determine the type of water. Low
nitrate and high alkalinity is an indication that it is not plant or process (process/NPW) water.
In addition, we will repair potable water pipes as we find the leaks if it is financially feasible to do so. For
persistent potable water leaks that we are not able to repair, we will continue to run TRCs every six months.to
confirm 'that it is'still potable: If it is not potable, then we will run the other tests to rule out process/NPW
flows. If the flow is process/NPW then we will find the leak and correct it. All sampling records will be kept in
the SWPPP.
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, RE. • Environmental Management Division 0 Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive • Charlotte, NC 28217 • 704/336-4460 • Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

.5.'Most outfalls at Sugar Creek WWTP East could not be viewed due to the overgrowth of vegetation.
With the WWTP's proximity to the receiving stream and potable water line leaks that have occurred,
the headwalls should be kept so that they are easy to view.
We will ensure adequate access to all outfalls for inspection and monitoring by adding this task to our facility
maintenance program required by the Stormwater General Permit. We will perform the maintenance activity
(bush hogging) every fall and spring and other times as necessary.
I hope that my explanations provide the information you requested. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me at 704-336-4460.
Sincerely,
�.f
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Environmental Management Division Supt.
C: Robert Krebs, NCDWQ - Mooresville
Rusty Rozzelle, LUESA
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E. • Environmental Management Division • Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive • Charlotte, NC 28217 • 7041336-4460 • Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

0 o�WAr�9pif,
7
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
June 26, 2007
Ms. Jacqueline Jarrell
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
4000 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Compliance Stormwater Inspection
CMU Sugar Creek WWTP o-V
NPDES Permit No. NCG1100,p 1
MecklenburgCounty, NC 12'1
Dear Ms. Jarrell:
Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Stormwater Inspection Report for the inspection
conducted at the subject facility on June 22, 2007 by John Lesley and Donna Hood of this Office.
Please inform the facility's Operator -in -Responsible Charge of our findings by forwarding a
copy of the enclosed report.
The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions
concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lesley or me at [phone].
Sincerely, _
r`"Robert B. Krebs
;f
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection
Enclosure
cc: Central Files
Mecklenburg County Water Quality Protection
1�°ChCaro ina
HWEHR N turally
Mooresville Regional Office Division of Water Quality Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: 610 East Center Ave, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Fax [phone] -
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCG110008 Effective: 05/01103 Expiration: 04/30/08 Owner: City of Charlotte
SQC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Charlotte -Irwin Creek
County: Mecklenburg 4000 Westmont Or
Region: Mooresville
Charlotte NC 28217
Contact Person: Jacqueline A Jarrell Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
24 hour contact name
Related Permits:
Roy E Purgason
Certification:
Inspection Date: 06122/2007 Entry Time: 10:30 AM Exit Time: 01:30 PM
Phone:
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector. John E Neste Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s): Ext.270
Donna Hood Phone:
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Stormwater
Permit Inspection Type: Municipal WWfP > 1MGD, Stormwater Discharge, COC
Facility Status: ■ Compliant Q Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1
Y
s

j, Permit: NCG110008 Owner - Facility: City of Charlotte
Inspection Date: 06/22/2007 Inspection Type. Stormwater . Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program appeared to be well managed and organized. All program elements are
complete and up to date.
Page: 2

Permit: NCG110008
Inspection Date: 06/22/2007
Owner - Facility: City of Charlotte
Inspection Type: Stormwater
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan?
# Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) map?
# Does the Plan include a 'Narrative Description of Practices"?
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
# Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
# Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
# Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
# Is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented?
Comment: Latest revision was done in November 2006, certified on January 31,
2007. Revision includes VW TP additions: Briar Creek Pump Station, 20 MG wet
weather flow equalization basin.
The Emergency Action Plan (OSHA 1910.38) for local emergencies and hazardous
chemical spills was also updated.
Qualitative Monitoring
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually?
Reason for Visit: Routine
Comment: Qualitative Monitoring was done in 2006 as required by the permit. Copies
of the monitoring and inspections are kept by the consultant and made available to the
City upon request. Be advised that all documentation, including qualitative monitoring
and inspection reports must be maintained on file at the facility for which the permit is
issued - the CMU Sugar Creek WWTP.
Permit and Outfalls
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site?
# Were all outfalls observed during the inspection?
# If the facility has representative outfall status, is it properly documented by the Division?
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges?
Yea No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
0000
0000
0000
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 3
t

r Permit: NCG110008 Owner - Faclllty: City of Charlotte
Inspection Date: 06/22/2007 Inspection Type: Stormwater Reason for Visit: Routine
Comment: The contractor should install more silt prevention measures should be
taken at the stormdrain by the blower building.
Page: 4

O
CHARLOrn'E-
September 27, 2000
Mr. Kerr T. Stevens
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Subject: Permit No. NCG110012
Sugar Creek WWTP
Dear Mr. Stevens:
,� D)rorNT' HBALr
NATURAL R> Up CB,3
i 2.2000
Today I .received a letter from you stating that we are late in paying an $80.00 annual
administering and compliance monitoring fee for the subject permit. I apologize for the
oversight that led to the lateness. We are requesting the check today and you should
receive payment very soon.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Barry )6DD�il
ullet, PE
Deputyector
C Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office
Jackie Jarrell
File
Administrative Division 5100 Brookshire Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28216 ' Phone: [phone]' Fax: [phone]
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DOUG BEAN
CHARLOTTE, SUGAR CREEK WWTP
5100 BROOKSHIRE BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE NC 28216
AT a
NCDENR
NORTH GAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANo NATURAL RESOURCES
9/25/2000
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REVOCATION FOR NON PAYMENT
PERMIT NUMBER NCG110012
CHARLOTTE, SUGAR CREEK WWTP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Dear Permittee:
Payment of the required annual administering and compliance monitoring fee of $80.00 for this year has not
been received for the subject permit. This fee is required by Title 15 North Carolina Administrative Code 2H.0105, under
the authority of North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.3(a)(1), (1a) and (1b). Because this fee was not fully paid within
30 days after being billed, this letter initiates action to revoke the subject permit, pursuant to 15 ncac 2H.0105(b) (2) (k)
(4), and G.S. 143-215.1 (b) (3).
Effective 60 days from receipt of this notice, subject permit is hereby revoked unless the required Annual
Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee is received within that time. Discharges without a permit are subject to the
enforcement authority of the Division of Water Quality. Your payment should be sent to:
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Budget Office
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you have the right to request an administrative hearing within Thirty (30)
days following recipt of this notice, identifying the specific issues to be contended. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611-7447. Unless such request for hearing is made or
payments received, revocation shall be final and binding. If you have any questions, please contact:
Mr, Rex Gleason, Mooresville Water Quality Regional Supervisor, [phone].
cc: Supevisor, Water Quality Permits and Engineering Unit
Mooresville Regional Office
County Health Department
Sinceret�zz�
Y_.�
�P
Kerr T. Stevens
1 4 j S IS G-,L
PeQ^'-T . e_VejC'T1'Z% st
f4cASs­S4.
3K�
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled 1 10% post -consumer paper