MEMORANDUM
TO: Harry L. Jones, Sr., County Manager
FROM: Rusty Rozzelle, Water Quality Program Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Creative Loafing Article Entitled, "What You Haven't Been Told About Charlotte's Sewage Spill Program"
Date Published: April 10, 2002
Due to the lengthy nature of the article, this document will respond to the major items that the MCWQP disputes or feels need further clarification.
The items MCWQP would like to clarify include the following:
* Creative Loafing Article:
"After the majority of these spills, the polluted water often wasn't even tested by county or state investigators, so no one can know for sure if dangerous levels of pathogens were present. A lot of people, including the EPA and many other experts, say this is a potentially dangerous public health risk. But the same people who don't test the water say it's not a big deal." Page 24 - Column 1 - Paragraph 2.
MCWQP Response:
When the MCWQP locates a sewer line break or manhole overflow, samples are not always collected when there is visual evidence of sewage in the water.
CL response: For this article, CL only analyzed and referred to spills over 100,000 gallons, as stated in the story. We didn't suggest that MCWQP should run a fecal test after every sewer line break or manhole overflow, which, in any case, would be impossible since the raw sewage spewing from them after a spill doesn't always reach surface waters.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
Sampling is always done when necessary to determine the presence of human waste. If you see the human waste in the creek, there is no reason to run a costly test and spend taxpayer dollars to see if it is there. To identify the extent of water contamination, MCWQP often uses calibrated field instruments that provide a quick and highly effective measure of water quality degradation. In comparison, the fecal coliform test takes a minimum of 24 hours to run in a laboratory and is therefore much less useful at identifying the extent of contamination than an instantaneous field analysis. This field data is certified as accurate by the State and can be used when necessary in any enforcement case. As far as the reference to testing for pathogen levels, the presence of any sewage in a creek is an indication that pathogens may be present.
CL response: The field data from the "quick and effective" field instrument tests can be used in enforcement cases, but there is one problem with it. Decreased dissolved oxygen levels in the water, the main measure of water quality degradation, can be caused by a number of factors besides a sewage spill. Thus, without a fecal test after large spills that run through residential areas, there's no way to know exactly what contributed to the dip in D.O. or, again, how much pathogenic material is in the water. It is also possible to get a D.O. level after a spill that is not in violation of water quality standards even though dangerous amounts of sewage are still in the water. This is why fecal coliform testing is necessary after big spills through well-frequented areas -- in order to document the fact that the spill did damage to surface waters, the extent of the spill, and how long the bacteria remains in the water after the spill, making it unsafe for nearby residents.
Rex Gleason with the state's Mooresville regional office explained this in an interview with CL for the story. He said: "We suggest that they do the testing ??if there is a significant spill. One reason we have them do the testing is so we'd know when the waters returned to normal."
* Creative Loafing Article:
"Even when county investigation reports clearly indicated the possible presence of dangerous amounts of pathogenic bacteria in the county's waters, spill cases were closed by staff at either the state regional office or the county level with no fine - even when the spill directly violated the state's collection system enforcement guidelines." Page 24 - Column 2 - Paragraph 2
MCWQP Response:
The MCWQP has absolutely no authority to levy penalties ...
CL response: There is no assertion in the CL article that MCWQP has such authority. In fact, the article clearly stated that it is not MCWQP's job to levy fines (penalties): "While it is not MCWQP's job to issue violation notices -- that falls to the state -- it is the county department's job to track what happens to their reports and forward them to NCDENR's regional office with a letter or other notice reporting water quality damage and suggesting a fine."
MCWQP Response (cont.):
... or pursue enforcement for violation of state water quality standards or general statutes. Through our Memorandum of Agreement with the state, the MCWQP collects information requested by the state and transfers this information to the Mooresville Regional Office for review. The state then notifies the MCWQP of how to proceed with the case. If a case does not meet the state criteria for enforcement as determined by state officials, they notify the MCWQP that the case can be closed. The MCWQP does not have the authority to make these determinations.
CL response: According to MCWQP's Water Quality Work Plan for July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002, MCWQP can "contact MRO (the Mooresville Regional Office) to discuss potential enforcement actions." According to the plan, when incidents are reported by citizens, MCWQP "may determine that potential environmental impacts are minimal or nonexistent." Spill cases often have been closed at the county level, as indicated on its spill reports, we assume with state permission. We'll have to take their word for it that the state told them by phone that they should close the report, since this is rarely indicated in the county reports. Either way, the article was not inaccurate on this point.
More importantly, MCQWP's response avoids the point of the section of the story in question -- namely, that spill cases in which dangerous levels of pathogenic bacteria in the county's waters have been routinely closed, even when the spill violates the state's enforcement guidelines.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"One problem. No one ever clarified what evidence the county's environmental hygienist would collect, after which spills they would collect it, or what they would do with it. The level of communication is so bad, in fact, that most of the middle and lower level environmental staff members CL spoke to - the folks on the ground investigating and documenting these spills - were unaware of the existence, much less the importance of the enforcement guidelines that are supposed to govern the job they perform. That creates a situation akin to traffic cops being asked to do their jobs without ever having learned state driving laws." Page 26 - Columns 2 and 3 - Paragraph 4
MCWQP Response:
When conducting her research for this article, Ms. Servatius, spoke only with John McCulloch (Water Quality Supervisor), Rusty Rozzelle (Water Quality Program Manager), Alan Giles (Public Information Specialist), and Derrick Harris (Environmental Hygienist II) of the MCWQP. She did not speak with or interview any of our environmental hygienist ("the folks on the ground investigating and documenting these spills") regarding spill procedures as she reports in her article.
CL response: John McCulloch, who was a very helpful and concerned resource for this article, was interviewed specifically because he is both a supervisor and is one of "the folks on the ground. . ." We thus got the necessary information from someone who could speak from both positions.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
2) The MCWQP has an excellent relationship with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in Mooresville. Our Memorandum of Agreement has been in place since 1986. MCWQP staff communicate with DWQ staff on an as needed basis which normally includes daily or at least weekly phone calls and emails. The expectations and responsibilities of both the DWQ and the MCWQP are very clear through both our Memorandum of Agreement and frequent correspondence. Since each spill situation is different, these communications between agencies are essential in determining how to proceed with sewage spills and the numerous other issues with which we deal. All MCWQP staff are very familiar with all State enforcement guidelines.
CL response: This is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Whether the relationship between the two agencies is good or not is irrelevant to the fact that the combined efforts of the two agencies to hold all sewage spillers responsible for the messes they've created has yielded exactly zero fines for the 815 spills by CMU in the past three years. This was the point of the article, a point which neither MCWQP nor NCDENR has denied or explained.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"John McCulloch, one of three water quality supervisors at MCWQP, said he was unfamiliar with the water quality guidelines when asked about them by CL. Without a working knowledge of the guidelines which the county has agreed to help the state enforce, county environmental hygienists investigating these spills wouldn't know what evidence would be needed to recommend a fine for a spiller, or the importance of documenting the damage done by the spills." Page 26 - Column 3 - Paragraph 2
MCWQP Response:
When Ms. Servatius was asking Mr. McCulloch about the water quality guidelines, she indicated that she was referring to a document. Mr. McCulloch stated that he was unaware of any document entitled " The Water Quality Guidelines." Mr. McCulloch asked Ms. Servatius to describe the content of this document, whether it included state water quality standards, administrative codes, or whether the document might commonly be known by any other name. She could not provide any additional information and continued to refer to this document as "The Water Quality Guidelines."
The MCWQP contacted state officials in Raleigh and Mooresville on 4/10/02 to inquire about this document. State officials confirmed that there is no document entitled, "The Water Quality Guidelines." This so-called document does not exist.
The MCWQP also requested a copy of "The Water Quality Guidelines" from the Catawba Riverkeeper (Donna Lisenby) on 4/10/02. Ms. Lisenby stated that she had a copy of the guidelines referenced in the Creative Loafing and submitted the document to MCWQP on 4/11/02. The actual title of the document Ms. Servatius was referring to is "Collection System Enforcement Guidance." The MCWQP is familiar with this document. It provides the sewer system permittee with spill response and reporting requirements. It also provides guidance and information that the State uses to assess penalties. This document in no way provides guidance to the MCWQP regarding how to respond to spills as indicated in the article.
Ms. Servatius's comments in this section indicate that MCWQP staff are incompetent. MCWQP personnel at all levels have an excellent working knowledge of all aspects of our job responsibilities. Personnel are thoroughly trained when they are new with our program and receive continuing education both internally and externally whenever appropriate training opportunities arise.
CL response: Enough with the nitpicking over the name of a document; this is the kind of bureaucratic mentality that is part of the cause of the spills problem. Over the course of interviewing people for this story, CL heard the "Collection System Enforcement Guidance" referred to by several different names. Mr. McCulloch, while helpful, did not ask Ms. Servatius whether it included "state water quality standards, administrative codes, or whether the document might commonly be known by any other name."
He did, however, ask her to describe what she was talking about, which she did in detail. This can be done quickly, as the nine points that make up the guidelines are a single page long. She detailed the contents of this document to Mr. McCulloch and asked him in particular why the county and the state appeared in many cases to be ignoring the "damage" section of the guidelines, which she read to him.
The section reads:
Damage is defined as:
-a fish kill
-a violation of a water quality standard based upon upstream and downstream sampling data taken at the time of the spill
-impact to a surface water such that the water can not be used in accordance with the water quality assigned classification or
- impact to a surface water such that the water can not be used or benthic, amphibian or crustacean kill; a violation of water quality standards based on upstream and downstream data taken at the time of the spill;
- other adverse biological impacts such as benthic, amphibian, and/or crustacean mortality.
Mr. McCulloch had no idea what Ms. Servatius was talking about, which we found surprising, since this single page of guidelines, specifically the damage section just quoted, is supposed to govern spill enforcement. It simply makes sense that if the document "provides guidance and information that the State uses to assess penalties," this would be essential knowledge needed by MCQWP in order to determine whether to document these particular violations. Clearly, Mr. McCulloch had not been made aware of the existence of the guidelines, however you choose to refer to them.
Again, this is an issue of how aggressively MCQWP looks for evidence against violators. In the case of CMU, they didn't proceed aggressively at all, in terms of assessing damage in order to recommend a fine.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"A fecal test could have told investigators, and ultimately surrounding residents, just how unsafe the water was. But, as in the case of nearly all the big spills CL has analyzed, no fecal test was conducted, and the dissolved oxygen violation recorded by the county environmentalist brought about no fine, and no further attention." Page 28 - Column 4 - Paragraph 2
MCWQP Response:
1) A fecal test would not have told investigators how unsafe the water was in this case or any other case involving a sewage spill that is confirmed visually.
CL response: Rozzelle said differently in an interview with CL for the story. These are his words: "The decision to post 'no swimming' signs is made by the county health department. We do that when we get elevated fecal coliform levels in a case. When we get elevated fecal counts we notify the health director ... We test to see if there are any human health impacts."
MCWQP Response (cont.):
2) The MCWQP considers any amount of sewage in a creek to be unsafe for human contact.
CL response: Again, Rozzelle said something different in his interview with CL for the article. On why they don't usually conduct fecal testing in creeks and streams, he said: "It is not an area where there is prolonged human contact. It is designated for infrequent body contact. . . .When it gets into a lake, the Catawba River, the reason we do that (test) is because there is a swimming area. We test to see if there are any human health impacts."
Although the article did not quote Rozzelle on these points, it relied upon his explanation of this information, which he is apparently now disputing. Again, we re-emphasize the point being made in this section that public health is important enough to warrant fecal testing when large sewage spills take place in residential areas with creeks and streams, followed by posting of warning signs in those neighborhodds. This is only a matter of common sense if, as Rozzelle says, any amount of sewage in a creek is unsafe for human contact.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
3) In these instances, the MCWQP's first priority is to identify the source of the discharge and to take appropriate measures to ensure that the discharge is ceased immediately and the affected area cleaned up.
CL response: The article did not dispute this. In fact, it emphasized the speed with which both MCWQP and CMU now respond to spills. The problem is that speed of response is too often the main concern rather than testing for damage to the water.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
4) If there are any swimming areas downstream of the sewer spill, signs are immediately posted and the public notified through press releases in accordance with the county's Waterborne Disease Outbreak Prevention Policy. The MCWQP leaves the no swimming signs in place until the sewer spill has been stopped and ongoing monitoring indicates acceptable bacteria levels have been reached.
CL response: The above is a description of how spills known to have reached swimming areas are handled. It is not an accurate description of how large spills to creeks and streams are handled.
To demonstrate this point, the article detailed the fallout after the 215,800-gallon spill into Steele Creek. In summary: MCWQP only conducted a dissolved oxygen test, the results of which violated state water quality standards. South Carolina authorities, who fully documented the downstream fallout of that spill, conducted fecal tests that showed two important facts rarely recorded by MCWQP: the extent of the spill and the amount of fecal bacteria in the water. (55 to 65 times higher than those considered safe for human contact). As the article pointed out, Steele Creek runs through residential backyards in which children play.
But without a series of fecal tests at various points downstream after a spill to a creek or stream, it is difficult to quantify the scope of the spill, how much of the creek is unsafe, how unsafe it is and how many neighbors should be notified. That, in combination with the fact that no warning signs are required to be posted along polluted streams creates a hazardous situation. Of course, many creeks and streams run into large bodies of water used for - guess what? - swimming. Without extensive testing downstream after a spill, it is difficult to tell how much pathogenic material ended up in swimming areas, much less how unsafe the creek or stream is along the way. This is a drastically needed improvement in how MCQWP operates.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"And that's where the problem lies. While county environmental officials are required to collect data to document that a spill has occurred, and make the case for a fine or other punishment, the state doesn't require that MCWQP actually perform any particular test on fouled streams and creeks, or any tests at all for that matter. Of course, how they would be able to document that a spill has occurred and make the case for a fine without testing the water is a mystery. Although MCWQP isn't required by the state to test the water, it seems reasonable that the organization specifically paid by the county to oversee our water quality would take it upon itself to test the water after sewage spills. In deciding not to collect evidence, the county fails to do its enforcement jobs and lets polluters off the hook." Page 26, 27 - Column 4 - Paragraph 2
MCWQP Response:
The MCWQP monitors water quality in lakes and streams on a regular basis at over 95 locations throughout Mecklenburg County. This extensive monitoring network is designed to detect sewage spills that are occurring and to track trends in water quality conditions. Mecklenburg County has by far the most comprehensive water quality-monitoring program in the State of North Carolina. Through this monitoring, we protect the citizens of Mecklenburg County by identifying surface waters impacted by various contaminants, tracking the source of these contaminants, and eliminating their source.
CL response: MCWQP's efforts to monitor "surface waters impacted by various contaminants" is certainly appreciated; unfortunately, that's not what CL's article was about. It was about sewage spills.
As the article pointed out, efforts to "eliminate sources" of raw sewage pollution, 99 percent of which is due to spills by CMU, are very inconsistent at best. That was the point of detailing the history of the 14 Long Creek spills, which were documented but largely ignored by county and state enforcers before the 3.7 million gallon spill at Long Creek that fouled the creek and nearby swimming waters.
It's also questionable how MCQWP's monitoring would protect citizens when not a single fine has been levied against CMU for 815 spills totaling 12 million gallons --whether the water downstream was tested afterward or not. Once more, we contend that even though MCWQP isn't required by the state to test the water, it seems reasonable that the organization specifically paid by the county to oversee our water quality would take it upon itself to test the water after sewage spills. In deciding not to collect evidence, the county fails to do its enforcement jobs and lets polluters off the hook. This was the point of the story, which MCWQP has not addressed and apparently has chosen to ignore.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
When sources of pollution, such as sewage spills are located, the MCWQP consults with state officials to brief them on the circumstances and receive instructions on how they wish to proceed since they are the entity responsible for administering penalties and enforcement actions. If the state does not feel that a spill meets their criteria for enforcement, the MCWQP does not pursue this avenue any further. What the MCWQP does do in this instance is ensure that the spills are cleaned up in accordance with protocol and that steps are taken to minimize any impacts to surface waters. By doing this, the MCWQP minimizes any potential exposure to citizens.
CL response: We agree; in fact, our article doesn't contradict this statement. However, posting signs along creeks and streams to warn people of health dangers would additionally help "minimize any potential exposure to citizens," which the article pointed out.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"Rozzelle said that ultimately, the decision on whether water quality enforcers will test after a spill is up to Regional Water Quality Supervisor Rex Gleason in the NCDENR Mooresville office. But the enforcement agreement between the state and the county reads differently. It plainly says that MCWQP is responsible for collecting necessary evidence for legal action against the spillers and forwarding it to the state." Page 28 - Column 1 - Paragraph 4
MCWQP Response:
As stated previously, the MCWQP does not have the authority to unilaterally pursue penalties or enforcement against a spiller. Since every spill situation is different, MCWQP consults with state officials to receive instructions on how they wish to proceed.
Ms. Servatius's statement in her article regarding "the enforcement agreement" is misleading. The exact wording as contained in the 2000-2002 Memorandum of Agreement between the MCWQP and the DWQ regarding enforcement is as follows:
Enforcement
1. MCDEP recognizes that DWQ will retain exclusive authority and responsibility for the assessment of administrative penalties or for instituting legal action for violation of State statutes and regulations. DWQ will provide MCDEP with a copy of DWQ's enforcement procedures as well as all current State Water Quality regulations and will provide copies of any future changes.
2. MCDEP will be responsible for the acquisition of the necessary evidence for the initiation of administrative or legal action by DWQ in Mecklenburg County as outlined in DWQ's enforcement procedures. MCDEP may contact MRO to discuss potential enforcement actions.
3. DWQ will provide MCDEP with enforcement documents and records, which may include Findings and Decisions and Assessment of Civil Penalties, Injunctions, Requests For Remission of Civil Penalties, Petitions For A Contested Hearing, Prehearing Statements, Interrogatories, etc., where MCDEP is directly involved.
4. MCDEP will submit to MRO draft enforcement reports/recommendations within 15 working days of being notified by MRO of the need to prepare such drafts as being indicated through the investigation of complaints or emergency episodes or the inspection of discharge or non-discharge facilities.
5. MRO will make final decisions concerning any enforcement action/case and coordinate, when necessary, with MCDEP.
CL response: Read the above for yourself and decide. CL isn't sure how much more clearly the agreement can say that MCWQP is responsible for "collecting necessary evidence for legal action against the spillers and forwarding it to the state," as the article stated. What MCWQP's issue with this section of the article was is unclear.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"After our interviews with Rozzelle and other enforcement officials, CL remained uncertain what, if any, purpose the county department serves when it comes to monitoring spills." Page 28 - Column 2 - Paragraph 1
MCWQP Response:
MCWQP's role in monitoring and assessing spills is as follows:
1. Locate the source of the spill through water sampling, citizen complaints or visual observations.
2. Post all downstream swimming areas and notify the public of the posting.
3. Determine who is responsible for the spill.
4. Inform the responsible party of the regulatory requirements for spill cleanup and reporting.
5. Ensure that the discharge is immediately ceased.
6. Assess the condition of the impacted surface water. This may include water quality field measurements or laboratory analysis.
7. Ensure that the spill is properly cleaned up and the stream is restored to the extent possible.
8. Compile all relative information for consideration by State officials.
9. Proceed with instructions by the state.
CL response: The "what purpose they serve" phrase is meant in an ironic sense. CL is well aware of what the department actually does, as we have spent seven months reading its reports. Tracking the existence of the spills without punishing the spillers is a waste of time. What purpose this futile activity serves is what puzzles us.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"It's official: playing in raw sewage is OK for kids"
"County health officials, county environmental staff, and utility representatives tell CL that the seriousness of the situation isn't what it would appear. Sewage spills aren't as dangerous to the public as they may seem, they say." Page 29 - Column 3 - Paragraph 2
MCWQP Response:
The statement implying that "county environmental staff" told Creative Loafing that it's OK for kids to play in raw sewage is absolutely ludicrous. No one at the MCWQP was even asked this question. This statement is simply not true.
CL response: The article made no claim that "county environmental staff" told CL that it's OK for kids to play in raw sewage. That quote came from Dr. Stephen Keener of the county health department, and was attributed to him, not county environmental staff, in the article. "It's official: playing in raw sewage is OK for kids" was the subheadline for that section of the article. A subheadline (or subhed) is like a mini-title for the entire section that follows it. The subhead previewed Dr. Keener's quote, but in no way implied that county staff was even asked about raw sewage. Perhaps the problem here is an unfamiliarity with how newspaper and magazine articles are often structured. It should be noted, however, that every county, state and CMU official CL asked about the danger level of a sewage-filled creek emphasized that a moving, sewage-filled creek isn't as dangerous as it may seem.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"Of course, say experts, just how dangerous the water is depends on how much pathogenic material is likely to be concentrated in it, and the only indicator for that is a fecal test, which CMU and MCWQP rarely have been known to perform after a spill." Page 30 - Column 2 - Paragraph 3
MCWQP Response:
Again, the MCWQP will collect any water samples the state requests for an enforcement case if the state wishes to pursue enforcement based on their criteria. Otherwise, the MCWQP does not need a fecal coliform bacteria sample to determine that a stream may contain pathogens. If you visually observe sewage in a stream, it doesn't matter if 5 gallons or 5,000 gallons were spilled, the stream may contain pathogens and is not suitable for human contact. A bacterial analysis is not needed to make this determination.
CL response: The fecal test issue was addressed above.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"The haphazard way in which decisions are made about whether to test water after spills is demonstrated by a November 1999 case. After a bubbler system failure at the McDowell Creek wastewater treatment plant, a mechanical switching system failed to turn on an alarm. The result was a 159,000-gallon spill into Clark's Creek off Ramah Church Road. The creek winds through several subdivisions and residential areas. According to MCWQP's own reports, the environmental hygienist who investigated the spill observed that the sewage-filled creek was milky and turbid in appearance eight miles away from the spill where the creek crosses Huntersville-Concord Road, and 20 miles away at Eastfield Road." Page 30 - Column 2 - Paragraph 4
MCWQP Response:
The facts regarding this incident are incorrect. According to the MCWQP report (1999-02979 opened 11/15/1999 and closed 11/30/1999), the spill did not originate from the McDowell Creek wastewater treatment plant as reported in the article. The McDowell Creek wastewater treatment plant is located on Neck Road on the west side of the county. This spill originated from a pump station on Clark's Creek located on the east side of the county in a different watershed at 13301 Ramah Church Road.
CL response: This is an attempt to confuse the issue. This "correction" makes it sound as if the spill in question never happened, or as if CL reported that the spill came from elsewhere, or somehow confused the facts surrounding the spill. According to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Sewage Spill Response Evaluation (SSRE), the spill did originate from "a pump station on Clark's Creek located on the east side of the county in a different watershed at 13301 Ramah Church Road." The permit holder for that pump station was none other than McDowell Creek WWTP, located on Neck Road on the west side of the county. For those who don't understand how these reports work, this may be confusing. CMU, as well as the state, list spills, spill records, fines (when they bother to levy them) or other punitive actions by WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT or PERMITEE. The permitee in this case was listed as McDowell Creek WWTP.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
In addition, the MCWQP report Ms. Servatius is supposedly quoting makes no reference to any distance in miles. The report instead indicates that the hygienist investigating the spill observed impacts to Clark's Creek at Huntersville-Concord Road and at Eastfield Road. For reference, Clark's Creek intersects Huntersville-Concord Road approximately one mile from the spill location. Not eight miles as reported in the article. The stream intersects Eastfield Road approximately four miles from the spill site. Not twenty miles as Ms. Servatius reports.
CL response: The article did not claim that a distance in miles was given in the report. The distance in miles we reported was the result of our own calculations of the distance using UniversalMAP of Mecklenburg County. We rechecked our calculations, and came up with the same distances based on where the report says the tests took place. But again, this is a trifling point at best. The better question, as in so many of these spills, is why the environmental hygienist who investigated the spill never bothered to conduct water quality tests on the creek. Perhaps a 159,000-gallon spill through residential areas isn't a big enough deal to justify testing.
* Creative Loafing Article:
"Water testing by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) showed fecal coliform levels 55 to 65 times higher than those considered safe for human contact with the water. The test proved beyond a doubt that the spill violated both North and South Carolina water quality laws. Without the fecal test, the Fort Mill folks would have been out of luck because, as has been the case in so many big spills in Mecklenburg County, there would be no evidence of damage to the creek besides the fish kill." Page 31 - Column 2 - Paragraph 6
MCWQP Response:
This information is incorrect and misleading. South Carolina assessed $1,500 in penalties for the cost of replacing the fish that were killed as a result of the discharge.
CL response: The MCWQP response is incorrect and misleading. Fecal coliform data was used by the state of South Carolina in its consent order. (Consent Order 02-001-W) before the Department of Health and Environmental Control concerning the spill. The order held that the parties responsible for the spill had violated the Pollution Control Act in discharging untreated wastewater into Steele Creek.
Among the "findings of fact and conclusions of law" that led to the conclusion that the Pollution Control Act had been violated includes finding number 3 which reads: "On June 18, 2001, Department personnel collected two (2) samples from Steele Creek to be analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria. The results of the samples indicated the presence of fecal coliform bacteria at levels of eleven thousand colonies and thirteen thousand colonies per 100 milliliters (100 ml)."
The consent order then ordered payment for the fish. Again, 11,000 to 13,000 colonies of fecal bacterial in that amount of water is 55 to 65 times higher than those considered safe for human contact with the water.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
North Carolina assessed $10,414.88 in penalties to the responsible parties (Childress Klein Properties, Inc., Earnhardt Grading, Inc., and Carolina Drilling and Blasting, Inc.) for making an outlet to the waters of the State (North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1(a)) and for creating conditions in surface waters that preclude the waters' best usage (North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0211(1)).
Neither the General Statute nor the Administrative Code that the responsible parties violated was based on fecal coliform bacteria sampling data. The fecal coliform data collected by South Carolina was NOT used by North Carolina in the assessment and/or determination of these penalties as implied by Ms. Servatius.
CL response: We agree, but then our article didn't claim that the fecal coliform sampling data was used by NC, nor did it come close to implying that it was. To our eyes, this seems like an attempt to confuse the elected officials to whom this memo was distributed. Anyone who read the entire section of the article that dealt with the Steele Creek spill knows that the above charges are silly. The article contains no claim that the spill received a fine because South Carolina environmental officials bother to conduct fecal tests. Instead, that section of the article detailed the vast amount of pressure SC citizens and the media had to put on both the county and state environmental departments to ensure that someone received a fine for the Steele Creek spill. What the article said was, "The test proved beyond a doubt that the spill violated both North and South Carolina water quality laws."
* Creative Loafing Article:
"In its annual work plan, which it submits to the state, county environmental officials at MCWQP acknowledge that yearly water quality monitoring data from 1998-2000 revealed high fecal coliform counts downstream of sewer leaks and other areas from which sewage has been legally or illegally discharged. This is particularly ironic when you consider that the county has spent tens of millions of dollars on a surface water improvement plan aimed at preserving natural buffers and improving the quality of the water the county's creeks and streams, while at the same time often turning a blind eye to the sewage spills that have caused some of the pollution the county is trying to combat." Page 32 - Column 1 - Paragraph 2
MCWQP Response:
Since the initiation of the S.W.I.M. Program in July 1998, the County's cost has been approximately 1.5 million dollars, not tens of millions as reported in the article.
CL response: The article was referring to the cost to the county, not to merely to county government. The combined cost of the buffer program bought about by SWIM has cost developers and the county tens of millions of dollars, although we concede the article could have been clearer on this point.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
We have never turned a "blind eye" to sewage spills. As a matter of fact, sewage spills have been our highest priority. Since the beginning of the S.W.I.M. Program, water quality data clearly indicates a significant reduction in fecal coliform bacteria levels in urban streams resulting in great progress toward making these waters suitable for human contact. The reductions in bacteria counts are as follows: 78% reduction in Sugar Creek, 73% reduction in Little Sugar Creek, 62% reduction in McAlpine Creek and a 46% reduction in Briar Creek.
CL response: Again, that's great, but this was not the point of the article, although we are curious what the bacteria counts of Long and Steele Creeks look like.
MCWQP Response (cont.):
The MCWQP is constantly seeking out new and innovative ways to identify sewer spills in Mecklenburg County. For example, this past winter low-level infrared aerial photography was used to identify warm spots in Little Sugar and Briar Creeks, which is an indicator of possible sewer releases. The entire survey took only 2 hours and over 27 miles of streams were checked. As a result, over 70 potential sewer leaks were detected that are currently under investigation for elimination. This project was done in cooperation with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities. We have applied for an EPA grant to have this infrared survey performed on all of our urban streams impaired by fecal coliform bacteria. This is only one example of the many efforts we have underway to address this critical water quality problem.
The article completely ignores the fact that the biggest problem with sewer spills is locating them. Charlotte-Mecklenburg has over 3000 miles of streams as well as approximately 3000 miles of sewer lines. Surveying these systems to find leaks is difficult and time consuming. It's not the leaks we know about that cause the greatest concern, it's the ones that we can't find that pose the biggest threat.
In addition, the article pays little attention to efforts currently underway to improve the maintenance of the sewer collection system to prevent spills from occurring in the first place. The MCWQP has worked with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities to identify areas of high fecal coliform contamination and sewer line failures so that resources can be concentrated toward upgrading sewer systems to prevent discharges from occurring.
Further, the article fails to inform citizens of the contribution they can make in helping prevent sewer overflows. For example, the vast majority of sewer overflows are caused by household cooking grease being poured down drains and entering the collection system causing blockages in lines. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities has worked hard to get this message out but this article completely ignores this important fact.
The MCWQP believes that more can and should be done to address sewer spills into our creeks and lakes. Contrary to what the article implies, we see this as an extremely important issue and we are working diligently to reduce the number of spills and improve water quality conditions in our streams. Clean water has and always will be our goal.
CL response: Again, this is a well-crafted CYA statement aimed at elected officials. We applaud anything and everything done to detect sewage spills, but that was not the point of the article. Why bother to detect them, or inform people of how to help prevent them, or work to upgrade sewer systems if the partnership between the state and the county repeatedly fails in punishing the polluters?
-- John Grooms, Editor
-- Tara Servatius, Reporter
