Page 3 of 9
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."