Mobile
Mecklenburg sounds off
Mecklenburg County's Response To "It's A Crapshoot" - and Creative Loafing's Rebuttal
Page 7 of 9
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.
Latest in News
-
Non-Profit Connects Freshly Prepared Food to Those in Need
Jan 31, 2019 -
Screw-up or PR Move?
Jul 20, 2005 -
Silly Bills
Jul 13, 2005 - More »
-
Good Eats
Our critics' guide to recommended restaurants in Charlotte
-
Good Eats
Our critics' guide to recommended restaurants in Charlotte
-
Mecklenburg sounds off
Mecklenburg County's Response To "It's A Crapshoot" - and Creative Loafing's Rebuttal
