20001195 Ver 6_More Info Received_20101020

Gyamfi, Joseph
From: Gyamfi, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:48 AM
To: 'Geiger, Ronald A.'
Cc: Jordan, Jimmy D.; Wiebke, Mark D.; Gay, Kelly D.; Christine, Jack; Randall, Mike; Johnson,
Alan
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping
Hi Ron,
I have forwarded your email and attachment to the other DWQ folks that were in attendance during the testing. I'll put
all DWQ comments in one doc. and send them to you by next Friday. I think I understand the points raised under the
"future testing to be performed". However, I have comments on the calculation of percent removal, and I'll save and
include them in the overall DWQ comments. Thanks.
Joe
From: Geiger, Ronald A. [mailto:Ron. GeigerOhdrinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:55 AM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Cc: Jordan, Jimmy D.; Wiebke, Mark D.; Gay, Kelly D.; Christine, Jack
Subject: CDIA Pavement Sweeping
Joseph,
Attached you will find a document that summarizes the testing performed last week at CDIA. Within the document is a
proposed plan for the next step in the sweeping process for which the Airport is planning to start. While it does not
include all testing scenarios desired by the DWQ, the airport feels it is the best next step which focuses on the actual
pavement in question, and allows the pavement conditions to achieve a "stable or baseline" condition for which other
decisions on testing may be carried out.
We look forward to your comments. We will be forwarding this to the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
representatives who attended the event as well. Please forward to other state staff as necessary.
Thanks,
Ron
Ronald A. Geiger, PE
Water Resources Manager
H DR ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions 6y-y-25
440 S. Church St., Suite 1000 1 Charlotte, NC 128202-1919 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone] Email: RGei er ,hdrinc.com
Gyamfi, Joseph
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:00 AM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Protocol - Comments?
I'm fine with the testing as proposed. Obviously as you have pointed out the % removal is of total solids not TSS.
Ultimately I think we need to document the frequency, speed and other conditions that need to be in the SOP to provide
"adequate" removal efficiencies.
From: Gyamfi, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:10 AM
To: Randall, Mike; Johnson, Alan; Larsen, Cory; Lucas, Annette; Pickle, Ken
Cc: Gilleski, Lia; Mcmillan, Ian; Karoly, Cyndi
Subject: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Protocol - Comments?
Please see the email below and the attached doc. and let me know if you have any comments. I would like to respond
with all DWQ comments, if any, not later than Friday Oct. 29. Thanks.
Joe
From: Geiger, Ronald A. [mailto:Ron.Geiger(abadrinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:55 AM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Cc: Jordan, Jimmy D.; Wiebke, Mark D.; Gay, Kelly D.; Christine, Jack
Subject: CDIA Pavement Sweeping
Joseph,
Attached you will find a document that summarizes the testing performed last week at CDIA. Within the document is a
proposed plan for the next step in the sweeping process for which the Airport is planning to start. While it does not
include all testing scenarios desired by the DWQ the airport feels it is the best next step which focuses on the actual
pavement in question, and allows the pavement conditions to achieve a "stable or baseline" condition for which other
decisions on testing may be carried out.
We look forward to your comments. We will be forwarding this to the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
representatives who attended the event as well. Please forward to other state staff as necessary.
Thanks,
Ron
Ronald A. Geiger, PE
Water Resources Manager
HDR ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
440 S. Church St., Suite 1000 1 Charlotte, NC 128202-1919
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone] Email: RGeiger hdrinc.com
Pavement Sweeping Test
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
October 13, 2010
Summary o Results
Test Description
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CDIA) performed a controlled test to document
potential removal efficiencies of sediment from existing pavement, in support of the
Airport's Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). As part of the airport's compliance
with the 404/401 permit issued associated with various airport improvement projects,
CDIA developed a SWMP to manage pollutant runoff from select areas of the airport
property through the use of water quality best management practices (BMPs). As part of
the SWMP, the airport identified pavement sweeping as a component of treatment train
concept using pavement sweeping ahead of other structural BMPs. The pavement
sweeping test was targeted to obtain knowledge on actual removal efficiencies using the
airport's sweeping equipment, and to establish an operational protocol for regular
sweeping, which would be meet the intent of the SWMP.
In attendance for this test were representatives of CDIA, HDR Engineering, and
NCDENR DWQ. Invited guests included representatives from the City of Charlotte
Storm Water Services, and Mecklenburg County.
Testing Area
A location of the airport's air cargo ramp was used for the testing area. The pavement
was Portland Cement Concrete, similar to the runways and taxiways identified for
sweeping. This area was chosen as it is out of the active air traffic area, and would not
create undue complications with the operation of the airport.
A five hundred foot strip of pavement approximately twenty-five feet in width was
marked off with traffic cones, and approximately five-hundred pounds of sand was
distributed across the control area. This area and the pre-loading of "pollutant" represent
far more than a normal amount of expected sediment that would accumulate on airfield
pavement, due to normal jet blasts from airplanes using the pavements. It is anticipated
that the roadways to be swept in this plan (Wallace Neel Road and Old Dowd Road)
would not exhibit this heavy load either.
Testing Equipment and Procedures
CDIA has within its maintenance equipment an Elgin Degenerative Sweeper (known as
one of the more efficient sweepers due its vacuuming capabilities), which was used for
this test and identified for the long-term operation of airfield sweeping to comply with the
SWMP. The testing protocol identified for this particular test consisted of the following:
CDIA Pavement Sweeping Test Page 1
Lane 1 of 2: Run Sweeper at 7.5 mph speed for one pass. No overlap.
Lane 2 of 2: Run Sweeper at 10 mph speed for one pass. No overlap.
Subsequent Pass in Lane 1 and 2: 10 mph speed to remove remaining particles
The equipment speed of 4.5 mph was deemed the slowest reasonable speed available
from the Elgin Sweeper.
The second pass on each lane was performed to simulate the effect of overlapping at the
edge of a lane. The Elgin Sweeper maintains rotary brushes on the outside with a vacuum
container in the middle. The brushes push sediment to the center to allow the vacuum to
remove the sediment. It was observed that, after the first pass, excess sediment was still
on the pavement near the edge of where the brush passed. It is believed that an overlap
with subsequent passes would remove any lingering buildup of sediment.
Testing Results
Initial Load Placed on Pavement:
Sediment Removed in Lane 1:
Sediment Removed in Lane 2:
500 lbs.
280 lbs. (First pass, 7.5mph)
140 lbs. (First pass, 10 mph)
Net Removal: 420 lbs. (84%)
Sediment Removed in 2nd pass of Lane 1: 80 lbs. (10 mph)
Elgin Sweeper in operation
Attendees at Air Cargo Ramp Test Site
Additional Sediment Load Native to Pavement
It was believed that the existing pavement may contain native sediment prior to the
loading of the 500 lbs of sand. To estimate this additional load, the Elgin Sweeper was
run over the pavement adjacent to the test strip, at a speed of 4.5 mph. The amount of
CDIA Pavement Sweeping Test Page 2
additional sediment load removed was 100 pounds. Therefore, the adjusted calculations,
taking into account the possible native sediment is as follows:
Total Load: 6001bs.
Removed in One Pass: 420 lbs. (70%)
Removed with Two Passes: 500 lbs. (83%)
Residual Sediment from Sweeping Second Pass Sweeping
Native Sediment Load on Taxiways and Runways
To compare the air cargo pavement to active airfield pavement, the Elgin Sweeper was
placed on the parallel taxiway to Runway 18L-36R for the same distance as the length of
the test strip. The Elgin Sweeper was run at 4.5 mph and removed 20 pounds of sediment
on the parallel taxiway (compared to 100 pounds on the air cargo ramp). The difference is
believed to be a result of the taxiway being an active pavement with aircraft movement
(with jet blasts), and the ramp being dormant and not maintained.
mhu # #swd»,. uj4 r I?IH MY 410v,? ?a
Sweeping of Active Taxiway Edge of Pavement
CDIA Pavement Sweeping Test Page 3
Future Testing to be Performed
In consideration of testing performed, CDIA believes sweeping of targeted pavements in
accordance with the SWMP will begin to establish a baseline condition of expected
sediment loading during the bi-weekly operations. The philosophy behind this strategy is
that there should exhibit a "leveling off' from not having any sweeping performed to a
baseline condition that will represent the expected loading between sweeping (3-4 days of
sediment load). In other words, sediment density (per square area) should decrease
substantially and level off to a minimum at some point, but not go to zero. Once a
baseline condition is achieved, CDIA will consider modifications to the sweeping
protocol and possible additional testing. CDIA will communicate with NCDENR DWQ
at that time to discuss alternate strategies.
Monitoring of the sweeping will consist of measuring and recording the sediment load
collected along airfield pavements and roadway pavements for each sweeping cycle. The
outside 50 feet of airfield pavement (15 feet of full strength pavement and the 35 feet of
shoulder pavement) will be travelled (for each side of the runway and taxiways). Due to
the jet blast from takeoff and landing aircraft, this airfield pavement area would be
expected to contain the majority of the pavement's sediment. This sweeping is expected
to take approximately 8 hours for one sweeper and one operator. The load will be
measured, recorded, and disposed of prior to the roadway area being swept. The roadway
pavement will receive one pass in each direction which will cover nearly all of the
pavement's 24 foot width. Roadway sweeping is estimated to take two hours. CDIA staff
will record each day's removal for airfield pavement and roadway pavement. The
following information will be tracked in a spreadsheet:
• Date of Sweeping
• Speed of Sweeping (mph)
• Load Measurement (pounds)
• Identify airfield or roadway sediment
• Rain dates
• Rainfall amount (inches)
• Comments
CDIA Pavement Sweeping Test Page 4
Gyamfi, Joseph
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 3:05 PM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Cc: Randall, Mike
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
Attachments: image001.gif
So guess the question is, does the vacuum pick up the correct particle size. So, I would think they need to know what
particle size the vac has to pick up. (ie the max particle size that would be suspended). Yeah, I don't think that was clear
during discussion at the site. I wondered what you were talking about regarding size distribution! O
If they can't pick up the particulate that would be suspended then the question of whether sweeping is a viable
alternative is moot. Up front, your correct ...just run at 10 mph, 7.5 mph, 5 mph and 2.5 mph and determine if any of
the speeds will pick up the small particulate in question, if so which is most effective and is there any significant
difference between the speeds. Then is the vac can remove the smaller particles is that enough to get below the
threshold for his permits or is more work/experiment required.
I would think if the vac can pick up the large particles, it is also picking up the small particles, but I agree we need to
know that load as well, since it is suspended load , as you said that we are concerned with. Could it be possible that the
smaller/smallest particles get blown out of the way during the process?
Mike, I figured you needed something to read on a Friday afternoon.
AJ
From: Gyamfi, Joseph
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Randall, Mike; Johnson, Alan
Cc: Krebs, Rob
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
I think we are confusing ourselves between total solids and total suspended solids. If you remember, I mentioned about
particle size distribution so that we will know the distribution of the particles that are being captured by the Vacuum
Sweeper and their respective percentages with respect to the distribution of the initial solids that were placed prior to
the sweeping.
So while agree with you about the fact that they only have responsibility to prove that they meet the 85% TSS
requirement, it is not correct to use the numbers they obtained to represent TSS. In wet ponds and other BMPs that
depend on settling of particulate matter as a mechanism of TSS removal, the actual TSS removal occurs after the heavier
particles have been captured in the forebay and then the TSS is captured in the main pond as the water flows slowly and
uniformly without turbulence to the outlet.
Now, DWQ may accept the high amount of solids captured by the equipment as we saw during the test and conclude
that high amount of TSS was captured to meet the intent of the permit, and I would be fine with that. Thanks.
Joe
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 8:20 AM
To: Johnson, Alan; Gyamfi, Joseph
Cc: Krebs, Rob
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
Iconcur
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:45 PM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Cc: Randall, Mike; Krebs, Rob
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
I think my concern from looking at the private individual is that it is not his (the airport's) responsibility to run test for us
for other airports at his expense. His concern is meeting the guidelines/conditions of the permit. And I think that is
what he was trying to show at the test. They put down 500 Ibs of sand (solids) and picked up approximately 80% of the
"solids". Thus indicating that the vacuum itself could almost meet the conditions of the permit. Then running through
the other SW measures (grass swales, etc.) this should effectively meet the TSS removal for "their" permit. From the
401 perspective we need to see if it meets the condition of the permit first, then see if it can transfer to airports in
general and if they are willing to conduct such a study. Or maybe a Jim Hunt study would be appropriate.
I think Mike R wants to see how this can transfers to other airports where traditional SW BMPs aren't available, but as I
said above, I don't think that is the airport's responsibility. Given the run they made along the taxiway at <4.5 mph, and
recovering only 20 Ibs of solids, could it be that the solids are over estimated in the calculations.
I did suggest to Ron that they come up with an "experiment" to give an indication of the effectiveness of the speeds. If
they want to go 10 mph, then that should be included in the experiment. Their goal is the highest speed with the
effectiveness to achieve permit conditions, not maximum effective (that may be what we want, but that isn't the permit
requirement). So the question is how many pounds of solids have to be removed to meet the requirement in the
calculations. If the calculations shows that 100 Ibs of solids have to be removed and the airport can pick up 200 Ibs by
running their sweepers along the runway (whether the entire system or 10% of the runway system), wouldn't that meet
the permit requirement?
Alan
From: Gyamfi, Joseph
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Geiger, Ronald A.
Cc: Johnson, Alan; Gyamfi, Joseph
Subject: FW: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
Please see email from Mike below. He's got some ideas that may be considered. Please let me know the time period you
will need to submit the requested proposal. Are you okay with 30-days from Oct. 15`h? Thanks.
Joe
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:10 PM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
I concur. I'm more interested in establishing SOPS (e.g., frequency, speed, wet brushes, dry brushes, equipment type,
etc.) that yield the greatest TSS removal for the $$$$ under actual conditions.
Mike
2
Gyamfi, Joseph
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:45 PM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Cc: Randall, Mike; Krebs, Rob
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
Attachments: image001.gif
I think my concern from looking at the private individual is that it is not his (the airport's) responsibility to run test for us
for other airports at his expense. His concern is meeting the guidelines/conditions of the permit. And I think that is
what he was trying to show at the test. They put down 500 Ibs of sand (solids) and picked up approximately 80% of the
"solids". Thus indicating that the vacuum itself could almost meet the conditions of the permit. Then running through
the other SW measures (grass swales, etc.) this should effectively meet the TSS removal for "their" permit. From the
401 perspective we need to see if it meets the condition of the permit first, then see if it can transfer to airports in
general and if they are willing to conduct such a study. Or maybe a Jim Hunt study would be appropriate.
I think Mike R wants to see how this can transfers to other airports where traditional SW BMPs aren't available, but as I
said above, I don't think that is the airport's responsibility. Given the run they made along the taxiway at <4.5 mph, and
recovering only 20 Ibs of solids, could it be that the solids are over estimated in the calculations.
I did suggest to Ron that they come up with an "experiment" to give an indication of the effectiveness of the speeds. If
they want to go 10 mph, then that should be included in the experiment. Their goal is the highest speed with the
effectiveness to achieve permit conditions, not maximum effective (that may be what we want, but that isn't the permit
requirement). So the question is how many pounds of solids have to be removed to meet the requirement in the
calculations. If the calculations shows that 100 Ibs of solids have to be removed and the airport can pick up 200 Ibs by
running their sweepers along the runway (whether the entire system or 10% of the runway system), wouldn't that meet
the permit requirement?
Alan
From: Gyamfi, Joseph
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Geiger, Ronald A.
Cc: Johnson, Alan; Gyamfi, Joseph
Subject: FW: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
Please see email from Mike below. He's got some ideas that may be considered. Please let me know the time period you
will need to submit the requested proposal. Are you okay with 30-days from Oct. 15t"? Thanks.
Joe
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:10 PM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph
Subject: RE: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
I concur. I'm more interested in establishing SOPS (e.g., frequency, speed, wet brushes, dry brushes, equipment type,
etc.) that yield the greatest TSS removal for the $$$$ under actual conditions.
Mike
From: Gyamfi, Joseph
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:52 AM
To: Geiger, Ronald A.
Cc: Johnson, Alan; Randall, Mike; Larsen, Cory; Hammock, Daryl; Ceccarelli, Don; Mcmillan, Ian; Gyamfi, Joseph
Subject: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
Hi Ron,
Thanks for organizing the sweeping demo last Tuesday. It was good to see many folks watch it on the ground so they
could provide comments and/or inputs. Now, as much as the equipment picks up a high percentage of the solids, as we
discussed, that is not a good measure of TSS removed, albeit included. As I have always reiterated, I would like for us to
use this practice at CDIA as a pilot project to study what amount or percentage of TSS is actually picked up by the
Vacuum Sweeper without pre-loading the area with particles that are not representative of the actual field conditions.
This will be very beneficial to DWQ and other cities or local governments for other airport projects.
So, please do not dwell so much on the 77% TSS removal efficiency proposed in your application. I wrote the Permit to
accept the practice as a non-structural BMP because it will be used in combination with other BMPs - Filter Strip, Grass
Swale and Extended Dry Detention Pond. What I am asking you to do is to carry out several controlled tests (like the one
Mike suggested or other kind) and let's see how the results turn out. Please know that last Tuesday's results are
significant, we are in no way discounting that because amount of solids picked up was high at low speeds. But whether
10%, 20% or 30%TSS was removed no one knows at this time until several controlled tests are done and averaged out.
During a controlled test, you can vary the speeds of the equipment and compare the amounts collected against the total
solids collected from the washed surface. And this can be done say daily for 5-days, followed by weekly for 5 weeks,
then bi-weekly for 10 weeks, and then monthly for 5 months. Results from such tests can be used to develop a decision
support system which we can all agree will optimize cost but at the same time yield an acceptable TSS removal. The
results can even be presented at Conferences and published for others to benefit from it.
Please take some time to study what needs to be done, and submit a proposal to DWQ for review. And please
incorporate some of the components described above.
Mike, Alan, Cory, and folks from Charlotte, if anyone has anything to add, please go ahead.
Thank you all.
Joseph.
From: Geiger, Ronald A. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:14 PM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph; Hammock, Daryl; Ceccarelli, Don
Subject: FW: Directions for Sweeping Demo
Please see the location and link below for our meeting location next Tuesday at 11am.
http://www.mapquest.com/embed#b/maps/m:hvb:14:35.20289:-
80 938795•••••:1.1:::::::::/I••4100+Yorkmont+Rd:Charlotte:NC:28208-7338:US:35.204283:-80.939767:address::1:::/e
Please forward to others who might be driving separate.
Thanks,
Ronald A. Geiger, PE
Water Resources Manager
HDR ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
440 S. Church St., Suite 1000 1 Charlotte, NC 128202-1919
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone] Email: RGeigerCa)hdrinc.com
From: Gyamfi, Joseph
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:52 AM
To: Geiger, Ronald A.
Cc: Johnson, Alan; Randall, Mike; Larsen, Cory; Hammock, Daryl; Ceccarelli, Don; Mcmillan, Ian; Gyamfi, Joseph
Subject: CDIA Pavement Sweeping Demo - Issues
Hi Ron,
Thanks for organizing the sweeping demo last Tuesday. It was good to see many folks watch it on the ground so they
could provide comments and/or inputs. Now, as much as the equipment picks up a high percentage of the solids, as we
discussed, that is not a good measure of TSS removed, albeit included. As I have always reiterated, I would like for us to
use this practice at CDIA as a pilot project to study what amount or percentage of TSS is actually picked up by the
Vacuum Sweeper without pre-loading the area with particles that are not representative of the actual field conditions.
This will be very beneficial to DWQ and other cities or local governments for other airport projects.
Nie se dc, ; of dwell so much on the 77% TSS removal efficiency proposed in your application. I wrote the Permit to
accept the practice as a non-structural BMP because it will be used in combination with other BMPs - Filter Strip, Grass
Swale and Extended Dry Detention Pond. What I am asking you to do is to carry out several controlled tests (like the one
Mike suggested or other kind) and let's see how the results turn out. Please know that last Tuesday's results are
significant, we are in no way discounting that because amount of solids picked up was high at low speeds. But whether
10%, 20% or 30% TSS was removed no one knows at this time until several controlled tests are done and averaged out.
During a controlled test, you can vary the speeds of the equipment and compare the amounts collected against the total
solids collected from the washed surface. And this can be done say daily for 5-days, followed by weekly for 5 weeks,
then bi-weekly for 10 weeks, and then monthly for 5 months. Results from such tests can be used to develop a decision
support system which we can all agree will optimize cost but at the same time yield an acceptable TSS removal. The
results can even be presented at Conferences and published for others to benefit from it.
Please take some time to study what needs to be done, and submit a proposal to DWQ for review. And please
incorporate some of the components described above.
Mike, Alan, Cory, and folks from Charlotte, if anyone has anything to add, please go ahead.
Thank you all.
Joseph
From: Geiger, Ronald A. [mai[to:Ron. [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:14 PM
To: Gyamfi, Joseph; Hammock, Daryl; Ceccarelli, Don
Subject: FW: Directions for Sweeping Demo
Please see the location and link below for our meeting location next Tuesday at 11am.
http://www.mapquest.com/embed#b/maps/m:hyb:14:35.20289:-
80.938795::::::1:1:::::::::/1::4100+Yorkmont+Rd:Charlotte:NC:28208-7338:US:35.204283:-80.939767:address::1:::/e
Please forward to others who might be driving separate.
Thanks,
Ronald A. Geiger, PE
Water Resources Manager
H DR ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
440 S. Church St., Suite 1000 1 Charlotte, NC 28202-1919
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone] Email: RGeiger(c)hdrinc.com
From: Wiebke, Mark D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:15 PM
To: Geiger, Ronald A.; Jordan, Jimmy D.; Christine, Jack
Subject: RE: Directions for Sweeping Demo
We will have all of the parties meet at the gate adjacent to 4100 Yorkmont Rd. The gate number is 44 and is located
north of the intersection of Yorkmont Rd. and West Blvd.
<iframe style="width: 450px; height: 275px" src="http://www.mapquest.com/embed#b/maps/m:hyb:14:35.20289:-
80.938795::::::1:1:::::::::/1::4100+Yorkmont+Rd:Charlotte:NC:28208-7338:US:35.204283:-80.939767-.address::1:::/e"
frameborder="0" scrolling=" no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0"></iframe>
Mark D. Wiebke, PE
ASSISTANT AVIATION DIRECTOR
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Facilities
PH: 704.359.4025
FAX: [phone]
charlotteairport.com