NC0001121_Remission (Justification for Request)_20060127

o$W F9
Pf 3
Q
co 7
o ,,:.
Mr. Rodney Lang
Dynapar Corporation
2100 West Broad Street
Elizabethtown, NC 28337
Subject:
Dear Mr. Lang:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William ( Ross Jr.. Secretary
North Carolina Department ()I Environment and Natural Resource,
January 27, 2006
Alan W. Kllmek. P I' . I)Irectnr
1 h) I,Ion of \\ :no Qualll�
DENR-FRO
JAN :, 1 2006
OWE
Remission Request of Civil Penalty Assessment
Dynapar Corporation WWTP
NPDES Permit NC0001121
Case Number TX-2005-0015
Bladen County
This letter is to acknowledge your request for remission of the civil penalties levied against the subject
entity. Your request will be placed on the agenda of the Director's next scheduled enforcement
conference and you will be notified of the result.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at [phone], extension 253.
Sincerely,
- l
Kevin Bowden
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Dale Lopez -Fayetteville Regional Office
Joe Corporon-Point Source Branch
ATU Enforcement File
Central Files
One
North Carol in�t
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center
Internet: www.esb.enr.state.nc.us 4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Raleigh, NC 27607 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BLADEN
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST
DYNAPAR CORPORATION
NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0001121
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. TX-2005-0015
)
forth in the assessment document of the Director of the Division of Water Quality dated
for violation(s) as set
1 ` cl
, the undersigned, desiring to seek remission of the civil penalties, does hereby waive the right to an
administrative hearing in the above -stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the
assessment document. The undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission
of this civil penalty must be submitted to the Director of the Division of Water Quality within 30 days of receipt
of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will be allowed after 30 days
from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the day of -icLe t
ADDRESS
L
IZ.c&.� ..
, 2006.
BY
J
`mot � � r c CLd S± E
1 tom' Ifl KY C
TELEPHONE
j.

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: TX-2005-0015 County: Bladen
Assessed Party: Dynapar Corporation WWTP
Permit No. (if applicable): NC 0001121 Amount Assessed: S1,053.42
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of
Facts" foiiii to request remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that
you believe support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in evaluating
your request for remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to
consideration of the five factors listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the
amount of the civil penalty assessed. Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for
contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements
contained in the civil penalty assessment document. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143B-282.1(c),
remission of a civil penalty may be granted only when one or more of the following five factors
applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to your case and provide a detailed
explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why the factor applies (attach
additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 143B-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are listed in
the civil penalty assessment document);
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future
occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the
violation was unavoidable or something you could not prevent or prepare for);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions (i.e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing
the activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:
In requesting a remission of the $1,053.42 civil penalty we offer the following detailed
explanation to establish that the September and October acute toxicity violations were
unavoidable and otherwise corrected as promptly as possible.
• [ m »sc u,, k� �.�Fea;QeaEw� "o�"r,d�'k l

As a batch treatment process for plating metals and cyanide wastewater, the physical and
chemical batch treatments will vary depending upon the plating processes under way and
the type of batch treatment that follows. Our investigation into the process control of the
wastewater treatment plant during both samplings revealed no condition that could likely
have caused either test failure. Preceding and subsequent analytical data for metals,
cyanide, suspended solids, residual chlorine and oil & grease indicate nothing atypical
throughout the entire period. We noted that the person collecting the September sample
was different from the person collecting October sample, however both were well
acquainted with the sampling procedures.
We also note there were reporting errors by the laboratory and communication failures
between the laboratory and our staff that delayed our corrective actions. In reporting the
September 12th acute toxicity result, the laboratory submitted a formal report that
indicated a pass, but the Form AT-2 indicated a failure. We contacted the laboratory for
an explanation. The laboratory manager said that their error was clerical, that the test was
indeed a failure. The corrected report was resubmitted with the pertinent QC data at my
request. Since we have had no recent history of violations, with the last single test failure in
September 2001, our response was to assume a faulty test due a problem with the fathead
minnow organisms or another variable within the test procedure. This initial response, as
we learned, is generally accepted by both the laboratory and the DWQ staff. On October
16th, another sample was sent to the laboratory. Upon receipt, the laboratory notified us
that they did not have the necessary organisms to set up the test. Another sample was sent
on October 31st . This resulted in the second failure reported on November 16th .
On November 7th , I was contacted by Mr. Dale Lopez of the Fayetteville Regional Office to
provide technical assistance on this matter. He suggested we look for contamination in the
composite container and tubing. We found each to be clean. We also discussed other
possible toxicants including metals, treatment chemicals, surfactants, chlorine and total
dissolved solids. Unfortunately, we did not retain a sample from either sampling event. We
believe that without evidence of a probable cause, we should continue our toxicity
investigation by beginning weekly analysis for total dissolved solids thereby creating a
trend line of this parameter.
While the 90% acute toxicity effluent discharge limitation was violated on two occasions,
we also suspect that a past flow change for our facility may have affected these results. The
90% acute toxicity effluent discharge limitation was likely based on a potential combined
daily flow of 0.17 + 0.152 + 0.152 MGD, representing Outfalls 001, 002, 003 respectively.
The makeup of this combined discharge Outfall 004 was significantly altered during the 3rd
quarter of 2004. A re -circulating cooling tower was installed on Outfall 002. This reduced
the anticipated Outfall 002 daily flow from up to 0.152 MGD to the actual
< 0.004 MGD. The Fayetteville Regional Office of DWQ was notified of the change in a
letter dated May 10, 2004. Ultimately, this has changed the makeup of our wastewater with
a greater percentage derived from plating operations thus increasing a source of total
dissolved solids, metal or other toxicant.

We can report that both the November and December acute toxicity follow-up tests were
passed.
With the explanation above we confirm there was no tangible evidence from which to
anticipate or otherwise prevent a test failure from occurring. We add that by having had
our Compliance Evaluation Inspection on December 2, 2005 with no deficiencies reported,
we believe that these penalties deserve reconsideration. We therefore respectfully request a
full remission of the $1,053.42 civil penalty assessment.