NC0081469_Remission Decision (LV-2024-0134)_20240910

Docusign Envelope ID:2A23AD62-F51 B-45FF-A1 FE-15128088ADCA
cy
ROY COOPER 1 .Q
Governor / `
ELIZABETH S.BISER `
Secretary * a"""�«
RICHARD E.ROGERS,JR. NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
9/10/2024
CERTIFIED MAIL 7018 1830 0001 8037 0625
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
David Y. Reedy, Environmental Specialist
Colonial Pipeline Company
411 Gallimore Dairy Road
Greensboro,NC 27409
Subject: Remission Request of Civil Penalty Assessment
NPDES Permit NC0081469
RDU Delivery Facility
Wake County
Case Number: LV-2024-0134
Dear Permittee:
The Division of Water Resources has considered the information submitted in support of your request
for remission in accordance with G.S. 143-215.6A(f) and remitted the total penalty assessment in the
amount of$1,620.99. The above case is hereby closed, and a copy of the remission decision is
attached.
Please be advised that a full reduction of the civil penalty assessment in no way precludes the Division
from taking future enforcement actions against the subject facility should additional violations occur.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions,please contact Sydney
Deuterman at 919-707-3712, or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
DocuSlgned by:
_,
8328B44CE9EB4A1_
John E. Hennessy, Section Chief
Water Quality Regional Operations
Division of Water Resources
Attachments:DWR Civil Assessment Remission Factor Sheet(copy)
ec: Enforcement File:LV-2024-0134[Laserfiche]
DWR WQ Regional Operations—Raleigh [Laserfiche]
North Carolina Departm of Envn Q I of es
�� S 12 North Salisbury Streetent 11617 Mailironme Ser tal ice Centeruality I RaleigDivisionh NorthWater Carolina Resourc27699-1617
D
o ,.:.�.,., w.ft 919.707.9000

Docusign Envelope ID:2A23AD62-F51 B-45FF-Al FE-15128088ADCA
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
CIVIL PENALTY REMISSION FACTORS
Case Number: LV-2024-0134 Region: Raleigh County: Wake
Assessed Entity: Colonial Pipeline Company Permit: NC0081469
® (a) Whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors were wrongly applied to
the detriment of the petitioner:
Permittee States: CPC states that DEQ improperly applied the third assessment factor, "the effect on
ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality", in the penalty case. The Permittee
states, in respect to the third assessment factor on the form, DEQ did not discuss or consider the fact
that the unnamed tributary receiving the outfall discharge from the RDU Delivery facility first flows
into a constructed stormwater retention basin that buffers the downstream sediment load. CPC states
that as a result of this stormwater retention basin,any water quality impacts to Crabtree Creek and the
Neuse River Basin would likely have been minimized or completely abated,and this information
should've been considered and applied for assessment factor 3 on the penalty form.
DWR Response: The effluent permit limits and subsequent potential effects on ground or surface
water are based on the water quality leaving the effluent of the facility. Any downstream potential
treatment measures are outside the scope of the permit. Discharging effluent exceeding permit limits
increases the risk of adverse impacts.
® (b) Whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting
from the violation:
Permittee States:CPC states that they took actions to mitigate the potential for elevated TSS
concentrations in the discharge due to third-party land clearing and construction on an adjacent
property prior to the Dec 2023 exceedance,and provided a summary of those mitigative actions in
April 2024 in response to the NOV-NOI (NOV-2024-LV-0135). CPC states that these mitigation and
abatement activities included sealing joints in the water management basin that were a potential
pathway for stormwater to enter the basin(Nov 2023),installation of two rows of silt fence along the
northeastern fence line which is downstream of the offsite sediment basin discharge point(Feb 2024),
installation of two rows of silt fence and hay bales upstream of the water management basin(Feb
2024),grading to allow stormwater to flow around the water management basin and offsite to reduce
ponding and accumulation onsite(Feb 2024),and emptying and pressure washing the water
management basin to remove accumulated sediment to further reduce TSS concentrations in outfall
samples. CPC provided photographs of the site improvements in the NOV-NOI response and state
that they have spent approx. $13,500 in contractor expenses and BMP controls in an effort to abate
the third-party stormwater impacts.
DWR Response: These pictures were received and reviewed. Efforts appear to have been made to try
and prevent any future exceedances. In the following month,January 2024, the monthly average TSS
limit was exceeded by 7.3%. No additional limit exceedances for monitoring reports received through
June 2024.
® (c) Whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident:
Permittee States: CPC states that as indicated in the DMRs submitted by CPC for the Dec 2023 and
Jan 2024 sampling events,and detailed in the NOV-NOI response letter,the elevated TSS
concentrations were the result of third-party land clearing and construction on an adjacent property,
which resulted in"sediment-laden water"entering the facility's water management basin. CPC states
that the"sediment-laden water"was not, in any way,related to CPC's activities. The Permittee states
that upon becoming aware of the activities on the adjacent property,they communicated with the
third-party contractor for the adjacent landowner and requested cooperation in addressing the

Docusign Envelope ID:2A23AD62-F51 B-45FF-A1 FE-15128088ADCA
stormwater run-off impacts. CPC states that they were unsuccessful in gaining cooperation with the
third-party. CPC began site improvements in Nov 2023,even prior to the Dec 2023 TSS exceedance,
due to concerns that the activities on the adjacent property may impact the facility's water quality
samples.
DWR Response:Appropriate preventive measures could have been taken to avoid runoff entering the
site and subsequently the effluent outfall. A subsequent NOD was issued for TSS violations in January
of 2024.
(d) Whether the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations:
Permittee States:CPC states that their records indicate that there have been no previous civil
penalties assessed for the RDU Delivery facility.
DWR Response:A Civil Penalty Assessment was assessed in November of 2005 for Toluene/Xylene
exceedances. No other Civil Penalty Assessments have been issued to the facility.
❑ (e) Whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining
necessary remedial actions:
Permittee States:
DWR Response:Not addressed by permittee.
DECISION(Check One)
Request Denied ❑
Full Remission ® Retain Enforcement Costs? Yes ❑ No CO
Original Penalty(without Enforcement Costs) $1,560.00(enter amount)
Partial Remission ❑ % or $ (amount remitted)
Subtotal $0.00
Retaining Enforcement Costs $0.00
Total Revised Assessment $0.00
uSigned by:
el4-,,v 4f _. 9/10/2024
Ent.
328B44CE9EB4A1...
John E. Hennessy Date