NC0083887_MV-2016-0014_20160124

MEMORANDUM
TO: Derek Denard
FROM: Corey Basinger, Regional Supervis `
THROUGH: Wes Bell
DATE: January 24, 2017
SUBJECT: Request for Remission of Civil Penalty Assessment
NPDES Permit Number NCO083887
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County
Case Number NW -2016-0014
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secrekzry
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
JAN 2 6 2017
fter Quality
Permitting Section
CDIA attributed the monitoring violations to the contract laboratory's failure to include the BTEX sample
container in the cooler and that no environmental damage resulted from the violations. CDIA reported
flow on two separate days (same week) during this month and failed to collect the required BTEX
samples. This Office does not support any reductions to the civil penalty.
GG: PjZD F,t,,e

DWR — CIVIL PENALTY REMISSION FACTORS
Case Number: MV -2016-0014 Region: MRO County: Mecklenburg
Assessed Entity: Charlotte Douglas International Airport Permit: 14C0083887
❑ (a) Whether one or -more of the civil penalty assessment factors were wrongly applied to the detriment of the
petitioner;
Z(b) Whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the violation;
® (c) Whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
❑ (d) Whether the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
❑ (e) Whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary remedial actions.
MRO staff has reviewed the subject request for remission. The permittee asserts that minimal to no environmental
damage resulted from the monitoring violations and the facility has demonstrated a good compliance history with the
treatment/removal of BTEX'from the waste stream. In addition, the permittee indicated that the monitoring violations
were also attributed to the contract laboratory's failure to include the sample container for BTEX in the cooler.
A review of the facility's compliance history, from June 2011 to May 2016, reflects a history of reporting and monitoring
violations at Outfall 001. The permittee has been issued a NOD and three NOVs for the late submittal of DMRs (8
total DMRs), two NODs for monitoring violations (November 2011 and March 2012 DMRs); NOV for a TSS daily
maximum limit violation; and an enforcement for monitoring violations (September 2015). The enforcement ($306.53
total penalty) was paid in full on February 22, 2016. The permittee reported two separate discharge events during this
month (same week) and failed to collect the required BTEX samples (monthly sampling requirement); therefore, this
Office does not support any reduction of the penalty.
Regional Recommendation (Check One)
Request Denied ® Full Remission ❑ Partial Remission E
Central Office Recommendation (Check One)
Request Denied ❑ Full Remission ❑ Partial Remission ❑
Director's Decision (Check One)
Request Denied ❑ Full Remission ❑ Partial Remission ❑ Amount Remitted $
Date
S. Jay Zimmerman, Director

C.
A
t.
WaterResources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Jack Christine
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
CLT Center
5601 Wilkinson Blvd --
Charlotte NC, 28208
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
RECEIVED/NCDENR/SWR
December 13, 2016
DEC 16 Z016
WQRCS
rA00RESVIL LE REGIOP-ML 01--I=I(-,E
Subject: Remission Request of Civil Penalty Assessment
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
NPDES Permit NCO083887
Case Number MV -2016-0014
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Christine:
This letter is to acknowledge your request for remission of the civil penalty levied against the subject
facility. Your request will be scheduled for review by the Director and you will be notified of the result.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at [phone] or via e-mail at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Derek C. Denard, Environmental Specialist
Compliance & Expedited Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
cc: Enforcement File w/originals
Central Files w/attachments
DWR.M oo esville Re'gional_Og(c w/attachments-�
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919-707-9000

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
IN THE MATTER.OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
City of Charlotte )
Charlotte Douglas International Airport )
PERMIT NO. NCO083887 ) CASE NO. MV -2016-0014
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $296.00 for violation(s) as set forth in the assessment document of the Division
of Water Resources dated October 31, 2016, the undersigned, desiring to seek remission of the civil penalty, 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 Resources within thirty (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 ak day of
ADDRESS
RECEIVEDINCDEWWR
DECO 1 2016
Water Ce�fir
Quality
Permitting Section
TELEPHONE
9b1(-3��-�b12

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
Case Number: MV -2016-0014
Assessed Party: City of Charlotte
Permit No.: NC0083887
County: Mecklenburg
Amount Assessed: $296.00
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" form 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 apply. 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);
t/ (c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain w
— P h1' 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:
RECEIVEDINCDENIPYR
DEC 41 2016
Water Quality
Permitting Section
01

REQUEST FOR REMISSION
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NC0083887
CASE: mv-2016-0014
AMOUNT: $296
(b) We believe that there was minimal or perhaps no environmental damage resultant of the
omitted testing (i.e., "incident") because of the following:
The treatment system for this managed -containment pond has been overwhelmingly
effective, and the last recorded incident where any one BTEX constituent exceeded the
permit benchmark was in January 2013. Given this rare occurrence (one time in the past 43
months), it is statistically unlikely that BTEX contaminated water was discharged from the
premises and into local surface waters.
• The sedimentation and pump filters are changed on a regular (monthly) basis, and the
Airport has a contractor scheduled to come to the facility next week beginning November
21St to replace the Carbon within the GAC treatment canisters.
• The follow up sampling was performed nearly as soon as practical after the violation.
Although many days elapsed between the sample collection deadline of June 30 and August
7th, it is important to note that the pond is a managed and metered containment structure
from which discharge is (or can be) routinely manually controlled. It is a fact that no
discharge of water occurred from July 4th through early August.
• Follow-up water wastewater samples collected in August exhibited no BTEX analytes.
(c) As mentioned in our October 24th correspondence, the cooler provided to our contractor
(Mr. James Smith) by Prism Laboratories, did not include the 40 milliliter VOA containers that
would have been needed to collect, transport, and analyze the samples for the EPA Method
8260 volatile organic compound analysis. While it might have been possible to acquire the
needed glassware prior to the end of the day expiring, this does not seem to have been an
option based on our conversations with the technician. Since Mr. Smith was on site the last day
of the month, collecting the sample the following day would not seem to fulfill the permit
technical requirement any more than returning to the site to collect the sample on the 2nd,
3rd, 5th or several days later.
Mr. Smith has performed the sampling since 2001, and the Airport also has a long standing
relationship with Prism Laboratories. While there has been an occurrence of missed sampling
at Outfall 001, and admittedly other minor violations over the years, this is an isolated incident
that was unexpected and at least in part, the fault of the laboratory.
In the future, the Airport has committed to receiving the sample containers here at our
administrative office for inspection prior to delivery of the glassware to Mr. Smith. We believe
by doing so that monitoring violations due to lack of equipment can be eliminated.

The Airport has made considerable effort to do that which is necessary to comply with the
sampling schedule and the benchmarks noted by the expired permit. The pond has been
drained and cleaned 2 times within the past 6 years, sediment filters are changed once per
month, and next week (as stated), the GAC columns which are integral to the overall treatment
of the discharge will be drained, cleaned, and overhauled with new carbon media. These
actions are being done at considerable costs and effort (>$10,000 + labor + disposal costs) to
ensure the GAC treatment system operates at its optimal performance.
Because of reasons cited, we respectfully ask for remission of the Civil Assessment against the City of
Charlotte, in the amount of $296

1 M
ATTACHMENT A
City of Charlotte
CASE NUMBER: MV -2016-0014
PERMIT:
NCO083887
REGION:
Mooresville
FACILITY:
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
COUNTY:
Mecklenburg
MONITORING VIOLATION(S)
SAMPLE LOCATION:
Outfall 001 - Effluent
Violation Report
Unit of Limit. Calculated % Over
Violation
Date Month/Yr Parameter
Frequency
Measure Value Value Limit
Type
6/30/2016 6-2016
Benzene
Monthly
ugA
Frequency
Violation'
6/30/2016 6-2016
Ethylbenzene
Monthly
ugA
Frequency
Violation
6/30/2016 6-2016
Toluene
Monthly
ug/I
Frequency
Violation
6/30/2016 6-2016
Xylene (mix of m+o+p)
Monthly
ug/I
Frequency
Violation
a
Penalty
Amount
$50.00
$70.00
$50.00
$25.00