NC0083887_MV-2016-0014 /Request to Remit Civil Penalties_20170208

V ,
WaterResources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
February 8, 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 2250 0000 8087 0934
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Mr. Jack Christine
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
CLT Center
5601 Wilkinson Blvd
Charlotte NC, 28208
Subject: Request to Remit Civil Penalties - Denied
Decision in Case Number: MV -2016-0014
for Charlotte Douglas International Airport
NPDES Permit NCO083887
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Christine:
In accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A(f), the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (the Division) has reviewed your request to remit civil penalties in the subject case. We regret
to inform you that the Director has denied your request.
Therefore, your outstanding balance ($296.00) is due and payable. Two options are available to you at
this stage of the remission process:
1) You may pay this balance.
If you decide to pay the penalty, please make your check payable to the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). Send the payment, within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving this letter, to the
attention of-
Attn: Wren Thedford
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
OR
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919-707-9000

2) You may request the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC's)
Committee on Civil Penalty Remissions (the Committee) to make the final decision
on your remission request considering your additional oral input, as warranted.
If payment is not received within 30 calendar days from your receipt of this letter, your current request
for remission and this letter of denial will be delivered to the Committee on Civil Penalty Remissions for
final. agency decision.
If you or your representative would like to speak before the Committee, you must complete and return
the attached Request for Oral Presentation Form within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving this letter.
Send completed form(s) to:
Attn: Wren Thedford
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If you make such a request, the EMC Chairman will review the supporting documents and your request
for an oral presentation. If, in his/her judgment, the Chairman determines that there is compelling reason
to require a presentation, you will be notified as to when and where you should appear. If your
presentation is not required, the final decision will be based upon the written record.
Please be advised that the EMC's Committee on Civil Penalty Remissions will make its remission
decision based on the original assessment amount. Therefore, the EMC may choose to uphold the
original penalty and offer no remission, they may agree with the DWR Director's remission
recommendation detailed above, or the penalty amount may be further remitted.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at [phone] or via e-mail at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
i
Derek C. Denard, Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Attachments: Director's Decision; Request for Oral Presentation form
Permittee's Request for Remission
Waver of Rights to Administrative Hearing and Stipulation of Facts
Permittee's Justification for Remission Request
i
cc: DWR MRO files
Enforcement File
Central Files

DWR SIGNATURE PAGE
SUMMARY OF REMISSION FACTORS FOR ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTIES
Case Number: MV -2016-0014
Region: Mooresville
County: Mecklenburg
Assessed Entity: City of Charlotte — Charlotte Douglas Airport Permit No.:
Assessment Factors
NCO083887
❑ (a) Whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors were wrongly applied to the detriment
of the petitioner:
NOT ASSERTED.
® (b) Whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation:
The permittee asserts that there was minimal or perhaps no environmental damage as a result of the missed
testing because of the following: the treatment system (managed -containment pond) has been effective with the
last BTEX exceedance occurring in January 2013, sedimentation and pump filters are charged on a regular basis,
the carbon within the GAC treatment canisters was schedule to be replaced the following week, no discharge
occurred from July 41 through early August after the missed collection due date of June 300' and follow-up
sampling did not detect any BTEX analytes.
DWR Notes: The facility has demonstrated a -good compliance history with treatment and/orremoval of BTEX
from the waste stream.
® (c) Whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident:
The permittee asserts that the missed sampling was inadvertent because they did not have the proper sampling
containers (40 ml VOA glassware) on the day sampling was scheduled.
DWR Notes: The permittee reported two separate discharge events during this month (same week) and failed to
collect the required BTEX samples (monthly sampling requirement). The request states that the laboratory
contactor was on site the last day of the month, which gave no opportunity to reschedule or resample.
❑ (d) Whether the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations:
NOT ASSERTED.
❑ (e) Whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary remedial
actions:
NOT ASSERTED — Not Applicable.
DECISION (Check One)
Request Denied XT
Full Remission ❑
Partial Remission ❑
Rev. 10/2006
Retain Enforcement Cost? Y No ❑
$ ter ount)
y� 7 /.
E. Hennessy Date

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG DWR Case Number MV -2016-0014
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT )
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST: ) REQUEST FOR ORAL PRESENTATION
CITY OF CHARLOTTE )
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
I hereby request to make an oral presentation before the Environmental Management Commission's Committee On Civil Penalty
Remissions in the matter of the case noted above. In making this request, I assert that I understand all of the following statements:
This request will be reviewed by the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission and may be either granted or
denied.
• Making a presentation will require the presence of myself and/or my representative during a Committee meeting held in Raleigh,
North Carolina.
• My presentation will be limited to discussion of issues and information submitted in my original remission request, and because
no factual issues are in dispute, my presentation will be limited to five (5) minutes in length.
The North Carolina State Bar's Authorized Practice of Law Committee has ruled that the appearance in a representative capacity at
quasi-judicial hearings or proceedings is limited to lawyers who are active members of the bar. Proceedings before the Committee on
Remissions are quasi-judicial. You should consider how you intend to present your case to the Committee in light of the State Bar's
opinion and whether anyone will be speaking in a representative capacity for you or a business or governmental entity. If you or your
representative would like to speak before the Committee, you must complete and return this form within thirty (30) days of receipt of
this letter.
Depending on your status as an individual, corporation, partnership or municipality, the State Bar's Opinion affects how you may
proceed With your oral presentation. See www.ncbar.com/ethics, Authorized Practice Advisory Opinion 2006-1 and 2007 Formal
Ethics Opinion 3.
If you are an individual or business owner and are granted an opportunity to make an oral presentation before the Committee,
then you do not need legal representation before the Committee; however, if you intend on having another individual speak
on your behalf regarding the factual situations, such as an expert, engineer or consultant, then you must also be present at the
meeting in order to avoid violating the State Bar's Opinion on the unauthorized practice of law.
If you are a corporation, partnership or municipality and are granted an opportunity to make an oral presentation before the
Committee, then your representative must consider the recent State Bar's Opinion and could be considered practicing law
without a license if he or she is not a licensed attorney. Presentation of facts by non -lawyers is permissible. .
If you choose to request an oral presentation, please make sure that signatures on the previously submitted Remission Request form
and this Oral Presentation Request form are: 1) for individuals and business owners, your own signature and 2) for corporations,
partnerships and municipalities, signed by individuals who would not violate the State Bar's Opinion on the unauthorized practice of
law.
Also, be advised that the Committee on Civil Penalty Remissions may choose not to proceed with hearing your case if the Committee
is informed that a potential violation of the statute concerning the authorized practice of law has occurred.
This the day of , 20
SIGNATURE
TITLE (President, Owner, etc.)
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE

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. NC0083887 ) 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 4 day of
RECEIVEDINCDEUDWR
DEC 01 2016
Water Quality
Permitting Section
ADDRESS
P
C
LT Ce nfer
5�101 W(I`Cr1sw, 13fyj
me a ��
TELEPHONE
9b1
l -351- 4o12

Vf .
JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
Case Number: MV -2016-0014
Assessed Party: City of Charlotte
Permit No.: NCO083887
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);
[ / (c) the violation was inadvertent ora 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 forthe remaining necessary remedial actions (i.e., explain
how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you fromperforming the activities necessary to achieve
compliance).
EXPLANATION:
I' 1r,tSG
RECEIVEDINCDEQIDWR
DEC 01 2016
Water Quality
Permitting Section
4;;;

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
215t 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

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
Date
Report
Month/Yr Parameter
Unit of Limit
Frequency Measure Value
Calculated % Over Violation
Value Limit Type
Penalty
Amount
6/30/2016
6-2016 Benzene
Monthly ug/I
Frequency
$50.00
Violation
6/30/2016
6-2016 Ethylbenzene
Monthly ug/I
Frequency
$70.00
Violation
6/30/2016
6-2016 Toluene
Monthly ug/I
Frequency
$50.00
Violation
6/30/2016
6-2016 Xylene (mix of m+o+p)
Monthly ug/I
Frequency
$25.00
Violation