NCG500608_NOV and Intent to Assess_20180427

Low& Low&Bonar Inc.
PO Box 1057
Bonar Enka, NC 28728
T 828 665 5000
F 828 665 3737
lowandbonar.com
April 27, 2018
RE: Request for Remission/Mitigation of Incident # 201701034 Case #DV-2018-0012
q g
VIA Certified Return Receipt Mail
Steven Lewis
PERC Unit
Division of Water Resources RECEIUECIDENRlf�W
1617 Mail Service Center MAY 0 3 2018
R
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Water Resource
s
ection
G. Landon Davidson, P.G., Regional Supervisor Permitting
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Dear Mr. Lewis and Mr. Davidson:
Pursuant to your letter dated March 29, 2018 regarding the "Notice of Violation and
Assessment of Civil Penalty for Violations of North Carolina General Statute (G.S.) 143-
215.1(a) Low & Bonar Inc. — 1301 Sand Hill Road Case No. DV-2018-0012 Buncombe
County", Low & Bonar Inc. hereby requests remission or mitigation for the assessed
penalty of $82,222.97.
Attached are the Request for Remission of Civil Penalties, Waiver of Right to an
Administrative Hearing, and Stipulations of Facts Form and the Justification for
Remission Request Form. Our detailed justification and pleading is contained in the
body of this letter.

DETAILS OF JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
As to our pleading for remission:
For Factor (1) whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in the
N.C.G.S. 143B-282.1(b) were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner;
Eight sub-factors are considered and set forth from G.S. 143B-282.1(b):
Sub-Factor (1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the
State, to public health, or to private property resulting from the violation;
Sub-Factor (2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
Sub-Factor (3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air
quality;
Sub-Factor (4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
Sub-Factor (5) The amount of money saved by the noncompliance;
Sub-Factor (6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
Sub-Factor (7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply
with programs over which the Environmental Management Commission has
regulatory authority; and
Sub-Factor (8) The cost to the state of the enforcement procedures.
Low & Bonar Inc. (L&B) will address each factor one by one below for consideration:
Sub-Factor (1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of
the State, to public health, or to private property resulting from the
violation;
L&B Response: There were not any deleterious effects detected in the
environment because of the permit rescission. To our knowledge, State Natural
Resources, Public Health, and Private Property have not been impacted by this
violation.
Sub-Factor (2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
L&B Response: While the duration appears to have been long, the impact to the
environment for not having the permit has been unremarkable. The violation
itself was a self-reporting action on the part of Low & Bonar Inc. due to its
discovery in its initiative to become ISO 14001-2015 certified.

One of the ISO 14001 clauses §6.1.3 Compliance Obligations states that "The
organization shall:
a) determine and have access to the compliance obligations related to its
environmental aspects;
b) determine how these compliance obligations apply to the organization;
c) take these compliance obligations into account when establishing,
implementing, maintaining and continually improving its environmental
management system.
The organization shall maintain documented information of its compliance
obligations."
It was due to auditing our compliance obligations that this was detected and not
due to environmental harm and intervention by DWQ Enforcement.
Sub-Factor (3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or
on air quality;
L&B Response: From our engineering studies conducted by Pisgah
Environmental Services and a retired L&B contract engineer, it is determined that
approximately 29,500 gallons per day of ground water is infiltrating into our storm
water system. We basically have a miniature stream flowing through our storm
water system. This infiltration is positive displacement and not absorbing our
non-contact cooling waters and chiller tower blowdowns.
As far as surface water quality, as stated previously, there has not been any
detriment to the environment. Linda Wiggs, Environmental Senior Specialist,
from your office conducted a Site Survey with me, the engineers from Pisgah
Environmental Services, and a retired facilities engineer from L&B on July 6,
2017. Ms. Wiggs was able to witness the discharge of the combined stream of
ground water and purchased city water used for cooling into what L&B calls the
East Ditch. It is also referred to in Pisgah's reports as the Unnamed Tributary To
Hominy Creek. She was able to witness aquatic life, fish and minnows freely
swimming about with normal vegetation on the ditch/stream banks.
Air quality has not been impacted in any fashion due to discharging purchased
city water. In fact L&B is in good standing with WNC Regional Air Quality as we
are inspected every year as a Title V permit requirement.
Sub-Factor (4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
L&B Response: As L&B did not have any costs for remediation of environmental
damage, because there was not any environmental damage, we can only
describe the costs associated with fulfilling the requirements for reapplication for
the NPDES permit to discharge Noncontact Cooling Waste Water.

In a meeting on June 23, 2017, with Landon Davidson, PG, Regional Supervisor
for the Asheville Area; Linda Wiggs, Senior Environmental Specialist; Darlene
Kucken, Environmental Specialist; Dan March, Principal of Pisgah Environmental
Services; Wayne Merritt, Site Manager for L&B; and Steve Jenkins, CSP, REM,
HSE Manager for L&B; a plan of action was discussed that entailed a directive
from Mr. Davidson: (Paraphrased) "that for a permit application to go forward, a
complete engineering survey of Low & Bonar Inc.'s waste stream sealed by a
professional engineer would have to be conducted. We would have to have
complete knowledge of L&B's waste lines."
For this reason and to bring our discharge stream into one compliance point,
Low & Bonar Inc. has spent to date in excess of$533,000 to get to where we
could actually apply fora discharge permit. The breakout of this is $261,000 in
hardware (e.g. pumps, piping, monitoring equipment, de-chlorination equipment,
etc.), $170,000 in engineering and legal costs (e.g. waste water survey, mapping,
drawings, water quality testing, report writing, permit application, legal review of
work, etc.), and $102,000 in Labor and other expenses (e.g. asbestos removal
and disposal from old piping, installation work for pumps and piping, electrical
work for new monitoring and measuring equipment, etc.). Please note that since
our General Permit Application was returned, and additional testing and
calculations are required to be re-submitted for an Individual Permit, our costs
have continued to accumulate. We estimate another$10,000 to $15,000 will be
spent, which is not part of the $533,000 mentioned above.
While there were no costs due to environmental damage, Low & Bonar Inc. has
incurred significant costs of over a half million dollars to get to the point where we
could apply for the permit. As mentioned previously, the costs are continuing to
rise due to the General Permit Application being returned because of the Copper,
Zinc, and Calcium Carbonate parameters. Please note that the cost figures
mentioned above do not account for any of the Low & Bonar staff time that has
accrued during the managing of this issue.
Sub-Factor (5) The amount of money saved by the noncompliance;
L&B Response: Based off of NC DEQ DWR fee schedule and the estimated
costs of Quantative Tests required for the General Permit, if the testing were to
be conducted by Pisgah Environmental Services, Low & Bonar Inc. estimates the
total cost of the permit with testing included to be < $2500 per year. In the
overall operation of this plant, this is a minute amount per year. Avoiding paying
the annual permit fees and testing requirements was not the reason for
rescinding the permit.
4

•
Sub-Factor (6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or
intentionally;
L&B Response: The terminology willfully or intentionally would imply a deceptive
motivation. Low & Bonar Inc. did not intentionally or willfully operate without a
permit. A Low & Bonar employee believed that all process wastewater was being
discharged to the Metropolitan Sewerage District. As Mr. Davidson indicated
during our meeting on June 23, 2017 (paraphrased) "we (Low & Bonar Inc.)
need to know where all of our waste streams are coming from and where they
discharge."
This is where we think the disconnect was. It was a lack of knowledge of what
the definition of wastewater was, as well as the locations of discharge points from
all the equipment that use pass through purchased water for cooling. The
engineering survey has corrected this, and the future ISO 14001 program will
keep such misunderstandings from occurring again.
Sub-Factor (7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to
comply with programs over which the Environmental Management
Commission has regulatory authority; and
L&B Response: Low & Bonar Inc. does not have any objective evidence that a
Notice of Violation occurred due to non-compliance with environmental programs
during the past 5 years.
Sub-Factor (8) The cost to the state of the enforcement procedures.
L&B Response: Low & Bonar Inc. does realize that the state has incurred cost to
investigate and process this Notice of Violation. This is something that we
humbly apologize for. We are certainly willing to pay for the costs you have
incurred due to this incident.
We would ask that you please remember that we came to you as part of our due
diligence for becoming ISO 14001 Certified. The state did not incur costs
associated with having to track us down as a source of environmental
degradation to the Hominy Creek/French Broad River Basin. We hope you will
take our actions of Self-Reporting as an indicator that Low & Bonar Inc. is on a
path of environmental stewardship. We are working to improve ourselves and
our environment.
For Factor (2) whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental
damage resulting from the violation;
L&B Response: As there was not any environmental damage that occurred due
to the violation, Low & Bonar Inc. worked diligently to fulfill the requirements that
were given to us by Mr. Davidson and the DWQ on June 23, 2017 and follow-ups
5

by Ms. Wiggs regarding our testing parameters to get us to the point of
submitting a permit application. Our permit application was filed on December
18, 2017 with the Department of Water Quality.
Low & Bonar Inc. completed the following in 148 Days:
a. A comprehensive engineering study of all our equipment, their water usage
and discharge points.
b. Drains for both Sanitary and Storm Water were physically identified,
confirmed, and drawings updated.
c. All relevant drain lines for Steam Condensate were re-directed with
condensate pumps and return lines back to the boilers.
d. All relevant drain lines for non-contact cooling water and cooling tower blow
down were directed to one single compliance point—A small tank with a weir
to monitor flow.
e. A de-chlorination system was installed to lower the amount of chlorine in the
non-contact cooling water to acceptable levels before leaving the plant.
f. All roof drain discharge pipes were re-directed to the East ditch on Low &
Bonar Inc.'s property instead of contributing to the neighboring drain system
to the North of our property line.
g. A flow meter and weir system were installed at the flood gates prior to the
East ditch. This aided in determining Ground Water infiltration rates.
h. A comprehensive Ground Water infiltration study was conducted in
conjunction with the engineering study.
i. Requested reports and testing were submitted to DWQ in a timely manner
depending on the parameters that were being analyzed.
j. A permit application was submitted on December 18, 2017.
From Low & Bonar Inc.'s perspective, a lot of work and expense happened in
148 days. Today our expenses continue to rise as we sort out the returned
General Permit Application and prepare an Individual Permit Application.
6

For Factor (3) whether the violation was inadvertent or result of an accident;
L&B Response: As described in our answer to Factor(1) Sub-Factor(6) we
believe rescinding the permit was done out of lack of knowledge of the water
drainage system for the Low & Bonar Inc. site and the general terminology and
definition of wastewater. From our perspective it was an inadvertent innocent
mistake based off of incomprehension of the site and its discharges.
For Factor (4) whether the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any
previous violations;
L&B Response: To the best of our knowledge, other than this Notice of
Violation's civil penalty, Low & Bonar Inc. has not been assessed any civil
penalties for violations within the past five years.
For Factor (5) whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the
remaining necessary remedial actions;
L&B Response: While Low & Bonar Inc. is not having to remediate any
environmental impacts caused by the rescission of its General Permit
NCG500608, it has certainly incurred substantial costs with attempting to get
another permit re-established. We did engineering and infrastructure work to
substantially improve our processes to get us to the point where we applied for a
500000 series General Permit December 18, 2017. We were then notified March
23, 2018 that the General Permit application was being returned because our
Copper, Zinc, and hardness (Calcium Carbonate) levels were beyond the
allowable compliance parameters for a general permit. We now have performed
more testing up-stream and down-stream and are preparing to re-submit for an
Individual Permit. In the meantime we continue to incur testing costs, reporting
costs, and re-application costs.
Our focus going forward is to concentrate on the "E"portion of the NPDES
permit—Reducing water consumption and eliminating the waste stream if at all
possible. Instead of paying penalties, we would rather be investing in
recirculation of chilled water systems that would help eliminate the once through
use of city water and discharge to the Unnamed Tributary to Hominy Creek. Low
& Bonar Inc. asks that DEQ consider its cooperation with DEQ and the extensive
work done to address the matter in the last year, in evaluating this request for
remission.
Concluding Statements for Consideration:
It is an unfortunate set of circumstances that have led to the issuance of the Notice of
Violation Incident number 201701034. The lack of knowledge of site systems led to the
rescission of permit number NCG500608 in late September of 2013, and it was the self-
improvement journey of becoming ISO 14001 certified that led to the discovery that the

permit had been rescinded in error. While I can understand your displeasure with the
decision in 2013, I would ask you to evaluate the following:
If Low & Bonar Inc. had not wanted to become a more responsible company by seeking
ISO 14001 certification and had not a compliance obligations audit conducted by an
independent environmental firm occurred, would we have ever discovered this problem?
Please take under consideration we came to you in good faith with the disclosure that
we had inadvertently rescinded the permit, and we wanted to get back into compliance
and correctness with your department.
Low & Bonar Inc. is on an environmental journey to proper stewardship. This will entail
us to continually improve our Environmental Management System as dictated by the
ISO 14001 Standard. Our Environmental Management System will prevent future
mistakes such as this rescission from occurring. It will cause us to critically look at all
aspects and impacts to make decisions for improving and reducing pollution, as well as
for reducing uses of natural resources such as water. We have every intention of
becoming ISO 14001 certified this year and proceeding on our journey for continual
environmental improvement and stewardship. My intention is, in the not too distant
future, to introduce the Asheville Site to the Environmental Stewardship Initiative
program sponsored by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Department of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service.
I hope that our decision and candor to inform you of an improper rescission and our
timely responses for correction through engineering studies and infrastructure
modifications provide proof that we are serious regarding the next steps for our
Environmental Stewardship journey. We sincerely apologize for the mistake and hope
we can establish a good working relationship with your department in the future.
With kindest regards,
Stephen C. Jenkins, CSP, REM
HSE Manager, Low & Bonar Inc.
Enclosures: 2
cc: Rick Wagner, Low & Bonar Inc.
Clive Macro, Low & Bonar PLC
Matthew Joy, Low & Bonar PLC
William Clarke, Roberts & Stevens, P.A.
8

•
JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
Case Number: DV-2018-0012 County: Buncombe
Assessed Party: Low and Bonar,Inc.
Incident No.: 201701034 Amount Assessed: $82,222.97
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 or a result of an accident(i.e., explain why the violation was unavoidable or
something you could not prevent or prepare for);
V (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:
1 4e./ ��

r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
) STIPULATION OF FACTS
LOW AND BONAR,Inc )
)
)
INCIDENT NO.201701034 ) CASE NO. DV-2018-0012
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling$82,222.97 for violations as set forth in the assessment document of the Division of
Water Resources March 29,2018,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 C7� QS day of ,20 f 8
SIG Ue-11-4/144-
RE
ADDRESS
hr..t) &ha" agYi-C-.
/3 a I ja,,,Ilielitevi
&11,47, /1/C c,28702
TELEPHONE
(gag) 66-,364t