02/19/2010 14:18 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0001/00 3 

REDOX TECH, LLC 4 

"Providing Innovative In Situ Soil and Groundwater Treat^tf'Z f'''^ "C Hi, ^ f^ r ^ 

January 29, 2010 FEE " 3 20lf 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

-1- 1 

cp ~\ 

ATWi: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

I - a 

— - i 

R£: FAA Docket No. CP09AT.0013, Response to Motion for Decision and Amended 

Answer ^ 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin: 

We are responding to Mr. Glenn Browns Motion for Decision Regarding the Violations. 

We respectfully request that you deny said motion ihat was sent to us via lacsirnile on 

.lanuary 27 2010. We have always maintained that we took reasonable steps to eliminate 

fuel from the sysiem as stated in our letter of September 25, 2007. We removed fuel from 

the tank by pumping the gas out of the tank under vacuum. Although we did not per sc 

disconnect and drain the lines, fuel would have been removed from the lines and filter 

because of the negative pressure created by the pump. We have amended our answer to 

reflect that. Mr. Dan Regan removed the fuel from the tank, and he was not questioned as 

pan of ihe investigation. We will be calling Mr. Regan as a witness at our scheduled 

hearing. We feel ihai it is important thai we are given our chance lo provide our side of the 

incident, and we arc also looking forward to qiicsiioning Mr. Jeffrey Dcitz. 

We sincerely thank you for considering our request, and we hope that we are able to 

provide all of the facts surrounding this incident. 

Sincerely, 

5hn Haselow 

President/Managing Partner 

CC: Howard Martin, Complainant's Counsel 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

200 QUADEDRIVRCAR Y NORTH CAROLINA 27513 TRI, (919)678-0140 FAX (919)678-0150 

WWW.RRDOX-TECH.COM K-MAII,: IlASl',I.OW@REDOX-1ECII.COM 
r ** •> nM<3 01002/003 

02/19/2010 14:19 FAX 2024935142 FAA UMb «J 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

In the Matter of: | 

I 

Redox Tech LLC | 

_ ^ . I 

FAA Docket No. CP09AT.0013 

Judge: Hon. Lsaac D. Benkin 

AMENDED RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT 

January 29, 2010 

I. 

Redox Tech, LLC is responding to complaint regi.stercd as FAA Docket Number 

CP09AL0013. On October 26, 2009 Redox Tech LLC was served with the complaint by 

the United States Postal Service via certified mail. 

II. 

We are responding to Section II complaints in the same numerical sequence of the original 

complaint. 

1. Redox Tech denie.s knowingly offering a non-bulk shipment containing hazardous 

materials. Redox Tech did offer a non-bulk shipment containing hazardous maieriaJ 

for shipment but the employee and Redox Tech's partners did not know a 

haTiardous shipment was being made. The employee was a recently hired and was 

not made aware of HAZMA T shipping requirements. Typically, all hazardous 

material shipments are processed through our centralized shipping in Cary, NC. 

The person responsible for those shipments is properly trained. The employee did 

not check the hazardous materials box on the shipment label indicating that ho 

knew it was hazardous materials. Corrective measures have been taken to prevent 

this from happening in the fijture. 

2. Redox Tech admits this allegation appears to be factual. 

3. Redox Tech does not have sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation. 

Redox Tech had pumped/drained the fuel firom the equipment prior to shipment. 

Based upon our extensive experience with this equipment, we would be surprised if 

"the engine quickly .started and ran normally." The fuel tank on the equipment was 

drained of fuel. Also, the equipment is old and vcty difficuU to start. The reason the 

can of starting lluid was attached to the equipment is because in our experience, the 

equipment cannot be started without first spraying starting fluid into the carbu.rctor 

of the small engine. 

200 QUADH DRIvn GARY NORTH CAROUNA 2751.1 TEL (919)678-0140 FAX (919)678-0150 

WWW.RED0X-TECH.COM E-MAIL: HASEL0W@RED0X-rECH.COM 
01/29/2010 06:43 FAX 9196780150 REDOI TECH LLC 

121004/005 

,lanimfy29,2l!il0 

FAA licsponsii 

Page 2 of3 

4. Redox Tech admits this allegation appears to be factual 

5. Redox Tech admits this allegation appears to be factual. 

6. Re(iox Tech admits this allegation appears to be factual. 

7. Redox Tech admits tliis allegation appears to be factual. 

8. Rodox Tech admits this allegation appears to be factual. 

9. Redox Tech admits this allegatiion appears to be factLial. 

10. Rmdox Tech admits this allegarion appears to be factual. 

11. Ri;dox Tech admits this allegation appears to be factusil. 

12. Redox Tech admits this allegai.ion appears to be factusil. 

13. Riidox Tech admits this all6ga;jon appears to be factufil. 

14. Ri:"!dox Tech adnaits this allegation appears to be factual. 

15. Rie;dox Tech admits this allegation appears to be factual. 

16. R.edox Tech. admits this allegaiion appears to be faccual. 

17. K.edox Tech admits the allega.tion appears to be factual but it is neai' 

allegation 9, 

18. Redox Tech admits part of the allegation appears to be factAal with tli 

tl'ie fuel tank. We are not 100 percent certain that fijcl wa,j removed 

l:ines and filter, but we feel wc took reasonable precaution?.. Tlie fuel 

drained by pumping under va ;;uum but the fuel lines had not been IHH 

physically drained. However,, the fiiel lines and filter are connected 1 

\ivhen fuel was pumped undei: vacuum from the tank it is possible th:i 

the fuel lines and filter was reimoved. Also, the fuel cap was tightene': 

y identical to 

! exception of 

from the fuel 

ank had been 

:oimected and 

) the tank and 

. the fuel from 

sectirely. 

III. 

All of F.<^ allegations of Section 111! 1 (a) through 1 (r) ai'e admitted to be i- 3tual. 

IV, 

1. Under 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a), liespondent is liable for a civil penalty if not less than 

$250 ($450 for training violations) nor greater than $50,000 (c $100,000 for 

violations resulting in deatli, serious illness, or severe injury to my person, or 

substantial destruction of pKiperty), for each violation of the regulati jns. 

There ^iv^as no death, serious illness or severe injury to any person or substai tial destruction 

of pro];)erty as a result of the alleged violations. Redox Tech proposed i settlement of 

$25,000 for the violation of the regi,i.lations. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a cr/il penalt> of $84,000 is 

appropriate. 

Redox. Tech requests the Judge and Plaintiff to consider the following: 1) Redox Tech did 

not imlicate that the shipment wan either hazardous or non-ha;!:ardous, E: ither, it appears 

that it may have been Federal Express or one of its representatiNes that chf eked the box on 

the sliiipping form indicating thui shipment was no)i-hazardous; 2) I'cdox Tech has 

persoi'Luel trained in the shipping 'i.if hazardous materials, and all hazardc is shipments are 

Redox Tech. LLC 
02/19/201 0 14:19 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS i003/003 

.Iamiary29,2010 

I'AA Response 

Page 3 of 3 

normally handled through our centralized shipping at our headquarters in Ctury, NC. This 

was an isolated instaiKe where hazardous equipment was shipped from one of our satellite 

offices. Redox Tech does ship hazardous materials (chemical oxidants) but it seldom ships 

equipment by air. In fact, in our 15 years of business, this is the only case to our 

knowledge that we shipped equipment by air; 3) Redox Tech has instimtcd corrective 

measures to minimize the potential for a reoccurrence of this type of htizardous materials 

shipping error; 4) the person who shipped the equipment was a relatively new employee 

and some steps were taken to reduce a potential for hazardous conditions (draining of the 

fuel tank); 5) Redox Tech has substantial insurance, but none of our insurance policies 

provide reimbursement for this type of error, 6) the financial covenants on our line of 

credit do not allow Redox Tech to use the line of credit to pay for tines, civil penalties etc; 

7) Redox Tech does not have sufficient cash to pay lor the proposed fine; 8) Redox Tech 

has laid off three full-time and one part-time employee this year because of lack of work; 

9) FAA's own review indicates that Redox Tech is not financially robust; 

Kedox Tech. LLC