The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDEQp00021783CRON mommT F DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS RENEWAL APPLICATION 1l NPDES PERMIT NC0003573 N fi�y 3,,2001 N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 SECTION 1. APPLICATION AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION Unless otherwise specified on this form all items are to be completed. If an item is not applicable indicate 'NA'. Applicant and facility producing discharge This applies to the person, agency, firm, municipality, or any other entity that owns or is responsible for the permitted facility. This may or may not be the same name as the facility or activity producing the discharge. Enter the name of the applicant as it is officially or legally referred to; do not use colloquial names as a substitute for the official name. Name: DuPont—Favetteville Works Mailing address of applicant: Street address 22828 NC Hwy 87 W City Fayetteville County Bladen State NC Zip Code 28306-7332 Telephone Number: (910) 678-1155 Fax Number: (910) 678-1247 e-mail address michael.e.'ohnsonOusa.dupont.com 2. Mailing address of applicant's Authorized Agent / Representative: Complete this section if an outside consulting firm/ engineering firm will act on behalf of the applicant/ permittee Street address City, County State Zip Code Telephone Number ( ) Fax Number ( ) 3. Facility Location: Street address 22828 NC Hwy 87 W City Quart Township County Bladen State NC Zip Code 28306-7332 Telephone Number ( 910 ) 678-1155 Fax Number ( 910 ) 678-1247 4. Nature of Business: Manufacturer of PVB sheeting and specialty chemicals State the nature of the business conducted at the plant or operating facility I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate. Barry L. Hudson Printed Name of Person Signing Plant Manager Signature of Applicant or orized Agent — }}, VP Date Application Signed I North Carolina Gener St a 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that: Any person who knowingly moes any llal to slaement representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document files or req to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Artid?l or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1 000, or �y imprisonment Oat to exxeed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine or not more than $10,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both, for a similar offense.) SECTION 11. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION Complete this section for each discharge from the facility to surface waters. SEPARATE DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH DISCHARGE ARE REQUIRED EVEN IF SEVERAL DISCHARGES ORIGINATE IN THE SAME FACILITY. All values for an existing discharge should be representative of the twelve previous months of operation. If this is a proposed discharge, values should reflect best engineering estimates. 1. Outfall Number 001 and Type Treated process wastewater Give the nature of the discharge (process water, non -contact cooling water, etc.) 2. Discharge To End Date: n/a If the discharge is scheduled to be discontinued within the next 5 years, give the date (or best estimate) the discharge will end. I 3. Discharge Receiving Stream Name: Cape Fear River, approximately 500 feet downstream of Lock & Dam #3 Give the name of the waterway (at the point of discharge) by which it is usually designated on published maps of the area. If the discharge is I to an unnamed tributary, so state and give the name of the first body of water fed by that tributary which is named on the map, e.g., UT to McIntire Creek, where McIntire Creek is the first water way that is named on the map and is reached by the discharge. 4. Discharge Type and Occurrence a. Check whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. If the discharge is intermittent, describe the frequency of discharge 0 Continuous E] Intermittent Frequency: b. Enter the average number of days per week (during periods of discharge) this discharge occurs. 7 days per week 5. Water Treatment Additives Complete the table below if this outfall: • discharges cooling and/or steam water generation • water treatment additives are used (any conditioner, inhibitor, or algicide) • does not have whole -effluent toxicity testing required Additive Manufacturer Quantity (pounds added per million gallons of water treated) Chemical Composition (active ingredient(s)) Flocculent 1598D Cytex 190 Proprietary* Antifoam 7469 Nalco 381 Proprietary* Aqueous Ammonia National Ammonia 371 Ammonia Phosphoric Acid Albright & Wilson 108 Phosphoric Acid 110 * This permitted facility`is'regtaired�t6`�eoorm quarterly chronic aquatic toxicity testing. OUTFALL NUMBER 001 6. Wastewater Characteristics Check the box beside each constituent present in the effluent (discharge water). This determination is to be based on actual analytical data or best estimate (for proposed discharges). Parameter Present Parameter Present Color 00080 X Copper 01042 X Ammonia 00610 X Iron 01045 X Organic nitrogen 00605 X Lead 01051 Nitrate 00620 X Magnesium 00927 Nitrite 00615 X Manganese 01055 Phosphorus 00665 X Mercury 71900 Sulfate 00945 X Molybdenum 01062 Sulfide 00745 Nickel 01067 Sulfite 00740 Selenium 01147 Bromide 71870 Silver 01077 Chloride 00940 X Potassium 00937 X Cyanide 00720 Sodium 00929 X Fluoride 00951 X Thallium 01059 Aluminum 01105 X Titanium 01152 Antimony 01097 Tin 01102 Arsenic 01002 Zinc 01092 X Beryllium 01012 Algicides* 74051 Barium 01007 Chlorinated organic compounds* 74052 X Boron 01022 Pesticides* 74053 Cadmium 01027 Oil and grease 00550 X Calcium 00916 X Phenols 32730 Cobalt 01037 Surfactants 38260 X Chromium 01034 Chloride 50060 X Fecal coliform 74055 X Radioactivity 74050 '10 1 fd i ISECTION 11. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION Complete this section for each discharge from the facility to surface waters. SEPARATE DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH DISCHARGE ARE REQUIRED EVEN IF SEVERAL DISCHARGES ORIGINATE IN THE SAME FACILITY. All values for an existing discharge should be representative of the twelve previous months of operation. If this is a proposed discharge, values should reflect best engineering estimates. 1. Outfall Number 002 and Type Treated process wastewater Give the nature of the discharge (process water, non -contact cooling water, etc.) 2. Discharge To End Date: n/a If the discharge is scheduled to be discontinued within the next 5 years, give the date (or best estimate) the discharge will end. 3. Discharge Receiving Stream Name: Cape Fear River, approximately 500 feet downstream of Lock & Dam #3 Give the name of the waterway (at the point of discharge) by which it is usually designated on published maps of the area. If the discharge is to an unnamed tributary, so state and give the name of the first body of water fed by that tributary which is named on the map, e.g., UT to McIntire Creek, where McIntire Creek is the first water way that is named on the map and is reached by the discharge. 4. Discharge Type and Occurrence c. Check whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. If the discharge is intermittent, describe the frequency of discharge Continuous ❑ Intermittent Frequency: d. Enter the average number of days per week (during periods of discharge) this discharge occurs. 7 days per week 5. Water Treatment Additives Complete the table below if this outfall: • discharges cooling and/or steam water generation • water treatment additives are used (any conditioner, inhibitor, or algicide) • does not have whole -effluent toxicity testing required Additive Manufacturer Quantity (pounds added per million gallons of water treated) Chemical Composition (active ingredient(s)) Antifoam 7469 Nalco 25 Proprietary* Biocide** Unknown** Unknown** Unknown" 1110, j - * This permitted facility is required to perform quarterly chronic aquatic toxicity testing. ** Biocide for APFO Process ndt selected;. See discussion in "Potential Facility Changes". OUTFALL NUMBER 002 6. Wastewater Characteristics Check the box beside each constituent present in the effluent (discharge water). This determination is to be based on actual analytical data or best estimate (for proposed discharges). U � i NSllry Parameter Present Parameter Present Color 00080 X Copper 01042 X Ammonia 00610 X Iron 01045 X Organic nitrogen 00605 X Lead 01051 Nitrate 00620 X Magnesium 00927 Nitrite 00615 X Manganese 01055 Phosphorus 00665 X Mercury 71900 Sulfate 00945 X Molybdenum 01062 Sulfide 00745 Nickel 01067 Sulfite 00740 Selenium 01147 Bromide 71870 Silver 01077 Chloride 00940 X Potassium 00937 X Cyanide 00720 Sodium 00929 X Fluoride 00951 X Thallium 01059 Aluminum 01105 X Titanium 01152 Antimony 01097 Tin 01102 Arsenic 01002 Zinc 01092 X Beryllium 01012 Algicides* 74051 Barium 01007 Chlorinated organic compounds* 74052 X Boron 01022 Pesticides* 74053 Cadmium 01027 Oil and grease 00550 X Calcium 00916 X Phenols 32730 Cobalt 01037 Surfactants 38260 X Chromium 01034 Chloride 50060 X Fecal coliform 74055 X Radioactivity 74050 U � i NSllry ISECTION II. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION Complete this section for each discharge from the facility to surface waters. SEPARATE DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH DISCHARGE ARE REQUIRED EVEN IF SEVERAL DISCHARGES ORIGINATE IN THE SAME FACILITY. All values for an existing discharge should be representative of the twelve previous months of operation. If this is a proposed discharge, values should reflect best engineering estimates. 1. Outfall Number 006 and Type Low biodegradable Nafion@ process wastewater Give the nature of the discharge (process water, non -contact cooling water, etc.) 2. Discharge To End Date: n/a If the discharge is scheduled to be discontinued within the next 5 years, give the date (or best estimate) the discharge will end. 3. Discharge Receiving Stream Name: Cape Fear River, approximately 500 feet downstream of Lock & Dam #3 Give the name of the waterway (at the point of discharge) by which it is usually designated on published maps of the area. If the discharge is to an unnamed tributary, so state and give the name of the first body of water fed by that tributary which is named on the map, e.g., UT to McIntire Creek, where McIntire Creek is the first water way that is named on the map and is reached by the discharge. 4. Discharge Type and Occurrence e. Check whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. If the discharge is intermittent, describe the frequency of discharge ® Continuous E] Intermittent Frequency: f. Enter the average number of days per week (during periods of discharge) this discharge occurs. 7 days per week 5. Water Treatment Additives Complete the table below if this outfall: • discharges cooling and/or steam water generation • water treatment additives are used (any conditioner, inhibitor, or algicide) • does not have whole -effluent toxicity testing required Additive Manufacturer Quantity (pounds added per million gallons of water treated) Chemical Composition (active ingredient(s)) None * This permitted facility is required to perform quarterly chronic aquatic toxicity testing. J OUTFALL NUMBER 006 6. Wastewater Characteristics Check the box beside each constituent present in the effluent (discharge water). This determination is to be based on actual analytical data or best estimate (for proposed discharges). Parameter Present Parameter Present Color 00080 X Copper 01042 Ammonia 00610 Iron 01045 X Organic nitrogen 00605 Lead 01051 Nitrate 00620 Magnesium 00927 Nitrite 00615 Manganese 01055 Phosphorus 00665 Mercury 71900 Sulfate 00945 X Molybdenum 01062 Sulfide 00745 Nickel 01067 Sulfite 00740 Selenium 01147 Bromide 71870 Silver 01077 Chloride 00940 Potassium 00937 X Cyanide 00720 Sodium 00929 Fluoride 00951 X Thallium 01059 Aluminum 01105 Titanium 01152 Antimony 01097 Tin 01102 Arsenic 01002 Zinc 01092 Beryllium 01012 Algicides" 74051 Barium 01007 Chlorinated organic compounds" 74052 Boron 01022 Pesticides' 74053 Cadmium 01027 Oil and grease 00550 Calcium 00916 Phenols 32730 Cobalt 01037 Surfactants 38260 Chromium 01034 X Chloride 50060 X Fecal coliform 74055 Radioactivity 74050 ISECTION 11. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION I Complete this section for each discharge from the facility to surface waters. SEPARATE DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH DISCHARGE ARE REQUIRED EVEN IF SEVERAL DISCHARGES ORIGINATE IN THE SAME FACILITY. All values for an existing discharge should be representative of the twelve previous months of operation. If this is a proposed discharge, values should reflect best engineering estimates. I 1. Outfall Number 007 and Type Low biodegradable APFO process wastewater Give the nature of the discharge (process water, non -contact cooling water, etc.) 2. Discharge To End Date: n/a If the discharge is scheduled to be discontinued within the next 5 years, give the date (or best estimate) the discharge will end. 3. Discharge Receiving Stream Name: Cape Fear River, approximately 500 feet downstream of Lock & Dam #3 Give the name of the waterway (at the point of discharge) by which it is usually designated on published maps of the area. If the discharge is to an unnamed tributary, so state and give the name of the first body of water fed by that tributary which is named on the map, e.g., UT to McIntire Creek, where McIntire Creek is the first water way that is named on the map and is reached by the discharge. 4. Discharge Type and Occurrence g. Check whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. If the discharge is intermittent, describe the frequency of discharge ®. Continuous E] Intermittent Frequency: h. Enter the average number of days per week (during periods of discharge) this discharge occurs. ' 7 days per week 5. Water Treatment Additives Complete the table below if this outfall: • discharges cooling and/or steam water generation • water treatment additives are used (any conditioner, inhibitor, or algicide) • does not have whole -effluent toxicity testing required Additive Manufacturer Quantity (pounds added per million gallons of water treated) Chemical Composition (active ingredient(s)) Biocide''' Unknown" Unknown" Unknown"* * This permitted facility is required to perform quarterly chronic aquatic toxicity testing. "' Biocide for APFO Process not selected. See discussion in "Potential Facility Changes". AN 14 04 r OUTFALL NUMBER 007 6. Wastewater Characteristics Check the box beside each constituent present in the effluent (discharge water). IThis determination is to be based on actual analytical data or best estimate (for proposed discharges). Parameter Present Parameter Present Color 00080 X Copper 01042 Ammonia 00610 Iron 01045 X Organic nitrogen 00605 Lead 01051 Nitrate 00620 Magnesium 00927 Nitrite 00615 Manganese 01055 Phosphorus 00665 Mercury 71900 Sulfate 00945 X Molybdenum 01062 Sulfide 00745 Nickel 01067 X Sulfite 00740 Selenium 01147 Bromide 71870 Silver 01077 Chloride 00940 Potassium 00937 X Cyanide 00720 Sodium 00929 Fluoride 00951 X Thallium 01059, Aluminum 01105 Titanium 01152 Antimony 01097 Tin 01102 Arsenic 01002 Zinc 01092 Beryllium 01012 Algicides' 74051 Barium 01007 Chlorinated organic compounds* 74052 Boron 01022 Pesticides* 74053 Cadmium 01027 Oil and grease 00550 Calcium 00916 Phenols 32730 Cobalt 01037 Surfactants 38260 Chromium 01034 X Chloride 50060 X Fecal coliform 74055 Radioactivity 74050 'fAN 114 04 7. Supplemental Documentation Submit the following information appended at the end of this application form. All sheets should be approximately letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. All pages should include facility location and permit number (if available). ❑ Present Operating Status: Provide a narrative description of installed wastewater treatment components at the facility. Include sizes & capacities for each component. ❑ Potential Facility Changes: Provide a narrative description of any planned upgrades / expansions / repairs planned for the facility during the next five years. Do not include tasks associated with routine operation & maintenance. ❑ Schematic of wastewater flow: Provide a line drawing of water flow through the facility. The schematic should show flow volumes at all points in the treatment process. Specific treatment components should be identified. ❑ Location map: Submit a map showing the location of each outfall. The usual meridian arrow showing north as well as the map scale must be shown. On all maps of rivers, the direction of the current is to be indicted by an arrow. All outfalls should be identified with the outfall number(s) used in Section II of this application. A copy of the relevant portion of a USGS topographic map is preferred. ❑ Production Data: Submit the last 3 years' production data for the facility. Where applicable, use units specified in the appropriate subpart of 40 CFR. ❑ Priority Pollutant Analysis: Industrial facilities classified as Primary Industries (see Appendix A to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 122) must submit a Priority Pollutant Analysis (PPA) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122.21. If the PPA is not completed within one week of the due date for the permit application, submit the application package without the PPA. Submit the PPA as soon as possible after it is completed. A ! 114 014 IDuPont - Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573 Priority Pollutant Analysis See the following analytical reports. All analyzed OCPSF Priority Pollutant parameters were at non-detectable levels. This is consistent with the history of this analysis during the life of the current permit. For the past five consecutive years, the annual analysis for the priority pollutants listed in the subject permit I showed that these compounds were not at detectable concentrations. This is to be expected since none of the listed priority pollutant compounds are used at this site in a manner that they could reach any of the permitted outfalls. For this reason, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(a)(2)(i), DuPont requests that the requirement to annually monitor for these OCPSF Priority Pollutants be dropped for the renewed NPDES Permit. Requiring a facility to continue to monitor for parameters which have never been detected in the site's wastewater, and which are not physically capable of reaching an outfall, is overly burdensome and unnecessary. An "Effluent Certification for Waiver of Sampling Requirements of Guideline -Listed Pollutants" is presented in Attachment B. The analytical results for the OCPSF priority pollutants that were reported in the site's Discharge Monitoring Reports during the past five years are also presented in Attachment B. I N T E R N A T I O N A L ANALYTICAL RESULTS Date: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 Client: SIMALABS International / Burlington Res Client Project: OK485 / OK487 / OK486 ND Work Order: ME0011231 Client Sample ID: OK486-00 t SIMA LABS ID: ME0011231-03 A Sample Description: OK486-001 Sample Matrix: Aqueous Collection Date: 11/16/00 Date Received: 11/17/00 Samp Reporting Date Analyses Type Result Limit Qual Units DF Analyzed ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES/PCBS Method: E608 Prep Date: 11/21/00 Analyst: JLN 4,4' -DDD A ND 1 Ng/L 1 11/28/00 4,4' -DDE A ND 1 Ng/L 1 11/28/00 4,4' -DDT A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Aldrin A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 alpha -BHC A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Aroclor 1016 A ND 11 jpg/L 1 11/28/00 Aroclor 1221 A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Aroclor 1232 A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Aroclor 1242 A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Aroclor 1248 A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Aroclor 1254 A ND 1 pg/L _ 1 11/28/00 Aroclor 1260 A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 beta -BHC A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Chlordane A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 delta -BHC A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28100 ;Dieldrin A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 ,Endosulfan I A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Endosulfan II A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Endosulfan sulfate A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Endrin A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Endrin aldehyde A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Endrin Ketone A ND 1 Ng/L 1 11/28/00 gamma -BHC A NO 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Heptachlor A ND 1 pg/L 1 11/28/00 ;Heptachlor epoxide A ND 1 Ng/L 1 11/28/00 ;Methoxychlor A ND 5 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Toxaphene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Surf: Decachlorobiphenyl S 105 50-130 % REC 1 11/28/00 Surf: Tetrachloro-m-xylene S 85 50-130 % REC 1 11/28/00 Sump Type: A - Analyte, S • Surrogate, l- Internal Standard DF - Dilution Factor Qual: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike recovery outside recovery limits I -Matrix Interference B - Detected in the associated Method Blank SD - Value diluted out ' - Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits E - Value above quantitation range J '?f9 250 West 84th Drive, Merrillville,.IN 46410 TEL.800.536.8379 TEL.219.769.8378 FAX 219.769.1664 JAN 14 04 I N T E R N A T I O N A L ANALYTICAL RESULTS Date: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 Client: SIMALABS International /Burlington Res Client Project: OK485 / OK487 / OK486 NO Work Order: ME0011231 Client Sample ID: OK486-001 SIMALABS ID: ME0011231-03A Sample Description: OK486-001 Sample Matrix: Aqueous Collection Date: 11/16/00 Date Received: 11/17/00 Samp Reporting Date Analyses Type Result Limit Qual Units DF Analyzed SEMI -VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOC) Method: E625 Prep Date: 11/21/00 Analyst: NT 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 1,2-Dipheny1hydrazine A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2,4,6 -Trichlorophenol A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2,4-Dichlorophenol A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2,4 -Dimethylphenol A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2,4-Dinitrophenol A NO 51 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2,4-Dinitrotoluene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2,6-Dinitrotoluene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2-Chloronaphthalene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2 -Chlorophenol A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 2-Nitrophenol A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine A NO 51 pg/L 1 11/28/00 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol A NO 51 pg/L 1 11/28/00 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol A NO 20 pg/L 1 11/28/00 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 4-Nitrophenol A NO 51 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Acenaphthene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Acenaphthylene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Anthracene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Benzidine A NO 51 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Benzo[a]anthracene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Benzo[a]pyrene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Benzo[b]fluoranthene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11128/00 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Senzo[k]fluoranthene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate A NO 10 pg/L 1 11128/00. Butyl benzyl phthalate A NDI 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Samp Type: A - Analyte, S - Surrogate, I - Internal Standard OF - Dilution Factor Qual: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike recovery outside recovery limits I -Matrix Interference B - Detected in the associated Method Blank SD - Value diluted out • - Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level R - RPO outside accepted recovery limits E • Value above quantitation range 6 oj9 250 West 84th Drive, Merrillville, IN 46410 TEL.800.536.8379 TEL.219.769.8378 FAX 219.769.1664 J IIIII 14 04 I N T E R N A T I O N A L ANALYTICAL RESULTS Date: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 Client: SIMA LABS International /Burlington Res Client Project: OK485 / OK487 / OK486 ND Work Order: ME0011231 Client Sample ID: OK486-001 SIMALABS ID: ME0011231-03A Sample Description: OK486-001 Sample Matrix: Aqueous Collection Date: 11/16/00 Date Received: 11/17/00 Analyses Samp Reporting Tvne Result r ;—.# Oual Units Date DF Analyzed Chrysene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Di -n -butyl phthalate A ND 10 ug/L 1 11/28/00 Di-n-octyl phthalate A ND 10 tig/L 1 11/28/00 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene A ND 10 llg/L 1 11/28/00 Diethyl phthalate A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Dimethyl phthalate A ND 10 l;g/L 1 11/28/00 Fluoranthene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Fluorene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Hexachlorobenzene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 ,Hexachlorobutadiene i A ND 101 pg/L 1 11/28/00 iHexachlorocyclopentadiene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Hexarhloroethane' A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Indeno[1,2,3cd]pyrene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Isophorone A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylarnine A ND 10 l,g/L 1 11/28/00 N-Nitrosodimethylamine A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Naphthalene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Nitrobenzene A ND 10 µg/L 1 11/28/00 ,Pentachlorophenol A ND 51 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Phenanthrene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Phenol A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/28/00 Pyrene A ND 10 ltg/L 1 11/28/00 Surr.- 2,4,6-Tribromophenol S 57 10-123 % REC 1 11/28/00 Surra 2-F/uorobiphenyl S 72 43-116 % REC 1 11/28/00 Surr. 2-Fluorophenol S 46 21-100 % REC 1 11/28/00 Sum, Nitrobenzene -d5 S 63 35-114 % REC 1 11/28/00 Surr.- Phenol -d5 5 33 10-94 % REC 1 11/28/00 Suff., Terphenyl-04 S 74 33-141 % REC 1 11/28/00 Samp Type: A - Analyte, S - Surrogate, I - Internal Standard DF - Dilution Factor Qual: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike recovery outside recovery limits I -Matrix Interference B - Detected in the associated Method Blank SD - Value diluted out • - Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits E - Value above quantitation range 7 of 9 250 West 84th Drive, Merrillville, IN 46410 TE L. 800.5 36.8 3 79 TE L. 219.769.8378 FAX 219.769.1664 AN 14 04 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ANALYTICAL RESULTS Date: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 Client: SIMALABS International / Burlington Res Client Project: OK485 / OK487 / OK486 NO Work Order: MEOO 11231 Client Sample ID: OK486-001 SIMALABS ID: ME0011231-03B Sample Description: OK486-001 Sample Matrix: Aqueous Collection Date: 11/16/00 Date Received: 11/17/00 Samp Reporting Date Analyses Type Result LImit Qual Units DF Analyzed VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) Method: E624 Prep Date: Analvst: CLR 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane A NO 5 Ng/L 1 11/30/00 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 1,1-Dichloroethane A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30100 1,1-Dichloroethene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/30/00 1,2-Dichloroethane A NO 5 ug/L 1 11/30/00 1,2-Dichloropropane A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/30/00 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/30/00 12-Chloroethyl vinyl ether A ND10 a pg/L 1 11/30/00 Acrolein A NO 100 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Acrylonitrile A NO 100 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Benzene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Bromodichloromethane A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Bromoform A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Bromomethane A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Carbon tetrachloride A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Chlorobenzene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Chloroethane A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Chloroform A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Chloromethane - A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/30/00 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Dibromochloromethane A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Ethylbenzene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 m -Xylene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Methylene chloride A NO 10 pg/L 1 11/30100 o -Xylene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 p -Xylene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Styrene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Tetrachloroethene A NO 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Toluene A NO 5 Ng/L 1 11/30/00 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene A N 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00- 1/30/00- trans-1,3-Dichloropropene trans- 1,3-Dichloropropene A NDI 5 pg/L 1 11/30/00 I Samp Type: A - Analyte, S - Surrogate, I - Internal Standard DF - Dilution Factor Qua[: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike recovery outside recovery limits I -Matrix Interference B - Detected in the associated Method Blank SD - Value diluted out • - Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits E - Value above quantitation range 8 of 9 I250 West 84th Drive, Merrillville, IN 46410 TEL.800.536.8379 TEL.219.769.8378 FAX 219.769.1664 I A N 14 04 I N T E R N A T l 0 N A L ANALYTICAL RESULTS Date: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 Client: SIMALABS International / Burlington Res Client Project: OK485 / OK487 / OK486 ND Work Order: ME0011231 Client Sample ID: OK486-001 SIMA LABS ID: ME0011231-03B Sample Description: OK486-001 Sample Matrix: Aqueous Collection Date: 11/16/00 Date Received: 11/17/00 Analyses Samp Reporting Tvae Result T AMIt Oual Units Date DF Analyzed richloroethene A ND 5 lig/L 1 11/30100 richlorofluoromethane A ND 5 l,g/L 1 11/30/00 Vinyl chloride A ND 10 pg/L 1 11/30/00 Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 S 100 80-120 %REC 1 11/30/00 Surr. 4-Bromofluorobenzene S 93 86-115 % REC 1 11/30/00 Surr. Dibromofluoromethane S 93 86-118 % REC 1 11/30/00 Suff. Toluene -d8 S 941 80-120 % REC 1 11/30/00 Samp Type: A - Analyte, S - Surrogate, I - Internal Standard DF - Dilution Factor Qual: ND . Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike recovery outside recovery limits I -Matrix Interrerence B - Detected in the associated Method Blank SD - Value diluted out • - Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits E - Value above quantitation range 250 West 84th Drive, Merrillville, IN 46410 TEL.800.536.8379 TEL.219.769.8378 FAX 219.769.1664 9of9 JAN 14 04 DuPont Automotive CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR - DEM Water Quality Section Permits & Engineering Unit P. O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 RE: Renewal of NPDES Permit No. NCO003573 Nafion0 Process Wastewater Discharge to Outfall 002 Dear Mr. Nizich, DuPont Automotive P.O. Drawer Fayetteville, NC 28302 March 15, 1996 This letter is to provide you information to modify the referenced NPDES Permit to allow for the non -biodegradable Nafion0 process wastewater to be discharged directly to Outfall 002, thereby bypassing the site's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), or to be discharged to the WWTP as is done currently. The reason for this requested modification is that future expansions of the Nafion0 area will unnecessarily increase the hydraulic loading to the WWTP, with no benefit to the environment by ' treating the non -biodegradable wastewater in the WWTP. Enclosed are two updated wastewater flow diagrams which should replace the current diagrams Isubmitted with the NPDES Permit Renewal Application. These updated flow diagrams show the two alternate routes for the non -biodegradable Nafion® process wastewater. ' To characterize the Nafion0 wastewater, both physical testing and aquatic toxicity testing were performed on 24-hour composite samples taken of the Nafion0 HFPO Process Scrubber and IWaste Gas Scrubber effluents, the main source of process wastewater from the Nafion® area. SUMMARY ' Both the Nafion0 HFPO Process Scrubber and Nafion0 Waste Gas Scrubber effluents have no measurable BODS value, do exhibit measurable COD and Fluoride levels, and exhibit acceptable aquatic toxicity levels at the worst-case concentration at Outfall 002. IE. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ® Printed on Recycled Paper Z-544 Rev. 05 AN 14 04 IMr. Gregory Nizich Page 2 NC DEHNR ■ March 15, 1996 The testing indicates a high TSS level for the BFPO Process Scrubber effluent, which had a large amount of salt crystals after neutralization with sulfuric acid,. Analysis of those crystals show that they are potassium sulfate, which has a solubility in water of 12% by weight. Since this scrubber effluent would be less than 0.05% of the Outfall 002 flow, these salts would be completely dissolved, thereby eliminating the TSS concern. Our NPDES permit requires monitoring of BODS, COD, Fluoride, and Bioassay at Outfall 002, so the above parameters would be monitored under the existing permit requirements. The OCPSF Priority Pollutants are currently monitored only at Outfall 001, so monitoring of the Nafion0 wastewater which bypasses the WWTP may be required for the appropriate OCPSF Priority Pollutants. A second Nafion0 Waste Gas Scrubber is being installed as part of a new Vinyl Ethers Process expansion. The effluent from this new scrubber should be identical to the existing Waste Gas Scrubber, therefore it, as well as all future non -biodegradable, non-toxic wastewaters should be allowed to bypass the WWTP. If this site elects to bypass the Nafion0 wastewater around the WWTP, it will undoubtedly be done with a pipeline, therefore any required monitoring will be simplified. The permit should be writ -ten so that any monitoring is required only when Nafion0 wastewater is bypassing the WWTP. BASIS FOR TESTING CONCENTRATIONS The performed tests were based on two potential operational schemes. The two schemes evalu- ated were: 1) Bypassing the Nafion0 HFPO Process Scrubber effluent around the WWTP and discharge it directly to the site's woodlined ditch which is discharged as Outfall 002, and discharge all other Nafion0 process wastewater streams to the WWTP and ultimately through Outfall 001; or 2) Bypassing both the Nafion0 HFPO Process Scrubber and Nafion0 Waste Gas Scrubber effluents around the WWTP and discharge them directly to the site's woodlined ditch which is discharged as Outfall 002, and discharge all other Nafion0 process wastewater streams to the WWTP and ultimately through Outfall 001. The anticipated flows for the two subject scrubber effluents following an upcoming expansion of the HFPO process, and the three-year low flow condition for Outfall 002 are as follows: JA`? 14 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich Page 3 NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 1) The Nafion0 HFPO Process Scrubber normal daily flow = 5,330 gal/day 2) The Nafion® Waste Gas Scrubber normal daily flow = 5,760 gal/day 3) The Outfall 002 low flow condition = 11.83 MGD The contribution of the two process streams to Outfall 002's flow is obviously very small. All physical analyses were performed on the undiluted scrubber effluents. The 48 -hr acute toxicity testing was performed on process samples diluted with laboratory water to a concentration representative of the ratio of normal process flow(s) to Outfall 002 low flow. No additional dilution was taken for the dilution effect of the Cape Fear River. The 7 -day chronic bioassay testing was performed on process samples diluted with Outfall 002 composite effluent to a concentration representative of the ratio of normal process flow(s) to Outfall 002 low flow. The bioassay testing was then performed at both a 3.3% dilution (the test concentration specified on our NPDES Permit) and at a 6.6% dilution (twice the concentration specified on our NPDES Permit). PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTS The results of the physical analytical testing of the scrubber effluents are presented in Table 1. Both the BFPO Process Scrubber and Waste Gas Scrubber effluents exhibit no measurable level of BODS. This is expected since the Nafion0 manufacturing area produces only fluorocarbon compounds which should be totally non -biodegradable. The absence of BODS material supports our request to allow this material to bypass the WWTP. Both scrubber effluents exhibit levels of COD and TOC. Using the highest measured concentrations and the normal scrubber flows, the COD discharge from the two scrubbers would be approximately 400 lb/day. The permit currently requires monitoring of COD at Outfall 002 on a monthly basis. We feel this frequency is adequate to monitor the COD discharge in the final effluent. As described in the summary, the high TSS level for the HFPO Process Scrubber effluent results from the formation of potassium sulfate as a by-product of the pH adjustment using sulfuric acid. The dilution of this waste stream with the other streams comprising Outfall 002 will completely dissolve the potassium sulfate salts, thereby eliminating the TSS concern. The lower TSS result for the February 13, 1996, sample is believed to be the result of incomplete mixing to suspend the salts in the neutralized sample. A IN 14 0'4 IMr. Gregory Nizich Page 4 NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 The HFPO Process Scrubber effluent contains from 2% to 3% fluoride, and the Waste Gas Scrubber effluent contains approximately 1% fluoride. After the upcoming HFPO Process expansion, the combined fluoride discharge from these two scrubbers would be approximately 2,4001b/day, which is well below the permitted limit of 5,000 lb/day fluoride. Fluorides are non - biodegradable, and only a small amount of the fluorides are retained in the sludge, therefore virtually all of the fluorides currently entering the WWTP are discharged in the treated effluent to Outfall 002. AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING RESULTS To ensure that the two subject scrubber effluent streams are not toxic to aquatic organisms, both acute and chronic testing using both invertebrates (ceriodaphnia) and vertebrates (fathead minnows) were performed with the HFPO Process Scrubber effluent separately, and with a mixture of both the HFPO Process Scrubber and the Waste Gas Scrubber effluents. The 48 -hr acute toxicity testing dilution series was based on a concentration representative of the ratio of normal scrubber flow(s) to the Outfall 002 low flow. For the HFPO Process Scrubber effluent, the worst-case concentration was 0.00045 (5,330 gal/day -T 11.83 MGD). For the combined HFPO Process Scrubber and Waste Gas Scrubber effluents, the worst-case concentration was 0.00094 ((5,330 gal/day + 5,760 gal/day) -� 11.83 MGD). No additional dilution was taken for the Cape Fear River. The acute testing was performed on 24-hour composite samples of the two scrubber effluents taken on January 30, 1996 and on February 13, 1996. The results of the January 30th testing were used to better define the dilution series for the February 13th testing. Table 2 and Table 3 give the results of the acute testing using the BFPO Process Scrubber effluent. The ceriodaphnia was the more sensitive species, with the January 30, 1996, test indicating an LCS0 of 0.00084 volume Scrubber/volume diluent versus the worst-case concentration of 0.00045 volume Scrubber/volume diluent. The January 30, 1996, test of Fathead Minnow had an LC50 of 0.00257 volume Scrubber/volume diluent versus the worst-case concentration of 0.00045 volume Scrubber/volume diluent. Table 4 and Table 5 give the results of the acute testing using the combined HFPO Process I Scrubber and Waste Gas Scrubber effluents. The ceriodaphnia was again the more sensitive species, with the February 13, 1996, test indicating an LC50 of 0.00148 volume Scrubbers/volume diluent versus the worst-case concentration of 0.00094 volume I Scrubbers/volume diluent. The January 30, 1996, test of Fathead Minnow had an LC50 of 0.00540 volume Scrubbers/volume diluent versus the worst-case concentration of 0.00094 volume Scrubbers/volume diluent. I 014 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 Page 5 The acute toxicity testing summary sheets from Burlington Research are attached as supporting documentation. The North Carolina 7 -day chronic bioassay testing using ceriodaphnia dubia was also based on the worst-case concentration representative of the ratio of the normal scrubber flow(s) to the Outfall 002 low flow. For the chronic testing, the Outfall 002 24 -hr composite sample was used as the diluent. The HFPO Process Scrubber effluent worst-case concentration was 0.00045 (5,330 gal/day -*- 11.83 MGD). The combined BFPO Process Scrubber and Waste Gas Scrubber effluents worst-case concentration was 0.00094 ((5,330 gal/day + 5,760 gal/day) + 11.83 MGD). The chronic bioassay testing was then performed at both a 3.3% dilution (the test concentration specified in our NPDES Permit) and at a 6.6% dilution (twice the concentration specified in our NPDES Permit). Table 6 gives the results of the chronic bioassay testing for the two tests conditions. In both the January 30 and February 13, 1996, testing, both the BFPO Process Scrubber effluent, and the combined BFPO Process Scrubber and Waste Gas Scrubber effluents, passed at the 3.3% and the 6.6% concentrations. The chronic bioassay testing summary sheets from Burlington Research are attached as supporting documentation. CONCLUSION IThe physical testing of the Nafion0 BFPO Process Scrubber and Waste Gas Scrubber effluents shows there is no benefit gained by treating these waste streams in this site's biological treatment facility. Furthermore, the measured parameters of these effluents show that the current permit Ilimits established at Outfall 002 are adequate if the two scrubber effluents are bypassed around the WWTP and are discharged directly to Outfall 002. ' The NPDES Permit may need to include a new annual monitoring requirement for the bypassed NafionO wastewater for the appropriate OCPSF Priority Pollutants. Otherwise, the current ' permit requirements for Outfall 002 would be sufficient to adequately monitor pollutants from the Nafion0 wastewater. Aquatic toxicity testing of the subject scrubber effluents indicate that they are not toxic even at the worst-case concentrations described in this letter. Therefore, we request that the renewed NPDES Permit include language to allow for this site to discharge the non -biodegradable Nafion0 process wastewaters either through the Wastewater Treatment Plant (Outfall 001 and Outfall 002) or directly to Outfall 002. I ti JAN 14 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 Page 6 Based on the above, I hope that you are satisfied that enough information has been submitted to allow for this permit modification. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (910) 678-1155. Enclosures Michael E. Johnson Environmental Coordinator J,"rl 4 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 TABLE 1 PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTS NAFIONO BFPO PROCESS SCRUBBER EFFLUENT Page 7 DATE BODS (m ) COD (m ) TOC (m ) TSS (m ) FLUORIDE m ) 12/13/95 <2 677 --- --- 21,000 01/04/96 <2 2,070 --- --- 20,400 01/30/96 <2 1,010 3,480 4,300 28,000 02/13/96 <2 928 3,160 361 32,900 NAFION® WASTE GAS SCRUBBER EFFLUENT DATE BODS (m ) COD (m ) TOC (m ) TSS (m ) FLUORIDE (m ) 01/30/96 <2 6,390 2,760 25 10,500 02/13/96 <2 204 409 67 8,620 ji{7 I 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 Page 8 TABLE 2 ACUTE AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING RESULTS BFPO PROCESS SCRUBBER EFFLUENT Ceriodaphnia dubia Test Concentration vol Effluent/vol Test Sample) 1/30/96 Testing % Mortality) 2/13/96 Testing (% Mortality) 0 0 0 0.00018 10 0.00020 5 0.00028 5 0.00045 worst case conc. 10 0.00050 5 0.00072 0 0.00115 20 0.00150 100 0.00184 35 0.00295 100 0.00450 100 0.12160 100 0.13500 100 0.40500 100 LC50 = 0.00084 LC50 = 0.00183 fir. i i "1 ili;114 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 Page 9 TABLE 3 ACUTE AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING RESULTS HFPO PROCESS SCRUBBER EFFLUENT Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Test Concentration vol Effluent/vol Test Sample) 1/30/96 Testing (% Mortality) 2/13/96 Testing (% Mortality) 0 0 0 0.00010 0 0.00020 5 0 0.00045 worst case conc. 0 0.00050 0 0.00095 0 0.00150 0 0.00202 5 0.00429 0 0.00450 100 0.00909 100 0.1216 100 0.135 100 0.405 100 LC50 = 0.00257 LC50 = 0.00614 r. 14 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 Page 10 TABLE 4 ACUTE AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING RESULTS NAFION® HFPO PROCESS SCRUBBER & WASTE GAS SCRUBBER COMBINED EFFLUENTS Ceriodaphnia dubia Test Concentration (vol Effluent/vol Test Sample) 1/30/96 Testing (% Mortality) 2/13/96 Testing (% Mortality) 0 0 0 0.00030 5 0.00037 5 0.00059 5 0.00094 worst case conc. 5 0.00100 10 0.00150 50 0.00241 100 0.00310 100 0.00385 100 0.00616 100 0.00844 100 0.00940 100 0.02531 100 0.02810 100 LC50 = 0.00160 LC50 = 0.00148 J'Ai'll 14 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 Page t 1 ACUTE AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING RESULTS NAFIONO HFPO PROCESS SCRUBBER & WASTE GAS SCRUBBER COMBINED EFFLUENTS Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Test Concentration vol Effluent/vol Test Sample) 1/30/96 Testing (% Mortality) 2/13/96 Testing (% Mortality) 0 0 0 0.00021 0 0.00030 0 0.00045 0 0.00094 worst case conc. 0 0.00100 0 0.00197 0 0.00310 0 0.00415 5 0.00840 100 0.00871 100 0.00940 100 0.01828 100 0.02531 100 0.02810 100 LC50 = 0.00540 LC50 = 0.00579 J A a,' 14 04 Mr. Gregory Nizich NC DEHNR March 15, 1996 TABLE 6 CHRONIC BIOASSAY TESTING RESULTS Ceriodaphnia dubia Page 12 Tested Effluent 1/30/96 Testing 2/13/96 Testing (Pass/Fail) (Pass/Fail) BFPO Process Scrubber Effluent Pass Pass 3.3% Concentration HFPO Process Scrubber Effluent Pass Pass 6.6% Concentration Combined HFPO Process Scrubber & Waste Gas Scrubber Effluents Pass Pass 3.3% Concentration Combined HFPO Process Scrubber & Waste Gas Scrubber Effluents Pass Pass 6.6% Concentration ISA? Q. (;L} .�P:�. � � � LA x A COOO 00 N y ° C .� F z c 'c � o� d 46 Lu � w b COOO N o C* Z .� o w z c 'c � O c ° E° d z& o 11" O -+ N M N go S O C O 0 0 Lu tn O _N � O S O N II O go 0 O 0 0 Lu tn � O N II O jll,VJtI4I Mi 04 g 'v v N A 00 v, Lcis .. N ^� P" N 00 p r, N E M M M S •-+ O e O M O N y p .� N C O O z � .r�Clq u a Q S ' b A O Op O Q O v CN hit �° •� 0~0 pO C >' M ON ..4a 00 00 S O ,, .a > C4 S ... a .., o O _ S ~ o a� N M� Q V M ¢ u S 9 O MCA p O a >> O S _ N O N O ° V O e} S O :� �► S O u If O Rn 4 OM Q L 0. M Lr �x S O i� oxo '�� F O '� oxo x00 v V O p ,� ` .� �. tT ..� O 00 V at 't 4. O 0 0 ` .. 0 O V u Lv y E � a► a y v, � as Ago o 0 C14 0 ° F cn C#Aa C) C'4 ��e4, rEr�: �,Z �.. � � �`�� , � ��-i a 0 U C O a A '0z CNO S O C � � III NNIN a EO � b 00 O v p G F a 0 U C O a A '0z CNO S O C � � III NNIN a EO ,'11404 H 00 N v o0 bog � :� o° Z � � p o V o c wz .. � o � ma oF' � � o' o d z w d z — w 00 CN 00 p N _n O �[•.yy S S O C S eq O C C 00 ;1 N cn N O p O 0000 p N N N gj pC14O O > ; N v) C5 t a 0^0 O p O C 0^0 _ N N p Q O h O N N C-4 C4 00FA O O O M V x w F coa Eo %) tn O 0 0 ,In in C14 C U a 00 ¢ co 0 0 E..y M�0 Q N W00vN C 00 4 o . W x cc CN I EFFLUENT CERTIFICATION FOR I WAIVER OF SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR GUIDELINE -LISTED POLLUTANTS NPDES Permit NC0003573 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. Fayetteville Works Site, Bladen County, North Carolina In accordance with the Amendments to Streamline NPDES Program Regulations: Round Two [40 CFR 122.44(a)(1) and (a)(2)], the purpose of this document is to certify that certain guideline -listed compounds are consistently below detection limits in the DuPont Fayetteville Works Site wastewater treatment plant effluent. The compounds of concern are the organic pollutants limited in the current site NPDES permit at Outfall 001 in accordance with the EPA Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Industry Point Source Category (40 CFR 414.91). Based on five sets of annual sampling data from 1996 to 2000, DuPont asserts that all pollutants are not present. Copies of the sampling data that was reported on the respective Discharge Monitoring Reports follow this certification. This certification is intended to provide justification to waive sampling requirements for all OCPSF guideline -listed pollutants. DuPont hereby requests the Director of the NCDENR Division of Water Quality to consider this information and waive the sampling requirements for all guideline -listed pollutants when NPDES Permit NC0003573 is renewed. Neither this certification nor a waiver of sampling requirement change the effluent limits established in the NPDES permits. The facility will retain all effluent limits. DuPont will report any discharges beyond the basis for this waiver in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(1). DuPont will also report any changes to facility operations that may result in discharges above this basis in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(2). I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision, in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. IA!!I" J -1c Plant Manager May 3, 2001 Barry L. H rt Title Date I NPDES Permit NC0003573 i i f. �! ! 1 !4 T t NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 JULY, 1996 PAGE 1 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit lb/da) Daily Maximum Limit lb/da Outfall 001 Discharge lb/da Method Detection Limit u Acenaphthene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Acrylonitrile 0.70 1.77 0 5 Benzene 0.27 0.99 0 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.13 0.28 0 5 Chlorobenzene 0.11 0.20 0 6 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.50 1.02 0 10 Hexachlorobenzene 0.11 0.20 0 10 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.50 1.54 0 5 1, 1, l -Trichloroethane 0.15 0.39 0 5 Hexachloroethane 0.15 0.39 0 10 1, 1 -Dichloroethane 0.16 0.43 0 5 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane 0.15 0.39 0 5 Chloroethane 0.76 1.96 0 10 Chloroform 0.15 0.34 0 5 2 -Chlorophenol 0.23 0.72 0 10 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 0.56 1.19 0 10 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 0.23 0.32 0 10 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 0.11 0.20 0 10 1,1-Dichloroeth lene 0.12 0.18 0 5 1,2-trans-Dichloroeth lene 0.15 0.39 0 5 2,4-Dichloro henol 0.29 0.82 0 10 1,2-Dichloro ro ane 1.12 1.68 0 6 1,3-Dichloropropylene 0.21 0.32 0 5 2,4 -Dimethylphenol 0.13 0.26 0 10 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.83 2.08 0 10 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1.86 4.68 0 10 Eth lbenzene 0.23 0.79 0 8 Fluoranthene 0.18 0.50 0 10 Methylene Chloride 0.29 0.65 0 5 Methyl Chloride 0.63 1.39 0 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.15 0.36 0 10 Naphthalene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Nitrobenzene 0.20 0.50 0 10 ,�A,� I �+ 04 NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 JULY, 1996 PAGE 2 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit lb/da) Daily Maximum Limit lb/da Outfall 001 Discharge lb/da) Method Detection Limit (u ) 2-Nitrophenol 0.30 0.50 0 10 4-Nitrophenol 0.53 0.91 0 50 2,4-Dinitro henol 0.52 0.90 0 50 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.57 2.02 0 50 Phenol 0.11 0.19 0 10 Bis 2-eth lhex 1 hthalate 0.75 2.04 0 10 Di -n -butyl phthalate 0.20 0.42 0 10 Diethyl phthalate 0.59 1.48 0 10 Dimethyl phthalate 0.14 0.34 0 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.17 0.45 0 10 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 0.17 0.45 0 10 Benzo k fluoranthene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Chrysene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Acenaphthylene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Anthracene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Fluorene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Phenanthrene 0.16 0.43 0 10 Pyrene 0.18 0.49 0 10 Tetrachloroethylene 0.16 0.41 0 5 Toluene 0.19 0.58 0 6 Trichloroethylene 0.15 0.39 0 5 Vinyl Chloride 0.76 1.96 0 10 Total PAH's n/a 57.0 <10 10 "'N 14 0'+ NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 AUGUST, 1997 PAGE 1 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Acenaphthene 0.17 0.47 <0.094 10 Acrylonitrile 0.76 1.91 <0.047 5 Benzene 0.29 1.08 <0.047 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.14 0.30 <0.047 5 Chlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.047 5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.54 1.11 <0.094 10 Hexachlorobenzene n/a 1.41 <10 10 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.54 1.67 <0.047 5 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.047 5 Hexachloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.094 10 1, 1 -Dichloroethane 0.17 0.47 <0.047 5 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.047 5 Chloroethane 0.82 2.12 <0.094 10 Chloroform 0.17 0.36 <0.047 5 2 -Chlorophenol 0.25 0.77 <0.094 10 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 0.61 1.29 <0.047 5 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 0.25 0.35 <0.047 5 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.047 5 1,1-Dichloroeth lene 0.13 0.20 <0.047 5 1,2-trans-Dichloroeth lene 0.17 0.43 <0.047 5 2,4-Dichloro henol 0.31 0.89 <0.094 10 1,2-Dichloro ro ane 1.21 1.82 <0.047 5 1,3-Dichloro ro lene 0.23 0.35 <0.047 5 2,4 -Dimethylphenol 0.14 0.28 <0.094 10 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.89 2.25 <0.094 10 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2.02 5.07 <0.094 10 Eth lbenzene 0.25 0.85 <0.047 5 Fluoranthene 0.20 0.54 <0.094 10 Methylene Chloride 0.32 0.70 <0.047 5 Methyl Chloride 0.68 1.50 <0.094 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.16 0.39 <0.094 10 I il!404 NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 AUGUST, 1997 PAGE 2 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Naphthalene 0.17 0.47 <0.094 10 Nitrobenzene 0.21 0.54 <0.094 10 2-Nitrophenol 0.32 0.55 <0.094 10 4-Nitrophenol 0.57 0.98 <0.47 50 2,4-Dinitro henol 0.56 0.97 <0.47 50 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.62 2.19 <0.094 10 Phenol 0.12 0.21 <0.094 10 Bis 2-eth lhex 1 hthalate 0.81 2.21 <0.094 10 Di -n -butyl phthalate 0.21 0.45 <0.094 10 Diethyl phthalate 0.64 1.60 <0.094 10 Dimethyl phthalate 0.15 0.37 <0.094 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Chrysene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Acenaphthylene 0.17 0.47 <0.094 10 Anthracene 0.17 0.47 <0.094 10 Fluorene 0.17 0.47 <0.094 10 Phenanthrene 0.17 0.47 <0.094 10 Pyrene 0.20 0.53 <0.094 10 Tetrachloroethylene 0.17 0.44 <0.047 5 Toluene 0.21 0.63 <0.047 5 Trichloroethylene 0.17 0.43 <0.047 5 Vinyl Chloride 0.82 2.12 <0.094 10 Total PAH's n/a 57.0 <10 10 Jr,"ll 14 04 NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 JULY, 1998 PAGE 1 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Acenaphthene 0.17 0.47 <0.066 10 Acrylonitrile 0.76 1.91 <0.033 5 Benzene 0.29 1.08 <0.033 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.14 0.30 <0.033 5 Chlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.033 5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.54 1.11 <0.066 10 Hexachlorobenzene n/a 1.41 <10 10 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.54 1.67 <0.033 5 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.033 5 Hexachloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.066 10 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.17 0.47 <0.033 5 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.033 5 Chloroethane 0.82 2.12 <0.066 10 Chloroform 0.17 0.36 <0.033 5 2 -Chlorophenol 0.25 0.77 <0.066 10 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 0.61 1.29 <0.033 5 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 0.25 0.35 <0.033 5 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.033 5 1,1-Dichloroeth lene 0.13 0.20 <0.033 5 1,2-trans-Dichloroeth lene 0.17 0.43 <0.033 5 2,4-Dichloro henol 0.31 0.89 <0.066 10 1,2-Dichloro ro ane 1.21 1.82 <0.033 5 1,3-Dichloro ro lene 0.23 0.35 <0.033 5 2,4 -Dimethylphenol 0.14 0.28 <0.066 10 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.89 2.25 <0.066 10 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2.02 5.07 <0.066 10 Eth lbenzene 0.25 0.85 <0.033 5 Fluoranthene 0.20 0.54 <0.066 10 Methylene Chloride 0.32 0.70 <0.033 5 Methyl Chloride 0.68 1.50 <0.066 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.16 0.39 <0.066 10 114 014 NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 JULY, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Naphthalene 0.17 0.47 <0.066 10 Nitrobenzene 0.21 0.54 <0.066 10 2-Nitrophenol 0.32 0.55 <0.066 10 4-Nitrophenol 0.57 0.98 <0.33 50 2,4-Dinitro henol 0.56 0.97 <0.33 50 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.62 2.19 <0.066 10 Phenol 0.12 0.21 <0.066 10 Bis 2-eth lhex 1 hthalate 0.81 2.21 <0.066 10 Di -n -butyl phthalate 0.21 0.45 <0.066 10 Diethyl phthalate 0.64 1.60 <0.066 10 Dimethyl phthalate 0.15 0.37 <0.066 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Chrysene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Acenaphthylene 0.17 0.47 <0.066 10 Anthracene 0.17 0.47 <0.066 10 Fluorene 0.17 0.47 <0.066 10 Phenanthrene 0.17 0.47 <0.066 10 Pyrene 0.20 0.53 <0.066 10 Tetrachloroethylene 0.17 0.44 <0.033 5 Toluene 0.21 0.63 <0.033 5 Trichloroethylene 0.17 0.43 <0.033 5 Vinyl Chloride 0.82 2.12 <0.066 10 Total PAH's n/a 57.0 <10 10 1 NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 JULY, 1999 PAGE 1 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Acenaphthene 0.17 0.47 <0.086 10 Acrylonitrile 0.76 1.91 <0.043 5 Benzene 0.29 1.08 <0.043 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.14 0.30 <0.043 5 Chlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.043 5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.54 1.11 <0.086 10 Hexachlorobenzene n/a 1.41 <10 10 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.54 1.67 <0.043 5 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.043 5 Hexachloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.086 10 1, 1 -Dichloroethane 0.17 0.47 <0.043 5 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.043 5 Chloroethane 0.82 2.12 <0.086 10 Chloroform 0.17 0.36 <0.043 5 2 -Chlorophenol 0.25 0.77 <0.086 10 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 0.61 1.29 <0.043 5 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 0.25 0.35 <0.043 5 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.043 5 1,1-Dichloroeth leve 0.13 0.20 <0.043 5 1,2-trans-Dichloroeth leve 0.17 0.43 <0.043 5 2,4-Dichloro henol 0.31 0.89 <0.086 10 1,2-Dichloro ro ane 1.21 1.82 <0.043 5 1,3-Dichloro ro lene 0.23 0.35 <0.043 5 2,4 -Dimethylphenol 0.14 0.28 <0.086 10 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.89 2.25 <0.086 10 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2.02 5.07 <0.086 10 Eth lbenzene 0.25 0.85 <0.043 5 Fluoranthene 0.20 0.54 <0.086 10 Methylene Chloride 0.32 0.70 <0.043 5 Methyl Chloride 0.68 1.50 <0.086 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.16 0.39 <0.086 10 �,. .. 1• ... ,y, R ' � � � �... NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 JULY, 1999 PAGE 2 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Naphthalene 0.17 0.47 <0.086 10 Nitrobenzene 0.21 0.54 <0.086 10 2-Nitrophenol 0.32 0.55 <0.086 10 4-Nitrophenol 0.57 0.98 <0.428 50 2,4-Dinitro henol 0.56 0.97 <0.428 50 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.62 2.19 <0.086 10 Phenol 0.12 0.21 <0.086 10 Bis 2-eth lhex 1 hthalate 0.81 2.21 <0.086 10 Di -n -butyl phthalate 0.21 0.45 <0.086 10 Diethyl phthalate 0.64 1.60 <0.086 10 Dimethyl plithalate 0.15 0.37 <0.086 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Chrysene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Acenaphthylene 0.17 0.47 <0.086 10 Anthracene 0.17 0.47 <0.086 10 Fluorene 0.17 0.47 <0.086 10 Phenanthrene 0.17 0.47 <0.086 10 Pyrene 0.20 0.53 <0.086 10 Tetrachloroethylene 0.17 0.44 <0.043 5 Toluene 0.21 0.63 <0.043 5 Trichloroethylene 0.17 0.43 <0.043 5 Vinyl Chloride 0.82 2.12 <0.086 10 Total PAH's n/a 57.0 <10 10 u� �� l �� NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 NOVEMBER, 2000 PAGE 1 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Acenaphthene 0.17 0.47 <0.072 10 Acrylonitrile 0.76 1.91 <0.720 100 Benzene 0.29 1.08 <0.036 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.14 0.30 <0.036 5 Chlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.036 5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.54 1.11 <0.072 10 Hexachlorobenzene n/a 1.41 <10 10 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.54 1.67 <0.036 5 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.036 5 Hexachloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.072 10 1, 1 -Dichloroethane 0.17 0.47 <0.036 5 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane 0.17 0.43 <0.036 5 Chloroethane 0.82 2.12 <0.072 10 Chloroform 0.17 0.36 <0.036 5 2 -Chlorophenol 0.25 0.77 <0.072 10 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 0.61 1.29 <0.072 10 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 0.25 0.35 <0.072 10 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 0.12 0.22 <0.072 10 1,1-Dichloroeth lene 0.13 0.20 <0.036 5 1,2-trans-Dichloroeth lene 0.17 0.43 <0.036 5 2,4-Dichloro henol 0.31 0.89 <0.072 10 1,2-Dichloro ro ane 1.21 1.82 <0.036 5 1,3-Dichloro ro lene 0.23 0.35 <0.036 5 2,4 -Dimethylphenol 0.14 0.28 <0.072 10 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.89 2.25 <0.072 10 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2.02 5.07 <0.072 10 Eth lbenzene 0.25 0.85 <0.036 5 Fluoranthene 0.20 0.54 <0.072 10 Methylene Chloride 0.32 0.70 <0.072 10 Methyl Chloride 0.68 1.50 <0.072 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.16 0.39 <0.072 10 ,...._..,... F.. .: t � '� .. � f .. ,.. J ",'�! 14 04 NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0003573 DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 001 NOVEMBER, 2000 PAGE 2 OF 2 Effluent Characteristic Monthly Average Limit (lb/day) Daily Maximum Limit (lb/day) Outfall 001 Discharge (lb/day) Method Detection Limit Naphthalene 0.17 0.47 <0.072 10 Nitrobenzene 0.21 0.54 <0.072 10 2-Nitrophenol 0.32 0.55 <0.072 10 4-Nitrophenol 0.57 0.98 <0.367 51 2,4-Dinitro henol 0.56 0.97 <0.367 51 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.62 2.19 <0.367 51 Phenol 0.12 0.21 <0.072 10 Bis 2-eth lhex I hthalate 0.81 2.21 <0.072 10 Di -n -butyl phthalate 0.21 0.45 <0.072 10 Diethyl phthalate 0.64 1.60 <0.072 10 Dimethyl phthalate 0.15 0.37 <0.072 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 0.16 57.0 <10 10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.15 57.0 <10 10 Chrysene 0.15 57.0 <I0 10 Acenaphthylene 0.17 0.47 <0.072 10 Anthracene 0.17 0.47 <0.072 10 Fluorene 0.17 0.47 <0.072 10 Phenanthrene 0.17 0.47 <0.072 10 Pyrene 0.20 0.53 <0.072 10 Tetrachloroethylene 0.17 0.44 <0.036 5 Toluene 0.21 0.63 <0.036 5 Trichloroethylene 0.17 0.43 <0.036 5 Vinyl Chloride 0.82 2.12 <0.072 10 Total PAH's n/a 57.0 <I0 10 iter 'uY4 A (MD DuPont Fluoroproducts DuPont FluoroproductsQ� ' 22828 NC Highway 87 W �CMFayetteville, NC 28308-7332 �� OCT 2 3 2000 ATTACHMENT 3 FAYETTEVILLE REG. O=RCE October 20, 2000 Mr. David Goodrich NCDENR — Division of Water Quality Water Quality Section — NPDES Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 SUBJECT: Relocation of Final Effluent Discharge NPDES Permit No. NC0003573 Dear Mr. Goodrich: First of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you, Tom Belnick, and Mike Myers last month to discuss the issue of the DuPont — Fayetteville Work's effluent channel and the sedimentation problem that occurred from this channel during the summer of 1999. The purpose of this letter is to request from the Division of Water Quality a regulatory determination as to any change in the NPDES permit limits should this site relocate its final discharge from the current position downstream of Lock and Dam #3 to a new position upstream of the Lock and Dam. As you recall, the total permitted wastewater discharge from this site, which averages about 15 MGD, enters an effluent channel that conveys the water approximately one mile to the Cape Fear River at a point downstream of Lock and Dam #3. Over the thirty-year history of this site, the continuously flowing effluent has eroded the channel to the point where most of its walls are nearly vertical and the streambed is now fifteen to twenty feet below grade. During the drought of the summer of 1999, we experienced sloughing of the channel's banks that resulted in substantial amounts of sediment exiting the effluent channel into the Cape Fear River. I will point out that we have not seen this problem since that time, which I contribute to the normal rainfall we experienced this summer. On August 20, 1999, DuPont met with Mr. Paul Rawls and Mr. Ricky Revels of the DWQ staff in the Fayetteville Regional Office to inform them of the effluent channel sedimentation problem. Since that time, we have been working on determining the most effective and cost efficient means to minimize the possibility of a future recurrence of the sedimentation problem. After a considerable amount of field investigation and preliminary design work, DuPont has identified two possible solutions that would minimize the future sediment discharge from the existing effluent channel. Each of these projects would cost E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ® Printed on Recycled Paper FL -4 Rev. 6199 4 04 Mr. David Goodrich NCDENR — DWQ October 20, 2000 Page 2 of 3 approximately two million dollars ($2,000,000) and their details will be discussed later in this letter. However, the most attractive and permanent solution apparently could result in a lowering of the existing permitted limits in the DuPont NPDES permit, which would make that solution unattractive. Therefore, before we can proceed, we need a definitive answer as to whether or not the permit limits would be affected. DESIGN OPTION 1 The first potential solution is to make physical modifications to the effluent channel as it approaches and enters the Cape Fear River, and to install a dam structure to allow sediment settling. This design requires straightening out the channel to reduce the amount of stream bank erosion that occurs from the dynamic scouring of the water at turns, and widening the channel at the river itself to slow down the water's velocity and reduce the streambed erosion. At some point between the Lock and Dam road and the river, a dam would be installed to create a quiescent pool for water -borne sediment to settle before reaching the dam. An obvious downside to this plan is that there would be substantial ongoing maintenance cost associated with the dam as well as periodic required dredging to remove accumulated sediment from upstream of the dam. Another downside is that with the frequent flooding of the Cape Fear River, this dam structure would be occasionally submerged and could sustain major damage that would result in expensive repair costs. This design has been estimated to cost approximately $1.8 million. DESIGN OPTION 2 The second potential solution is to pipe the entire DuPont final effluent directly to the Cape Fear River, which would allow the existing effluent channel to return to its original, natural state as a stormwater ditch that would be dry except for rainfall runoff. It is believed that without the continuous flow of the DuPont effluent, the channel would in time naturally vegetate and thereby virtually eliminate all future sediment discharge to the river. To make this option cost effective, the pipe would be laid in a line that is the shortest distance to the river, which would place the discharge of the effluent upstream of Lock and Dam #3. Obvious benefits of this plan are that there would be no routine maintenance costs to DuPont, the pipeline would be less vulnerable to damage from flooding, and overall we believe that the sediment to the river will be less than would be seen under Option 1. This design has been estimated to cost approximately $2.2 million, and while it would cost more for DuPont to construct this project than the one described in Option 1, the maintenance -free aspect of this project and the complete remediation of the sediment problem makes it an attractive option to consider. PERMIT LIMITATION POTENTIAL CHANGE As discussed in our meeting, there is apparently a rule or policy that could result in lower permitted limits for this site's NPDES permit if the DuPont effluent were x:.. � n... i` ��„ .,s Mr. David Goodrich NCDENR — DWQ October 20, 2000 Page 3 of 3 discharged upstream of Lock and Dam #3 because of the water body behaving as a reservoir instead of as a flowing stream. You indicated that a modeling exercise would have to be performed for this area of the Cape Fear River to determine whether or not the DuPont effluent would have any negative impact on the water system upstream of the Lock and Dam. If the modeling demonstrates that the effluent would result in some water impairment, then more restrictive permit limitations would be placed on our NPDES permit. DuPont feels that this information is imperative before we can make a decision on which of the two above multi-million dollar projects we would select. Therefore, I am asking that the Division of Water Quality take the needed steps to perform the necessary modeling to determine what, if any, changes would occur to the DuPont — Fayetteville Works NPDES permit should the final effluent be discharged upstream of Lock and Dam #3. Enclosed for your use is a map indicating the approximate location of the proposed pipeline. If you should need any additional information, please let me know and I will be happy to provide it to you. If you have any questions regarding this letter or if you need more details, please feel free to call me at (910) 678-1155. Enclosure cc: Mr. Paul Rawls, NCDENR Division of Water Quality, Fayetteville Mr. Ricky Revels, NCDENR Division of Water Quality, Fayetteville C4 JAN 14 C4 r