WQ0005603_PERMPETITION_19911216

5 y
Monday, December 16, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: Forrest Westall
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Asheville Regional Office R• , • .1 Office
From: Donald Safrit, P.E., Su. -rvisor se
Permits and Engineering •rut
Subject: Coats American-Sevier Plant
Permit No.WQ0005603
McDowell County
In accordance with Water Quality Section procedures, please review the attached petition
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Please evaluate the objections raised by
the permittee and provide me with your comments within ten (10) working days of your
receipt of this package.
The items under adjudication are:
See attached petition. TNTC
Miscellaneous comments:
If you have any questions, please contact Randy Jones
cc Office of the Attorney General
Donald Safrit
Randy Jones

Adjudications 1
.
Coats Amencan-Sevier Plant '=,County:McDowell r :
Permit No. WQ0005603 Issued: 11/6/91 r. e. .. y?Reviewer Rand Jones r
NOMMWQRS: Westall Asheville Regional Office \*' ;Petition Dater` 12/10/91.,„.
Attorney v Case No.a ,Memo to AG:
Region Req: 12/16/91: Env Sci Req:a 00/00/00 1::; Resolved 00/00/00
Recv 00/00/00 Recur 00/00/(X) Revised`Permit"
\ ,,\ ` :\ Tech Sup Req t. 00/00/00 \ GH2O Req 12/16/91'
Items Adjudicated ti Recv�T 00/00/00 \ Recv 00/00/N
See attached petition. TNTC
F ,.
Y
i \ \ \ \\ \ m \\��.`.:. \` C \ c \
Comments \\\ x.
a���a-`\ .cik,c kwezM`A`4.`.K ,V,`h`ti�AY,V.Y,Y\'1,V,`+,NkNg z,+:4,.N A`h`h`6.` v...g ,` *;+:tiM`w`�.`�~i:e.wi.`i.K,` w+,11,`1,
.'`Y�YAYr. Y \ of ki- R i gF'>::: gliS Y°':;Ai>,iIsIrsw
���Y mop i'eS ,. �� . E E N .:::. i� �

.; .1
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW OTHER orric Es:
3000 NCNB PLAZA DOwNAM, N.C.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28280.8085 RALEIDM,
PETER J. MDGRATH, JR. TELEPHONE [phone] TELEFAX (704) 331•,150
DIRECT DIAL: (704) 331-I0BI
TELEX B1393O42
CABLE MORVAN
December 10, 1991 up
0
S i
Mr. John Seymour
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Permit No. WQ0005603/Coats American/Sevier Plant
Recycle System Wastewater Settling Basin/ McDowell
County
Dear Mr. Seymour:
In accordance with the provisions of the North Carolina
Administrative Procedure Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 150B-23 (a) ,
on behalf of Coats American, we are enclosing for service on the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (the
"Department") Coats American's Petition for a Contested Case
Hearing (the "Petition") regarding the above-referenced permit
(the "Permit") .
In addition and also in accordance with North Carolina state
policy as explicitly set forth in the Administrative Procedures
Act at Section 150B-22 , we hereby request that the Department
attempt to settle the disputes regarding the Permit, as described
in the enclosed Petition, through informal procedures prior to
the occurrence of a formal contested case hearing.
CHAR_2\F:\DOCS\PJM\LETTER\21131 1

J =
John Seymour
December 10, 1991
Page 2
Please contact the undersigned at (704) 331-1081 to commence
negotiations toward an informal settlement of this matter. In
addition, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed
petition, please contact the undersigned.
Very Truly Yours,
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
Peter J. cGratM Jr. /cc: Ms. Kay Dechant
Mr. Ronald Budnick
Mr. Roger Cothran
Mr. Rex Stuckey
Mr. Rick Gaskins
CHAR 2\F:\DOGS\PJN\LETTER\21131 1

jr. 3 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY OR TYPE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
COUNTY OF(1)McDowell ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
(2) Coats American )
Petitioner.
(Your Name) ) ri
V. )_ PETITION C t
FORA
(3) Department of Environment, CONTESTED CASE I[EARINC.n
Health and Natural Resources )
• Respondent.
(The State Agency or Board about which you are ) CD
complaining) ) Jr
I hereby ask for a contested case hearing as provided for by G.S. 15011-23 because the:
(4) Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has:
(name of agency)
(Briefly state facts showing how you believe you have been harmed by the state agency or board.)
Proposed a nondischarge permit for Petitioner's wastewater settling basin,
which includes parts, requirements and limitations which are unacceptable
to Petitioner, all as described more specifically on Appendix A hereto.
which Petitioner incorporates herein by reference.
(if more space is needed,use additionatsheets and attach)
(5) (Check all that apply) Because of these facts,the agency has:
_deprived me of property; X acted erroneously;
ordered me to pay a fine or civil penalty; failed to use proper procedure;
otherwise substantially prejudiced my =acted arbitrarily or capriciously;or
rights;and based on these facts the agency _failed to act as required by law or rule.
has exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
(6) Date: December . b. 1991 (7) Print your name: Peter J. McGrath, Jr
(8) Print your address: Moore & Van Allen, 3000 NCNB Plaza, Charlotte, NC 28280
(9) Your telephone number: (704) 331-1081 (10) Your signature'. '�-
When you have completed this form you MUST mail or deliver the ORIGINAL and one COPY to the ice of Adminis-
trative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, RaleiEETCC 27611-7447.
AND
You must also mail or deliver a COPY to the State Agency named on line (3)of this form. Please indicate below.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State Agency named below by depositing a copy of it with the United States
Postal Service with sufficient postage OR by delivering it to the named agency.
Served on:
(II) Mr. John Seymour (12) Department of Environment, Health and Natur,
(name) (agency) Resources
(13) 512 North Salisburg Street, Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(address)
(14) This the lO day day of �Deeccembbeerr 19 91
•(15) \Y"1\`--- /' f -et
(your sign t�ture)
I I-06 09(9 i)

, J i
APPENDIX A
Coats American, has filed herewith a written request (the
"Request") for an adjudicatory hearing relating to proposed
Permit No. WQ0005603 (the "Proposed Permit") covering the Coats
American Sevier Plant Recycle System Wastewater Settling Basin.
Coats American has set forth below the specific parts,
requirements and limitations contained in the Proposed Permit
which substantially prejudice the rights of Coats American,
exceed the agency's authority, are erroneous and are arbitrary or
capricious. The objections of Coats American to the Proposed
Permit that are listed below are numbered to correspond to the
appropriate Proposed Permit limitations.
Coats American objects to the failure of the Division of
Environmental Management to explore informal dispute resolution
mechanisms, such .as the submission of a draft permit to Coats •
American for comment, prior to issuance of the final permit, and
request that informal dispute mechanisms be explored prior to any
hearing in this matter.
Paragraph 4. Coats American believes Paragraph 4 provides a
grant of authority to the Division of Environmental Management
(the "Division") which is unreasonably broad, and will allow the
Division to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner with
substantial prejudice to Coats American's rights. Coats American
requests that Paragraph 4 of the Proposed Permit be deleted and
replaced by a new Paragraph 4 to read as follows:
"In the event the Facilities fail to perform to the
'reasonable satisfaction of the Division, including the creation
of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take such corrective
action as shall be necessary and appropriate, including those as
may be reasonably required by the Division, such as the
construction of additional or replacement wastewater treatment or
disposal facilities. "
Paragraph 5. The permitted facility consists mainly of a
settling basin which has been and is operating continuously.
Consequently, this provision makes no sense. Coats American is
unable precisely to determine the meaning of the term "in advance
of operation of the facility, " and is therefore unable to
determine a proper method for compliance with the Paragraph 5
pre-operation notification requirements. The terms "in advance
of operation of the installed facilities" in Paragraph 5 are not
defined. Coats American suggests that the term "Facilities" be
defined in the Proposed Permit preamble to include the existing
nondischarge settling basin for ash from coal-fired boilers and
wastewater from stack scrubbers and all associated piping,
valves, controls, activities and appurtenances discharging into
the ash sluice pond. Coats American then suggests that the
capitalized term "Facilities" (as so defined) be substituted for
the undefined term facilities in all instances throughout the
Proposed Permit. Coats American may then comply with Paragraph 5
CHAR_2\F:\DOGS\PJM\ENVIRONM\19991 1

•
by notifying the Division forty-eight (48) hours prior to the
effective date of the final permit.
Paragraph 6. There is no reason to believe the permitted
facilities will generate any sludge. Thus, Paragraph 6 is
inapplicable and should be deleted in its entirety.
Paragraph 11. The authority granted to the Division in Paragraph
11 is unreasonably broad and will allow the Division to act in an
arbitrary or capricious manner. Coats American suggests,
therefore, that the word "reasonably" be inserted in the first
line of Paragraph 11, immediately following the word "deemed. "
In addition, Coats American requests that the Proposed Permit
include a general procedure for appeal by Coats American (either
to the Director of the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, or through the Office of Administrative
Hearings) of any Division decisions, instructions or orders
relating to the final permit which Coats American believes,
unreasonable, prejudicial, unauthorized, erroneous, arbitrary or
capricious, or contrary to law.
Paragraph 13 . The Proposed Permit should explicitly state the
frequency with which Coats American must undertake the specified
maintenance inspections. Coats American expects to undertake
such inspections on a monthly basis.
Paragraph 14. There is no reason to believe that there will be
any leachate associated with the permitted facilities, and
believes that the reference to leachate in Paragraph 14 is
inapplicable and should be deleted. The last sentence of
paragraph 14 should be limited to samples of groundwater or
surface water relating to the Ash Sluice Pond.
Paragraph 15. Paragraph 15 assumes that there is a contaminant
plume relating to the ash sluice pond. However, there is no
evidence of any contaminant plume associated with the permitted
facilities. It is unreasonable to require Coats American to
model something that is not known to exist. If a contaminant
plume exists, 180 days is insufficient time to detect, define and
model the plume. If there is no plume, it is impossible for
Coats American to comply with this paragraph. Therefore, that
Paragraph 15 should be deleted in its entirety.
Paragraph 16. Based upon the available information concerning
the hydrogeologic conditions at the Sevier facility, the
locations for monitoring wells specified in the Proposed Permit
are not hydraulically downgradient from the permitted facilities.
Coats American therefore requests that the Division permit Coats
American to install the required monitoring wells downgradient
from the permitted facilities. The precise downgradient
locations can be identified in the construction permit to be
submitted to the Division 's Asheville Regional Office following
the issuance of the final permit. In addition, because Coats
American is required to obtain a separate permit before
installing any new monitoring wells, it is appropriate to begin
CHAR_2\F:\DOCS\PJM\ENVIRONM\19991 1 - 2 -

•
•
running the m
of
of
ng
ell
permits rather Othan s o e e
180daysfromthe date aofeiss ancetofithewash
sluice pond permit.
paragraph 17 . There is no reason to believe there will be any
orthophosphate, selenium, fecal coliform or magnesium associated
with the permitted facilities, and that sampling
for
such
should
substances will be unnecessary. The sampling parameters
be revised to exclude sampling for such substances.
Paragraph 18 . The locations of the proposed Compliance and
Review Boundaries, as indicated on the site plan attached to the
Proposed Permit (the "Site Plan") , do not comply with the
requirements of 15 NCAC 2L .0107 and .0108. Wells on the
southeast side of the stream are not likely to detect conditions
relating to the ash sluice pond. Coats American therefore
requeses .t„at the Compliance Boundary be relocated to follow the
stream bed located south of the ash sluice pond, as indicated on
the Site Plan.
Paragraph 19. Paragraph 19 provides too broad a grant of
authority to the Division and will allow the Division to act in
an arbitrary and capricious manner, which is prejudicial to the
rights of Coats American. . Coats American therefore requests that
the word "reasonably" be inserted in the first line of Paragraph
19, immediately following the word "deemed. " In addition, Coats
American reiterates its request initially set forth under
Paragraph 11 above, for inclusion in the Proposed Permit of a
procedure for appeal by Coats American of Division decisions
which Coats American believes to be unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious.
Paragraph 24. Subparagraphs 24 (a) , (b) and (c) , which relate to
operation of treatment facilities, are inapplicable to the
permitted facilities and should be deleted in their entirety.
Paragraph 25. Paragraph 25 is inapplicable and should be deleted
in its entirety.
This Appendix. A is hereby incorporated by reference into the
Petition.
CHAR 2\F:\DOCS\PJM\ENVIRONM\19991 1
- 3 -

State of North Carolina )
VERIFICATION
County of McDowell ) at
deposes and says �
W.R. Stuckey, being first duly sworn, that he is
he is the Director of Engineering for Coats American,
authorized to verify
this Petition, and that the factual
knowledge,
information therein is correct to the best of his
information and belief.
W.R. Stuckey
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this the 1991.
day of December
7/OP
Notary Public 9 9
My commission expires: oliagea,
- 4 -
CHAR 2\FADOCS\PJM\ENVIRONM\19991

, • • NOh ivrDES FACILITY AND PERMIT DATA
RETRIEVE OPTION TRXID 6OU KEY WQ0005603
PERSONAL DATA FACILITY APPLYING FOR PERMIT APP/PERMIT FEE-$ 250.00 REGION
FACILITY NAME> COATS AMERICAN-SEVIER PLANT 4 COUNTY> MCDOWELL 01
ADDRESS: MAILING (REQUIRED) ENGINEER:
STREET: HIGHWAY 221 NORTH STREET:
CITY: MARION ST NC ZIP 28752 CITY: ST ZIP 0
TELEPHONE 704 756 4111 TELEPHONE:
STATE CONTACT> SEYMOUR • FACILITY CONTACT JERRY W. SISK
TYPE OF PROJECT> RECYCLE FACILITY LAT: 354725 LONG: 820130
DATE APP RCVD 09/17/91 N=NEW,M=MODIFICATION,R=REISSUE> R
DATE ACKNOWLEDGED 09/18/91 DATE REVIEWED 09/26/91 RETURN DATE / / •
REG COMM_REQS 09/19/91 DATE DENIED / / NPDES C-
REG COMM -RCVD 10/21/91 DATE RETURNED / / TRIB Q .0000 MGD
ADD INFO REQS 10/02/91 OT AG COM REQS 09/19/91 TRIB DATE- / /
ADD INFO RCVD 10/11/91 OT AG COM RCVD 10/25/91
END STAT APP P 01/09/92 DATE ISSUED 11/06/91 DATE EXPIRE 10/31/96
FEE CODE( 9 ) 1=(>1MGD) ,2=(>10KGD) ,3=(>1KGD) ,4=(<1KGD+SF) ,5=(S>300A) ,6=(S<=300A) ,
7=(SENDEL) ,8=(SEDEL) , 9=(CLREC) ,0=(NO FEE) DISC CODES 68 16 ASN/CHG PRMT
ENG CERT DATE 11/11/11 LAST NOV DATE / / CONBILL( )
COMMENTS: 244,800 GPD RENEWAL OF 14441
MESSAGE:

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
GROUNDWATER SECTION
January 10, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Reid
Water Quality Section
FROM: Kay Dechant
Groundwater Section
SUBJECT: Review of Petition for a Contested Case Hearing
Coats American-Sevier Plant
Permit No. WQ0005603
McDowell County, North Carolina
I have reviewed the objections raised by the subject
permittee. Following are my comments regarding the issues
related to groundwater monitoring and compliance:
PARAGRAPH 11 . •
Recommendation: Remain unchanged.
Comments : The request for insertion of the work
"reasonably" implies that the permittee is assuming that
we may require unreasonable monitoring. The Division has
a responsibility and commitment to public trust to
insure that reasonable monitoring is established. The
insertion of the work "reasonably" as requested, could
prompt debate, without resolution, as to the definition
of what is reasonable.
The subject permit is regulated under G.S. Article 21 ,
Chapter 143, which contains provisions for hearings and
appeals . It would be cumbersome to state those
provisions as a permit condition.

Memo/Jim Reid/Petition-Coats American/1-10-92 Page 2
PARAGRAPH 15 .
Recommendation: Remain unchanged.
Comments: Currently, there exist monitor well K8014
located downgradient of the ash sluice pond. There are
exceedences of the groundwater standards in K8014 for
total dissolved solids (i .e. , TDS values up to 780 mg/1) .
As the upgradient well does not exceed standards for TDS,
and K8014 located 200 feet downgradient of the ash
sluice pond exceeds groundwater standards, there is
evidence that a contaminant plume is associated with the
permitted facility.
The 180 day time frame is very reasonable.
PARAGRAPH 16.
Recommendation: Should be changed as follows, "Within 90
days of permit issuance, two (2) monitor wells must be
installed at the Compliance Boundary. The wells shall be
constructed such that the water level in the well is
never above or below the screened (open) portion of the
well at any time during the year. However, the location
and construction details for these wells must be approved
by the Asheville Regional Office from which a well
construction permit must be obtained" .
Comments : There was an error on the site map attached to
the permit in that the compliance boundary should be
shown as 250 feet from the waste boundary. The facility
was 'initially permitted on March 26, 1987 .
The 180 day time frame should not be associated with
issuance of the well construction permit.
PARAGRAPH 17 .
Recommendation: The sampling parameters should be
revised to exclude orthophosphate and fecal coliform.
Comments: I concur with the permittee that
orthophosphate and fecal coliform would not be expected
to be associated with the permitted facility. However,
selenium and magnesium are components of coal and could
feasibly be associated with the ash sluice pond. Levels
of magnesium are substantially higher in the two
downgradient wells as compared to the upgradient well
presently located at the facility.

.
Memo/Jim Reid/Petition-Coats American/1 -10-92 Page 3
PARAGRAPH 18 .
Recommendation: Delete reference to the attached site
map.
Comments: Refer to comments for Paragraph 16. Also, the
request that the compliance boundary be relocated should
be denied. The compliance boundary cannot arbitrarily be
changed, for it is determined by rule in NCAC Title 15
Subchapter 2L.
PARAGRAPH 19 .
Recommendation: Remain unchanged.
Comments : Same as comments for Paragraph 11 .
LKD/gc
cc: Roy Davis •

•
+ 0 ss
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Ann B. Orr
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
January 13 , 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roy Davis
THROUGH: Forrest Westall
FROM: Jim Reti
SUBJECT: Coats Anferican
Non-discharge Permit WQ0005603
Adjudication Comments
McDowell County.
In response to your request for comments concerning subject issue,
statements are offered below. Statements have been numbered to correlate
with Appendix A of Coats American' s petition for adjudication. Attached
to this memorandum are the Ground Water Section' s comments on those
items for which you requested their response.
Paragraph 4.
Paragraph 4 should remain as it appears in non-discharge permit
number WQ0005603 . The permittee proposes changing "satisfactorily"
to "to the reasonable satisfaction of. the Division" . Compliance
with the permit is the Division' s desire. "Satisfactorily" has
historically been and is currently understood to mean "compliance
with the permit" . The proposed change unnecessarily adds ambiguity
by suggesting that something other than permit compliance might
reasonably satisfy the Division.
Permittee proposes inserting into paragraph 4 "as shall be necessary
and appropriate" and "as may be reasonably required by the Division"
(emphasis added) . No additional protections would be offered the
permittee by the changes requested. Only those actions "necessary
Interchange Building, 59 Woodhn Place, Asheville, NC. 28801 •Telephone [phone]
.An Lqua 1 Jpp,rtmnty.Aninnanvc ,ALoon I:mnluver

and appropriate" to reestablish permit compliance would be sought by
the Division. The permittee could refuse to perform any action
suggested by the Division 'which the permittee believed unreasonable.
The Division and its representative( s) would be liable for
negligence should it require Coats American to implement any
unreasonable, unnecessary, or inappropriate actions.
Paragraph 5 .
Delete paragraph 5 in accordance with the permittee' s request. The
facility is in operation; the "notify prior to operation"
requirement is therefore unnecessary.
No modification of the permit to include the term "Facilities" is
necessary. The permit specifies those items of treatment equipment
which are governed by the permit. No additional explanation is
believed to be required.
Paragraph 6.
Do not change paragraph 6. - The facility will most certainly
generate "sludge" as defined at 15 NCAC 2H. .0203 (20) . Paragraph 6
is therefore applicable.
Paragraph 13 .
Do not change paragraph 13 . Coats American, in their petition,
states an intent to undertake inspections monthly. Should some
change in facilities operation necessitate increased or decreased
inspections, Coats American would he able to respond in a
situationally appropriate manner under the permit as written. With
an inspection schedule precisely defined in the permit, permit
modification would be required prior to Coats Americans ability to
change the schedule.
Paragraph 14.
Do not modify paragraph 14. Under certain,conditions, leachate from
unlined earthen lagoons ( such as the one operated by Coats American
under permit WQ0005603 ) could be reasonably expected. There is no
basis for deletion of the word "leachate" .
Paragraph 24.
Retain paragraph 24 as written. Unusual situations and system
failures could be envisioned which would necessitate Coats Americans
notifying the Division.
Paragraph 25 .
Do not modify or delete paragraph 25. The Division intends to
classify non-discharge type facilities at some point in the future
and intends to require certified operators for such facilities. The
Division would wish that the certification requirement apply to
Coats American at the appropriate time.
Please see me if clarification or additional information is needed.

• Mao
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Ann B. Orr
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 15, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Safrit, Supervisor
Permits and Engineering Section
FROM: Roy M. Davis (� MI
Regional Supervisor ' '
SUBJECT: Petition for Contested Case Hearing
Permit Number WQ0005603
Coats American
Sevier Plant
McDowell County
In accordance with your memorandum request dated December 16, 1991, we
offer as an attachment our response to issues raised in Coats American
petition for a contested case hearing.
Enclosure/
xc : /Don Link, �n
Forrest R. Westall GL,Z7-kaq cx.fr— o., .-
•
Interchange Building, 59 Woodhn Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 •Telephone [phone]
An ['yual Oita irtumry Anvm.n%C ,\.u.,i I I'mplocrt

a @-
cG
V DIVISION OF ENVIIPAL MAISEr7P
Groundwater Section
January 23, 1992 @ R Q�yWy�E D
MEMORANDUM a27pk
TO: Don Safrit OroundwaterSection
Asheville Regional Office
THROUGH: 'Ted
FROM: Bob Cheek g ibt
SUBJECT: Adjudication of Permit
Permit No. WQ0005603
Coats American, Inc - Sevier Plant
McDowell County
The Groundwater Section has reviewed the subject adjudication of
permit No. W20005603 issued November 6, 1991 . The following are
camients listed by item:
#4 - This condition is considered standard and should remain in
the permit. It may be prudent to include a statement in the
permit cover letter that states the Division's willingness to
coordinate any additional requirements with the permittee.
#5 - This condition should be deleted.
#6 - The permittee states that no sludge is generated, however,
what will they do with the sludge in the lagoon? This
condition should remain since the permittee may decide to
empty the lagoon sludge and dispose of the material.
#11 - This is a standard condition and should remain. See camients
under #4.
#13 -.We have no problem stating monthly inspections in this
condition.
#14 - The Groundwater Section is concerned with the potential of
leachate contaminating yroundwater. However, sampling of
subsurface leachate is next to impossible. The only way to
sample leachate impact would be through groundwater samples.
Furthermore/ leachate may result in a surface water problem
fran material leaching through the lagoon sidewalls. If this
is the case sampling of this runoff would be appLwpLiate.
Therefore we recommend that the current verbage remain
unchanged, to allow us the opportunity to sample any
leachate resulting in runoff.

V •
r tit
#15 - The existing monitoring wells currently show contamination,
contrary to the permittee's assertion. New wells were
requested because the existing wells were not properly
located. We concede this condition may have been premature,
given these facts. Modeling can be required in the future
should the new wells show contamination at the review
boundary. Therefore, we recommend deletion of this
condition.
#16 - The permittee should be required to acquire a well
construction permit and install the wells soon after permit
issuance. The 180 days is too long a period to wait for new
wells. Furthermore, their proposal creates an indefinite
time frame for acquisition of a well construction permit.
Therefore, we do not concur with their request and recommend
that the request be denied.
#17 - We do agree that magnesium, orthophosphate and fecal coliform
are inappropriate. Historically they have been required to
monitor these parameters. As for selenium, this element is
typical of coal ash and should be monitored.
#18 - The well locations referenced on the site map are generally
given. Specific locations are coordinated with the regional
offices. A statement explaining that specific locations can
be determined in coordination with the Asheville Regional
Office and other site specific criteria as appropriate.
#19 - This is a standard condition and should remain. See comments
under #4.
#24 - This is a standard condition and should remain in the permit.
#25 - We concur with the permittee that this condition should be
modified to reflect their current certification status.
If there are any questions, please let me know.
BC/TB/JF:ja/Coasts.
cc: 00on-Link
Central Files
Permit Files

• -/
,
• ta• .,, ,
! /
NELL BRANCH Al' /
/ N. .98°57 07 E
---g',-8 5--
--..., ,
i N 6.5•73-272^6, E Ns
41•5b• -96 e ye
k'\
3,088 BB / /
. JUNTA WOODY
,7 El 3,90, Pg 477
0 ' `4,
4- • 4
.- 5r.r.‘
4/
osc.,
\
N
..
cvnfrumicn Deve/VDR,
_
REviewocuNcRy _r__,. _
.---___)=4-
N-54 66 55 b ...
..,-- -.--
-
Illar 44 7,34:..- -.
--- ,
. ..,.
, &I
„
. ...,
- -N,
-- - —
7-_-7-,1R7EA ,r
h 0:r•/
c —\r, — _. _- _---.- -,-_,_ -o(..-i:-•-
PLANT 1
- A AsA
40/' 7'-.-..-..-4
-
111.1 1/41re .
—.-."-•—cc._.,"_„_.7_c,_
c,
.•••-••/•. %-I‘;Id I I'
Je\I,
it_____ - • , : If ,-....) 4.1 - 2,--,.. . , •
---
... ------j:_i , •
. , •
- ,..;;:r-r-----, -- - •
, 1
..... ...... gap .."--7:-............... ...,'----, \ileaeaa
'.4.
'CNN
-.--",
••”Ta.t...... .-: .
/ .. ... ,
-7: 111. ... ... ..... .. --"....... \ '. -. t
21 - . i ..•
b • - .----- ,i , •
A - -
o
REviEW SouNDRy • I: : il 1, Y /
"., Ul ,
il —collammee Powifrowq,
if
s 6,J.06.e49.
/ CI . , ....4:4_
9t,',1312 SUMS I 1 zoo Fr
300 400 5.00
I i i I
,
N
&antra% A 1.Ot.0.4413.- IA'
\ it
COOkS (:)'?"(Ver:Can i jr..-C. \ gprorsed Honai„- wefts
0 Exislin3 Montfor kiell5 /

r r 41 l �4.
RECEIVED
v �/ (FA
v N s� ,wy Water Quality Saction
fr
r, >�i a7' v3
L 1�- 1 _ MAR 1 0 1992
Asheville Regional Oifve
State of North Carolina Asheville, North Carolirta
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street• Raleigh,North Carolina 27611
James G.Martin,Governor George T.Everett,Ph.D
William W. Cobey,Jr.,Secretary __ _ Director
March 9, 1992
Mr. W. R. Stuckey
Director of General Engineering
Coats American
Post Office Box 670
Toccoa, Georgia 30577
Subject: Draft Permit Transmittal
Permit No. WQ0005603
Coats American
Sevier Plant
Wastewater Recycle System
Settling Basin
McDowell County
Dear Mr. Stuckey:
On November 6, 1991, the Division of Environmental Management issued Permit No.
WQ0005603 to Coats American for the operation of the subject wastewater recycle facilities. On
December 15, 1991, the Division received a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing from attorneys for the
Petitioner which specified several objections to some of the conditions and limitations expressed in Permit
No. WQ0005603, which was issued on November 6, 1991. On February 19, 1992, a meeting was held
between representatives of Coats American and the Division of Environmental Management to discuss the
issues associated with the contested case. As indicated in the meeting, a draft permit has been developed
for your consideration.
Objection 1: Coats American objects to condition 4, which basically states that if the facilities fail to
perform satisfactorily, the Permittee will be required to take immediate corrective actions,
including the construction of additional or replacement wastewater treatment or disposal
facilities. The Permittee proposes replacing the term "perform satisfactorily" with the term
"perform to the reasonable satisfaction of the Division" and proposes to replace the
requirement for taking immediate corrective actions with the requirement to take corrective
actions that may be reasonably required by the Division.
Response 1: This condition is a standard condition that is placed in essentially all permits. The intent is
to enable the Division to require the Permittee to take whatever corrective actions are
necessary to ensure compliance with the permit. We feel that the suggested wording
- modifications will add ambiguity to the ability of this permit to accomplish its intent;
therefore,this condition has not been modified.
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O.Box 29535,Raleigh,North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. W. R. Stuckey
March 9, 1992
Page 2
Objection 2: Coats American questioned the appropriateness of having condition 5 in the permit.
Response 2: Condition 5 was placed in this permit in error and has been deleted.
Objection 3: Coats American has requested that the term"facilities"be defined.
Response 3: The narrative portion of the permit on page 1 has been modified by inserting the words for
the operation of the existing "wastewater recycle facilities",which consist of...
Objection 4: Coats American objects to condition 6,which deals with sludge disposal, and states that its
facility will not generate any sludge.
Response 4: The residuals in the settling basin are characterized as sludge, as defined in 15A NCAC 2H
.0203, definition number(20). This condition is placed in all permits of this type to inform
the Permittee that there are requirements that must be adhered to should the settling basin be
cleaned out
Objection 5: Coats American objects to condition 11, which allows the Division to require any
monitoring that it deems necessary. Coats American has also requested that a general
appeal procedure be incorporated into the permits.
Response 5: Condition 11 has been modified by adding a sentence which indicates the Division's
willingness to coordinate any future additional requirements with Coats American;
however, the Division must maintain its ability to require any additional monitoring that it
finds necessary for the protection of the surface waters and groundwaters.
The attached draft permit contains a statement that indicates that it is final;however, all new
permits or modifications originating from the Division contain provisions for appeal.
Objection 6: Coats American objects to condition 13, which requires that the Permittee inspect the
recycle facilities to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, etc.
Response 6: Condition 13 intentionally places the burden on the Permittee to conduct inspections at the
frequency that is necessary to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, etc. This condition
has not been modified. Coats American can discuss its inspection frequency with the
Asheville Regional Office to obtain advice on its reasonableness.
Objection 7: Coats American objects to the portion of condition 14 which refers to leachate.
Response 7: Since there is the potential for material to leach through the unlined lagoon into the
groundwater or to leach through the lagoon sidewalls and to become a surface water
problem, this condition has not been modified.
Objection 8: Coats American objects to the requirement in condition 15 to model a contaminant plume.
Response$: New properly located wells have been requested. If these wells indicate problems, the
Division will require modeling in the future; therefore, condition 15 has been deleted from
- the permit
Objection 9: 'Coats American states that the specified locations for the monitoring wells required in
condition 16 are not hydraulically downgradient of the permitted facilities and requests that
the time frames specified for installation be extended.
Response 9: A new map has been provided which revises the location of the monitoring wells. The
Division feels that the specified time frames are reasonable; therefore, they have not been
revised.

Mr. W. R. Stuckey
March 9, 1992
Page 3
Objection 10: Coats American objects to some of the sampling parameters that have been specified in
condition 17.
Response 10: Condition 17 has been modified by deleting the requirement for sampling orthophosphate
and fecal coliform.
Objection 11: Coats American stated that the locations referred to for the Compliance and Review
Boundaries in condition 18 do not comply with the applicable regulations.
Response 11: A revised map has been provided.
Objection 12: Coats American objects to condition 19, which allows the Division to require any
groundwater monitoring that it deems necessary.
Response 12: The requirements of this condition have already been discussed in response 5.
Objection 13: Coats American objects to some of the wording in condition 24.
Response 13: Condition 24 has been modified to make it more specific to the recycle facilities.
Objection 14: Coats American objects to condition 25, which is the requirement for a wastewater
treatment plant operator.
Response 14: According to the current regulations, a wastewater treatment plant operator is not required
for this recycle facility; however, condition 25 is typically placed in all such permits. The
portion of condition 25 which states "upon classification of the facility by the certification
commission" signifies that an operator is not required until the Division notifies Coats
American.
Please review the attached draft permit and submit written comments directly to Mr. Randy Jones,
of my staff, by March 23, 1992, either stating Coats American's acceptance of the draft permit or
describing those conditions with which you still have concerns. If you have concerns with the draft permit
and we can come to no further agreements, the Attorney General's office will be so informed and the
adjudicatory hearing process can continue. If you are willing to accept the draft, please execute the
attached "Notice of Withdrawal."
If you have questions concerning this matter,please contact Mr. Randy Jones at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
Donald .�: rit,P. E.,(Supervisor
Water Quality Permits and Engineering
Attachments
cc: Asheville Regional Office,Water Quality(with attachments)
Asheville Regionaltffice7Groundwater(with atfathments0
Groundwater Section,Jack F1o`yd (`with attachments)
Attorney General's Office, File No. 91 EHR 1392, Betsy Rouse (with attachments)
Peter J. McGrath, Jr. (Moore&Van Allen, 3000 NCNB Plaza, Charlotte,NC 28280) (with attach.)
Randy Jones (with attachments)