NC0031038_CORRESPONDENCE_20020923

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNING COVER SNECT
NPDES Permit:
NC0031038
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Correspondence
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
September 23, 2002
ThLa document ie printed on reuse paper. - igizore any
Content on the reverse Bide

pw
C EN
John Culbreath
Colonial Pipeline Company
P.O. Box 87
Paw Creek, North Carolina 28681
Dear Mr. Culbreath:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, PE, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 23, 2002
Subject: Special Condition for NPDES Pemrit NC0031038
Charlotte Delivery Facility
Mecklenburg County
The Division of Water Quality (Division) is in receipt of your sampling and analysis plan, submitted
June 28, 2002 as a response to Special Condition A. (4.) in your current NPDES permit. The submitted plan
is satisfactory and meets the intent of the Special Condition. At this point you should continue to monitor at
outfall 001 in order to maintain compliance with your NPDES permit. It is strongly recommended that you
implement your sampling and analysis plan at least a year (preferably two years) prior to application for an
NPDES permit renewal. This would enable you to collect a minimum of 12 samples prior to renewal. These
samples will be used to determine a permitting strategy for your sight with the possibility of representative
outfall status being considered. Please keep in mind that a greater number of samples would aid in such an
analysis.
Please keep this letter for your files, as this is the only documentation you will receive regarding your
compliance with Special Condition A. (4.). If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact
Natalie Sierra at [phone], extension 551.
Sincerely,
/�/l �q�
llll�n W. Klimek, PE
cc: Mooresville Regional Office/Water Quality Section
cNPDES_Unii,
Central Files
Point Source Branch Compliance and Enforcement Unit
Mr. Kenneth Daly - GeoSyntec Consultants
1100 Lake Hearn Drive, Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30342-1523
wA .►
NiMENR
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623.7748

1100 Lake Hearn Drive, Suite 200
w - i Atlanta, Georgia 30342-1523 • USA
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Tel. [phone] • Fax [phone]
akJune_2002J
Ms. Natalie Sierra
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of. Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 l JUL 2 ZOOZ I
SOURCE ❑OAtI
Subject: Sampling and Analysis Plan r BRUArCli
For Colonial Pipeline Company's Charlotte Delivery Facility
Paw Creek, North Carolina .
On behalf of Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial), GeoSyntec Consultants
(GeoSyntec) is pleased to submit to the North Carolina Department Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Quality the enclosed Sampling and
Analysis Plan for Stormwater Discharges at the Charlotte Delivery Facility. This
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) was prepared in response to Condition 4(A) of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NCO031038 issued
30 July 2001 by the NCDENR for the Charlotte Delivery Facility (the Facility).
Condition 4(A) requires that Colonial conduct an engineering study to either: 1)
demonstrate that the facility east and west drainage ditches qualify as effluent channels,
as defined in 15A NCAC 213.02.28 or 2) perform an engineering analysis designating
sampling points providing representative samples of waters discharged.
This SAP summarizes the plan to provide representative samples of discharge from
discrete outfall points at the Facility. This SAP has been revised from the draft version,
submitted on 19 November 2001, and is consistent with NCDENRs "Permit
Requirements for Discharges from Oil & Petroleum Storage Facilities, 2001 Permitting
Strategy" (07/30/01 version).
In response to our meeting by conference call held on Monday, 28 January 2002,
the sampling strategy based on representative outfall status proposed in the draft SAP
has been reluctantly abandoned. However, we continue to believe that the
representative outfall concept has merit and is applicable to the Facility considering the
similarity of products within discrete stormwater outfall basins. Furthermore, the
Facility differs from other facilities for which the permitting strategy was presumably
GQ 1402/Char02-14.ltr.doc
0 a <.. . „wu. w« 09

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Ms. Natalie Sierra
28 June 2002
Page 2
developed, because it has no fueling rack appurtenances where fuel is dispensed for
distribution. cTherefore,-a-gfgnifi"cant -potential-- source --of pollutant- addition. to
stormwater.runoff=attributable-to-feel'.rack-spillage- and/or drippage isnotpresent-at the
Facility- We trust that you and other NCDENR representatives will be receptive to
continued dialogue on this matter after we have collected supportive stormwater quality
data.
You'll note in the SAP that we plan to cease monitoring of Outfall 001 upon
implementation of the approved SAP. We believe such monitoring would be
unnecessarily redundant considering that substantial sampling of discharge waters from
multiple outfalls will be conducted as specified by the SAP. Your concurrence with this
action will be assumed upon our receipt of NCDENR approval of the SAP. From our
earlier discussions, we understand that cessation of monitoring at existing Outfall 00 f
and/or initiation of monitoring per the SAP will not result in the re -opening of the
Facility NPDES permit. If this is incorrect, please contact us as soon as possible to V
discuss.
In the prior months, Colonial and GeoSyntec have developed, and considered
numerous alternatives for stormwater management at the Facility. These alternatives
explored various methods for reducing the number of discrete outfall points by
structurally changing the Facility stormwater management system. The most feasible
structural alternative was incorporated in a focused cost -benefit analysis. At the request
of the NCDENR, a discussion of the cost -benefit analysis is provided in Attachment 1
to this letter. Based on results of this cost -benefit analysis and in consideration of
criteria including site constraints, operations and maintenance, construction costs,
monitoring requirements, and protection of the environment, Colonial proposes no
structural modifications to the Facility. Accordingly, the SAP proposes monitoring
outfalls appropriate to provide representative samples of waters discharged from the
Facility.
GQ 1402/Char02-14.Itcdoc
0 VNDF V6E

GEOSYNTEc CONSULTANTS
Ms. Natalie Sierra
28 June 2002
Page 3
We appreciate the time and willingness of NCDENR personnel to work with us to
find an appropriate solution for characterizing stormwater discharges at the Charlotte
Delivery Facility. If you have any questions or if you require any additional
information, please contact us at [phone].
Sincerely
Kenneth R. Daly
Project Engineer
Terry E. Cheek Fe----j
Principal
Enclosures (1)
Attachments (1)
Cc: Jeff Titus, Colonial Pipeline Company
John Culbreath, Colonial Pipeline Company
GQ I402/Char02-14.1 tr. doc
a @
AA.

GEOS"TEc CONSULTANTS
Ms. Natalie Sierra
28 June 2002
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit NCO031038 for
Colonial Pipeline's (Colonial's) Charlotte Delivery Facility (the Facility) was reissued
30 July, 2001. Permit condition 4(A) required that Colonial conduct an engineering
study to either 1) demonstrate that the facility east and west drainage ditches qualify as
effluent channels, as defined in 15A NCAC 2B.0228 or 2) perform an engineering
analysis designating sampling points providing representative samples of waters
discharged. A site visit on Wednesday 29 August 2001 by NCDENR and Colonial
personnel confirmed that the east and west drainage ditches do not qualify as effluent
channels. Accordingly, Colonial initiated an engineering study to develop plan to
provide representative samples of discharges from the Facility to the east and west
drainage ditches.
Current conditions of NPDES permit NCO031038 require monitoring at a single
outfall, Outfall 001 as illustrated in the Facility site plan provided as Figure Attachment
I-1. The Facility includes seven tank secondary containment areas (TSCAs) each with
discrete stormwater outfalls. In addition, there is a manifold yard area (MYO) with a
discrete outfall. These Eight outfalls discharge to the east and west drainage ditches.
Considering the existing stormwater management system, sampling these eight outfalls
will be required to provide representative sample discharges from the Facility.
Colonial and GeoSyntec considered numerous structural alternatives for
stormwater management at the Facility focused on minimizing the number of outfalls.
Specifically, stormwater management system concepts based on combining TSCA
stormwater outlets were developed. The most feasible structural alternative was
incorporated in a focused cost -benefit analysis. This alternative was selected in
consideration of various criteria including site constraints, operations and maintenance,
construction costs, and monitoring requirements, and protection of the environment.
Non-structural approaches to stormwater management were also considered in the
focused cost -benefit analysis. (Monitoring per current permit requirements given the
J
existing number of outfalls was included as a baseline case for comparison with other
GQ 1402/Char02-14.Itcdoc
f,'j r+�croim.xo ncccve� � �.

GEOSYNTEc CONSULTANTS
Ms. Natalie Sierra
28 June 2002
Page 5
alternativ_es:,�, The stormwater management alternatives considered for the Facility
cr-
included the following:
• Baseline: monitoring per current NPDES permit requirements — single outfall%
(Outfall 001);
• No Modifications: monitoring per current NPDES permit requirements given
the status change of drainage ditches — eight outfalls.
• Structural Modification: monitoring per current NPDES permit requirements
and modifying stormwater management system features to consolidate the total
number of outfalls — four outfalls. This structural modification is illustrated in
Figure Attachment 1-2, attached.
• Representative Outfall: monitoring per current NPDES permit requirements kt�
considering outfalls designated. as -representative of the eight outfalls on the
basis that discharge is substantially similar — two outfalls.
Analytical laboratory costs for monitoring these alternatives was estimated for
comparison. A summary of the estimated analytical laboratory costs is provided in
Table 1-1.
GQ 1402/Char02-14.Itr.doc

TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANALYTICAL LABORATORY COSTS
FOR MONITORING STORM WATER DISCHARGES FOR POSSIBLE CASES
COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY • CHARLOTTE DELIVERY FACILITY
PAW CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
GeoSyntec Consultants .-
s
CASE
CASE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER OF OUTFALLS
GENERAL
YEAR I
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEARS I-5
YEARS 5-10
MONITORING
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
FREQUENCY
COST o'
COST
I
BASELINE: Current Cost for Monitoring Outfall, 001, per NPDES
I Outfell - 5 Years
Monthly
S 1.988
$ 1,988
$ 1988
$ 1988
$ 1988
$ 9.940
S 9.9,10
Peron
11
SAP: Monitor All Outfolls per NPDES PCrmit/NCDENR
8Outtalk -S Years
Monthly
S 28.944
S 17.101
S 17, 104
$ 17.1W
S PAW
S
S 8552O
PROPOSED
-973W
8 Outfalls - I st Year
111
REPRESENTATIVE OUTFALL STATUS:
2 Representative Outtalk-
Monthly
$ 27.360
$ 3,880
$ 3,880
$ 3,890
$ 3880
S 42.880
$ 19.4W
Next 4 Years
IV
STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION: 4 OUTFALLS(I GAS, 3
4Oudalls-5 Years
Monthly
$ 14.076
$ 8, 156
$ 8.156
S 9,156
$ 8.156
S 46300
b 40.78U
DMI LATE)
Notes:
(1) EsNoated cost is for five year pcmtil duration.
(2) Estimated costs are based on laboratory rates from October 18, 2001 quotation from Test America Inc. laboratories.
i ' "'l 4j
-Jr`'
GQ I4021Cbar02-U.nls_Summary
6282002 1:47 PM

��. -• •• _. `� REMOVE OUTFALL AND '
CONNECT TO TSCA-2
PROPOSED
712
\\ ••` OUTFALL - 003
717
/ \
�� / �\� \ \\ j -. \\ \ ••,\ GROUND WATER REMEDIATION SYSTEM
GROUND WATER 713 \\, \ ` SYSTEM OUTFALLREMEDtATION
PERMITTED SEPARATELY
750
REMOVE OUTFACE AND '\ \��\ \ ® \\\\ 710
CONNECT TO TSCA-5 \ ( \\� \ 760\\'IJ
\N\\�\ \ `\ WEST CHANNEL
/ 731 \\ \ \\ \\\ \
\ •• \\ �5� \\ \//� r (\may � \\�\ \\\\\ �\ •'•� f
730
EAST CHANNEL `\ \ T33 \\ \\ 754,
PROPOSED \. MANIFOLD YARD \\ {4) 736
OUTFALL - 001 �\ AREA
\ �r
\ \ 737
LEGEND POND
=u ' \ /
PROPERTY LINE
FENCES
-•••-•••-
POND AND STREAM
- - - - - - -
DIKE WALLS AND "
UNIMPROVED ROADS
MANIFOLD YARD
AREA OUTFALL
IMPROVED ROADS
PROPOSED
OUTFALL - 004-/
-�+
DRAIN VALVES
770
ABOVE GROUND BREAKOUT TANK
DISTILLATE PRODUCT
737
ABOVE GROUND BREAKOUT TANK
GASOLINE PRODUCT.
O
POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE
TANK SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
AREA (TSCA)
REFERENCE NUMBER
.,� EXISTING
OUTFALL 001
MOVE OUTFALL AND
CONNECT TO TSCA-4
REMOVE OUTFALL AND
CONNECT TO TSCA-4
PROPOSED
OUTFALL - 002
0 200
I �
SCALE IN FEET

Prepared for. -
Colonial Pipeline Company
PO Box 87
Paw Creek, North Carolina 28130
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES AT THE
CHARLOTTE DELIVERY FACILITY
CHARLOTTE DELIVERY FACILITY
PAW CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
s
A � GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
1100 Lake Hearn Drive, NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30342
Project Number: GQ1402
k!

TABLE OF CONTE MS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BACKGROUND
GeoSymec Consullanls
2.1 Tank Secondary Containment Area Discharges ............................................... 2
2.2 Manifold Yard Discharges................................................................................ 2
2.3 Groundwater Remediation System Discharges ................................................ 3
3. APPROACH............................................................................................................4
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan............................................................................. 4
3.1.1 Sample Collection......................................................................................... 5
3.1.1.1 Tank Secondary Containment Area Discharges ................................... 5
3.1.1.2 Manifold Yard Discharges.................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Sample Handling and Processing................................................................. 6
3.1.3 Analytical Parameters................................................................................... 6
3.2 Reporting.......................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Schedule............................................................................................................6
GQ1402-01/GAOI0506.SAP i 6/28/2002

Geosynlec Consuliams
I. INTRODUCTION
This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) was prepared in response to National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0031038 issued 30 July
2001 by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) for the Charlotte Delivery Facility operated by Colonial Pipeline Company
(Colonial). Special Condition 4(A) of the permit requires that Colonial conduct an
engineering study to 1) demonstrate that the east and west drainage ditches at the
facility qualify as effluent channels, as defined in 15A NCAC 2B.0228 or 2) submit a
plan to provide representative samples of waters discharged from discrete outfalls. A
site visit on Wednesday 29 August 2001 by NCDENR and Colonial personnel
confirmed that the east and west drainage ditches do not qualify as effluent channels.
Therefore, this SAP was prepared to summarize a plan to provide representative
samples of discharges from Colonial's Charlotte Delivery Facility into the east and west
drainage ditches.
2. BACKGROUND
The Charlotte Delivery Facility is a petroleum pipeline breakout facility located in
Paw Creek, North Carolina. Unlike other facilities in the Paw Creek area, the Charlotte
Delivery Facility has no fuel rack appurtenances where fuel is dispensed to tanker
vehicles for local distribution. Therefore, a significant potential source of pollutant
addition to stormwater runoff attributable to drippage and/or spillage of fuel products
associated with the operation of a fuel rack is not present at the Charlotte Delivery
Facility.
The Charlotte Delivery Facility is situated in the Catawba River Basin and has a
permitted outfall (Outfall 001) that discharges to an unnamed tributary of Gum Branch
(Figure 1). The east and west drainage ditches discharge to a retention pond
constructed within the facility property on the unnamed tributary to Gum Branch.
Surface water exits the retention pond through Outfall 001 (Figure 2).
Gum Branch, from it source to Long Creek, is classified as a water supply stream in
a highly developed drainage basin (WS-IV). Therefore, the east and west drainage
ditches adjacent to the Colonial facility are designated Class WS-IV waters. The
GQ 1402-01 /GAO i 0506.sAP 1 6/28/2002

Geosyntec Consultants
discharges from the Colonial facility to the east and vilest drainage ditches are described
in the following sections.
2.1 'rank Secondary Containment Area Discharges
The facility has seven tank secondary containment areas (TSCAs) that accumulate
stormwater and, on occasion, hydrostatic test water that is released into a TSCA after
chemical testing (Figure 2). The TSCAs have manual control valves for the release of
accumulated water from within each TSCA. Three of the TSCAs contain breakout
tanks designated for distillate products (e.g., diesel, jet fuel, kerosene and fuel oil). The
remaining four TSCAs contain breakout tanks designated for gasoline products.
- --
(With-the-excepugn_of= onCTSCA for_gasoline-product,_e ich_ TSCA has-one =]
cdischargc_outfall_point—The one exception has two discharge outfall points; however,
only one outfall point is used at any one time, and both drain to the east drainage ditch.
Accumulated water released from the TSCAs drain into the east or west drainage
ditches that drain north into a retention pond (Figure 2).
2.2 Manifold Yard Discharges
Piping, control valves, and related appurtenances associated with the management
of product in the breakout tanks converge in an area of the facility known as the
manifold yard (Figure 2). The ground surface in the manifold yard is comprised of
gravel overlying an under -drain network of perforated piping. The under -drain network
collects and conveys infiltrating stormwater from the manifold yard area. In addition,
the under -drain system receives stormwater run-on and perched groundwater from the
hillsides adjacent to the manifold yard.
In accordance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) at the facility, Colonial has
installed a passive baffle -type oil -water separator at the manifold yard outfall point to
improve the quality of discharges. The unit is cleaned on a regular basis to remove
accumulated oil and other debris. For the purpose of this SAP, the outfall associated
with the manifold yard and adjoining areas is noted by the acronym `MYO". Waters
GQ 1402-01 /GAO I0506.SAP 2 6/28/2002

Geosymec Consultants
from the manifold yard are discharged through "the oil -water separator to the east
drainage ditch.
A concrete equipment -cleaning pad is located within the manifold yard area. A
grated drain located on the pad conveys wash water, when used, and stormwater to the
under -drain system. Colonial will implement one of the following BMPs to prevent the
point source discharge of equipment cleaning wash waters to the stormwater drainage
system and surface waters of the state:
• The equipment -cleaning pad drain will be covered with a portable drain cover
during cleaning activities. Any excess water will be removed and properly
handled by pumping directly or via truck transport to a sanitary sewer system,
and the pad cleaned, prior to removing the drain cover.
• The equipment -cleaning pad drain will be disconnected from the underdrain
system and routed to a nearby sanitary sewer system.
• The equipment -cleaning pad drain will be disconnected from the underdrain
system and routed to the "sting water" collection, treatment, and disposal
system'.
• The equipment -cleaning pad drain will be permanently sealed and cleaning
activities moved indoors or to another suitable location at the facility where
wash waters can be directed to a sanitary sewer system.
2.3 Groundwater Remedialion System Discharges
Colonial operates a groundwater recovery and batch treatment system (groundwater
remediation system) at the facility to remediate groundwater contaminated with
petroleum hydrocarbons. The system is located in the west -central portion of the
facility and periodically discharges to the west drainage ditch (Figure 2). Discharges
' Water that accumulates in the bottom of the breakout tanks is termed "sting water", which is collected
and conveyed to an active oil water separator system located in the manifold yard area. The unit provides
for the recovery of product that is returned to the appropriate tank. The removed water is collected in a
storage tank and transported off -site for treatment and disposal.
GQ1402-01/GA010506.SAP 3 6/28/2002

GeoSymec Consultants
from the groundwater remediation system are -rutHorized under a general NPDES
permit (NCG510000 - COC Number NCG510207) reissued I October 2001.
Monitoring of the groundwater remediation system discharge will be conducted in
accordance with the general permit and therefore, is not included in this SAP for the
monitoring of stormwater discharges from the facility.
3. APPROACH
Past individual NPDES permits at the Charlotte Delivery Facility required
monitoring of all discharged waters at a single point, Outfall 001. Renewal of the
permit, which was effective September 1, 2001, requires, per Special Condition 4(A),
that facility discharges be individually characterized (i.e., sampled). This resulted from
the determination that the east and west drainage ditches no longer qualify as effluent
channels, as they had apparently been considered in previous permits. The following
text describes the approach for this SAP and addresses the permit requirement to
provide representative samples of stormwater discharges from Colonial's Charlotte
Delivery Facility into the east and west drainage ditches.
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan
This SAP was developed utilizing provisions in NCDENR's 2001 revised Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) for establishing permit requirements for discharges from
oil and petroleum storage facilities located in the Greensboro and Charlotte areas
(Appendix A). It is important to note that the SOP was not specifically developed for
petroleum pipeline breakout facilities, but for oil and petroleum storage facilities with
fuel dispensing appurtenances and operations associated with fueling rack systems. The
potential for pollutant addition to stormwater at facilities operating fueling racks is
greater than at facilities without such systems. Consequently, Colonial believes that the
SOI may be overly conservative for the monitoring of stormwater at facilities, such as
lthe Charlotte Delivery Facility, which do not operate fuel rack systems. Nonetheless,
`Colonial has developed this SAP to be in general accordance with the SOP as directed
by NCDENR.
GQ1402-01/GAOI0506.SAP 4 6/28/2002

GeoSyntec Consulionts
Grab samples at the TSCA outfalls and the'MYO'will be collected during discharge
events for applicable water quality parameters under NCDENR's SOP. Analytical
methods were selected to meet the SOP requirements and reporting will be consistent
with the individual NPDES permit requirements. The sampling schedule follows the
SOP and includes monthly, quarterly, and semi-annually analyses depending on the
parameter.
3.1.1 Sample Collection
Grab samples will be collected from eight outfalls representing stormwater at
the Charlotte Delivery Facility as described in Section 2. Sampling points include
seven outfalls from the TSCAs and a single outfall from the manifold yard (the MYO;
Figure 2). Upon approval of the SAP, sampling at the eight identified point sources will
be conducted in lieu of sampling at Outfall 001. The following sections outline how the
sampling will be handled for the three types of discharges associated with the outfalls.
3.1. I.1 Tank Secondary Containment Area Discharges
Grab samples of accumulated stormwater combined, when present, with hydrostatic
test water, will be collected from each TSCA prior to release. The date, exact place,
and time of sampling and measurements will be recorded, as well as the individual(s)
responsible for those activities.
Total flow and/or volume accumulated will be monitored during each sampled
discharge event. Flow and/or volume released will be estimated based on the area
draining to the outfall release point and total rainfall.
3.1.1.2 Manifold Yard Discharges
The discharge from the MYO will be sampled provided stormwater is discharging
from the underdrain system. The date, exact place, and time of sampling and
measurements will be recorded, as well as the individual(s) responsible for those
activities. Flow during each sampling event will be estimated based on the amount of
GQ 1402-OI /GA010506.SAP 5 6/28/2002

GeoSymec Consultants
area draining to the outfall, the amount of built -upon (impervious) area, and the total
amount of rainfall or measured by an instantaneous flow estimate.
3.1.2 Sample Handling and Processing
Samples will be placed in pre -labeled sample containers appropriate for the
selected analytical parameters, properly preserved, and shipped to a qualified laboratory
under standard chain -of -custody procedures.
3.1.3 Analytical Parameters
The selected analytical parameters include those specified in the SOP (Table 1).
Laboratory methods will be consistent with the current individual NPDES permit,
which specifies in Part 11 Section DA entitled 'Pest Procedures, "analysis of pollutants
shall conform to the EMC regulations published pursuant to NCGS 143-215.63 etseq.,
the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to
Section 304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the Federal Water Pollution Act, as Amended, and
Regulation 40 CFR 136...". Two methods will be used to analyze for BTEX (Table 1).
EPA Method 602 will be used to analyze the monthly discharge samples for BTEX and
Method 624/625 will be used on it semi-annual basis to scan for other volatile and semi -
volatile organics, in addition to BTEX, that are not detected by EPA Method 602.
3.2 Reportin>
Monitoring results obtained during each sampled representative storm event will be
summarized and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form provided by
the NCDENR. The DMR will be submitted within 30 days following each sampling
event.
3.3 Schedule
The sampling schedule for the eight outfalls follows the current individual NPDES
permit and NCDENR's general stormwater permitting program. Sampling will be
GQ 1402-01 /GA0I0506.SAP 6 6/28/2002

GcoSyntec ConsuIIIItlS
conducted on a monthly -basis at each of the seven 'I SCAB and the MYO contingent
upon the occurrence of a discharge event during any given month from the TSCAs and
MYO (Table 2). Exceptions to the monthly schedule include the quarterly requirement
for turbidity and the semi-annual requirement for analyzing samples with EPA Method
624/625 (Table 3). Samples from the MYO outfall and TSCA outfalls associated with
distillate products (TSCAs 5, 6, and 7) will be analyzed for naphthalene and, other
indicators of distillate compounds with EPA Method 625. The entire scan results from
the semi-annual samples will be reported. EPA Method 624 will be used semi-annually
at the other outfalls to analyze for BTEX and non-BTEX constituents detected by the
method.
The acute toxicity tests will be conducted monthly for at least five discrete
discharge events. The testing frequency will be reduced to annual tests if results from
the first five tests for any given outfall show no toxic effects, as provided for in the
SOP.
GQ 1402-01 /GA010506. SAP 7 6/28/2002

���� - � - LG"�}.' �k—i ✓• �t � �. .�i/ .•• � � � AAr ✓ VM��' �+ r / `ll , -}�Y z
��gqyyvn6.1 �` E.� + �• �}'d / 7 � 4. ' � (rG Ff�
',i ub5te � � iiv 1 •,t � L�'d xt{ � �
��
0
". o V' V �, it. y ,i 4 �'v (l f '1"� �,..>S.'✓ xA . ,7 l y" f" �, e ."'1 e. ,
�l k 1 '1 �J ,� 'ti 1'�kj
i p;y t t ry y, S •f, 's, n x t'. i f�
�I .1` d •i In y 1 9a Ir L, �., Jr ��� f I +" 7� ,�
I; / - �'! `,?, , ;1 ✓' I I ``� 1 ``. � 1p`��., • � ' ^�
n uu t.. t �",'i r,,,�-`N b " °+t�`sA t r i 1 .�.� r. /� '•I . ,) , t �E !�� t " { L-o 4 :: ,'.�-t i u ' r `��* r
r5 hw `^T�„r:.i '%✓ � �� .'.l 1 ' f I r � �,' � i?' r� 4:..'ti , �� � dd _,-- �...
A, s �!<� 1'� :saot w a } g �! � . a ,l �" eim t•a .� ^''S_r, .+ - :,1,h''f,,* � 1 � �� '�y.-�,,;
t `�..i' .' d ' t �*'�:.. s' ���£. 'f„I� v"`i,i`'3+J�tr'rr I �' I , 4 ,r ' r-•,,;,�_- t.. E� -v" j '4} ..�-'; 1_ - V.. `� � ; ..,;� ��yl ,�+.1�
' 1 '.'.' � r r',} 1 "'r t :. �•', a h. ,i "'Jr ..y,*� `i_ •��>.—�: 1�,:{{"')>'�r ,
e i� `, Ys � S k i 2 �'ry a y; �a `; _ •h '�Sj -- , !{Y I r�,. , '$�-� 4� i {�
a a ,': � r r '- c �?:>„' .✓(s ..:� r t� `/ -.� Y S Mlnwn , ' r ap Jrr'x� t.f`�._��.}�l -. ©ttt2 ' � �, p�r'` r f �•,.
p haf p ( R
D ,tea ,.. Q4f� � p .`e �� Y • f� Y'�"+, ,, i p' � � � � r. .` �F'�S. �\i"�k^r'i�" t... f h/4i y�i4 r l y ^r � .. � ti t( 'j ! �-y 'z>
4 }, f� t ,LEI t����}'1.: ` F A ,I+. I r .S � :• �. r5o=• =e 7✓i �'�% � + „ti `� : �1' tHF� ` rr, �'. _" ' l ,_^, ��•r „ - F
N r4 4f 1 5 j r1 ,9
rat
��/ �! r ^�-- S,�a,, tll�Lyr.�O � e r.r✓' C¢ I � r, i s � 1 °, b l��I v'n � i.s.�-Pk}; li �
�r e I � r r r x c S 'N t` II nYe1 >_• ,��0 R ]] `� /
J ,9 -e /' * _ s .. �.� 6�1 'R n , J '. �—,."� i ,r J` r"•Ixr, "J �'� "p � � Srj v
+ • ' �� 14a, I . `-1 ar4 I Ir � �� � � , d.. s 1 x i 1 >�
� , / � ' Hrf�llVey¢'1So P '` Y� � - n T %' �J�n t +, t r'� � r J�r I �� 1 ✓,i
�'f k"•-+ry fl SZ �o �} h� �1 f :- y% ., fi v r, .(,.y \, � �p� ' �� i�� ,/ ,.(ram. !� �?1
lb: i " 1 p L� J y�? 1 q,✓� � `�
F'j � a r �'� � ( +w\.. c•�'- ) � �- i J �.a- 1 p.t _ ;J /� � 'J'�`q �i�i r d � ,!eY � I! I i' c
rr�A
Si r 11 P,C '� t ✓� V � r :i✓ ShII Ir, �+. i i �. f '.
{Ir . 4, l r r f t F I ,r.i �fxaeee� rr=" ,`t. ♦ .. � t t r%` 'W I l ' t
' , "•:
j
r ". /L w':: 1 • e IR,�u �yo no r.%1. s- , �,., ! , ti >* 1 - 0akde
!'\= .,y'I`r �� n .d y '.�' / ,,,,�.f - j(\��� �� - s'VL- r-�Fm Y%ff r. -•-"- J '
rdreto �. -- { 3 % ��.. � '� �' ,'"• ^f`�r`" ;� i tt" ! <�r � '- t.-_-`•� ' .J
�� p4 , � f yt y S `x 3 4 + `}` pr > / � . .••..r � --L'` ...
ya r s .s- e J` r14'"` •.•.�"`5 + e yl y r c a < ' e"'¢
- > ; 17 w r ��'. � .�, � S ,. � sue! � � � y` -, �, v � I' � k� p7�-, tin• ,,9
" •iLL I - "" � '� hr°°�
! „4. � y t6 / f .,r � ; I �• Th�nd,� Q ,,a1 1 � �• � •...� I ��... tiwtj!. ^yb � ��
_
'' 1l*d
a I ro, �J
I,
SITE
`^' All,
`Se + `_� --. i V �I r �� xi ! •' + "- G+� * _ * x ka . t
-k/ { '�• {�s v .aMane �r C" I %'y � t 1�1 Na m � / S,
, j w ,a `4 >f� �! ; � x �� � � � f �rec •, •. �� � n '� ,\, �,'y ,. ..� , � cR .��' , �iAI � r �{�
r l/ J��KF N r k ,-�._ •�Si ,z R '+
I• I� �' r/ r F� r r 7nddN� 1 ��q�1'"•� �r
' l ` �....a+ nN r , ,.,i .:.,,/ll
�� ...r ,� � " � '�l �T �-._. t < ' s t � x •�.. � � �i.e i ( �t' t�� �}i�{ ' _ �` �I :'� �� C4g��
TI y�' P+� d / IS; n /• r __ l ones. Y� JI `� / -.a r
� �.. I I � /F ,I �' I/� 1 y�r r +rele� r (rA \� �� s ..3 •. \ , o. "{, x A Il
( 'xR
1 .,
' f
SITE VICINITY
AND
DRAINAGE BASIN
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
STORMWATER DISCHARGE
CHARLOTTE DELIVERY FACILITY
N
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE MAP
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
PROJECT NO. GQ1402-04 FIGURE NO. 1
DOCUMENT NO. GA010506 I FILE NO. FIG-1

717
711
762
713
751
73D 716 (2) 715
I \\\ \ (s)
\\\\ \ \ 710
GROUND WATER REMEDIATION SYSTEM
GROUND WATER REMEDIATION
SYSTEM OUTFALL
760 WEST CHANNEL
737
EAST CHANNEL `\ \
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
FENCES
— •-• — ••• — POND AND STREAM
— — — — — — — DIKE WALLS AND
UNIMPROVED ROADS
IMPROVED ROADS
—� DRAIN VALVES
770 ABOVE GROUND BREAKOUT TANK
DISTILLATE PRODUCT
737 ABOVE GROUND BREAKOUT TANK
m
GASOLINE PRODUCT
O POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE
MANIFOLD YARD
AREA
MANIFOLD YARD
AREA OUTFALL—
(1) TANK SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AREA (TSCA) REFERENCE NUMBER
k\ 735 \\ \\\ 73a � II
4
\( )
\ 73s \ \
/ POND
1 /
OUTFALL 001
)i
J
0 200
I
SCALE IN FEET

TABLE I
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS 14A MONITORING
STORNIWATER DISCHARGE OUTFALLS,
CHARLOTTE DELIVERY FACILITY, NPDES I'll, RMIT NCO031038
PAW CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
Parameter
Method
Detection
Limits
Oil and Grease
EPA 1664
5 m L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
EPA 2310B
10 m L
Turbidity
EPA 180.1
0.5 mg/L
Phenol
EPA 420.1
0.05 ru/L
Benzene
EPA 602'
I jig/1-
Toluene
EPA 602(
1 It g/L
Eth I benzene
EPA 602'
1 It g/L
X lene
EPA 602
1 µ o L
Na phthalene and other indicators of distillate compounds t
EPA 625
10 t g/L
M"IBE
EPA 602
5 µ g/L
Acme Toxicity
EPA/600/4-
90/027
24-hr static
test
Footnotes:
'"EPA Method 624 will be used semi-annually to scan for BTEX and other constituents detected by
the method.
(Z) EPA Method 625 will be used semi-annually for samples from outfalls Potentially influenced by
distillates.
GQI402-02/GA010506TBL (Revised 06-21-02 based on SOP)

YVal 11NON
SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES AT THE
CHARLOTTE DELIVERY FACILITY, NPDES PERMIT NCO031038
PAW CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA.
Parameter
Sample
T
Type
p1
TSCA
MYO111
Oil and Grease
Grab
Monthly
Monthly
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Grah
Month
Monthly
Turbidity
Grab
Quarterly
Quarterly
Phenol
Grab
Monthly
Monthly
Benzene
Grab
Monthly
Monthly
Toluene
Grab
Monthly
Monthly
Ethyl benzene
Grab
Monthly
Monthly
Xylene
Grab
Monthly
Monthly
Naphthalene and other indicators of
distillate com iounds(3)
Grab
Semi -Annually
Semi -Annually
MTBE
Grab
Monthly
Month
Acute Toxicity
Grab
Moruddyt
Monthly
Footnotes:
lU TSCA =Tank Secondary Containment Area.
lst MYO = Manifold Yard Outfall.
1') Naphthalene will only be monitored at outfalls that include discharges from the MYO and distillate -
associated TSCAs.
141 Frequency of acute toxicity testing frequency will be reduced to once per year assuming samples from
the first five discrete discharge events show no toxic effects for any given outfall.
GQ1402-02/GA010506TBL (Revised 06-21-02 based on SOP)

GeoSyntec Consultants
TABLE 3
SAMPLING MATRIX FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES AT THE
CHARLOTTE DELIVERY FACILITY, NPDES PERMIT NCO031038
PAW CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA.
Oil and
TSS
Turbidity
Phenol
BTEX
Naphthalene
BTEX t
MTBE
Acute Toxicity
Tank
Outfall
Grease
EPA
EPA
EPA 420.1
EPA
(4)
EPA 624
EPA 602
el
Number in
(2)
EPA 1664
2310B
180.1
602
EPA 625
EPA/600/4-
90/027
711/712/717
TSCA
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthlv
Monthly
-
Monthly
Monthly
Anemi-
710/713/715/
'
TSCA
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Semi-
Monthly
Monthly
716
#2
Annually
P31/732/733/
TSCA
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthlv
Monthly
Semi-
Monthly
Monthly
734
#3
Annuallv
730/735/736/
TSCA
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Semi-
Monthly
Monthly
737
#4
Annually
T#SA
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthlv
Monthly
Sem761/770
Monthly
Monthly
Ann a'll
750/751/
TSCA
MonthlyMonthly
Y
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Semi-
Monthly
760
#6
AnnuallyMonthly
762
TSCA
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
-
Monthly
Monthly
Annually
MYO
(3)
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Semi-
Monthly
Monthly
Annually
Footnotes:
of See Figure 2 for tank and outfall locations.
(2) TSCA = Tank Secondary Containment Area.
(3) MYO = Manifold Yard Outfall.
(4) Naphthalene will only be monitored at outfalls that include discharges from the MYO and distillate -associated TSCAs (#5. #6, and #7).
t5t Method 624 will be used semi-annually in lieu of Method 602 to monitor for BTEX and other related constituents.
(6) Frequency of acute toxicity testing frequency will be reduced to once per year assuming samples from the first five discrete discharge events show no toxic
effects for any given outfall.
GQ1402-02/GA010506TBL (Revised 06-21-02 based on SOP)
6/28/2002