Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0001121_Biomonitoring Inspection_20100106A mar NCDEN North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Governor Director January 6, 2010 Mr: Rodney H. Lang, EHS Engineer Danaher Industrial Controls 2100 West Broad Street Elizabethtown, NC 28337 Subject: COMPLIANCE.BIOMONITORING INSPECTION (BIO) Danaher Controls WWTP NPDES Permit No. NC0001121 Bladen County Dear Mr. Lang: Dee Freeman Secretary Enclosed you will find a copy of the Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection report for the inspection conducied on November 30 and December 1, 2009. The inspection included the same objectives as that of a routine Compliance Evaluation Inspection plus an Aquatic Toxicity (AT) test to evaluate the biological effect ...of the facility's discharge on test organisms. As part of the inspection a tour of the Wastewater . Treatment Plant was conducted. All observations are in Part D: Summary of Findings/Comments of this inspection report. On December 1, a 24-hour composite sample. was collected by DWQ, using DWQ sampling equipment at Outfall 004 for the Acute Toxicity test. The sample was shared with Danaher to satisfy their NPDES Acute Toxicity requirement for the fourth quarter of this facility's sampling. Because the times on the custody transfer sheets did not agree exactly, this will not be considered as a "true split" but will be reported as individual sampling events. The Danaher Acute Toxicity sample was sent to Pace. Analytical Services, Inc. in Asheville, NC, and the DWQ toxicity sample was sent to the DWQ Aquatic Toxicity Laboratory (ATU) that was located on Reedy Creek Road in Raleigh. The DWQ ATU sample resulted in a "Fail", that indicated that the effluent would be predicted to have an acute water quality impact on the receiving stream. The shared .sample that was sent to Danaher's contract laboratory (Pace Analytical Services in Asheville, NC) resulted in a "Pass" (which indicated that the effluent would not be predicted to have an acute water quality impact on the receiving stream): Lance Ferrell (ATU) investigated the incongruity of test results between the two laboratories, but the reason for the difference of the toxicity results was not discovered. After consulting with Cindy Moore (Aquatic Toxicology Unit), Belinda Henson (Regional Supervisor, Surface Water Protection), and Mark Brantley (Environmental Chemist, SWP-FRO) pertaining to the discrepant Acute Toxicity results, this Office decided that it is prudent to accept Pace Analytical Services' "Pass" result for the December Acute Toxicity NPDES monitoring requirement and reporting on the December DMR. Please send the AT form to Mail Service Center 1621, as usual. 225 Green St., Suite 714, Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043 Phone: 910-433-33001 FAX: 910-486-0707 1 Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org one. • ;Vat/Tally An Equal OpportunityAffirmative Action Employer Mr. Lang January 6, 2010 Page 2 In addition, the 24-hour effluent composite sample that was collected on December 1 was sent to the Division of Water Quality Chemistry .Laboratory (located on Reedy Creek Road in Raleigh) for analyses of the following parameters (which are currently in Danaher's NPDES Permit): Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Chromium (Cr), and Total Nickel (Ni). The results of these parameters are as follows: Total Suspended Solids = 7.5 mg/L, Cr = 12 ug/L, and Ni = 73 ug/L. In Summary, during the days of this inspection, it appeared that this facility was in compliance with the conditions of the Danaher NPDES peiinit. If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please feel freeto contact me at (910) 433-3312. Sincerely Dale Lopez Environmental Specialist Enclosures: EPA Water Compliance Inspection Report Facility Site Review (checklist) Regional Field Inspectors Check List for Field Parameters Brief Description of Danaher Industrial Controls WWTP (Dynapar Corp.) United States Environmental Protection Agency E//�� Washington, D.C. 20460 �/`1 Water -Compliance Inspection Report , Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0057 Approval expires8-31-98 Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS) . Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day.. Inspection 1 I NI 2 .ISI. 31 NC0001121 111 121 09/12/01 117 Type Inspector Fac Type 18I BI 1915120I II I I I I I I I I I I,I I I I I 166 Remarks 211 I II I.I I I I I I LI I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. Inspection Work Days . Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B.1 QA --- - - 67I 3.0 169 70I 31 711 I 72 I N I 731 1 174 751 1 1 1 1 I 1180 . Section B: Facility Data . Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include POTW name and NPDES permit Number) Danaher Industrial Controls WWTP 2100 W Broad St Elizabethtown NC 28337 Entry Time/Date 10:00 AM 09/12/01 Permit Effective Date 06/12/01 Exit_Time/Date 03:00 PM 09/12/01 Permit Expiration Date 11/10/31 Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) /// Rodney H Lang/ORC/910-862-5453/ - Other Facility Data Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Contacted Rodney H Lang,2100 W Broad St Elizabethtown NC 28337//910-862-5453/ No Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program • Facility Site Review Laboratory Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) (See attachment summary) . • Name(s) and Si ature(s) of Inspector(s) 1 Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers ' Date Dale Lopez FRO WQ//910-433-3300 Ext.712/ ® //)(� I /� • Signature of Management Q A ReviewererI Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 NPDES yrlmolday • Inspection Type 3I NC0001121 111 121 09/12/01 117 181B1 (cont.) 1 Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) Enclosed you will find a copy of the Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection report for the inspection conducted on November 30 and December 1, 2009. The inspection included the same objectives as that of a routine Compliance Evaluation Inspection plus an Aquatic Toxicity (AT) test to evaluate the biological effect of the facility's discharge on test organisms. As part of the inspection a tour of the Wastewater Treatment Plant was conducted. All observations are in Part D: Summary of Findings/Comments of this inspection report. On December 1, a 24-hour composite sample was collected by DWQ, using DWQ sampling equipment at Outfall 004 for the Acute Toxicity test. The sample was shared with Danaher to satisfy their NPDES Acute Toxicity requirement for the fourth quarter of this facility's sampling. Because the times on the custody transfer sheets did not agree exactly, this will not be considered as a "true split" but will be reported as individual sampling events. The Danaher Acute Toxicity sample was sent to Pace Analytical Services, Inc. in Asheville, NC, and the DWQ toxicity sample was sent to the DWQ Aquatic Toxicity Laboratory (ATU) that was located on Reedy Creek Road in Raleigh. The DWQ ATU sample resulted in a "Fail", and that indicated that the effluent would be predicted to have an acute water quality impact on the receiving stream. The shared sample that was sent to Danaher's contract laboratory (Pace Analytical Services in Asheville, NC) resulted in a "Pass" (which indicated that the effluent would not be predicted to have an acute water quality impact on the receiving stream). Lance Ferrell (ATU) investigated the incongruity of test results between the two laboratories, but the reason for the difference of the toxicity results was not discovered. After consulting with Cindy Moore (Aquatic Toxicology Unit), Belinda Henson (Regional Supervisor, Surface Water Protection), and Mark Brantley (Environmental Chemist, SWP-FRO) pertaining to the discrepant Acute Toxicity results, this. Office decided that it is prudent to accept Pace Analytical Services' "Pass" result for the December Acute Toxicity NPDES monitoring requirement and reporting on the December DMR. Please send the AT form to Mail Service Center 1621, as usual. In addition, the 24-hour effluent composite sample that was collected on December 1 was sent to the Division of Water Quality Chemistry Laboratory (located on Reedy Creek Road in Raleigh) for analyses of the following parameters (which are currently in Danaher's NPDES Permit): Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Chromium (Cr), and Total Nickel (Ni). The results of these parameters are as follows: Total Suspended Solids = 7.5 mg/L, Cr = 12 ug/L, and Ni = 73 ug/L. In Summary, during the days of this inspection, it appeared that this facility was in compliance with the conditions of the Danaher NPDES permit NC0001121 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF Danaher Industrial Controls WWTP (Dynapar Corporation) --- Contact personnel: Rodney Lang, Physical/Chemical Grade II (ORC) and Wastewater Grade III; Larry Smith, Physical/Chemical Grade II (ORC Back-up) and Wastewater Grade III. Dynapar plating operation: various metal parts were cleaned and finished either by electroplating or dipping into aqueous solutions. The solutions included zinc cyanide, copper cyanide, nickel sulfate, chromium, phosphate conversion, chromate conversion, silver cyanide, alkaline cleaning, acid salts pickling, rinsing, and rust preventative. The solutions required periodic replacement or replenishment of chemical contents. There were separate drains within the facility that were connected to specific treatment tanks. Danaher WWTP had two outfalls (001, & 003) that merged into Outfall 004. Please note that Outfall 002 had been sealed off and that there was no flow from this outfall, all of the molding machines were on re -circulating cooling tower water. Outfall 001 was the manufacturing process waste treatment effluent --- in which the wastewater from the plating unit flowed to the wastewater treatment facility (with a design flow of 0.17 MGD) consisting of chromium and cyanide batch treatment tanks, acid -alkaline holding tank, clarifier, and plate and frame press to discharge process wastewater via outfall 001. The frequency of Page # 2 f Permit: NC0001121 Owner - Facility: Danaher Industrial Controls WWTP Inspection Date: 12/01/2009 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance performing cooling tower water blow -down (CTW) was based upon a limit set point for the amount of conductivity; and, the CTW blow -down was not a continuous process. Effluent Outfall 003 was the remediated groundwater (remedial action pumping, as according to the NPDES Permit) and RCRA permit. The final effluent (Outfall 004) was the combined outfallof 001 and 003. The amount of 004 effluent flow was calculated by adding the potable water meter that supplies water to the units, plus the calculated flow of effluent 003 (based upon its pumping rates). Wastewater from the plating department that went to the wastewater treatment system was grouped into three categories: the wastewater to be treated for cyanide, the wastewater to be treated for chromate reduction (for the conversion of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium), and wastewater from the wet well. Generally, the addition of ChemTreat P-8005L and pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide followed by pH adjustment with sulfuric acid and sodium bisulfite were the chemical treatments that were used to precipitate the metals in the wastewater from the wet well. Two chromium tanks (15,000 gallons) were processed in two or three batches per week for chromium reduction. Two cyanide tanks (37,500 gallons) were processed in one batch per week for cyanide reduction. Flocculation developed by the addition of 15% bleach, ChemTreat P891 L, and ChemTreat P817E. These chemicals were added to the cyanide tank wastewater and (sometimes) to the chromium tank wastewater. The wastewater from the cyanide tanks, chromium tanks, and from the wet well flowed to the pumping station, and then was pumped to the clarifier for settling. The plate and frame filter press dewatered the clarifier underflow sludge. The filter cake was put into a hopper and was sent to Garco (Ashboro, NC) as a hazardous waste on a frequency of less than once per 60-days. The clarifier effluent flowed to Outfall 004 sampling station, and later to the Cape Fear River. Page # 3 Permit: NC0001121 Owner - Facility: Danaher Industrial Controls VVWTP Inspection Date: 12/01/2009 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance Operations & Maintenance Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping'? Yes No NA NE ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ■ ❑ Judge, and other that are applicable? Comment: Permit (If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application? Is the facility as described in the permit? # Are there any special conditions for the permit? Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? Comment: Secondary Clarifier Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? Are weirs level? Is the site free of weir blockage? Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting'? Is scum removal adequate? Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? Is the drive unit operational? Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/< of the sidewall depth) Comment: Laboratory Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? # Is the facility using a contract lab? # Is proper temperatureset for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? nn Yes No NA NE n n■n ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ nnn Yes No NA NE ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ nnn n n■n ■ nnn n n■n ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No NA NE ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ nnn ■ nnn n n■n Page # 4 Permit: NC0001121 Owner - Facility: Danaher Industrial Controls VWVTP Inspection Date: 12/01/2009 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance Laboratory Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +1-1.0 degrees? Comment: Effluent Sampling Is composite sampling flow proportional? Is sample collected below all treatment units? Is proper volume collected? Is the tubing clean? # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at lessthan or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? Comment: Yes No NA NE ❑ Q i ❑ Yes No NA NE ❑.❑■❑ ■ ❑Q❑ ■ rinn ■ ❑❑❑ ■ nnn ■ nnn Page # 5 Regional Field Inspectors Check List for Field Parameters Name of site to be Inspected: Danaher Industrial Controls _Date: 12/01:120009 Field certification # (if applicable): 5244 Inspector: Dale Lopez i v NPDES #: NC0001121 Region: FRO I. Circle the parameter or parameters performed at this site. !Residual Chlorine , Settleable Solids, pH , DO, Conductivity, Temperature II. Instrumentation: A. Does the facility have the equipment necessary to analyze field parameters as circled above? 1. A pH meter Measured in the Lab by Accumet pH meter 910 2. A Residual Chlorine meter 3. DO meter 4. A Cone for settleable solids 5. A thermometer or meter that measures temperature. HACH DR 2800 6. Conductivity meter III. Calibration/Analysis: lYes 'Yes Yes Yes !Yes No No No No No Yes No 1. Is the pH meter calibrated with 2 buffers and checked with a third buffer each day of use? Yes No 2. For Total Residual Chlorine, is a check standard Yes No analyzed each day of use? 3. Is the air calibration of the DO meter performed each day of use? 4. For Settleable Solids, is 1 liter of sample settled for 1 hour? 5. Is the temperature measuring device calibrated annually against a certified thermometer? 6. For Conductivity, is a calibration standard analyzed each day of use? Yes No Yes 'Yes No No Yes No IV. Documentation: 1. Is the date and time that the sample was collected documented? 2. Is the sample site documented? 3. Is the sample collector documented? 4. Is the analysis date and time documented? 5. Did the analyst sign the documentation? 6. Is record of calibration documented? 7. For Settleable Solids, is sample volume and 1 hour time settling time documented? 8. For Temperature, is the annual calibration of the measuring device documented? Comments: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No pH 6 Buffer (expiration date = June 2011) pH 10 buffer (expiration date =June 2011) The thermometer was crosschecked with an NIST thermometer in April 2009 Please submit a copy of this completed form to the Laboratory Certification. Program. DWQ Lab Certification Chemistry Lab Courier # 52-01-01 FIELD INSPECTOR CHECKLIST REV. 04/23/2002. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF Danaher Industrial Controls WWTP (Dynapar Corporation) --- Contact personnel: Rodney Lang, Physical/Chemical Grade II (ORC) and Wastewater Grade III; Larry Smith, Physical/Chemical Grade II (ORC Back-up) and Wastewater Grade III. Dynapar plating operation: various metal parts were cleaned and finished either by electroplating or dipping into aqueous solutions. The solutions included zinc cyanide, copper cyanide, nickel sulfate, chromium, phosphate conversion, chromate conversion, silver cyanide, alkaline cleaning, acid salts pickling, rinsing, and rust preventative. The solutions required periodic replacement or replenishment of chemical contents. There were separate drains within the facility that were connected to specific treatment tanks. The Danaher WWTP treats only process water from the facility. All domestic wastewater was discharged to the City of Elizabethtown's WWTP. Danaher WWTP had two outfalls (001, & 003) that merged into Outfall 004. Please note that Outfall 002 had been sealed off and that there was no flow from this outfall, all of the molding machines were on re -circulating cooling tower water. Outfall 001 was the manufacturing process waste treatment effluent --- in which the wastewater from the plating unit flowed to the wastewater treatment facility (with a design flow of 0.17 MGD) consisting of chromium and cyanide batch treatment tanks, acid -alkaline holding tank, clarifier, and plate and frame press to discharge process wastewater via outfall 001. The frequency of performing cooling tower water blow -down (CTW) was based upon a limit set point for the amount of conductivity; and, the CTW blow -down was not a continuous process. Effluent Outfall 003 was the remediated groundwater (remedial action pumping, as according to the NPDES permit) and RCRA permit. The final effluent (Outfall 004) was the combined outfall of 001 and 003. The amount of 004 effluent flow was calculated by adding the potable water meter that supplies water to the units, plus the calculated flow of effluent 003 (based upon its pumping rates). Wastewater from the plating department that went to the wastewater treatment system was grouped into three categories: the wastewater to be treated for cyanide, the wastewater to be treated for chromate reduction (for the conversion of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium), and wastewater from the wet well. Generally, the addition of ChemTreat P-8005L and pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide followed by pH adjustment with sulfuric acid and sodium bisulfite were the chemical treatments that were used to precipitate the metals in the wastewater from the wet well. Two chromium tanks (15,000 gallons) were processed in two or three batches per week for chromium reduction. Two cyanide tanks (37,500 gallons) were processed in one batch per week for cyanide reduction. Flocculation developed by the addition of 15% bleach, ChemTreat P891L, and ChemTreat P817E. These chemicals were added to the cyanide tank wastewater and (sometimes) to the chromium tank wastewater. The wastewater from the cyanide tanks, chromium tanks, and from the wet well flowed to the pumping station, and then was pumped to the clarifier for settling. The plate and frame filter press dewatered the clarifier underflow sludge. The filter cake was put into a hopper and was sent to Garco (Ashboro, NC) as a hazardous waste on a frequency of less than once per 60-days. The clarifier effluent flowed to Outfall 004 sampling station, and later to the Cape Fear River.