NC0004626_WASTELOAD ALLOCATION_19940930

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNIlNO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0004626
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Monitoring Report
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
September 30, 1994
I
This acm�u *Mt is priatea oa reQse paper - ignore arty
Coritent oxx the re-wer-se side

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section/Instream Assessment Unit
September 9,1994
TO: Sean Goris
FROM: 1Betsy-Jolinson' �pp
THROUGH: Steve Bevingt �P
Ruth Swanek f. t
SUBJECT: PPG Industries draft permit
NPDES No. NG0004626
Davidson County
I have reviewed the comments provided by PPG Industries regarding its draft permit for discharge to Potts Creek, a
tributary of High Rods Lake. My comments are provided below.
Instream monitoring samples for nutrients should be spatial composites within the photic zone (defined as twice the
secchi depth). The permit is correct as written.
Minimum detection levels for nutrients were provided as a strong recommendation; if higher detection levels are used,
the data may be meaningless. Instream levels of nutrients should be significantly lower than effluent levels hence
lower detection levels should be used. For example it is inappropriate to report TP as less than 1 mg/l when instream
levels to protect water quality should be less than 0.1 mg/l.
Effluent Monitoring
1. TSS - solids are problematic in High Rock Lake, however, the frequency of monitoring may be dropped to 2tmonth
based on PPG's compliance record.
2. Fecal Coliform - though the facility is only 10% domestic and there is no evidence that the wastewater contains no
fecal coliform. PPG's chlorine use is excessive. PPG's average daily chlorine levels of 0.4 mg/ are toxic. PPG
should monitor for fecal colonies before and after chlorination and take steps to reduce chlorine levels. Please refer
to the chorine letter which was sent to domestic facilities.
3A. Copper and Chromium - monitoring was recommended due to the poor compliance record for toxicity; it is likely
that toxicity failures are due to excessive chorine use. Quarterly monitoring is recommended. Data will be reviewed
after a year and monitoring may be dropped.
Stream Mon ftoring
1. Frequency - monitoring should be done during the months of June - October; conventional parameters should be
monitored weekly and nutrients and chlorophyll -a on a monthly basis.
2. Sampling Time - samples may be taken prior to 9:30 am
3. Chlorophyll -a - North Potts Creek and High Rock Lake are eutrophic. A management plan for High Rods Lake and
its tributaries is under development. Nutrient limits may be required upon completion of the report. PPG's effluent
data indicates TP levels of 2 mgll and TN levels of 10 -15 mg1l. These levels of nutrients are similar to domestic
wastewater and ample to innoculate algal blooms. Chlorophyll -a sampling should remain in the permit.
4. Fecal Coliform (winter) - okay to drop
5. TKN, NH3-N, and NOx - as discussed above, significant levels of nitrogen have been observed in the effluent and
monitoring is required given the eutrophic nature of the receiving stream.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please let me know.
cc: Carta Sanderson
Winston-Salem Regional Office

MEMO
TO: � �-'civ`".""��/� SUBJECT: GDoo�
From
°dry North Carolina Department of Environment,
��� Health, and Natural Resources printed anFlecyciedPaper

I
R
.S P- 227-19 94 11: 1 D FRal PPG I ND L EX I I, t6TON NC TO 19197333919 P.01
I
r�
�\ WATER ° TECHNOLGGY AND CONTROLS, INC.
Environmental Laboratory
Rt. 10, Bug 460 Reidsville, N. C. 27320
' (919) 342-474S
Customer; PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
Contact Person: !
nI1. DAVID T.
SEGERS
Date Sample Rcvd:
06/25/93
Report Date: �
07/ 12/93
WT&C Number:
06259332A
Sample:
EFFLUENT COMP
6/10/93
PARAME7E R j
RESULTS
Cadaxuz, total
<@.002
mg/1
Chromium, total
(0.010
rag/L
Copper, total {
(0.005
mg/1
Iron, total
0.036
mg/1
Lead, total
(0.025
peg/1
Nickel, total
0.016
mg/l
Silver, total
-
(0.005
rag/1
Zinc, total
i
0.126
mg/l
Post-W Fax 7571
Date
Ra9�^•s> 3
�/Note
Ta J� / V
From r S u'-d-1
Co./oept.
Co.
Re ane
Phone.#

SEP-27-1994 11:10 FROM PPG IND LEXINGTUI NC -TO 19192339919 P.02
50Q LUKV4(3HQL� ApAD
! ASH LANO. ,'A23005•3294
190.y ;OB-3232
I
I
he Treat.Inc_
28 JUL 1994
'k CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
LABORATORY NO. 94-07-2617
SAMPLE OF WATERS TAKEN AT PPG INDUSTRIES, LEXINGTON, NC., ON JULY 19,
1994 AND RECEIVED FROM DAVE FOX.
ANALYSIS
CITY WATER WASTE PLAN'
MARE -UP EFFLUENT
nH 6.9 7.4
CONDUCTIVITY, gmho 143 957
'M'-AILKALINITY, as CaCO3, mg/L 29 175
TOTAL HARDNESS, as CaCO3, mg/L 31 373
CALCIUM HARD., as CaCO3, mg/L 19 347
MAGNESIUM HARD. a5lCaCO3, Mg/L 12 26
IRON, as Fe, mg/L ' <0.1 <0.1
COPPER, as Cu, mg/L <0.1 <0.1.
ZINC, as Zn,, mg/L <0.1 0.1
SODIUM, as Na, Mg/L 17 43
TOTAL INORGANIC PHOSPHATE, mg/L 2.2 11
CHLORIDE, as Cl, mg/L 3.4 47
SULFATE, as SO4, mg/L 16 194 i1
NITRATE, as NO3 , mg/L 0.7 43
ORTHO-PHOSPHATE, as PO4,Mg/L <0.5 10
SILICA, as SiOZ, mg/L 17 13
PHOSPHONATE, as PO4, mg/L - 0.6
i
j RESPECTF LY SUBMITTED,
T. J 'CONNOR
CHIEF CHEMIST
CHEMTREA 77, INC.
CC: FOX

SEF-27-199W 1111: 1010 FROM 'PPG 1HD LEXII,4GTON NC TO 19197339919 P. [33
t N C O H F 0 i, A T E 0 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
iH( AISV�AhCF rF 0UAL IT. 1
PPG industries, Inc. ;
P. 0. Box 949
New Jersey Church Road
Lexington, NC 27292
Attn: Mr. David Segers
Client Reference: PPG
December 06, 1991
PACE Project Number: 611127514
PACE Sample Number: 92 0136691
Date Collected: 11/21/91
Date Received: 11/27/9I
Client Sample ID: Effluent
Parameter Units MDL Composite DATE ANALYZED
INORGANIC ANALYSIS
INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Cadmium (Method 213.1) !
mg/L
0.010
NO
12/06/91
Chromium (Method 218.1)
mg/L
0.010
ND
12/06/91
Copper (Method 200.7)
mg/L
0.010
ND
12/06/91
Lead (Method 239.1) j
mg/L
0.100
NO
12/06/91
Nickel (Method 249.2)
mg/L
0.010
0.057
12/06/91
Zinc (Method 200.7)
mg/L
0.010
0.085
12/06/91
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND Not detected at or above the MDL.
These data have been reviewed and are approved. for release.
Charles M. Cabaniss
Manager, Inorganic Chemistry;
i
Ji�S ��cs ,a<crI 'i o � �/� �'cam
1790 univtraity CommuCie] Place offices Serving; M'ruleopalis, Mirnrata charlam, Nanh Caratine An Fqual Opportunity Erltplaltr
Charlotte, NC 28213 Tampa, Floriia A&Mville, Nonh Caroliaa
TEL [phone] Iowa City, Iowa Nero Yvrk, New York
FAX: [phone] San Francisco. Californie Pittsburgh Pmrsylvr is
I.Ansas pity, Missouri Oenrar, Coiarada
lvs Angeles, California
TOTtPL P.03

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 20, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sean Goris, WQ Permits and Engineering
THROUGH: Steve Mauney, WQ Supervisor, WSRO 1��
FROM: Abner Braddy, WQ, WSRO e
SUBJECT: PPG Industries Draft Permit
NPDES No. NCO004626
Davidson County
The Region has reviewed the P.P.G. letter of August 18, as well as the memorandum
dated September 9 from Betsy Johnson in the I.A.U., each of which deal with effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements in the subject draft permit.
As Betsy's memo of September 9 appears to have addressed each issue raised by
P.P.G., and as she is in a better position to respond than are we, the Region has nothing to
add.
Should you have questions, please call.
cc: BBetsy Johnson
Central Files
WSRO

Division of Environmental Management
MEMORANDUM
TO: Abner Braddy
W SRO
TO: Betsy Johnson
IAU
FROM: Sean D. Goris A
Permits and Engineering
SUBJECT: Comments from PPG Industries concerning their draft permit
DATE: 917194
PPG Industries has provided a number of comments concerning their draft permit. The
majority of the comments question the need for the limitation and monitoring of a number
of constituents, though other concerns are raised. Please provide comments and
recommendations in regard to PPG's concerns.
At this point I will defer to the IAU and WSRO for comments in regard to dropping the
requirements for the constituents cited. I am of the opinion that grab samples for all
instream monitoring should be sufficient.
I would like to request that, if possible, comments could be returned by September I6.
Thanks

i
.J
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC./P.O. BOX 949it.EXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27293tAREA 704/249-8151
Works No. 53
Fibor Glass Products
August 18, 1994
David Goodrich
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
NP17ES Permits Group
P.Q. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: PPG Industries, Inc./Lexington Facility
Coininents/Draft NPDES Permit No.NC0004626
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
PPG Industries, inc.'s (PPG's) Lexington, North Carolina facility has received and
reviewed a draft NPDES permit dated July 20, 1994 and received by PPG on July 21. In
accord with DEI-INR requirements, the following comments are being submitted relating to
various provisions of the draft permit. PPG would welcome an opportunity to meet with
DE14NR personnel to discuss these comments further and to answer any questions or provide
any additional necessary information prior to issuance of a final permit.
The following are PPG's specific comments:
General Comments.
A. Part I, Section A.
The column identifying sample type requires composite samples from stream
locations for certain parameters. However, the asterisk (*) footnote for sample locations
states that upstream and downstream locations shall be grab samples. PPG requests that the
Department clarify the requirements for sampling of these parameters.PPG assumes that the
notation for composite sampling is in error and that what is intended is in fact grab
samples.

David Goodrich
August 18, 1994
Page 2
B. Part III, Section_F.
Minimum Detection Levels for Nutrients.
PPG requests clarification on whether this list represents merely a statement of
minimum detection limits or whether it states a requirement to utilize procedures having the
stated limits. "PPG assumes that what is intended is that this list only represents the
minimum detection limits for these parameters and that the current test procedures with tp
appropriate detection limits as appeoved by the Department's laboratory inspectors are
acceptable. D �`
II. Specific Comments.
A. Effluent Monitoring.
1. Total Suspended Solids.
This parameter has been monitored in the effluent on a weekly basis
since the original NPDES permit was issued in 1974. During the current permit period, a
total of 234 tests from January 1990 through June 1994 shows an average of 21.5 lb./day,
which is only 20.5 % of the allowable summer limit. In addressing this issue in the 1989.
permit renewal and agreeing that weekly monitoring is acceptable, the department stated
. effluent monitoring data for PPG show low variability and averages consistently below the
allowable amount of TSS" (letter from Paul Wilms, Director, DNR, dated October
19,1989.PPG data continues to consistently show low variability and averages below the
allowable limits and therefore an increase to daily monitoring is unwarranted and not justified
by any environmental gain. Accordingly, PPG requests that the requirement for routine
monitoring for TSS be deleted. No - �c- �� t2 G(4
—2-
2. Fecal Coliform.
For the period January 1990 through June 1994, PPG performed 232
tests for fecal coliform. Of this total 143 (54%) were recorded as <2 colonies/mi. The
maximum monthly average was only 10 and the maximum single day was only 52.
This same issue was discussed during the 1989 NPDES renewal process
and the Department concluded that " ...'since domestic wastewater only constitutes 8
percent of the total effluent, the fecal coliform monitoring frequency will be relaxed from
daily in the permit renewal to weekly ...." (letter from Paul Wilms, Director, DNR, dated
October 19,1989.TIie facts with respect to this parameter in PPG's effluent have not changed
since 1989 and PPG therefore contends that an increase in frequency of monitoring is not
warranted. Accordingly, PPG requests that the requirement for routine monitoring for
fecal coliform be deleted.
U 4to-C W C✓�a_w arc.- W '� �� `-�
L\

David Goodrich
August 18,1994
Page 3
3. Copper.
No justification has been provided or seems to exist for adding copper
to the list of effluent parameters subject to monitoring. Copper i5 not generated by PPG's o
wastewater production.As the Agency is aware,in the course of investigating possible causes
for erratic effluent toxicity results,routine effluent samples were submitted to outside 1
laboratories for heavy metal analyses which included Copper and Chromilu.Thiese tests were
performed in 1991,1993 and 1994 with the results ranging from G .005 to .006
mg/l.Accordingly PPG requests that the requirement to monitor for Copper in PPG's
effluent be deleted as unjustified.
4. Chromium.
As in the case with Copper, there does not appear to be any justification ,vto
for requiring routine monitoring for chromium.The samples tested for the heavy metals in
1991,1993 and 1994 included Chromium. All results were c .01 mg/l. Again, PPG does
not believe that these results warrant routine testing. PPG requests that chromium be bV�
deleted as a monitoring requirement.
B. Stream Monitoring.
1. Sampling Frequency.
As PPG permit data reflects, stream 'monitoring requirements have
been revised to reflect the real need to only sample during the critical "summer"
period of June through October.As the Agency is aware,stream sampling in North Potts
Creek is hazardous during the winter months and the data during this period is of little or no
value.PPG believes the extensive monitoring done since April,1974 is adequate to establish
no effect by the PPG effluent on this body of water.Therefore PPG requests that the f0L�-,
stream monitoring program be limited to the monthe of June through October,be
limited to a once/week frequency and that the sampling be accomplished prior to 9:30 dv-
A.M.
2. SamplingTime.
The draft permit requires sampling before 9 a.m. The current permit
requires sampling before 9:30 a.m. This half hour difference allows PPG technicians
adequate time to properly sample without the necessity of requiring constant overtime work.
PPG believes that to require otherwise is an unnecessary burden and expense with no positive
environmental gain. PPG requests that sampling time remain at or before 9:30 a.m. a 1/_
3. Chlorophyll -a.
This is a new requirement added to the draft permit for which PPG
believes there is no justification. PPG's effluent is extremely low in both phosphorous and —N�r
nitrogen. Therefore it is unlikely that PPG's effluent is in any way responsible for algae
growth which chlorophyll analysis is intended to measure. Such sampling and analysis would
require the services of a contract laboratory as PPG does not have in house capability to
provide chlorophyll testing. Accordingly PPG believes that such testing is burdensome and
unwarranted without providing any additional information relating to PPG's effluent or the
receiving stream. PPG requests that the requirement for chlorophyll monitoring be N�>
deleted.�a�� 1�',Pb,�,�t
7-F ^- -2- - 5 1 l ":" 1 1-3 — Ica — l 5� '� 1 1

a - David Goodrich
August 18,1994
Page 4
4. Fecal Coliform (Winter Monitoring).
This is a new addition to PPG's permit. It was eliminated as a
requirement in 1989 as a result of sampling data which showed viry low fecal Coliform
counts in PPG effluent as well as in the stream samples. No conditions on PPG's effluent or
the receiving stream have changed which would warrant renewed testing for this parameter.
Accordingly PPG requests that the requirement to monitor for fecal Coliform be deleted. w�
5. RKNNH,, _NO, and NO3.
As noted previously, PPG's effluent is nitrogen deficient and ammonia
is added routinely in a controlled manner. Daily monitoring occurs and the ammonia feed
rate is adjusted accordingly. During the current permit period, January 1990 through June
1994, PPG conducted 234 tests of the effluent for these parameters with the following
average results:
NH3 .26 mg/l (234x)
TKN 4.5 mglll (54x)
Nitrate/Nitrite 6.2 mgll (16x) I N
PPG believes these results demonstrate consistent findings that PPG's effluent does
not contribute to any possible eutrophication of the Yadkin River/High Rock Lake System.
Accordingly, PPG requests that the requirement for routine monitoring of these 44,,�- -
parameters be deleted as burdensome and unwarranted. ueu
PPG believes that the comments and data presented here and previously to the ';�4
Department support its contention that the wastewater effluent from PPG's treatment plant is
adequately stabilized and does not have an adverse impact on the receiving stream. As
previosly demonstrated by extensive monitoring by PPG,the area downstream from the
outfall is more influenced by the flow into the stream from the Yadkin River than by the
effluent from PPG's wastewater treatment plant. Further, PPG's treatment plant consistently
operates at > 99.5 % removal efficiencies for BOD, is essentially phosphorous free, has
minimum nitrogen levels and is essentially free of any fecal Coliform colonies. Y 7-
�J
There have been no changes to PPG's treatment plant or to the conditions in North
Potts Creek that warrant the increased sampling and analysis requirements evident in the
draft permit.
PPG appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed permit for its Lexington
facility and requests that the department contact us to discuss these issues in detail prior to
issuance ofa final permit.
Thank you for your time and effort in addressing these issues.
Very truly yours,
t7��1
J W. Buchanan
enior Engineering Associate

NPDES WASTE 1
PERMIT NO.: NC0004626
PERMITTEE NAME: PPG Industries, Inc.
FACILITY NAME:
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001 _
Design Capacity: 0.6 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 10 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 90 %
Comments:
See attached.
3FaL'7 gf3ga"
49•upc -M APP4Ct +-eat4 Ple-d-er146
3 /l/yy
02C4V4 ¢.c ApOtUAM i Zeccrv�
/z// 7143
RECEIVING STREAM: North Potts Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-04
Reference USGS Quad: E17NE
(please attach)
County: Davidson
Regional Office:_
Previous Exp. Date: 6/30/94 Treatment Plant Class: IV
Classification changes within three miles:
Discharge is within 3 miles of Denton drinkin water intake. Hijzh
Rock Lake is WS-V. Lacustrine pgrtion of High Rock Lake should be
considered WS-V (,per region).
Requested by: Sean Goris Dom: 3/31/94
Prepared by: Date: �% / 3 9 y
Reviewed by:
Date: 7
)AD ALLOCATION
Modeler Date Rec. ##
Drainage Area mil
( ) 14 5- Avg. Streamflow (cfs): <%
7Q10 (cfs) / Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC xf y % Acut on
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters 70 7P� V
�« / N tN
j /t�!( .V �J!
Upstream LocationCL
d�,c 11 �
Downstream Location 6, 3.K:
Characteristics
BOD5 11,
NH3-N
TSS
1�
F. Col. (/100 ml)
PH (SU)
O�
1N
:mow
omments:
/S7 T3/
f,31t�/ 630
30 �0
3v � v
aoa aov
'Zoo
• •'pr'� r�
h10Ns
� •(/JYLt
NAA�. YLM
7P . o, ...,,f/
*A;,,. d4 leers Noi, A/03 - v!
N/V3 -A/ o- / "I r/

4955 IV SE
NGTON WEST) I %3
\ O .J�2
/J
Q
1
ln

_ KILOL yb
ll
k
III -
Ili
C. LVc�.�.�..
lLk&�� �_-/ �-
qO C r-�7-
r ivy—••� V�`'C���S 7WW�(.� � l/i/:��� ��`-V YG ��4�a•l' J -Fr,1/vr �'y •+—.. r�
�ll r
I dd 1 o rrr ,z p qz _ r' o ; ti f
,� f I
lIf
IL -TL C,
I_ r0 U,,� r oJ," - Bob)w
lIIG/J _f w�► -�c; ,a wu� l� 7O r o� v� v� Lu i L
ifI - �s c .tom l���-a
III
----���
- �vo✓E I%e— G,, G.r1I1v c-,su D brJ�akS
V"
III
Ili .
fli
I11
III
-
Iil

1101
111010011
=iiijm
5. Facility (see instructions)
Give the name, ownership, and
physical location of the plant or
other operating facility where
disatsarge(s) presently occur(s)
or will occur.
Name
Ownership (Public, Private
or both Public and Private)
Check block if a Federal
facility
and give GSA Inventory
Control Number
Location:
Number & Street
City
County
State
6. Nature of Business State the nature
of the business cor>cixcted at the
plant or operating facility.
7. Facility Intake Water (see
instructions) Indicate water intake
volume per day by sources.
Estimate average volume per day
in hxmnd gallons per day.
Municipal or private water system
Surface water
Groundwater
Other'
Total Item 7
If there is intake water from 'other,
specify the sauce.
S. Facility Water Use Estimate average
volume per day in thousand gallons
per day for the folbWng types of
water usage at the facility.
(See instructions)
Nonconlact cooling water
Boiler feed water
Process water (including contact
cooling water)
Sanitary water
Ow
Total ftem 8
If there are discharges to'other',
spay
If there is 'Sanitary water use,
give the nurniber of people served.
Km
105b
105C
105d
1050
105f
105g
105h
106a
M
107a
107b
107C
107d
107e
1071
10Ba
108b
108c
108d
108e
1081
108g
108h
n -i1r>leS
Df
❑ PUB g PHV ❑ BPP
ow
1`�: JrJ ti eYS�u► C�uYLN
G. v
_Apr}in V-0j 1Vle.
AGENCY USE
0
,T,% thousand gallons per day
__thousand gallons per day
thousand gallons per day
thousand gallons per day
— thousand gallons per day
A 24- thousand plan per day
O thousand gations per day
A 432), thousand gallons per day
,5- thousand galleons per day
_thousand gallons per day
�'' j t lhot�sand gallons per day
ai /:I �Q people served ( j d !�i L EM144�M vrJ

FOR AGENCY USE
u
9. All Facility Discharges and other Losses. Number
and Discharge (See instructions)Volume Specify the
number of discharge points and the volume of water
discharged or lost from the facility according to the
categories below. Estimate average volume per day in
thousand gallons per day
Number of
Total Volume Discharged.
Discharge Points
Million Gallons Per flay
Surface Water 109a1 f
109a2
Sanitary wastewater transport systan 109b1
109b2
Storm water transport system 109c1
109c2
Combined saraiary and storm water 109d1
10"
transport system
Surface impoundment with no 109e1
109e2
effluent
Underground percolation 109f1
1092
Well injection 1ogg1
1W
Waste acceptance firm 109h1
10%Q
Evaporation 1o9i1 Jula'1--
low
,r 14'
Consumption 1o9j1
109j2
000l
Other* CS�V�q�� 109k1
Facility dischargers/ and volume
Total Item 10911
9
109t2�
'If there are discharges to 'other, 109m1
specify.
10. Permits, Licenses and Applications
List all existing, pending or denied permits, licenses and applications related to discharges from this facility (see
instructions)
� :=of
For
.:
Use
T
License
• .:
Date
:�
•
Date
:.
•
Date
�: :.
r
Expiration
s..
•
.RED
•..._ _
Vffm
11. Maps and Drawings
Attach all required maps and drawings to the back of this application. (see instructions)
12. Additional Information

FOR AGENCY USE
21,lk
15 Waste Abatement
a Waste Abatement Practices
Describe the waste abatement
practices used on this dis-
charge with a brief narrative
(See instructions)
Waste Abatement Codes
Using the codes listed in Table
11 of the Instruction Booklet
describe the waste abatement
processes for this discharge in
the order in which they occur
if possible.
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
215a
215b
(1)Ir—!SC-9AP, (2) +ZC-C-1CL- (3) EA-T
(10}CNu i t (11)C GLDCL (12) (_
(13lCCLQIS (14)12 tA1Xr--'n (15).S;-[ 1C1L
(1fi}�LA�17`i1 (t7j {18j
(19) (20) (21)
(22) (23) (24)
(25)

Niue:1_[cll►■r-govis
111111111
16. Wastewater Characteristics
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
Check the box beside each constituent which is present in the effluent (discharge water), This determination is to
be based on actual analysis or best estimate.(see instructions)
Parameter
Present
Parameter
Present
216
216
Color
F
00080
01042
✓
00610
01045
Organic nitrogen
Lead
00605
✓
01051
Nitrate
00620
Magnesium
009V
Nitrite
mVanese
00615
01055
Phwphorus
Mercury
00665
71900
SuFfEfte
Molybdenum
00945
01062
Sulfide
Nickel
00745
01067
Sulfite
79 We-r-uum
00740
01147
romi a
Silver
71870
01077
Chloride
00940
Potassium
00937
Cyanide
00720
um
009M
son e
'I Falliurn
00951
01059
Aluminum
ita um
01105
01152
Antimony
Hin
01097
01102
rsernc
zinc
01002
01092
Beryllium
gicr es
01012
74051
t3anum
Chlorinated organic compoun s
01007
74052
Boron
Pesticides'
01022
74053
L;aamium
and grease
01027
00550
Calcium
/Phencis
00916
✓
32730
Cobalt
01037
Surtactants
3828D
Chromium
CH G r'• n
f,/
01034
50060
Fecal co i orm bacteria
Radioactivity
74055
74050
Specify substances, compounds and/or elements in Item 26.
Pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, and rodentic ides) must be reported in terns of the acceptable corrmrnon names specified in
Acceptable Corrvnon Names and Chemical names for time Ingredient Statement on Pesgd a Labels, 2nd Edition, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20250, June 1972, as required by Subsection 162.7(b) of the Regulations for the
Enforcement of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
©® 1
17. Description of Intake and Discharge
For each of the parameters listed below, enter in the appropriate box the value or code letter answer called for (see
instructions)
In additlon, enter the parameter name and code and all required values for any of the following parameters rf they ere
checked in item 16: ammonia, cyanide, aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium, zinc, phenols, oil and grease, and chlorine (residual).
Influent
Lftluent
Parameter and Code
ntreat
Intake
In - an
Treated
Daily
Average
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
requency
of Analysis
Numbero
Analyses
Sample
Type
217
Water
(Daily
Intake
Water
Observed or
Expected
Observed or
Expected
average)
(Daily
During
During
average)
Discharge
Activity
Discharge
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Flow*
Gailcins per
n s o
c. of �,
-Ppr-
Units
00400
r� �
/ �
�! 7
Temperature win er
OF
-7/7
Temperature (summer)1/(��)
OF
4
I'/�))
-7/
`1{f
'6
V r
�/�f
V
/y/(��(/�
Y Y
f
!
474027
roc emciOxygen
Demand(BO
5-Day)
l r]
10
` 4
�]
j�
3,pa
5/7
�}
IoO
mcyl
mg/I
j
1
q� f
�f
Owl()
!
Ghernica Oxygen
Demand (COD)
mgA
0M
�]
!
f
1 D
� !G
p�
�1 I
3tk
!�
D�'+
Totaluspe
(nonfilterable) Solids
mg/I
`
c' (
(�
4,5
(. �
1(0.0
1 / 1
50�
/{
obi`
C Conductance
micromhoslcm at 250C
00096
NA
,5etUea le Matter
(residue)
mUl
oasas
i
V k' J A-
Other discharges sharing intake flow (serial numbers) (see instructions)

U=ei999AM
191MIMMIM
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
17. (ConCd)
Parameter and Code
217
Influent
Untreated
Intake
Water
(Daily
average)
1
In -Plant
Treated
Intake
Water
(Daily
average)
2
Daily
Average
3
Minimum
Value
Observed or
E*Kted
During
Discharge
Activity
4
Maximum
Value
Observed or
Expected
During
Discharge
Activity
5
requency
of Analysis
6
Number
of
Analyses
7
Sample
Type
8
p+ry ooi.tO
<.lj
<.f
.3
jL
7.¢
woe)hr- 50o (vo
r7
18. Plant Controls Check if the following
plats controls are available for this
discharge
Alternate power source for major
pumping facility
Alarm or emergency procedure for
power or equipment failure
Complete Item 19 if discharge is frorr
cooling andlor steam water
generation and water treatment
additives are used
19, Water Treatment Additives If the
discharge is treated with any
conditioner, inhibitor, or algicide,
answer the following:
a. Name of Material(s)
b. Name and address of
manufacturer
c, Ouantily (pounds added per
rnilkm gallons of water treated)
218
219a
219b
219c
$a ALM

(DRE.MONT RD•- Ot Lit�woac) RD. 7OORDER tic) ML Rn.CxT• IJ ❑U1(E Pw,?- [ns
a R4. xt 1130 Q RAILROAD TRACKS. ®OPOr-P HOMC- RD 1i NCw JERSG.Y
c�Qcr� IZa+�
0N. RDTTS CREEK.- (, ORUER �{OME Rt�, �(Z g•' C•i_LlP65
Fflo�n V1�SSE YR�c.7 •• -
3150.4— 7L
r7
�� µ1 S3
1!� \
01ow, Cho' .
I N ; N. PO C CLi< -
Ar: LExINGToN
COUNTY OF; OAV1DSON STATE
' APPUCAM)N BY PPG. IND.
%0 -y

PPG INDUSRIES,INC. LEXINGTON,N.C.
AMERICAN
CHILDREN'S
HOME
407 I WWTP 1 353
DISCHARGE
58
SLUDGE
NOTE: ALL FLOWS IN 1000 GALLONS/DAY
FEBRUARY 23,1994

�-C.Sv ��1 i'CrZi. ` _ � f✓t;{1 -t-� '� Yl.fi �J �v�ie��
Rr*C61VfiD
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request #7815
Facility Name: PPG Industries _ <"R tee,
NPDES No.: NCO004626 fiegi "1 ?Office
Type of Waste: Domestic/ Industrial
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Receiving Stream: North Potts Creek
Stream Classification: C
Subbasin: 03-07-04
County:-PaliA5e-A Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office: w; 0054-00 . �„. USGS #
Requestor: Sean Goris Date:
Date of Request: 4/4/94 Drainage Area (mi2): 11.5
Topo Quad: E17NE Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 1
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 2.2
Average Flow (cfs): 11
30Q2 (cfs): 2.8
IWC (%): 48
Dilution: 2:1'-
Wasteload Allocation Summary:
(approach taken. correspondence with region. EPA etc.)
NC Finishing discharges to North Potts Creek at the interface with the headwaters of High Rock Lake
(class WS-V). The lake is not meeting its uses. Algal blooms occur throughout the lake including Potts
Creek due to eutrophic conditions. Low 130s occur downstream of PPG's discharge. Limits were based
on BPJ based on available technology. Streamflow was not considered. The discharge was treated as a
direct discharge to High Rock Lake. This assumes complete mixing across the Yadkin River. However, ,C -
this discharge is to a lake arm. A USGS study indicates that even in the riverine portion of the Yadkin
River, complete mixing is not acheived for 10 miles under low flow conditions. Nutrient limits may be
required upon completion of a management plan for High Rock Lake. In addition, this area is under
review for the Yadkin River basin plan which will be promulgated in 1998.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Betsy
�'vt
40, s
J9 y
Reviewed by , w
Instream Assessment: Date: (a
Az-. Regional Supervisor: Date: /-7
Permits & Engineering: / 7 re Date: -7
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:

CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (lbs/day):
COD (lbs/day)
NH3N (mg/1):
NOX (mg/1)
DO (mg/1):
TSS (lbs/day):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
PH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1);
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (lbs/day):
COD (lbs/day)
NH3N (mg/1):
NOX (mg/1)
DO (mg/1):
TSS (lbs/day):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
PH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
SUMMER
daily daily
average maximum
WINTER
daily daily
average maximum
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
157
314
314
630
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
105
168
146
292
1000
1000
1000
1000
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
30
60
30
60
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
SUMMER
daily daily
average maximum
WINTER
daily daily
average maximum
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
157
314
314
630
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
105
168
146
292
200
200
1 200
200
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
30
60
30
60
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
I monitor
I monitor
Upon completion of a nutrient management plan for High Rock Lake, nutrient limits may
be required.
Limits Changes Dim To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow

Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures Fecal
TOXICS/METALS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic, quarterly
Existing Limit: P/F at 48%
Recommended Limit: P/F at 48%
Monitoring Schedule: February, May, August, November
Failed four toxicity tests in a row in 1993. Why?
17
Daily
Daily
averse maximum
Chromium (ug/1):
monitor
monitor
Copper (ug/1):
I monitor
I monitor
Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load
capacity of the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future
water quality based effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of
the watershed.
OR
_x_ No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future
allocations.
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location upstream at bridge
Downstream Location: 0.3 miles downstream
Parameters: DO, Temp, Fecal, Cond, TP, NO2+NO3, NH3-N, TKN,
Chl-a; surface samples
Minimum detection levels for nutrients:
TP
0.01 mg/1
NO2
0.01 mg/1
NO3
0.01 mg/1 l
NH3-N
G.,OtmmkA
TKN
0.1 m g/1
DO, Temp, Cond, TSS, and Fecal Coliform should be sampled weekly in the
morning (before 9 am) only while nutrients should be collected monthly, June -
October.

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Has the facility demonstrated the abili �- meet the proposed new limits with
existing treatment facilities? Yes V No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No 7—
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not
modeled, then old assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits
into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with
attachments.

Facility Name .6 Permit # �4� Pipe # 00 I
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Cer 2 fthnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The Pffluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
r r monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 /• o cfs
Permitted Flow 0.(4 MGD
IWC _ ` E %
Basin & Sub -basin 03 -_07__- 0cl
Receiving Stream A
County �ad
Recommended by:
Date 9 4�
QCL P1F Version 9191

Inter -Office Memo
To: WLA Files
From: Betsy Johnson
Date: May 3, 1994
Subject: PPG WLA Notes
This is a S year renewal per the basin schedule. Since it is a renewal only, existing limits will be renewed.
However, a number of issues should be noted.
Low instream DOs occur in the morning hours downstream of PPG's discharge. This site is a lake
backwater under summer conditions and is subject to eutrophication. There is little available dilution.
IWC based on 7Q10 is 48% for a dilution of 2:1. Thus, nutrient loading is an issue. The permitted BOD
load is fairly high for this site. The limits were based on available treatment technology years ago, The
facility is operating considerably below the permitted load (per the DMRs). The regional office says the
BOD has been higher when they have sampled. For the basin plan, LT BOD data should be reviewed and
concentration based limits added based on low dilution. Note: dye studies of the stream were done in the
70's. Modeling is problematic due to the stream -lake interface.
A nutrient management plan for High Rock Lake is under development. Upon completion, nutrient limits
may be required. TP at PPG averages under 2 mg/l. In a cove this is still high, though there is evidence
that nutrient laden waters from the Yadkin River also innoculate the lake arms. The region has indicated
that PPG's nutrients are added to enhance treatment. What is the impact of reducing nutrient addition?
Toxicity may be an issue. PPG failed 4 consecutive toxicity tests in 1993. Received 3 NOW Several
incidences of failing to.report toxicity and some other incidences of failing tests in past. Ferric chloride
use was replaced with ferric sulfate. Have passed tests since then. I will recommend monitoring for — rj
chromium and copper.
CC:
ri 6Lr4a5 , ?ro ds*_— '
N� n •v.�t � A� I S �D Ire-y'� -� v.ti+7 ��Qr� �IA 5 S -� -i, PiY
coah;n�a
(low asi') y
1J4.t�a Wa�1.v l oaf

:A
cc: Permits and Engineering DEB t
TL echnical Support -Branch—)
County Health Dept.
Central Files#
WSRO
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No X
If Yes, SOC No.
To: Permits and Engineering unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Sean Goins
Date: February 7, 1994
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County Davidson
Permit No. NC0004626
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: P.P.G. Industries, Inc.
P. O. Box 949
Lexington, N.C. 27293
2. Date of Investigation: February 4, 1994
3. Report Prepared by: Abner Braddy
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Mr'. Jim Buchanan
Mr. David Segers (O.R.C)
[phone]
5. Directions to Site: Take Highway 8 south out of Lexington
and turn right onto Highway 47. Proceed 1.1 mile to New
Jersey Church Road (SR 1323). Turn left and the entrance
gates to the PPG facility are located 0.4 miles on the left.
6. Discharge Points(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 44' 18" Longitude: 80° 19' 32"
Discharge Point:
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E17NE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Southmont
Plant Site:
U.S.G.S. Quad No. D17SE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Lexington West
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
Yes No If No, explain: No site size asked for or
given in application. Site review indicates there is
adequate room for expansion.

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The WWTP
is located on level ground, well above any flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: None within 1000.01 of the
discharge point.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: North Potts
Creek arm of High Rock Lake.
a. Classification The upstream portion of North Potts
Creek above the backwaters of High Rock Lake is
classified "C". The lacustrine portion of North Potts
should be considered WSV, the classification of the
upper portion of High Rock Lake.
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Yadkin 03-07-04
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: High Rock Lake is a major
recreational lake, used for both primary and secondary
recreation. The lake exhibits eutrophic summer
conditions, due to both point and non -point pollutant
sources. The Town of Denton uses the Yadkin River
below the High Rock Dam as a drinking supply source.
F.P.G. discharges into North Potts at a point
approximately 3.0 miles from the WWTP. North Potts at
the effluent pipes can vary from lake backwater several
feet in depth to a flowing creek only of few inches
deep, depending on the level of High Rock Lake. On the
date of the site visit, the area was essentially a mud
flat, with the only riparian flow being the base flow
of North Potts.
Part II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 0.6 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? 0.6 MGD
C. Actual treatment -capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? 0.6 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two
years. 92/09/30 - Replacement of two (2) 31.01
diameter clarifiers, with a single 50.0f diameter
clarifier.
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 2

e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment
facilities; The existing 0.6 MGD activated sludge WWTP
consists of a mechanical screen for industrial
wastewater, a comminutor for domestic wastewater (of
which, approximately 4000 g.p.d. enters from a separate
line from the American Children's Home), wet well dual
influent pumps, three (3) 50,000 gallon equalization
tanks, lime and Ferric Sulfate mixing tanks, a primary
clarifier, nutrient addition (phosphoric acid and
ammonia), 2 aeration basins (can be run either parallel
or in series, though only one is currently in use), 3
final clarifiers (though only one, the 50.0' diameter
is currently in use). gas chlorination, contact
chamber, dual mixed -media (sand and charcoal) filters,
effluent pumps, and twin parallel 3.0 mile long outfall
lines. Treated effluent is also pumped to an elevated
water storage tank, for use in filter backwash and
other clean-up.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities. None known.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: C12, Ammonia
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N.A.
in development approved
should be required not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Sludge
is lime stabilized, and disposed of via sub -surface
injection.
a. if residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
Permit No. W 0000760.
Residuals Contractor BioGro
Telephone No. [phone]
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP X PFRP
Other
C. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet). 4
NPDES Permit staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 3

i
4. SIC Code(s): 3229
Primary 64 Secondary P2, 14, 16, 11
Main Treatment Unit Code: 0 1 1 s 3
5 1
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
I. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)?
N.A.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: None
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate) N.A.
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications _
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non -discharge options available. Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: Insufficient land.
Connection to Regional Sewer System:
not at this time.
Subsurface: Insufficient land.
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Perhaps in future, but
PPG produces a fiberglass yarn for the textile industry and
for circuit boards. The fibers are produced via an extrusion
process, and a starch coating is mechanically swabbed onto the
fibers, resulting in a high -strength influent B.O.D. (--2500
mg/1). The industrial and domestic mix is treated both
biologically (activated sludge) and physically
(coagulation/flocculation). The treatment works and
appurtenances appear to be well operated and maintained.
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 4

i "" Jr
The Region recommends this renewal be handled in accordance
with current Division policy for discharges into High Rock Lake.
Signature of report p
Water Quality Regional supervisor
Date
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 5

P17
� 1
75
O
700
l -
1a?-
M
k
V
°-�j
�i%_ ,�./"_ � _ � � � j/ fl/ i ,' ��- 11.E _ • . ' !p/ \ �S' KYSb _f] 1
74
Mu?
op
`
FA ou
log/