NC0005258_Wasteload Allocation_19901012

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
Permit:
NC0005258
SGL Carbon
NPDES
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Report
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
October 12, 1990
This docuzmezzt is priztted on reuse paper - iaore ataxy
cozztezzt ail the re'erse side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0005258
PERNIITTEE NAME: Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: ** MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 0 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 100* %
Comments:
* Contact cooling water - see staff report and PPA.
** See attached monitoring data - 2.56 avg. 3.26 max MGD
STREAM INDEX: 11-56
RECEIVING STREAM: Silver Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-08-31
Reference USGS Quad: E12NW, Morganton, S.
(please attach)
County: Burke
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 11/30/90 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
> 20 mi. -> WS-III & B
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed
u(1 ��---
Jule Shanklin
Date: 8/90
Date: zo/2/90
Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
Stu4S
84z.415 0
ES z3
Drainage Area (mi2 ) }9, 9 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 7g 8
7Q10 (cfs) 2o, q Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 2 y 7 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC /7 %
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream
Acute hronis
Downstream Y
Location
Location
ibb
la" dwws.Lc—
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
'''i r
TSS (mg/1)
is
_,_
..
„
:.
n
l k t,
F. Col. (/100 ml)
pH (SU)
6 - ,'
7`5S (nu /e)
36
145
D,'ll G,- z. (,,,179
l°
/5
.573 I /A wr,2..
Comments:
�s�cs c o.�,i.-� cam• �.-
4 FI— w 14
x . -
tw Avei....c_

Request No.: 5823
N. C. DEPT. OF NATURAL,
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name
NPDES No.
Type of Waste
Status
Receiving Stream
Classification
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Requestor
Date of Request
Quad
GREAT LAKES CARBON CORP.
NC0005258
100% INDUSTRIAL
EXISTING, RENEWAL
SILVER CREEK
C
030831
MRO A(4
SHANKLIN
8/24/90
E12NW
RECOMMENDED
DAILY
AVG.
Wasteflow (mgd) :
TSS (mg/1) :
Oil & Grease (mg/1) :
Nickel (ug/1) :
Toluene (ug/1) :
Temperature ( C) :
pH (su) :
**
Drainage
Summer
Winter
Average
EFFLUENT LIMITS
DAILY
MAX.
71.0 P:,.frNT
1990
MUM OF C
MQG ES1`I:_t i;C_i i,'L OFFICE
area: 49.900 sq mi
7Q10: 20.90 cfs
7Q10: 24.70 cfs
flow: 74.80 cfs
30Q2: 34.20 cfs
EXISTING
AVG. MAX.
30 45 30
10 15 10
513 or 11.9 #/d
64 or 1.49 #/d
**
6-9
Toxicity Testing Req.: Y N
CHRONIC/CERIODAPHNIA/QRTRLY
ow? e
Upstream (Y/N.) : Y
Downstream (Y/N): Y
MONITORING
Location:
Location:
45
15
L s ti3 e. tik 7,e r
or heft. ? 'DC' I t, 8 i9U
6-9
@ 17%
FRlfj{:� F;'-qr. VFFPOV:
100 FT. UPSTREAM OF DISCHARGE
300 FT. DOWNSTREAM OF DISCHARGE
COMMENTS
**THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EFFLUENT SHALL BE SUCH AS NOT TO CAUSE AN INCREASE IN
THE TEMPERATURE OF THE RECEIVING STREAM OF MORE THAN 2.8 DEGREES C AND IN NO
CASE CAUSE THE AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE TO EXCEED 29 DEGREES C.
*RECOMMEND EFFLUENT MONITORING FOR CHROMIUM AND COPPER.
Recommended by:
Reviewed by I
Instream Assessment:
1
V
,G{,U1/4- >1/1/‘-0u/1.,a4-)---•
Regional Supervisor:/XG-
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
Date: /4/2-7/7-0
Date:
Date:
Date:
OCT 25 1990

• :i
VS
Facility Name
(S�EA7� &AS. '> e-020664-46-
�tl
Permit # ,sV ooy2sY
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test prdcedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Prccedure - Revised *June 1988) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is /7 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). he permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance ith the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from
issuance of t is permit duringthe months of/yhi- 7N ) P ���C- . Effluent
P
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity t
Discharge
code TGP3
sting results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
onitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data sh 11 be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed i association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of t a effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection f 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 est data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of nvironmental 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 req ire immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test esults will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 .2o. cfs ff6,1(sr mod. 4,VE
Permited Flow 0•7f MGD Recommended by:
IWC% . / 7
Basin & Sub -basin Ci8 3
Receiving Stream .$ 77i.v- 4.
County iA. ate 9//3 yo
,rufo
**Chronic ' oxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at /7 %, ,*,' . gal1 Utz , See Part 3 , Condition G-

talc
, 7I _ 4 Cl�ibuv 7,ri✓/7
0302 3 /
2. 72'y 6,� ,r
.2, 7,,f /1169, f
t,23 _ fzi
�.7z9"161,x/,sf)4- . .9of ¢23f Z4,Sc
.25. /3
�Jc -, /6d xir) _ /6., 2
/l { - g xr�.� -, .Jt,,4A.,A.1 S//f - }/g
3)6. /46Q 6
i
- - folk ;7,29/di ( - rn..�.

:
7-414 ‘,./
Zdic_‘
A244-e-
E -0/1)
-t---?,(rm ocir4
A,L )a-z,
/ze Aej,a
D, s/3 /Q ` v 2, 79 /14 6 c //, 9 9f
a . o 6 51 43 // f-P4 At4' tit er = /, 919 #.

t/
d/V
CAA % Qc d _
/ 3 ( 647_
7L
3y-
1)9 .541,11&.. ) a----
N� 69_ i 02,, G• Of / 7 cis/-'
a)c. 5/6-s-A,...,Q- (ps)
4,111- 44d /44 d71/.
d/G w
-9' .23 t 71 f ct)(g a. t
Z3�
g. 23

, 09/17/?0 ver 3.1 TOXICS REVIEW
Facility: GREAT LAKE CARBON CORP.
NPDES Permit No.: NC0005258
Status (E, P, or M): E
Permitted Flow: 2.8 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 2.6 mgd
Subbasin: '030831
Receiving Stream: SILVER CREEK I PRETREATMENT DATA I' -EFFLUENT DATA ----I
Stream Classification: C I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I
7Q10: 20.9 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I
IWC: 17.14 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic)
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Effluent Criteria I
Pollutant AL Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violations)
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)1
Cadmium S 2.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 I
Chromium S 50.0 * 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 4.00 1 I
Copper AL 7.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 11.00 1 N
Nickel S 88.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 84.00 1 P
Lead S 25.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 1 U
Zinc AL 50.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 I
Mercury S 0.012 * 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 1 S
Silver AL 0.06 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 1 E
Selenium S 5.00 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 C
Arsenic S 50.00 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 T
Phenols S NA 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 13.0 1 I
NH3-N C 1 0% 0.00 0.00 1 1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 1 1 N
Toluene S 11.0 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 1 34.0
Fluoride S 1800.00 1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 I
Pollutant
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D MONITOR/LIMIT I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream 1 Recomm'd
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on 1 FREQUENCY INSTREAM
Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT - using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 based on Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data 1 OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 1 0.27 11.666 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 A
Chromium S 1 6.70 291.646 0.000 0.000 0.69 Monitor 1 NCAC NO 1 N
Copper AL 1 0.94 40.831 0.000 0.000 1.89 Monitor 1 Monthly NO 1 A
Nickel S 1 11.79 513.298 0.000 0.000 14.40 Limit 1 NCAC NO 1 L
Lead S 1 3.35 145.823 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 Y
Zinc AL 1 6.70 291.646 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 S
Cyanide S 1 0.67 29.165 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 I
Mercury S 1 0.00 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 1 S
Silver AL 1 0.01 0.350 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I
Selenium S I 0.67 29.165 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 1 R
Arsenic S 1 6.70 291.646 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 E
Phenols S 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NCAC NO 1 S
NH3-N C 1 0.000 0.00 1 1 U
T.R.Chlor.AL 99.160 0.00 1 1 L
Toluene S 1 1.47 64.162 0.000 0.000 5.83 Limit 1 NCAC NO 1 T
Fluoride S 1 241.26 10499.272 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 S

Great Lakes Carbon
Corporation
Graphite Products
Division
Mr. M. Dale Overcash, P.E., Supervisor
Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 7687
Raleigh, orth Carolina 27611-7687
ti {1
f rt
P.O. Box 40 v 4. 1i.lz
Morganton NC 2Mc5-0040
L
June 14, 1990
Request for Renewal of
NPDES Permit No. NC005258
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
Burke County, Morganton, N.C.
Dear Mr. Overcash:
JUIV
Reference is made to my letter dated May 21, 1990
requestin renewal of the subject permit. At that time we
had not r ceived the results of the priority pollutant analysis
from the aboratory. We have now received this analysis and
are forwa ding it to you for incorporation into the permit
renewal application.
DRE/na
Attachment
CC:
J.R.
Rita.
Poteet Morganton
Martin Briarcliff
Sincerely,
ts?
£-
D.R. Evans
Plant Engineer

•
am
INCORPORATED
THE ASSURANCE OF DUALITY
June 12, 1990
Mr. Doug
Great Lak
P. 0. Box
Morganton
RE: PACE
Dear Mr.
Enclosed
May 04, 1
vans
s Carbon Corp.
40
NC 28655
Project No. 600504.511
vans:
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
s the report of laboratory analyses for samples received
90.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free
to contact us.
Sincerely
Rodney W. Lang 0
Project Manager
Enclosures
1700 University Comm rcial Place
Charlotte, NC 28213
TEL: [phone] '
FAX: [phone]
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tampa, Florida
Iowa City, Iowa
San Francisco, California
Kansas City, Missouri
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Asheville, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity Employer

ace
INCORPORATEO
THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY
Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
P. 0. Box 40
Morganton, NC 28655
Attn: Mr. Doug Evans
PACE Sample Number:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Parameter
SUBCONTRACT ANALYSIS
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
June 12, 1990
PACE Project
Number: 600504511
Units
482240
05/03/90
05/04/90
MDL Wastewater
GCMS FOR VOLATILE ORGANICS-8240
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 2.0 ND
Tetrachloroethylene ug/L 2.0 ND
INORGANIC ANALYSIS
INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Antimony mg/L 0.100 ND
Arsenic mg/L 0.0050 ND
Beryllium mg/L 0.010 ND
Cadmium mg/L 0.0020 ND
Chromium mg/L 0.0030 0.004
Copper mg/L 0.010 0.011
Cyanide, Total mg/L 0.005 ND
Lead mg/L 0.0050 ND
Mercury mg/L 0.0002 ND
Nickel mg/L 0.010 0.084
Phenol mg/L 0.005 0.013
Selenium mg/L 0.0050 ND
Silver mg/L 0.010 ND
Thallium mg/L 0.100 ND
Zinc mg/L 0.010 ND
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
GCMS FOR SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS-8270
Date Analyzed Date 6/1/90
Date Extracted Date 6/1/90
Phenol ug/L 3.0 ND
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND Not detected at or above the MDL.
1700 University Commercial Place
Charlotte, NC 28213
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tampa, Florida
Iowa City, Iowa
San Francisco, California
Kansas City, Missouri
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Asheville, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity Employer

Ica
I N C O R P O R A T E D
THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY
Mr. Doug Evans
Page 2
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
June 12, 1990
PACE Project
Number: 600504511
Jt�
PACE Sample Number
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Parameter
482240
05/03/90
05/04/90
Units MDL Wastewater
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
GCMS FOR SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS-8270
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ug/L 7.0 ND
2-Chlorophenol ug/L 7.4 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 1.0 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenze e ug/L 1.0 ND
Benzyl alcohol ug/L 8.6 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenze e ug/L 1.0 ND
2-Methylphenol (o Cresol) ug/L 5.4 ND
bis(2-Chloroisopr.pyl)ether ug/L 7.9 ND
4-Methylphenol ug/L ND
n-Nitrosodi-n-proeylamine ug/L 6.4 ND
Hexachloroethane ug/L 1.0 ND
Nitrobenzene ug/L 1.0 ND
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylpheno
Benzoic acid
bis(2-chloroethox
2,4-Dichloropheno
)Methane
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 8.0 ND
ug/L 8.6 ND
ug/L 5.3 ND
ug/L 6.1 ND
ug/L 7.4 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobe'zene ug/L 1.0 ND
Naphthalene ug/L 1.0 ND
4-Chloroaniline ug/L 14.0 ND
Hexachlorobutadie e ug/L 1.0 ND
4-Chloro-3-methyl henol ug/L 9.7 ND
2-Methylnaphthale e ug/L 8.7 ND
Hexachlorocyclope tadiene ug/L 1.0 ND
2,4,6-Trichloroph nol ug/L 11.0 ND
2,4,5-Trichloroph nol ug/L 7.4 ND
2-Chloronaphthale e ug/L 3.3 ND
2-Nitroaniline ug/L 18 ND
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND
Not detected at or above the MDL.
1700 University Commercial Place
Charlotte, NC 28213
TEL: 704•597.8454
FAX: 704•597.8455
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tampa, Florida
Iowa City, Iowa
San Francisco, California
Kansas City, Missouri
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Asheville, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity Employer

cice.
INCORPOR A TED
THE ASSURANCE OF OUALITY
Mr. Doug Evans
Page 2
PACE Sample Number:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Parameter
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
June 12, 1990
PACE Project
Number: 600504511
482240
05/03/90
05/04/90
Units MDL Wastewater .
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
GCMS FOR SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS-8270
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ug/L 7.0 ND
2-Chlorophenol ug/L 7.4 ND
1,3-DichlorobenzelIe ug/L 1.0 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzetie ug/L 1.0 ND
Benzyl alcohol ug/L 8.6 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 1.0 ND
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) ug/L 5.4 ND
bis(2-Chloroisopr pyl)ether ug/L 7.9 ND
4-Methylphenol ug/L ND
n-Nitrosodi-n-pro ylamine ug/L 6.4 ND
Hexachloroethane ug/L 1.0 ND
Nitrobenzene ug/L 1.0 ND
Isophorone ug/L 1.0 ND
2-Nitrophenol ug/L 8.0 ND
2,4-Dimethylpheno ug/L 8.6 ND
Benzoic acid ug/L 5.3 ND
bis(2-chloroethoxy)Methane ug/L 6.1 ND
2,4-Dichlorophenol ug/L 7.4 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ug/L 1.0 ND
Naphthalene ug/L 1.0 ND
4-Chloroaniline ug/L 14.0 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene ug/L 1.0 ND
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ug/L 9.7 ND
2-Methylnaphthal ne ug/L 8.7 ND
Hexachlorocyclop ntadiene ug/L 1.0 ND
2,4,6-Trichlorop enol ug/L 11.0 ND
2,4,5-Trichlorop enol ug/L 7.4 ND
2-Chloronaphthal ne ug/L 3.3 ND
2-Nitroaniline ug/L 18 ND
MDL Method
ND Not det
etection Limit
cted at or above the MDL.
1700 University Comm rcial Place
Charlotte, NC 28213
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tampa, Florida
Iowa City, Iowa
San Francisco, California
Kansas City, Missouri
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Asheville, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity Employer

INCORPORATEO
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY
Mr. Doug Evans
Page 3
PACE Sample Number
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Parameter
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
GCMS FOR SEMIVOLAT
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrodiphenyl
ILE ORGANICS-8270
June 12, 1990
PACE Project
Number: 600504511
482240
05/03/90
05/04/90
Units MDL Wastewater
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 11 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 10 ND
ug/L ND
Dibenzofuran ug/L 8.6 ND
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ug/L 3.5 ND
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ug/L 4.2 ND
Diethyl phthalate ug/L 1.0 ND
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ug/L 1.0 ND
Fluorene ug/L 1.0 ND
4-Nitroaniline
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenol phenyl ether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
ug/L 14.0 ND
ug/L 10 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 6.0 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 15.0 ND
Phenanthrene ug/L 1.0 ND
Anthracene ug/L 1.0 ND
Di-n-butyl phthal to ug/L 6.1 ND
Fluoranthene ug/L 1.0 ND
Pyrene ug/L 1.0 ND
Benzyl butyl phthalate ug/L 1.0 ND
3,3-Dichlorobenzi ine
Benzo(a)anthracen
Bis(2-ehtylhexyl) hthlate
Chrysene
Di-n-octylphthalate
MDL Method D
ND Not dete
ug/L 5,2 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
ug/L 1.0 ND
tection Limit
ted at or above the MDL.
1700 University Commercial Place
Charlotte, NC 28213
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tampa, Florida
Iowa City, Iowa
San Francisco, California
Kansas City, Missouri
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Asheville, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity Employer

cice.
INCORPORATED
THE ASSURANCE OF OUAIITY
Mr. Doug Evans
Page 4
PACE Sample Number:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Parameter
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
June 12, 1990
PACE Project
Number: 600504511
482240
05/03/90
05/04/90
Units MDL Wastewater
GCMS FOR SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS-8270
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/L 1.0 ND
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/L 1.0 ND
Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L 12.0 ND
Indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene ug/L 1.0 ND
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ug/L 1.0 ND
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/L 12.0 ND
GCMS FOR VOLATILE ORGANICS-8240
Date Analyzed 5/22/90
Chloromethane ug/L 2.0 ND
Bromomethane ug/L 2.0 ND
Vinyl Chloride ug/L 2.0 ND
Chloroethane ug/L 2.0 ND
Methylene chloride ug/L 2.0 ND
1,1-Dichloroethylene ug/L 2.0 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L 2.0 ND
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene ug/L 2.0 ND
Chloroform ug/L 2.0 7.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 2.0 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 2.0 ND
Carbon tetrachloride ug/L 2.0 ND
Bromodichloromethane ug/L 2.0 ND
1,2-Dichioropropane ug/L 2.0 ND
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene ug/L 2.0 ND
Trichloroethylene ug/L 2.0 ND
Dibromochloromethane ug/L 2.0 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L 2.0 ND
Benzene ug/L 2.0 ND
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene ug/L 2.0 ND
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ug/L 2.0 ND
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND Not detected at or above the MDL.
1700 University Commercial Place
Charlotte, NC 28213
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tampa, Florida
Iowa City, Iowa
San Francisco, California
Kansas City, Missouri
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Asheville, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity Employer

ci ce.
INCORPOR ATED
THE ASSURANCE OF OUAIITY
Mr. Doug Evans
Page 5
PACE Sample Number:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Parameter
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
June 12, 1990
PACE Project
Number: 600504511
Units
482240
05/03/90
05/04/90
MDL Wastewater
GCMS FOR VOLATILE ORGANICS-8240
Bromoform ug/L 2.0 ND
Toluene ug/L 2.0 34.0
Chlorobenzene ug/L 2.0 ND
Ethyl Benzene ug/L 2.0 ND
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND Not detected at or above the MDL.
The data contained in this report were obtained using EPA or other
approved methodologies. All analyses were performed by me or under
my supervision.
_
Charles M. Cabaniss
Manager Inorganic Chemistry
•
J. Allen Spivey
Manager Organic Chemistry
1700 University Commercial Place
Charlotte, NC 28213
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tampa, Florida
Iowa City, Iowa
San Francisco, California
Kansas City, Missouri
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Asheville, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity Employer

§ 122.44
(ii) The volume of effluent dis-
charged from each outfall;
(iii) Other measurements as appro-
priate; including pollutants in internal
waste streams under § 122.45(i), pollut-
ants in intake water for net limitations
under § 122.45(f): frequency, rate of
discharge. etc.. for noncontinuous dis-
charges under § 122.45(e); and pollut-
ants subject to notification require-
ments -under § 122.A2(a).
(iv) According to test procedures ap-
proved under 40 CFR Part 136 for the
analyses of pollutants having ap-
proved methods under that part, and
according to a test procedure specified
in the permit for pollutants with no
approved methods.
(2) Requirements to report monitor-
ing results with a frequency depend-
ent on the nature and effect of the
discharge, but in no case less than
once a year.
(j) Pretreatment program for
POTWs. Requirements for POTWs to:
(1) Identify, in terms of character
and volume of pollutants, any signifi-
cant indirect dischargers into the
POTW subject to pretreatment stand-
ards under section 307(b) of CWA and
40 CFR Part 903.
(2) Submit a local program when re-
quired by and in accordance with 40
CFR Part 403 to assure compliance
with pretreatment standards to the
extent applicable under section 307(b).
The local program shall be incorporat-
ed into the permit as described in 40
CFR Part 403. The program shall re-
quire all indirect dischargers to the
POTW to comply with the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.
(k) Best management practices to
control or abate the discharge of pol-
lutants when:
(1) Authorized under section 304(e)
of CWA for the control of toxic pollut-
ants and hazardous substances from
ancillary industrial activities;
(2) Numeric effluent limitations are
infeasible, or
(3) The practices are reasonably nec-
essary to achieve effluent limitations
and standards or to carry out the pur-
poses and intent of CWA.
(I) Reissued permits. (1) Except, as
provided in paragraph (1)(2) of this
section when a permit is renewed or
reissued. interim limitations, stand-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-87 Edition)
ards or conditions must be at least as
stringent as the final limitations,
standards, or conditions in the previ-
ous permit (unless the circumstances
on which the previous permit was
based have materially and substantial-
ly changed since the time the permit
was issued and would constitute cause
for permit modification or revocation
and reissuance under § 122.62).
(2) When effluentlimitatrons were
imposed under section 402(a)(1) of
CWA in a previously issued permit and
these limitations are more stringent
than the subsequently promulgated
effluent guidelines, this paragraph
shall apply unless:
(i) The discharger has installed the
treatment facilities required to meet
the effluent limitations in the previ-
ous permit and has properly operated
and maintained the facilities but has
nevertheless been unable to achieve
the previous effluent limitations. In
this case the limitations in the re-
newed or reissued permit may reflect
the level of pollutant control actually
achieved (but shall not be less strin-
gent than required by the subsequent-
ly promulgated effluent limitation
guidelines);
(ii) 1n the case of an approved Stale,
State law prohibits permit conditions
more stringent than an applicable ef-
fluent limitation guideline;
(iii) The subsequently promulgated
effluent guidelines are based on best
conventional pollutant control tech-
nology (section 301(b)(2)(E) of CWA):
(iv) The circumstances on which the
previous permit was based have mate-
rially and substantially changed since
the time the permit was issued and
would constitute cause for permit
modification or revocation and reis-
suance under § 122.62; or
(v) There is increased production at
the facility which results in significant
reduction in treatment efficiency, in
which case the permit limitations will
be adjusted to reflect any decreased
efficiency resulting from increased
production and raw waste loads, but in
no event shall permit limitations be
Tess stringent than those required by
subsequcul.ly promulgated standards
and limitations.
(m) Privately owned treatment
works. For a privately owned treat -
Environmental Protection Agency
ment works, any conditions expressly
applicable to any user, as a limited co-
permittee, that may be necessary in
the permit issued to the treatment
works to ensure compliance with appli-
cable requirements under Lhis part. Al-
ternatively, the Director may issue
separate permits to the treatment
works and to its users, or may require
-a—separate —permit--applieation—f rem
any user. The Director's decision to
issue a permit with no conditions ap-
plicable to any user, to impose condi-
tions on one or more users, to issue
separate permits, or to require sepa-
rate applications, and the basis for
that decision, shall be stated in the
fact sheet for the draft permit for the
treatment works.
(n) Grants. Any conditions imposed
in grants made by the Administrator
to POTWs under sections 201 and 204
of CWA which are reasonably neces-
sary for the achievement of effluent
limitations under section 301 of CWA.
(o) Sewage sludge. Requirements
under section 405 of CWA governing
the disposal of sewage sludge from
publicly owned treatment works, in ac-
cordance with any applicable regula-
tions.
(p) Coast Guard. When a permit, is
issued to a facility that may operate at
certain times as a means of transporta-
tion over water, a condition that the
discharge shall comply with any appli-
cable regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating, that es-
tablish specifications for safe trans-
portation, handling, carriage, and stor-
age of pollutants.
(q) Navigation. Any conditions that
the Secretary of the Army considers
necessary to ensure that navigation
and anchorage will not be substantial-
ly impaired, in accordance with
§ 124.58.
(48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 49
FR 31842, Aug. 8, 1984; 49 FR 38049, Sept.
26, 1984: 50 FR 6940. Feb. 19, 1985; 50 FR
7912, Feb. 27, 19851
§ 122.45 Calculating NPI)ES permit condi-
tions (applicable to State N1'DES pro-
grams. see § 123.25).
(a) Outfalls and discharge points. All
permit effluent limitations, standards
and prohibitions shall be established
§ 122.45 ,
for each outfall or discharge point of ,.
the permitted facility, except as other- 1
wise provided under § 122.44(j)(2) .
(BMPs where limitations are infeasi-
ble) and paragraph (i) of this section
(limitations on internal waste
streams).
(b) Production -based limitations. (1)
In the case of POTWs, permit limita-
tions,, standards,, or --prohibitions shall- -
be calculated based on design flow.
(2)(i) Except in the case of POTWs
or as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
of this section, calculation of any
permit limitations, standards, or pro-
hibitions which are based on produc-
lipiLiQr other measure of operation)
shall be. based -net lirinn_the designed
production canacity but rather upon a
reasonable measure of actual produc-
tion of the facility;, For new sources or
new dischargers, actual production
shall be estimated using projected pro-
duction. The time period of the meas-
ure of production shall correspond to
the time period of the calculated
permit limitations; for example,
monthly production shall be used to
calculate average monthly discharge
limitations.
(ii)(A)(1) The Director may include a
condition establishing alternate
permit limitations, standards, or pro-
hibitions based upon anticipated in-
creased (not to exceed maximum pro-
duction capability) or decreased pro-
duction levels.
(2) For the automotive manufactur-
ing industry only. the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall, and the State Direc-
tor may establish a condition under
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this sec-
tion if the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates to the Director at the
time the application is submitted that
its actual production, as indicated in
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, is
substantially below maximum produc-
tion capability and that there is a rea-
sonable potential for an increase above
actual production during the duration
of the permit.
(B) If the Director establishes
permit conditions under paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section:
U) The permit shall require the per-
mittee to notify the Director at least
two business days prior to a month in
which the permittee expects to oper-
94
95

§ 122.45
ate at a level higher than the lowest
production level identified in the
permit. The notice shall specify the
anticipated level and the period during
which the permittee expects to oper-
ate at the alternate level. If the notice
covers more than one month, the
notice shall specify the reasons for the
anticipated production level increase.
New notice -of -discharge -at -alternate
levels is required to cover a period or
production level not covered by prior
notice or, if during two consecutive
months otherwise covered by a notice,
the production level at the permitted
facility does not in fact meet the
higher level designated in the notice.
(2) The permittee shall comply with
the limitations, standards, or prohibi-
tions that correspond to the lowest
level of production specified in the
permit, unless the permittee has noti-
fied the Director under paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, in
which case the permittee shall comply
with the lower of the actual level of
production during each month or the
level specified in the notice.
(3) The permittee shall submit with
the DMR the level of production that
actually occurred during each month
and the limitations, standards, or pro-
hibitions applicable to that level of
production.
(c) Metals. All permit effluent limita-
tions, standards, or prohibitions for a
metal shall be expressed in terms of
"total recoverable metal" as defined in
40 CFR Part 136 unless:
(1) An applicable effluent standard
or limitation has been promulgated
under the CWA and specifies the limi-
tation for the metal in the dissolved or
valent or total form; or
(2) In establishing permit limitations
on a case -by -case basis under § 125.3, it
is necessary to express the limitation
on the metal in the dissolved or valent
or total form to carry out the provi-
sions of the CWA; or
(3) All approved analytical methods
for the metal inherently measure only
its dissolved form (e.g., hexavalent
chromium).
(d) Continuous discharges. For con-
tinuous discharges all permit effluent
limitations, standards, and prohibi-
tions, including those necessary to
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-87 Edition)
achieve water quality standards, shall
unless impracticable be stated as:
(1) Maximum daily and average
monthly discharge limitations for all
dischargers other than publicly owned
treatment works; and
(2) Average weekly and average
monthly discharge limitations for
POTWs.
(e) Non -continuous discharges. Dis-
charges which are not continuous, as
defined in § 122.2, shall be particularly
described and limited, considering the
following factors, as appropriate:
(1) Frequency (for example, a batch
discharge shall not occur more than
once every 3 weeks);
(2) Total mass (for example, not to
exceed 100 kilograms of zinc and 200
kilograms of chromium per batch dis-
charge);
(3) Maximum rate of discharge of
pollutants during the discharge (for
example, not to exceed 2 kilograms of
zinc per minute); and
(4) Prohibition or limitation of speci-
fied pollutants by mass, concentration,
or other appropriate measure (for ex-
ample, shall not contain at any time
more than 0.1 mg/1 zinc or more than
250 grams OA kilogram) of zinc in any
discharge).
(f) Mass limitations. (1) All pollut-
ants limited in permits shall have limi-
tations, standards or prohibitions ex-
pressed in terms of mass except:
(i) For pH, temperature, radiation,
or other pollutants which cannot ap-
propriately be expressed by mass;
(ii) When applicable standards and
limitations are expressed in terms of
other units of measurement; or
(iii) If in establishing permit limita-
tions on a case -by -case basis under
§ 125.3, limitations expressed in terms
of mass are infeasible because the
mass of the pollutant discharged
cannot be related to a measure of op-
eration (for example, discharges of
TSS from certain mining operations),
and permit conditions ensure that di-
lution will not be used as a substitute
for treatment.
(2) Pollutants limited in terms of
mass additionally may be limited in
terms of other units of measurement,
and the permit shall require the per-
mittee to comply with both limita-
tions.
Environmental Protection Agency
(g) Pollutants in intake water. (1)
Upon request of the discharger, tech-
nology -based effluent limitations or
standards shall be adjusted to reflect
credit for pollutants in the discharg-
er's intake water if:
(I) The applicable effluent limita-
tions and standards contained in 40
CFR Subchapter N specifically pro-
vide that they shall be applied on a
net basis; or
(ii) The discharger demonstrates
that the control system it proposes or
uses to meet applicable technology -
based limitations and standards would,
if properly installed and operated,
meet the limitations and standards in
the absence of pollutants in the intake
waters.
(2) Credit for generic pollutants
such as biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) or total suspended solids (TSS)
should not be granted unless the per-
mittee demonstrates that the constitu-
ents of the generic measure in the ef-
fluent are substantially similar to the
constituents of the generic measure in
the intake water or unless appropriate
additional limits are placed on process
water pollutants either at the outfall
or elsewhere.
(3) Credit shall be granted only to
the extent necessary to meet the ap-
plicable limitation or standard, up to a
maximum value equal to the influent
value. Additional monitoring may be
necessary to determine eligibility for
credits and compliance with permit
limits.
(4) Credit shall be granted only if
the discharger demonstrates that the
intake water is drawn from the same
body of water into which the dis-
charge is made. The Director may
waive this requirement if he finds that
no environmental degradation will
result.
(5) This section does not apply to
the discharge of raw water clarifier
sludge generated from the treatment
of intake water.
(h) Internal waste streams. (1) When
permit effluent limitations or stand-
ards imposed at the point of discharge
are impractical or infeasible, effluent
limitations or standards for discharges
of pollutants may be imposed on inter-
nal waste streams before mixing with
other waste streams or cooling water
§ 122.46
streams. In those instances, the moni-
toring required by § 122.44(i) shall also
be applied to the internal waste
streams.
(2) Limits on internal waste streams
will be imposed only when the fact
sheet under § 124.56 sets forth the ex-
ceptional circumstances which make
such limitations necessary, such as
when the final discharge point is inac-
cessible (for example, under 10 meters
of water), the wastes at the point of
discharge are so diluted as to make
monitoring impracticable, or the inter-
ferences among pollutants at the point
of discharge would make detection or
analysis impracticable.
(i) Disposal of pollutants into wells,
into POTWs or by land application.
Permit limitations and standards shall
be calculated as provided in § 122.50.
(Information collection requirements in
paragraph (b) were approved by the Office
of Management and Budget under control
number 2040-0077)
[48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 49
FR 38049, Sept. 26, 1984: 50 FR 4514, Jan.
31, 1985)
§ 122.46 Duration of permits (applicable
to State programs, see § 123.25).
(a) NPDES permits shall be effective
for a fixed term not to exceed 5 years.
(b) Except as provided in § 122.6, the
term of a permit shall not be extended
by modification beyond the maximum
duration specified in this section.
(c) The Director may issue any
permit for a duration that is less than
the full allowable term under this sec-
tion.
(d) A permit may be issued to expire
on or after the statutory deadline set
forth in section 301(b)(2) (A), (C), and
(E) (July 1, 1984), if the permit in-
cludes effluent limitations to meet the
requirements of section 301(b)(2) (A),
(C), (D), (E) and (F), whether or not
applicable effluent limitations guide-
lines have been promulgated or ap-
proved.
(e) A determination that a particular
discharger falls within a given indus-
trial category for purposes of setting a
permit expiration date under para-
graph (d) of this section is not conclu-
sive as to the discharger's inclusion in
that industrial category for any other
96
97