NC0028916_Engineering Alternative Analysis_20041206

[Fwd: Biscoe/Star - fyi]
Subject: [Fwd: Biscoe/Star - fyi]
From: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:19:34 -0500.
To: Belinda Henson <[e-mail]>
Please file a copy of this with the Star, Biscoe and Troy NPDES files
Thanks
Subject: Biscoe/Star - fyi
From: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 11:34:57 -0500
To: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
CC: Mark Mcintire <[e-mail]>, Dawn Jeffries <[e-mail]>
Paul -
I gave Cooper Burton (WK Dickson) a call re. Biscoe/Star. They had submitted an EAA
re. future actions for Biscoe/Star. I never did comment specifically on the EAA
because I didn't think there was a need to do that (since the alternative suggested
that the regional, expanded Troy facility was the best option). I just gave him a
call to make sure he knew that if the expanded regional facility including Troy
turned out to be the best option - they would have to do a revised EAA for the
combined Biscoe/Star/Troy.
He filled me in on Star and how their industry had moved the dyeing operation and
theywere down flow and didn't have a tox problem anymore (so they were not inclined
to regionalize). So, it sounded like this idea was being shelved for the time being
due to the new circumstances (although Biscoe is trying to pursue some
infrastructure fixes and still looking at upgrades potentially(?)).
But. - bottom line is - I'm filing away the EAA and not commenting on it, but whoever
expands in the future (Troy or other) must do an updated EAA to satisfy the
permitting requirements (I told Cooper this and likely there would not be too much
tweaking to the existing EAA to accomplish this).
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Biscoe/Star - fyi
Content -Encoding: 7bit