The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0004944_Permit Issuance_20060105NPDES DOCIMENT :SCANNING COVER SHEET NPDES Permit: NC0004944 Document Type: Permit Issuance Wasteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Compliance Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Permit History Document Date: January 5, 2006 This document is printed on reuse paper - ignzore any content on the re'rerse side 0 WATF9 �( ATA NCDENR Anthony J. Branecky, Plant Manager INVISTA S.a.r.1. 7401 Statesville Blvd. Salisbury, North Carolina 28145 Michael F. Easley Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality January 5, 2006 Subject Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0004944 Salisbury Facility Rowan County Dear Mr. Branecky: Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended). This final permit includes no major changes from the draft permit sent to you on October 26, 2005. If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding. Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Sergei Chernikov at telephone number (919) 733-5083, extension 594. Sincerely, Re-- Alan W. Klimek, P.E. cc: NPDES Files Mooresville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection Aquatic Toxicology Unit Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA Region IV Ms. Kristen Jenkins/CH2M HILL 115 Perimeter Center Place NE, Suite # 700 Atlanta, GA 30346 N. C. Division of Water Quality 1 NPDES Unit 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Phone: (919) 733-5083 fax: (919) 733-0719 DENR Customer Service Center. 1 800 623-7748 Permit NC0004944 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, INVISTA, S.a.r.l. is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater and stormwater from a facility located at INVISTA, S.a.r.l. - Salisbury Facility Highway 70 at Highway 801 West of Salisbury Rowan County to receiving waters designated as North Second Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof. The permit shall become effective February 1, 2006. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2009. Signed this day January 5, 2006. fog-- an W. Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Permit NC0004944. SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein. INVISTA, S.a.r.l. is hereby authorized to: 1. Continue to operate an existing 2.305 MGD activated sludge ' wastewater treatment facility located at INVISTA's Salisbury facility at the intersection of Highways 70 and 801 in Rowan County. The treatment system referenced herein consists of the following: • Bar screen and grit removal; • UV/peroxide addition; • Equalization tanks; • Mechanical aeration basins; • Anaerobic groundwater treatment unit; • Secondary clarifiers; • Three aerated polishing ponds; • Chemical additional facilities; • Aerobic digestion; • Sludge dewatering; and • Instrumented flow measurement. 2. Discharge from said treatment works through outfall 001 at the location specified on the attached map into North Second Creek, a class C water in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin; and 3. Continue to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity through five outfalls (outfalls A, B, C, . D, and 5) as shown on the attached map. Modifications to the stormwater conveyance system are authorized by this permit in accordance with documentation to be included in the facility's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (construction activities must be authorized under General Permit No. NCG010000). INVISTA, S.a.r.I. - NC0004944 USGS Quad Name: Salisbury Receiving Stream: North Second Creek Stream Class: C Subbasin: Yadkin - 030706 Lat.: 35°42'40" Long.: 80°36'10" North Not to SCALE 4 Permit NC0004944 Part I, Section A. 1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: PARAMETER • MONITORING REQUIREMENTS• .;„ EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Monthly Average Daily Maximuar ° Measurement Frequency Sample Type . 'Sample Location Flow (MGD) 2.305 Continuous Recording Effluent BODs (April 1- October 31) 150 lbs/day 300 lbs/day 3/Week Composite Effluent BODs (November 1- March 31) 201 lbs/day 518 lbs/day 3/Week Composite Effluent NH3 as N 23 lbs/day 46 lbs/day Weekly Composite Effluent Total Suspended Solids 330 lbs/day 1043 lbs/day 3/Week Composite Effluent Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 ml 400/100 ml Weekly Grab Effluent Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average not less than 5.0mg/L 3/Week Grab Effluent Dissolved Oxygen See Note 1 Grab U,D Conductivity See Note 1 Grab U,D Temperature See Note 1 Grab U,D Total Copper Monthly Composite Effluent Total Iron Monthly Composite Effluent Total Manganese Monthly Composite Effluent pH Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units 3/Week Grab Effluent Chronic Toxicity2 Quarterly Composite Effluent 40 CFR 414 Subpart I See Part I, Section A, Number 2 Notes: 1 Sample Locations: U - Upstream at least 100 feet above the outfall; D - Downstream approximately eight miles from the outfall or at Highway 601. Upstream and downstream samples shall be called three times per week during the months of June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remaining months of the year. Instream sampling requirements are provisionally waived in light of the Permittee's participation in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association (the Association). All instream sampling requirements are immediately reinstated should the Permittee cease participation in the Association. 2 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 34% February, May, August, November; see condition Part I, Section A, Number 3 of this permit. THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. ANALYTICAL DATA WHICH IS LESS THAN THE PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LEVEL SHALL BE REPORTED AS SUCH AND CONSIDERED ZERO FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING AVERAGES. Permit NC0004944 Part I, Section A. 2. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - SUBPART I Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date, the Permittee shall comply with the limitations and monitoring frequencies established below at outfall 001: REQUIREMENTS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSMONITORING PARAMETER Monthl• Average1 Dail Maximum' Measurement Frequency '.... �Sam le Sam le Location. Type Acenaphthene 0.175 0.470 Annually Grab Effluent Acenaphthylene 0.175 0.470 Annually Grab Effluent Acrylonitrile 8.4 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent Anthracene 0.175 0.470 Annually Grab Effluent Benzene 0.295 1.083 Annually Grab Effluent Benzo(a)anthracene 0.6 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 1.0 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.6 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.820 74 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent Carbon Tetrachloride 0.143 0.303 Annually Grab Effluent Chlorobenzene 0.119 0.223 Annually Grab Effluent Chloroethane 0.828 2.135 Annually Grab Effluent Chloroform 0.167 0.366 Annually Grab Effluent 2-Chlorophenol 0.247 0.781 Annually Grab Effluent Chrysene 0.6 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.215 0.454 Annually Grab Effluent 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.613 1.298 Annually Grab Effluent 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.247 0.350 Annually Grab Effluent 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.119 0.223 Annually Grab Effluent 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.175 0.470 Annually Grab Effluent 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.542 1.681 Annually Grab Effluent 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.127 0.199 Annually Grab Effluent 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 0.167 0.430 Annually Grab Effluent 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.311 0.892 Annually Grab Effluent 1,2-Dichloropropane 44 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent 1,3-Dichloropropylene 0.231 0.350 Annually Grab Effluent Diethyl phthalate 0.645 1.617 Annually Grab Effluent 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.143 0.287 Annually Grab Effluent Dimethyl phthalate 0.151 0.374 Annually Grab Effluent 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.621 2.206 Annually Grab Effluent 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.900 2.270 Annually Grab Effluent 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2.031 5.105 Annually Grab Effluent 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.565 0.980 Annually Grab Effluent Permit NC0004944 Part I, Section A. 2. SUBPART I REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date, the Permittee shall comply with the limitations and monitoring frequencies established below at outfall 001: PARAMETER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ;_ . MONITORING REQUIREMENTS , : Monthly Average1 Daily M aximu n1 • .Measurement ::Frequency :. Sample Type Sample Location Ethylbenzene 0.255 0.860 Annually Grab Effluent Fluoranthene 0.199 0.542 Annually Grab Effluent Fluorene 0.175 0.470 Annually Grab Effluent Hexachlorobenzene 0.01 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent Hexachlorobutadiene 0.159 0.390 Annually Grab Effluent Hexachloroethane 0.167 0.430 Annually Grab Effluent Methyl Chloride 0.685 1.513 Annually Grab Effluent Methylene Chloride 0.319 0.709 Annually Grab Effluent Naphthalene 0.175 0.470 Annually Grab Effluent Nitrobenzene 0.215 0.542 Annually Grab Effluent 2-Nitrophenol 0.327 0.550 Annually Grab Effluent 4-Nitrophenol 0.573 0.988 Annually Grab Effluent Phenanthrene 0.175 0.470 Annually Grab Effluent Phenol 0.119 0.207 Annually Grab Effluent Pyrene 0.199 0.534 Annually Grab Effluent Tetrachloroethylene 0.175 0.446 Annually -Grab Effluent Toluene 32.2 µg/L Annually Grab Effluent 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.542 1.115 Annually Grab Effluent 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.167 0.430 Annually Grab Effluent 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.167 0.430 Annually Grab Effluent Trichloroethylene 0.207 0.550 Annually Grab Effluent Vinyl Chloride 0.828 2.135 Annually Grab Effluent Notes: 1 All units are lbs/day unless otherwise noted. Permit NC0004944 ' Part I, Section A. 3. CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) - OUTFALL 001 The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 34%. The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of February, May, August, and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted fmal effluent discharge below all treatment processes. If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address: Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made. Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above. Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required during the following month. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 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, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring. Permit NC0004944 Part I, Section B. 1. FINAL LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge stormwater from outfalls A, B, C, D, and 5. Such discharges shall be controlled, limited and monitored as specified below. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans: The permittee shall develop and continue to update a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, herein after referred . to as the Plan. The Plan shall be considered public information and shall include, at a minimum, the following items: 1. Site Plan: The site plan shall provide a description of the physical facility and the potential pollutant sources which may be expected to contribute to contamination of regulated stormwater discharges. The site plan shall contain the following: (a) A general location map (USGS quadrangle map, or appropriately drafted equivalent map), showing the facility's location in relation to transportation routes and surface waters, and the name of the receiving water(s) to which the stormwater outfall(s) discharges. If the discharge is to a municipal separate storm sewer system, the name of the municipality and the ultimate receiving waters, and accurate latitude and longitude of the point(s) of discharge must be shown. (b) A narrative description of storage practices, loading and unloading activities, outdoor process areas, dust or particulate generating or control processes, and waste disposal practices. (c) A site map (or series of maps) drawn to scale with the distance legend indicating location of industrial activities (including storage of materials, disposal areas, process areas, and loading and unloading areas), drainage structures, drainage areas for each outfall and activities occurring in the drainage area, building locations and impervious surfaces, the percentage of each drainage area that is impervious. For each outfall, a narrative description of the potential pollutants which could be expected to be present in the regulated stormwater discharge. (d) A list of significant spills or leaks of pollutants that have occurred at the facility during the 3 previous years and any corrective actions taken to mitigate spill impacts. (e) Certification that the stormwater outfalls have been evaluated for the presence of non-stormwater discharges. 2. Stormwater Management Plan: The stormwater management plan shall contain a narrative description of the materials management practices employed which control or minimize the exposure of significant materials to stormwater, including structural and non-structural measures. The stormwater management plan, at a minimum, shall incorporate the following: (a) A study addressing the technical and economic feasibility of changing the methods of operations and/or storage practices to eliminate or reduce exposure of materials and processes to stormwater. Wherever practicable the permittee should consider covering storage areas, material handling operations, manufacturing or fueling operations to prevent materials exposure to stormwater. In areas where elimination of exposure is not practicable, the stormwater management plan shall document the feasibility of diverting the stormwater runoff away from areas of potential contamination. (b) A schedule to provide secondary containment for bulk storage of liquid materials, storage of Section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) water priority chemicals, or storage of hazardous materials to prevent leaks and spills from contaminating stormwater runoff. If the secondary containment devices are connected directly to stormwater conveyance systems, the connection shall be controlled by manually activated valves or other similar devices [which shall be secured with a locking mechanism] and any stormwater that accumulates in the containment area shall be at a minimum visually observed prior to release of the accumulated stormwater. Accumulated stormwater shall be released if found to be uncontaminated. Records documenting the individual making the observation, the description of Permit NC0004944 the accumulated stormwater and the date and time of the release shall be kept for a period of five years. (c) A narrative description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be considered such as, but not limited to, oil and grease separation, debris control, vegetative filter strips, infiltration and stormwater detention or retention, where necessary. The need for structural BMPs shall be based on the assessment of potential of sources contributing significant quantities of pollutants to stormwater discharges and data collected through monitoring of stormwater discharges. (d) Inspection schedules of stormwater conveyances and controls and measures to be taken to limit or prevent erosion associated with the stormwater systems. 3. Spill Prevention and Response Plan: The Spill Prevention and Response Plan shall incorporate a risk assessment of potential pollutant sources based on a materials inventory of the facility. Facility personnel (or team) responsible for implementing the plan shall be identified in the plan. A responsible person shall be on -site at all times during facility operations that have the potential to contaminate stormwater runoff through spills or exposure of materials associated with the facility operations. 4. Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Program: A preventative maintenance program shall be developed. The program shall document schedules of inspections and maintenance activities of stormwater control systems, plant equipment and systems. Inspection of material handling areas and regular cleaning schedules of these areas shall be incorporated into the program. 5. Training schedules shall be developed and training provided at a minimum on an annual basis on proper spill response and cleanup procedures and preventative maintenance activities for all personnel involved in any of the facility's operations that have the potential to contaminate stormwater runoff. Facility personnel (or team) responsible for implementing the training shall be identified in the plan. 6. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall identify a specific position(s) responsible for the overall coordination, development, implementation, and revision to the Plan. Responsibilities for all components of the Plan shall be documented and position(s) assignments provided. 7. Plan Amendment: The permittee shall amend the Plan whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance which has a significant effect on the potential for the discharge of pollutants via a point source to surface waters. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. The Director may notify the permittee when the Plan does not meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within 30 days of such notice, the permittee shall submit a time schedule to the Director for modifying the Plan to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide certification in writing to the Director that the changes have been made. 8. Facility Inspections: Inspections of the facility and all stormwater systems shall occur at a minimum on a semiannual schedule, once in the fall (September - November) and once during the spring (April - June). The inspection and any subsequent maintenance activities performed shall be documented, recording date and time of inspection, individual(s) making the inspection and a narrative description of the facility's stormwater control systems, plant equipment and systems. Records of these inspections shall be incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 9. Implementation: Implementation of the Plan shall include documentation of all monitoring, measurements, inspections, maintenance activities and training provided to employees, including the log of the sampling data. Activities taken to implement BMPs associated with the industrial activities, including vehicle maintenance activities, must also be recorded. All required documentation shall be kept on -site for a period of five years and made available to the Director or his authorized representative immediately upon request. 2. MINIMUM MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. Implementation of the plan shall include documentation of all sampling, measurements, inspections and maintenance activities, and training provided to employees, including the log of the sampling data and of activities taken to implement BMPs associated with the industrial activities, including vehicle Permit NC0004944 maintenance activities. Such documentation shall be kept on -site for a period of five years and made available to the Director or his authorized representative immediately upon request. 2. The Director may notify the permittee when the Plan does not meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within 30 days of such notice, the permittee shall submit a time schedule to the Director for modifying the Plan to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide certification in writing to the Director that the changes have been made. 3. Inspections of the facility and all stormwater systems shall occur at a minimum on a semi-annual schedule, once in the fall (September — November) and once during the spring (April — June). The inspection and any subsequent maintenance activities performed shall be documented, recording date and time of inspection, individual(s) making the inspection and a narrative description of the facility's stormwater control systems, plant equipment and systems. Records of these inspections shall be incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 4. Sample collection and visual monitoring for color, foam, outfall staining, visible sheens and dry weather flow, shall be performed at all stormwater discharge outfall locations. If a facility has multiple discharge locations that are required to be sampled, the permittee may petition the Director to sample at a reduced number of outfalls if it is established that the stormwater discharges are substantially identical. Visual observations shall be recorded for all outfall locations. 5. For purposes of the stormwater sampling required in this permit, all samples shall be collected from a discharge resulting from a representative storm event. Failure to monitor storm events in accordance with the specified frequency shall constitute a violation of this permit. If the stormwater runoff is controlled by a detention pond, the following sampling shall apply: (a) If the detention pond detains the runoff generated by one inch of rainfall for 24 hours, a grab sample of the discharge from the pond shall be collected during the storm event. (b) If the detention pond discharges only in response to a storm event exceeding a 10-year design storm, visual observations for color, foam, outfall staining, visible sheens, and dry weather flow are required, but analytical sampling shall not be required. (c) If the detention pond discharges only in response to a storm event exceeding a 25-year, 24-hour storm, the pond shall be considered a non -discharging stormwater control system and not subject to NPDES requirements, unless the discharge causes a violation of water quality standards. 6. Samples analyzed in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be submitted on forms provided by the Director no later than January 31 following the year in which sampling was required. 7. Specific Monitoring Requirements (a) Stormwater from KOSA — Salisbury. Monitoring applies to all of the stormwater discharges. Monitoring is not required for stormwater which does not discharge to the surface waters of the state. Stormwater Discharge Characteristics Units Monitoring Requirements Measurement Frequency Sample Type Sample Location' Total Flow2 MG Annually SDO pH Standard Annually Grab SDO Oil and Grease mg/L Annually Grab SDO Total Suspended Solids mg/L Annually Grab SDO BOD, 5-day, 200C mg/L Annually Grab SDO Total Nitrogen mg/L Annually Grab SDO Total Phosphorus mg/L Annually Grab SDO TTO mg/L Annually Grab SDO 1 Sample Locations: SDO — Stormwater Discharge Outfall 2 Total flow shall be measured continuously or calculated based on the amount of area draining to the outfall, the amount of built -upon area, and the total amount of rainfall or estimated by the measurement of flow at 20 minute intervals during the rainfall event. Total precipitation and duration of the event measured shall be a representative storm event. Permit NC0004944 Storm Event Characteristic Units Monitoring Requirements Total Event Precipitation inches Annually Event Duration hours Annually For facilities that develop a solvent management plant to be incorporated into the stormwater pollution prevention plan may make a request to DWQ that monitoring of total toxic organics be waived. The solvent management plan shall include, as a minimum, lists of the total toxic organic compounds used; the method of disposal used instead of dumping such as reclamation, contract hauling, or incineration; and the procedures for assuring that toxic organics do not routinely spill or leak into the stormwater. For those facilities allowed such a waiver, the discharger shall include a signed certification statement on the discharge monitoring reports. (b) Stormwater discharges from any vehicle maintenance activity occurring on -site which uses more than 55 gallons of new motor oil per month when averaged over the calendar year shall be monitored by the permittee as specified below: Stormwater Discharge Characteristics Units Monitoring Requirements Vleasurement Frequency' Sample Type Sample Location2 Total Flow3 MG 3/Term SDO Oil and Grease mg/L 3/Term Grab SDO Lead, Total Recoverable' µg/L 3/Term - — Grab Grab SDO Detergents (MBAS)5 _ mg/L 3/Term SDO Standard 3/Term Grab SDO _pH New motor oil usage Gal/month 3/Term Estimate ' Measurement Frequency - 3/Term shall mean stormwater runoff associated with vehicle maintenance activity on -site. Existing facilities shall be sampled once within six months of the effective date of the permit and, where possible, prior to implementing BMPs and development of the BMP plan at existing operations. Thereafter, sampling shall be conducted two times during the remaining permit term at intervals of greater than eighteen months apart and collected during the months of April through November. 2 Sample Locations: SDO - Stormwater Discharge Outfall 3 Total flow shall be measured continuously or calculated based on the amount of area draining to the outfall, the amount of built -upon area, and the total amount of rainfall or estimated by the measurement of flow at 20 minute intervals during the rainfall event. Total precipitation and duration of the event measured shall be a representative storm event. 4 Applies only for facilities at which fueling occurs. 5 Detergent monitoring is required only at facilities which conduct vehicle cleaning. Storm Event Characteristic Units Monitoring Requirements Total Event Precipitation inches Annually Event Duration hours Annually 3. STORMWATER DEFINITIONS 1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. Permit NC0004944 2. Bulk Storage of Liquid Products Liquid raw materials, manufactured products, waste materials or by-products with a single above ground storage container having a capacity of greater than 660 gallons or with multiple above ground storage containers having a total storage capacity of greater than 1,320 gallons. 3. Point Source Discharge Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but specifically not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, or concentrated animal feeding operation from which pollutants are or may be discharged to waters of the state. 4. Runoff Coefficient The fraction of total rainfall that is not infiltrated into or otherwise retained by the soil, concrete, asphalt or other surface upon which it falls that will appear at the conveyance as runoff. 5. Secondary Containment Spill containment for the contents of the single largest tank within the containment structure plus sufficient freeboard to allow for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 6. Section 313 Water Priority Chemical A chemical or chemical category which: (a) Is listed in 40 CFR 372.65 pursuant to Section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, also titled the Emergency Planning and Community Right -to - Know Act of 1986; (b) Is present at or above threshold levels at a facility subject to SARA title III, Section 313 reporting requirements; and (c) That meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) Is listed in appendix D of 40 CFR part 122 on either Table II (organic priority pollutants), Table III (certain metals, cyanides, and phenols) or Table IV (certain toxic pollutants and hazardous substances); (2) Is listed as a hazardous substance pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA at 40 CFR 116.4; or (3) Is a pollutant for which EPA has published acute or chronic water quality criteria. 7. Significant Materials Includes, but is not limited to: raw materials; fuels; materials such as solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished materials such as metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or production; hazardous substances designated under section 101(14) of CERCLA; any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant to section 313 of Title III of SARA; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste products such as ashes, slag and sludge that have the potential to be released with stormwater discharges. t Permit NC0004944 ' 8. Significant Soills Includes, but is not limited to: releases of oil or hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities under section 311 of the Clean Water Act (Ref: 40 CFR 110.10 and CFR 117.21) or section 102 of CERCLA (Ref: 40 CFR 302.4). 9. Stormwater Runoff The flow of water which results from precipitation and which occurs immediately following rainfall or as a result of snowmelt. 10. Total Flow The flow corresponding to the time period over which the sample collection occurs. The total flow calculated based on the size of the area draining to the outfall, the amount of the built -upon (impervious) surfaces within the drainage area, and the total amount of rainfall occurring during the sampling period. 11. Visible Sedimentation Solid particulate matter, both mineral and organic, that has been or is being transported by water, air, gravity, or ice from its site of origin which can be seen with the unaided eye. DENR/DWQ FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT NPDES No. NC0004944 ::?Facility _a reformation Applicant/Facility Name: INVISTA, S.a.r.l. (formerly KOSA) Applicant Address: P.O. Box 4, Salisbury, NC 28145-0004 Facility Address: At the intersection of Hwy 70 and Hwy 801 Permitted Flow 2.305 MGD Type of Waste: 97% Industrial, 3% Domestic Facility/Permit Status: Existing renewal without expansion County: Rowan Stream Characteristics Receiving Stream North Second Creek 303(d) Listed? No Stream Classification C Sub -basin 03-07-06 Drainage Area (mi2): 116 Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 6.9 Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 23 Average Flow (cfs) : 116 IWC (%) @ 2.305 MGD: 34 Miscellaneous Regional Office: Mooresville USGS Topo Quad: Salisbury Permit Writer: Sergei Chernikov , 1 Date October 10, 2005 ' 1.0 Proposed Changes • Reduction of TSS limitations in accordance with 40 CFR 414; • Summer BOD5 limits now based on effluent guidelines (more stringent) . The determination has been made that OCPSF limits were calculated incorrectly. The OCPSF limits have been recalculated. Due to increases for most OCPSF limits, the permit was re -noticed. 2.0 Background INVISTA, S.a.r.1., formerly known as KOSA, has applied for a renewal of the NPDES permit for its Salisbury facility. The facility manufactures polyester in chip and fiber form. As such, 40 CFR 414.30 and 414.40 (OCPSF federal guidelines) are applicable. Primary raw materials include terephthalic acid, ethylene glycol, and fiber finish oils. The facility was originally permitted in 1980 at a flow of 1.2 MGD. A modification request accompanied the permit renewal request received in 1992. At that time, Hoechst Celanese requested an increase in total flow from 1.2 MGD to 2.305 MGD to accommodate the discharge of remediated groundwater associated with a RCRA site stabilization plan. At the same time, new stream flows were requested from USGS. The flows provided by USGS were half what they had been when the permit was developed at 1.2 MGD. BOD5 was, and remains, water quality limited. Ammonia limitations are present as well for protection of the dissolved oxygen standard. The most recent renewal application did not request any modification to the NPDES permit nor are any substantive modifications proposed. NC0004944 NPDES Fact Sheet Page 1 3. Wasteload Allocation Summary According to the NPDES permit application, approximately 1.385 MGD of wastewater is expected to be generated on any given day. Wastewater is broken down into the following components: Sanitary: 0.061 MGD Finish: 0.10 MGD Bandcaster: 0.10 MGD Cooling towers: 0.160 MGD Process: 0.106 MGD Groundwater: 0.284 MGD Boilers & Chillers: 0.10 MGD WTP Backwash: 0.084 MGD Process Stormwater: 0.390 MGD 1.385 MGD Total In accordance with EPA guidance, a long-term average process wastewater flow was estimated using data from January 2001 - June 2004. The long-term average was estimated to be 1.123 MGD. Of that, approximately 85% is considered process. Finish wastewaters, making up approximately 10% of the process wastewater, are produced from fiber manufacturing and are regulated by 40 CFR 414, Subpart C. The remaining 90% of process wastewater comes from bandcaster, contact cooling towers, resin processing, remediated groundwater, and process stormwater and is regulated by 40 CFR 414, Subpart D. The attached spreadsheet summarizes the guideline calculations and long-term average flow determination. Effluent limitations for TSS and winter BOD5 are based on effluent guidelines. Summer BOD5 and NH3-N are water quality limited. • A reasonable potential analysis was conducted for total copper, the only detected toxicant. While the analysis did indicate reasonable potential for an action level violation, in keeping with Division permitting policy, no limit will be given at this time. Effluent limitations for action level parameters are introduced only when it has been demonstrated that their presence isa contributor to whole effluent toxicity. The wastewater treatment facility is a biological process consisting of screening, equalization, aeration basins, clarification, polishing ponds, aerobic sludge digestion and sludge dewatering. Recovered groundwater is anaerobically pretreated prior to discharge to the equalization basin referenced above. The primary contaminant found in the groundwater is ethylene glycol, however 1,4-dioxane has also been detected. Groundwater pretreatment consists of ultraviolet treatment and addition of peroxide. As this is an end -of -pipe biological treatment system, 40 CFR 414, Subpart I applies. The second attached spreadsheet calculates Subpart I allocations. For water quality limited parameters, concentration -based limitations have been installed in Part I, Section A, Number 2 in accordance with state standards and/or EPA criteria. As there are no clearly defined metal -bearing or cyanide- bearing wastestreams, limits for total chromium, total copper, total cyanide, total lead, total nickel and total zinc do not apply. This permit also authorizes the discharge of stormwater. Stormwater requirements are outlined in Part I, Section B. 4.0 Compliance S>immary A review of DMR data has indicated that compliance with permit conditions is excellent. The only noted permit limit violation in BIMS was for effluent pH in September of 2003. The reported value was 5 standard units. 5.0 Instream Monitoring Requirements INVISTA currently monitors dissolved oxygen, temperature, and conductivity instream. This renewal recommends maintaining instream monitoring. While a review of instream data does NC0004944 NPDES Fact Sheet Page 2 not offer conclusive evidence of a direct impact from this discharge, continued monitoring will afford all parties the ability to make such a conclusion should water quality degrade in the future. 6.0 Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance Draft Permit to Public Notice: Permit Scheduled to Issue: October 26, 2005 (est.) December 19, 2005 (est.) 7.0 State Contact If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or the attached permit, please contact Sergei Chernikov at (919) 733-5038 ext. 594. REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT: NAME: DATE: EPA COMMENT: NAME: DATE: NC0004944 NPDES Fact Sheet Page 3 t I J FACILITY Invista, NC0004944 ' OCPSF Flow 0.955 MGD Cutts!! 001: flow is based on processes only 7010s 6.9 cis Qavg 116 cis Permitted Flow 2.305 MGD Human Hith Human Hlth Allowable Allowable Limit Limit Federal or Standard Standard Allowable Allowable Aquatic Life Human Hlth Limit Daily Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Monthly State Aquatic Organisms conc. Aquatic cone Organisms Based Max Avg. max avg max avg Lila Life Organisms on: Parameter ugA ugl1 #/d •/d stdrd pgll PO pgA pgll *May •/day #Iday Acenaphthene 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd 990.00 no stdrd 2901.97 no stdrd 55.742 OCPSF 0.470 #/day 0.175 Acenaphthylene 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.470 #lday 0.175 Acrylonitrile (c) 242 96 1.927 0.765 Federal no stdrd 0.25 no stdrd 8.37 no stdrd 0.181 CHRONIC 8.367 pg11 Anthracene 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd 40000.00 no stdrd 117251.42 no stdrd 2252204 OCPSF 0.470 #/day 0.175 Benzene (c) 136 37 1.083 0.295 State no stdrd 71.40 no stdrd 2389.61 no stdrd 45.901 OCPSF 1.083 #/day 0.295 Benzo(a)anthracene (c, P/ 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd 0.018 no stdrd 0.60 no stdrd 0.012 CHRONIC 0.602 pg/I 3,4-Benzofluoranthene (c, 61 23 0.486 0.183 Federal no stdrd 0.0311 no stdrd 1.04 no stdrd 0.020 CHRONIC 1.041 pg/I Benzo(k)fluoranthene (c,P, 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd 0.0180 no stdrd 0.60 no stdrd 0.012 CHRONIC 0.602 pg/I Benzo(a)pyrene (c, PAH) 61 23 0.486 0.183 Federal no stdrd 0.0311 no stdrd 1.04 no stdrd 0.020 CHRONIC 1.041 `pg11 Bis(2-ethylhexyt) phthalate 279 103 2.222 0.820 Federal no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 73.63 no stdrd 1.414 CHRONIC 73.830 pg/I 0.820 Carbon Tetrachloride (c) 38 18 0.303 0.143 State no stdrd 4.42 no stdrd 147.93 no stdrd 2.841 OCPSF 0.303 #Iday 0.143 Chlorobenzene 28 15 0.223 0.119 Federal no stdrd 21000.00 no stdrd 61556.99 no stdrd 11E2.407 OCPSF 0.223 #Iday 0.119 Chlaroethane 268 104 2.135 0.828 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 2:135 #Iday 0.828 Chloroform (c) 46 21 0.366 0.167 Federal no stdrd 470.00 no stdrd 15729.95 no stdrd 302.146 OCPSF -•' 0.368 = #Iday 0.187 2-Chlarophenol 98 31 0.781 0.247 Federal no stdrd 150.00 no stdrd 38424.19 no stdrd 640.403 OCPSF 0.781 #lday 0.247 Chrysene (c, PAH) 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd 0.0180 no stdrd 0.60 no stdrd 0.012 CHRONIC .•.0.602 mil Di-n-butyl phthalate 57 27 0.454 0.215 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF ', ^ 0A54, . , #(day 0.215 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 163 77 1.298 0.613 Federal no stdrd 17000.00 no stdrd 49831.85 no stdrd 957.187 OCPSF '1;298 :'c - . #(day 0.613 1,3•Dichbrobenzene 44 31 0.350 0.247 Federal no stdrd 960.00 no stdrd 2814.03 no stdrd 54.053 OCPSF :3•;0.350•::, - z#/day 0.247 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 28 15 0.223 0.119 Federal no stdrd 2600.00 no stdrd 7621.34 no stdrd 146.393 OCPSF - 0.223:•., :'z#/day 0.119 1,1-Dichloroethane (c) 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF ' . 0.470 #lday 0.175 1,2-Di :hloroethane (c) 211 68 1.681 0.542 Federal no stdrd 3.70 no stdrd 123.83 no stdrd 2.379 OCPSF • Z 1.881. .. #lday 0.542 1,1.Dichloroethytene (c) 25 16 0.199 0.127 Federal no stdrd 3.20 no stdrd 107.10 no stdrd 2.057 OCPSF ' ..0:199- . #/day 0.127 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 54 21 0.430 0.167 Federal no stdrd 140000.00 no stdrd 410379.96 no stdrd 7882.715 OCPSF '0.430 _ - '#Iday 0.187 2,4-Dichtorophenol 112 39 0.892 0.311 Federal no stdrd 290.00 no stdrd 74286.77 no stdrd 1238.113 OCPSF .:.0.892. .. May 0.341 1,2-Dichloropropane 230 153 1.832 1.219 Federal no stdrd 15.00 no stdrd 43.97 no stdrd 0.845 CHRONIC' 2. 43.969 •,, pg11 1,3-Dk hloropropytene (c) 44 29 0.350 0.231 Federal no stdrd 1700.00 no stdrd 56895.58 no stdrd 1092.869 OCPSF ' . ; 0.350 r .P.#lday 0.231 "'Diethyl phthalate 203 81 1.617 0.645 Federal no stdrd 44000.00 no stdrd 128976.56 no stdrd 2477.425 OCPSF . t-1:81711,1' #Iday 0.845 2,4DimethytphenoI 36 18 0.287 0.143 Federal no stdrd 850.00 no stdrd 2491.59 no stdrd 47.859 OCPSF 0.287 #Iday 0.143 - Dimethyl phthalate 47 19 0.374 0.151 Federal no stdrd 1100000.00 no stdrd 3224413.97 no stdrd 61935.618 OCPSF 0.374 #/day 0.151 ...' 4,6-Dinitno-olxesol (2-Met 277 78 2.206 0.621 Federal no stdrd 280.00 no stdrd 820.76 no stdrd 15.765 OCPSF 2.206 #Iday 0.621 -" 2,4-Dtnitrophenol 123 71 0.980 0.565 Federal no stdrd 5300.00 no stdrd 15535.81 no stdrd 298.417 OCPSF ::0.980,, . #/day 0:565 2,4-Dtnitrotoluene (c) 285 113 2.270 0.900 Federal no stdrd 3.40 no stdrd 870.95 no stdrd 14.516 OCPSF = 4 :2t270444. #/day 0.900 2,6•Dinftrototuene (c) 641 255 5.105 2.031 Federal no stdrd no stdrd• no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF ._ •; '&t03 -,'.#Iday 2.031 Ethylbenzene 108 32 0.1360 0.255 AQINOEC 325.000 29000.00 952.67 85007.28 18299 1632.848 OCPSF - •', 01880+:- #Iday 0.255 Flourandrene 68 25 0.542 0.199 Federal no stdrd 140.00 no stdrd 410.38 no stdrd 7.883 OCPSF ' .'t 0.542'=+ #Iday 0.199 Ftuorene 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd 5300.00 no stdrd 15535.81 no stdrd 298.417 OCPSF - ' 0A70 #(day 0.175 Hexachbrobenzene (c) 28 15 0.223 0.119 Federal no stdrd 2.90E-04 no stdrd 0.01 no stdrd 1.86E-04 OCPSF ' . ,0,0002;: #Iday 0.119 Hexachlorobutadiene (c) 49 20 0.390 0.159 Federal no stdrd 18.00 no stdrd 602.42 no stdrd 11.572 OCPSF • , • <• 0,390: • . . 4 #/day 0.159 Hexachloroethane (c) 54 21 0.430 0.167 Federal no stdrd 3.30 no stdrd 110.44 no stdrd 2.121 OCPSF • .-014300 " #/day 0.187 Methyl Chloride 190 86 1.513 0.685 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 1 i513' #lday 0.685 Methylene Chloride (c) 89 40 0.709 0.319 Federal no stdrd 590.00 no stdrd 19746.11 no stdrd 379.290 OCPSF • 0.709 • #/day 0.319 Naphthalene 59, 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF • ..0.470 ° • #/day 0.175 Nitrobenzene 68 27 0.542 0.215 Federal no stdrd 690.00 no stdrd 2022.59 no stdrd 38.851 OCPSF 0.542 #/day 0.215 2-Nftrophenol 69 41 0.550 0.327 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF ;'0.550 . #/day 0.327 4 Nitrophenol 124 72 0.988 0.573 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF • • '0.988 #/day 0:573 Phenanthrene 59 22 0.470 0.175 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF - ' 0A70 • #(day 0.175 Phenol 26 15 0.207 0.119 Federal no stdrd 1700000.00 no stdrd 4983185.22 no stdrd 95718.683 OCPSF ' • '01207 #(day 0.119 Pyrene 67 25 0.534 0.199 Federal no stdrd 4000.00 no stdrd 11725.14 no stdrd 225.220 OCPSF 0.534 #(day 0.199 Tetrachloroethylene (c) 56 22 0.446 0.175 Federal no stdrd 3.30 no stdrd 110.44 no stdrd 2.121 OCPSF 0.446 #/day 0.175 Toluene 80 26 0.637 0.207 State/AO 11.000 200000.00 3224 586257.08 0.619 11261.022 CHRONIC 32.244 pgll 0.207 1,2,4Trlcbiorobenzene 140 68 1,115 0.542 Federal no stdrd 940.00 no stdrd 2755.41 no stdrd 52.927 OCPSF 1.115 #lday 0.542 1,1.1-Trichbroethane 54 21 0.430 0.167 Federal no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.430 #/day 0.187 1,1,2-trichioroethane (c) 54 21 0.430 0.167 Federal no stdrd 16.00 no stdrd 535.49 no stdrd 10286 OCPSF 0.430 #/day 0.187 Trfchlororethylene (c) 54 21 0.430 0.167 State no stdrd 30.00 no stdrd 1004.04 no stdrd 19.286 OCPSF 0.430 #lday 0.187 Vinyl Chloride (c) 268 104 2.135 0.828 State no stdrd 530.00 no stdrd 17738.03 no stdrd 340.718 OCPSF 2.135 #/day 0.828 •' Total Chromium 2770 1110 0.000 0.000 State 50.000 no stdrd 146.56 no stdrd 2.815 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #lday 0.000 Total Copper 3380 1450 0.000 0.000 Action level 7.000 no stdrd 20.52 no stdrd 0.394 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000 " Total Cyanide 1200 420 0.000 0.000 State 5.000 no stdrd 14.66 no stdrd 0.282 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #(day 0.000 " Total Lead 690 320 0.000 0.000 State 25.000 no stdrd 7328 no stdrd 1.408 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #(day 0.000 " Total Nickel 3980 1690 0.000 0.000 State 88.000 no stdrd 257.95 no stdrd 4.955 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000 **Total Erb* 2610 1050 0.000 0.000 Action level 50.000 50.00 146.56 146.56 2.815 2.815 OCPSF 0.000 #Iday 0.000 'Total Zinc for Rayon Fiber Manufacture " Metals should only be limited if Total metal bearing wasteflov 0.00 that uses the viscose process and Acrylic process contains metal bearing wasteflow. Fiber Manufacture that uses zinc Cyanide should only be limited if Total cyanide bearing wastefl 0.00 chloride/solvent process is 6,796 oak and process contains cyanide bearing wasteflow. 3,325 ugll. for maximum for any one day and maximum for monthty average. respectively. 10/10/2005 1 INVISTA; 9.a.r.1., - Salisbury Plant NC0004944 Average Flow from 1/2001 - 6/2004: 1.123 MGD Based on information provided by the applicant, approximately 85% of the flow discharged on any given day is considered process wastewater flow for the purposes of guideline calculations. As such, the actual process wastewater flow average is approximately 0.955 MGD. Of that, roughly 0.096 MGD is covered by 414 Supart C with 0.856 MGD covered by 414 Subpart D. The process wastewater flow at this facility is split between two 40 CFR 414 subparts, subparts C and D. Approximately 19.8% is subpart C process wastewater with the difference being subpart D process WW. The subparts are summarized below: 40 CFR 414.31 (Subpart C - All units are mg/L) ,Daily Max I Mon. Avg. BOD5 TSS 48 115 18 36 40 CFR 414.41 (Subpart D - All units are mg/L) Daily Max I Mon. Avg. BOD5 TSS 64 130 24 40 Process Flow applicable to subpart C: Process Flow applicable to subpart D: 0.096 MGD 0.856 MGD Subpart C Allocation - lbs/day Daily Max I Mon. Avg. BODS TSS 38.43072 92.0736 14.41152 28.82304 Subpart D Allocation - lbs/day Daily Max I Mon. Avg. BODS TSS 456.89856 928.0752 171.33696- 285.5616 Domestic Allocation (Q = 60,500 gpd) - Assuming secondary limits - lbs/day Daily Max I BODS TSS 22.70565 22.70565 Mon. Avg. 15.1371 15.1371 Total Allocation (Sum of C, D, and Domestic) - lbs/day Existing Allocation Daily Max I Mon. Avg. I Daily Max I Mon. Avg. BODS TSS 518 1043 201 330 BODS TSS 300 1349 150 505 Mark McIntire 8/12/2004 imap://sergei.chernikov%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net@cros.ncmail.net:143/f... Subject: Draft Permit reviews (3) From: John Giorgino <john.giorgino@ncmail.net> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:59:14 -0500 To: sergei chemikov <sergei.chernikov@ncmail.net> Sergei, I reviewed the following: NC0004944 INVISTA S.a.r.l. - no comments NC0038377 Mayo - no comments NC0021717 Wilkesboro WWTP - the cover page lists the facility as Cub Creek WWTP. Should the name be changed to Wilkesboro WWTP? Thanks for forwarding them. -John John Giorgino Environmental Biologist North Carolina Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Section Aquatic Toxicology Unit Mailing Address: 1621 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Office: 919 733-2136 Fax: 919 733-9959 Email: John.Giorgino@ncmail.net Web Page: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us 1 of 1 11/10/2005 11:19 AM 00 ST4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY �� tit '�� Yw REGION 4 i Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET �4rgc PROZtiG1`O= ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 G : f 2 8 2005 Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality NPDES Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 NOV - 2 2005 SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit INVISTA S.a.r.l. Salisbury Facility - Permit No. NC0004944 Dear Dr. Chemikov: In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR NPDES MOA, we have completed review of the draft permit specified above and have no comments or objections to its conditions. We request that we be afforded an additional review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the draft permit prior to issuance or if significant comments objecting to it are received. Otherwise, please send us one copy of the final permit when issued. If you have any questions, please call me at (404) 562-9304. Sincerely, Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch Water Management Division Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) Salisbury Post AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NC DEPT OF ENVIROMENT--LEGAL & NATURAL RESOURCES ****************************** NORTH CAROLINA ROWAN COUNTY Before the undersigned a Notary Public of said County and State, duly commisioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared WINFRED MENTION, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is ASSISTANT ADVERTISING DIRECTOR of the SALISBURY POST, published, issued and entered as second class mail in the City of Salisbury, in said County and State, that he is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement,that the notice or other legal advertisement a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in the SALISBURY POST , on the following dates: 10/28/2005 and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper documnet or legal advertisement was published, at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications of Section I-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section I-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. NO. 52977 PUBLIC NOTICE $79.61 Als,„64,1 Sworn and subscribed before me This 2nd day of November, 2005 ctiA: T • iltAeAL, NOTARY PUBLIC My Commision Expires 9-a&-ei POST PUBLISHING COMPANY • AD INSERTION.ORDER (CONTINUED) Salesperson: Legals Printed at 11/02/05 15:24 t' i Acct#: 3227 Ad#: 28924 Status: E No.5297T • PUBLIC NOTICE State of North Carolina ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT 1617 Mali Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Notification of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit On the basis of thorough staff review and application of NC General Statue 14321, Public law 92-500 and other lawful standards and regulations, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue a National Pollutant .Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit to the person(s) listed below effective 45 days from the publish date of this notice. Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted until 30 days after the publish date of this notice. All comments received prior to that date are considered in the final determinations regarding the proposed permit. The Director of the NC Division of Water Quality may decide to hold a public meeting for the proposed permit should the Division receive a significant degree of public interest Copies of the draft permit and other supporting infor- mation on file used to determine conditions present in the draft permit are available upon request and payment of the costs of reproduction. Mall comments and/or requests for information to the NC Division of Water Quality at the above address or call the Point Source Branch at (919)733-5083, extension 520 or 362.4Plsasecinslutiethe cto1laDI 3=pSrrait4nep(at-c 0 0 0 0 tached) in any communication. interested persons may also visit the Division of Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review infor- mation on file. INVISTA, has applied for renewal of the NPDES per- mit (NC0004944) discharging treated domestic and industrial wastewater to North Second Creek, a class C water in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. Current- ly BOD, TSS, NH3-N, and OCPSF parameters are water quality limited. This discharge may impact fu- ture allocation in this portion of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.• 0000000000000000000000000000000000 [Fwd: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet] Subject: [Fwd: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet] From: Mark McIntire <Mark.McIntire @ ncmail.net> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:32:37 -0400 To: gil vinzani <Gil.Vinzani@ncmail.net> for whoever gets it. Subject: RE: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet From: <Kristen.Jenkins@CH2M.com> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:40:46 -0600 To: <Mark.McIntire@ncmail.net> Mark, Thanks for the information. I have attached the cover letter, and the worksheet with the storm water data and flow analysis, hopefully it makes sense. I will have to dig a little further to get the correspondence from NCDC with the storm water data. Let me know if you have questions or need anything else. Thanks, Kristen Original Message From: Mark McIntire [mailto:Mark.McIntire@ncmail.net] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:21 PM To: Jenkins, Kristen/ATL Subject: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet Thanks for your note Kristen. The first issue is pretty easy. With respect to the Subpart I parameters, the decreases in the mass -based limits are based on changes to a decrease in the flow used to develop the limits and a change in the categorical standards. If my memory is correct, the standards changed a while back (prior to the previous permit renewal). Those changes were evidently not incorporated into the previous permit. The concentration changes are based on new water quality standards or criteria for the subject parameters. Back when the previous permit was issued, we were working under the false assumption that the tool we'd developed had all the updated guideline and standard/criteria information in it. I updated the tool earlier this year, hence the changes reflected in the draft permit. Regarding the stormwater flow. I realize that the review period included a period of drought. The federal guidelines are quite clear when it comes to the use of actual flows. So, my first thought is, droughts happen. However, I have no interest in being unnecessarily beaurocratic. If you could send me a copy of the cover letter that would be helpful. Additionally, rainfall information and stormwater flow data for the period of review and years prior to that would be most helpful. Thanks, Mark Kristen.Jenkins@CH2M.com wrote: Hi Mark, I left you a voicemail but thought I would send an email as well. I figured mid -Oct would be 1 of 4 9/15/2005 4:10 PM [Fwd: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet] • pushing it. There were just a couple things. One was with the Subpart I parameters. The concentration limits increased, and the mass based limits decreased. The decreased amounts seemed a little bit too low for the flow decrease, and I did not think that the conc limits should be higher since there haven't been changes to the OCPSF categorical standard. The other question is about the average flow number. Storm water is a big component of their effluent. With the drought occurring during the data review period, storm water flows were significantly lower. So, we presented an analysis to use a longer term average storm water flow in the cover letter to the permit application. However, I didn't see any mention of it in the fact sheet, so I was wondering if you all would consider this altemative approach. I can send you the cover letter if you don't have it handy. Thanks, Kristen Original Message From: Mark McIntire [mailto:Mark.McIntire@ncmail.net] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:36 AM To: Jenkins, Kristen/ATL Subject: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet Kristen, I think 3-weeks is pushing it. We've received US EPA's concurrence with the draft permit so it's their expectation that we proceed with issuance baring substantial concern from the facility. I'll do what I can to delay further action for a few weeks but I urge you to communicate to your client the need to comment sooner rather than later. I'd be happy to entertain questions or provide clarification/additional rationale if that would help expedite the process. Regards, Mark Kristen.Jenkins@CH2M.com wrote: Mark Invista is needing more time to respond to the draft permit. Would it be possible to get a 3-week extension on the response, say by October 15? Thanks, Kristen Original Message --- From: Mark McIntire[mailto:Mark.McIntire@ncmail.netl Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 3:44 PM To: Jenkins, Kristen/ATL Subject: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet No problem. Kristen.Jenkins@CH2M.com wrote: Mark, Thanks so much! I will let you know if I have any questions. Also, Invista received the draft permit on Aug 24, so we are planning to have comments to you by Sept 24. 2 of 4 9/15/2005 4:10 PM [Fwd: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet] -Kristen Original Message From: Mark McIntire [mailto:Mark.McIntire@ncmail.net] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 3:32 PM To: Jenkins, Kristen/ATL Subject: Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet Kristen, We generally don't include the fact sheet with our package to permit holders. Certainly don't have a problem providing it (attached). I've been on vacation for 2 and a half weeks, so I'm a bit out of it. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Mark Kristen.Jenkins@CH2M.com wrote: Mark - I left you a voicemail this morning and thought I would email you as well. I am looking for a copy of the fact sheet for Invista's (Salisbury) (Permit NC0004944) recently issued draft permit. Invista did not get a copy with the draft permit, and we are wondering how the BOD and TSS limits were calculated. Could you email or fax the fact sheet to me? Thanks for your help. -Kristen Kristen Jenkins, P.E. CH2M HILL Suite 700 115 Perimeter Center Place NE Atlanta, GA 30346 770.604.9182, extension 546 678.579.8003 (fax) Re: Invista Salisbury Fact Sheet Content -Type: message/rfc822 Content -Encoding: 7bit 3 of 4 9/15/2005 4:10 PM September 29, 2003 Mrs. Valery Stephens NC DENR/DWQ/Point Source Branch 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Subject: KOSA-Salisbury Permit Renewal NPDES Permit # NC0004944 Rowan County Dear Mrs. Stephens: Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l. d /b / a KOSA owns and operates a polyester manufacturing facility in Salisbury, North Carolina. Process wastewater and stormwater is discharged to North Second Creek in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit number NC0004944, which expires March 31, 2004. Three copies of this letter and the attached permit application are being submitted for renewal of the NPDES permit. This letter provides an overview of the KOSA Salisbury facility, summarizes recent effluent data, and proposes limits for the renewed discharge permit. Attachment A includes the permit renewal application, and Attachment B includes effluent data summary tables. Facility Location The KOSA facility is located on the south side of U.S. Highway 70 approximately 4 miles west of Salisbury, North Carolina, near the intersection of Highway 70 and State Highway 801. The facility's location is presented on Figure 1 in Attachment A, which also shows nearby transportation routes and surface waters. Plant Overview KOSA manufactures polyester in the form of chip and fiber at its Salisbury, North Carolina, facility. Primary raw materials in these manufacturing processes include terephthalic acid, ethylene glycol, and fiber finish oils (see Figure 2 in Attachment A). Process wastewater, groundwater, sanitary wastewater, cooling tower blowdown, and water treatment plant blowdown are treated onsite before being discharged to North Second Creek. CH2M HILUPEACHTREE1159971 Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 2 September 29, 2003 Wastewater treatment consists of coarse solids removal (bar screen), equalization, biological treatment (activated sludge), and clarification, followed by a series of polishing ponds, as presented on Figure 3 in Attachment A. Waste biological sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered. Dewatered solids are disposed of off -site by Waste Management, Inc (Kernersville, North Carolina). Recovered groundwater from the interior system contains primarily ethylene glycol and is anaerobically pretreated before being discharged to the equalization tank for treatment in the WWTP. Recovered groundwater from the perimeter system contains 1,4-dioxane as the major pollutant and is discharged through the polishing ponds to Outfall 001 to North Second Creek. The plant discharges storm water associated with industrial activity through five outfalls (A, B, C, D, and 5) as presented on Figure 1 in Attachment A. The storm water outfalls are equipped with diverter weirs that route dry weather spills to the storm water collection system and the first flush of storm water runoff to either the WWTP headworks or Number 2 polishing pond. As the storm water volume increases, flow continues to be discharged to either the WWTP or Number 2 polishing pond, but the water level in the diverter boxes increases to the overflow weir and the excess flow is discharged directly to North Second Creek and Withrow Creek. The five storm water outfalls are monitored according to the NPDES permit and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Information on the storm water outfalls is provided on the EPA Form 2C based on discussions with DWQ staff. Historical Data Review Outfall 001 Historical data from KOSA's Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) were reviewed for the period of January 1999 to May 2003 for the permit renewal application. A summary of statistical parameters for conventional data and total recoverable metals is presented in Appendix B and covers the entire review period. There were no detections for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) priority pollutants that are required for monitoring, therefore, these parameters have not been included in Table B-1. Storm Water (Ouffalls A, B, C, D, and 5) KOSA collects storm water samples annually for analysis of conventional parameters as well as total toxic organics (TTO). There were no TTOs detected during the data review period (1999 through 2001) for any of the five storm water outfalls. A summary of the conventional parameter results is presented in Table B-2. Flow The average effluent flow for the January 1999 to May 2003 data review period was 1.21 mgd. KOSA recycled effluent for several days during August 2002, because of a water shortage as a result of the drought conditions. Therefore, effluent flow values for the days Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 3 September 29, 2003 that KOSA recycled were not included in the average value. Recycling occurred on August 7 —16, 2002, and August 25-29, 2002, and was approved by DWQ before it occurred. Effluent flow rates for this permit application are lower than the 1998 application. Groundwater flow rates have decreased by approximately 0.24 mgd (see Table B-3). Outfall 001 storm water flows have also decreased by approximately 0.14 mgd because of lower annual average rainfall. Outfall 001 storm water flow rates were estimated by subtracting ground water flow rate and influent flow rates from the Outfall 001 final effluent flow rate (see Table B-3). Table 1 presents the average annual rainfall and estimated Outfall 001 storm water flows for periods with average and below average rainfall. TABLE 1 Rainfall and Storm Water Flow Rates Period Rainfall (in/yr) Outfall 001 Total Flow Outfall 001 Stormwater (mgd) Flow (mgd) 1995-1997 45 1.52 0.39 1999-2002 32 1.22 0.25 Note: Average annual rainfall for Salisbury for 1948 — 2002 = 44 inches Annual average rainfall for the data analysis for the last permit renewal (1995 — 1997) was approximately 44 inches per year (obtained from the National Climatic Data Center's website) for Salisbury. Average annual rainfall for this permit renewal data review period (1999 — 2002) was approximately 32 inches, representing a 28 percent reduction. This would translate to a 28% reduction in storm water flow. The last permit application estimated Outfall 001 storm water flows for the last permit application are estimated to be 0.39 mgd. Reducing this flow by 28% would result in an estimated Outfall 001 storm water flow of 0.28 mgd. This value is comparable to the Outfall 001 storm water flow of 0.25 mgd (for the 1999 — 2002 data review period) based on differences in flow measurements. Annual average rainfall for Salisbury, NC, for 1948 through 2002 was 44 inches which is comparable to the 1995 —1997 average rainfall of 45 inches. Because of the unusually low rainfall amounts during 1999 — 2002, KOSA is requesting that the average storm water flow rate for the period of 1995 -1997 be used in determining OCPSF limits for this renewal (0.39 mgd). Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 4 September 29, 2003 Proposed Limits TSS Table 2 presents the basis for permit limits for each wastestream for calculating OCPSF- based effluent limits. The previous permit applications listed the bandcaster wastewater stream as Subpart C, Fibers. However, the bandcaster process uses water for a quench bath for the hot polymer resin. Therefore, the bandcaster wastewater stream should have been listed as Subpart D, Resins. With the last permit renewal, DWQ did not allow an allocation for boilers/chillers and the process water plant blowdown. Therefore, no allocation has been assumed for these two streams. TABLE 2 Estimated OCPSF Limits for BOD and TSS Allocation (mg/L) BOD TSS Wastestream Basis Flow Monthly Daily Monthly Daily (mgd) Avg Max Avg Max Finish OCPSF Subpart C (Fibers) 0.1 18 48 36 115 Bandcaster OCPSF Subpart C (Resins) 0.1 24 64 40 130 Cooling Towers OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.16 24 64 40 130 Process OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.106 24 64 40 130 Groundwater — Interior OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.02 24 64 40 130 Groundwater — Perimeter OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.264 24 64 40 130 Domestic Wastewater Secondary Treatment 0.061 30 45 30 45 Regulation Boilers and Chillers 0.100 WTP Blowdown 0.084 Process Storm water OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.39 24 64 40 130 Proposed Mass Based Effluent Limit (Ib/d unless noted) 1.385 238 618 392 1,246 mgd Current Mass Based Effluent Limit (summer/winter, lb/d) 150/278 300/600 435 1,382 (a) Mass -based limits = Flow x Effluent Guideline x 8.34 Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 5 September 29, 2003 BOD Water quality based limits for BOD were determined for the 1993 permit application based on DWQ's draft wasteload allocation dated May 24,1993. DWQ's modeling analysis predicted a minimum DO of 5 mg/1 (DWQ's water quality standard for DO) based on a discharge of 1.574 mgd, 131 lb/day BOD, and 171b/day ammonia nitrogen. The modeling used a typical CBOD decay rate and CBOD/BOD ratio. Thes values were adjusted using site specific information, and a minimum BOD limit af_150 lb/d3ras established for the summer months. Nutrients The facility is currently required to monitor for ammonia nitroge once per week with limits of 23 lb/d monthly average and 461b/day daily maximum. These limits are based on the oxygen demand modeling DWQ conducted for the current permit as discussed above. Metals and OCPSF Parameters There were no detections in the OCPSF parameters during the data review period. Therefore, continuing the annual monitoring frequency is requested based on the historical data. Metals detected during the data review period include copper, zinc, iron, and manganese. Permit limits for these metals were estimated based on the North Carolina Water Quality Standard or Action Level and the Instream Waste Concentration. Zinc, iron, and manganese concentrations are significantly below estimated limits. Copper concentrations sometimes exceed the estimated limit based on the North Carolina Action Level. Copper sulfate is periodically added as an algaecide to the polishing ponds. KOSA is investigating other sources of copper. However, because there have not been two consecutive toxicity test failures, KOSA does not feel that a copper limit based on the Action Level is required. Toxicity KOSA's permit requires chronic toxicity testing using Ceriodaphnia dubia as the test organism. The permit requires no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at an effluent concentration of 34 percent. There were failures for reproduction in August 2000 and August 2002. Samples collected during the following two months both passed. For recent tests, the May 2003 test failed for survival. The test in June 2003 was invalid. Retesting was performed during the week of July 7, 2003, and passed. Failures have been intermittent and review of effluent and operations data have not identified specific causes. However, significant algae growth was present on the polishing ponds during the sample collection period, and may have been the cause of toxicity. Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 6 September 29, 2003 Sludge Management Plan KOSA does not have a Sludge Management Plan. Waste biological sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered. Dewatered solids are disposed of off site by Waste Management in a Kernersville, NC, permitted landfill. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Stephen Lamb at (704) 636-6000 or Kristen Jenkins/CH2M HILL at (770) 604-9182, extension 546. Sincerely, Anthony J. Branecky Plant Manager ATL\Let_pmt appl rev.doc Enclosures c: Steve Lamb Kristen Jenkins/CH2M HILL TABLE B-1 Statistical Parameters for WWTP Data from January 1999 to May 2003 Average Standard Maximum # of Count Daily Monthly Exceedances Deviation Detections Max Average Limit Limit Eff Flow (MGD) 1.21 (a) 0.21 2.18 1611 1611 NA 2.305 0 BOD5 (LBS/D) 55.5 24.9 195.2 1611 1611 300/ 150/ 278 0 600°4 PH 7.6 0.4 6.6 - 8.9 1612 1612 6-9 0 TSS (LBS/D) 156.5 98.5 774.8 1612 1612 1382 435 0 NH3-N (LBS/D) 1.5 2.1 18.8 202 352 46 23 0 Fecal Coliform 105 45 410 226 227 400 200 1 Geomean (#/100m1) DO (mg/L) 8.5 1.8 5.1 (min) 1612 1612 5 0 Copper (mg/L) 0.050 0.022 0.130 72 72 - Iron (mg/L) 0.332 0.176 0.990 69 70 Manganese 0.067 0.032 0.190 69 69 (mg/L) Chromium (mg/L) 0 0 0 29 Nickel (mg/L) 0 0 0 30 Silver (mg/L) 0 0 0 25 Zinc (mg/L) 0 0.123 2 30 Lead (Lbs/d) 0 0 0 4 Cyanide (Lbs/d) 0 0 0 4 (a) Effluent values for days when recycling occurred were not included in the average calculation. (b) Summer/winter limit CH2M HILUPEACHTREE/159971 TABLE B-2 Summary of Storm Water Conventional Parameters Total Flow PH Oil and TSS BOD5 Total Total (mgd) Grease (mg/L) (mg/L) Nitrogen Phosphorus (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Stream A 1999 0.32 6.0 <5.0 11 2 0.53 0.031 2000 1.14 6.1 <5.0 10 3 0.43 0.04 2001 0.68 5.7 <5.0 11 4 0.76 0.039 Stream B 1999 0.092 9.2 <5.0 47 5 3.5 0.089 2000 0.33 6.3 <5.0 4 4 0.35 0.05 2001 0.20 6.9 <5.0 11 4 0.29 0.046 Stream C 1999 0.174 5.1 <5.0 762 5 2.2 0.089 2000 0.62 5.8 <5.0 20 4 1.10 0.61 2001 0.29 6.4 <5.0 15 2 <0.10 <0.030 Stream D 1999 0.027 6.3 <5.0 2 2 0.46 0.100 2000 0.10 7.0 <5.0 5 7 0.43 0.11 2001 0.05 6.8 <5.0 13 3 0.42 <0.030 Stream 5 1999 0.201 7.1 <5.0 3 3 0.45 0.130 2000 0.71 6.8 <5.0 13 5 0.48 0.32 2001 0.339 7.4 <5.0 13 8 0.86 0.23 TABLE B-3 Estimation of Annual Average Storm Water Flows All values in units of MGD Year Annual Annual Groundwater Stormwater Average Average (= Effluent - Influent - Effluent Flow Influent Flow Groundwater) 2002 1.07 0.66 0.271 0.14 2001 1.29 0.79 0.294 0.21 2000 1.31 0.71 0.273 0.33 1999 1.22 0.58 0.320 0.31 Average 1.22 0.68 0.29 0.25 1997 1.57 0.60 0.597 0.37 1996 1.54 0.59 0.62 0.33 1995 1.46 0.61 0.365 0.48 Average 1.52 0.60 0.53 0.39 Difference (2002 -0.30 0.08 -0.24 -0.14 Average -1998 Average) Year Salisbury Annual Rainfall (inches) 2002 34.17 2001 32.79 2000 26.99 1999 33.65 1998 34.83 1997 38.64 1996 41.47 1995 52.47 1994 38.63 1993 38.27 1992 42.535 1991 33.35 1990 48.375 Annual Average Effluent Flow Annual Average Influent Flow Diff = SW + GW GW SW 1.07 0.66 0.41 0.271 0.14 1.29 0.79 0.51 0.294 0.21 1.31 0.71 0.61 0.273 0.33 1.22 0.58 0.63 0.320 0.31 -1'999 ' 3 �; x 2a ' .= ar F 31` 1_90 _ _ 1 2 a r -s r 0068 .w'0s5 e t291 w, - 025 1.57 0.6 0.97 0.597 0.37 1.54 0.59 0.95 0.62 0.33 1.46 0.61 0.85 0.365 0.48 salisbury average = 1948 -1997 = 45 inches 95 - 97 avg 1999 - 2002 av! 44.2 31.9 28% [Fwd: Invista Salisbury] T y Subject: [Fwd: Invista Salisbury] From: Mark McIntire <Mark.McIntire @ncmail.net> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:32:49 -0400 To: gil vinzani <Gil.Vinzani@ncmail.net> another Subject: Invista Salisbury From: <Kristen.Jenkins@CH2M.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:02:35 -0600 To: <Mark.McIntire@ncmail.net> Hi Mark - I meant to check in with you sooner to see if you had any questions about the stormwater flow analysis for Invista. I also did a check on the OCPSF flows and cannot come up with the numbers in the draft permit, attached is my spreadsheet. I know you may have already finalized the permit, but just in case you haven't I thought I would check in with you. Let me know if you would like to discuss. Thanks, Kristen «OCPSF limits calc.xls» Kristen Jenkins, P.E. CH2M HILL Suite 700 115 Perimeter Center Place NE Atlanta, GA 30346 770.604.9182, extension 546 678.579.8003 (fax) Content -Type: message/rfc822 :Invista Salisbury; Content -Encoding: 7bit Content -Description: OCPSF limits calc.xls OCPSF limits calc.xls Content -Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Content -Encoding: base64 1 of 1 9/15/2005 4:12 PM Fortron Industries OCPSF Priortity Pollutant Limits Page 1 of 4 Constituent OCPSF Effluent Guideline Limits based on Flow of (a) Limits based on Flow of (a) Draft Daily Maximum (ug/l) Monthly Average (ug/I) 0.955 Daily Maximum (Ib/d) MGD Monthly Average (lb/d) 0.760 Daily Maximum (lb/d) MGD Monthly Average (Ib/d) Daily Maximum (lb/d) 2-Chlorophenol 98 31 0.780 0.247 0.621 0.196 x Acenaphthene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 0.374 Acenaphthylene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 0.374 Acrylonitrile 242 96 1.927 0.764 1.534 0.608 Anthracene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 0.374 Benzene 136 37 1.083 0.295 0.862 0.235 1.067 Benzo(a)anthracene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 61 23 0.486 0.183 0.387 0.146 Benzo(a)pyrene 61 23 0.486 0.183 0.387 0.146 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha-late 279 103 2.221 0.820 1.768 0.653 Carbon Tetrachloride 38 18 0.303 0.143 0.241 0.114 Chlorobenzene 28 15 0.223 0.119 0.177 0.095 3.027 Chloroethane 268 104 2.134 0.828 1.699 0.659 2.350 Chloroform 46 21 0.366 0.167 0.292 0.133 2.589 Chrysene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 Di-n-butyl phthalate 57 27 0.454 0.215 0.361 0.171 0.342 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 163 77 1.298 0.613 1.033 0.488 6.324 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 44 31 0.350 0.247 0.279 0.196 3.027 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 28 15 0.223 0.119 0.177 0.095 3.027 1,1-Dichloroethane 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 0.470 1,2-Dichloroethane 211 68 1.680 0.541 1.337 0.431 1,1-Dichloroethylene 25 16 0.199 0.127 0.158 0.101 0.478 1,2-trans-Dichloro-ethylene 54 21 0.430 0.167 0.342 0.133 0.526 1,2-Dichloropropane 230 153 1.831 1.218 1.458 0.970 1,3-Dichloropropylene 44 29 0.350 0.231 0.279 0.184 Diethyl phthalate 203 81 1.616 0.645 1.287 0.513 2,4-Dichlorophenol 112 39 0.892 0.310 0.710 0.247 x 2,4-Dimethylphenol 36 18 0.287 0.143 0.228 0.114 Dimethyl phthalate 47 19 0.374 0.151 0.298 0.120 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 277 78 2.205 0.621 1.756 0.494 2,4-Dinitrophenol 123 71 0.979 0.565 0.780 0.450 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 285 113 2.269 0.900 1.806 0.716 x 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 641 255 5.103 2.030 4.063 1.616 x Ethylbenzene 108 32 0.860 0.255 0.685 0.203 Fluoranthene 68 25 0.541 0.199 0.431 0.158 Fluorene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 Hexachlorobenzene 28 15 0.223 0.119 0.177 0.095 Hexachlorobutadiene 49 20 0.390 0.159 0.311 0.127 Hexachloroethane 54 21 0.430 0.167 0.342 0.133 Methyl Chloride 190 86 1.513 0.685 1.204 0.545 p:lhcc\wilmingt\npdes\OCPSF limits calc Revision Date:11/22/96 Fortron Industries OCPSF Priortity Pollutant Limits Page 2 of 4 Constituent OCPSF Effluent Guideline Limits based on Flow of (a) Limits based on Flow of (a) Draft Daily Maximum (ug/l) Monthly Average (ug/l) 0.955 Daily Maximum (Ib/d) MGD Monthly Average (lb/d) 0.760 Daily Maximum (lb/d) MGD Monthly Average (Ib/d) Daily Maximum (lb/d) Methylene Chloride 89 40 0.709 0.318 0.564 0.254 Naphthalene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 Nitrobenzene 68 27 0.541 0.215 0.431 0.171 2-Nitrophenol 69 41 0.549 0.326 0.437 0.260 4-Nitrophenol 124 72 0.987 0.573 0.786 0.456 Phenanthrene 59 22 0.470 0.175 0.374 0.139 Phenol 26 15 0.207 0.119 0.165 0.095 Pyrene 67 25 0.533 0.199 0.425 0.158 Tetrachloroethylene 56 22 0.446 0.175 0.355 0.139 Toluene 80 26 0.637 0.207 0.507 0.165 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 140 68 1.115 0.541 0.887 0.431 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 54 21 0.430 0.167 0.342 0.133 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 54 21 0.430 0.167 0.342 0.133 Total Chromium 2,770 1,110 NL NL NL NL NL Total Copper 3,380 1,450 NL NL NL NL NL Total Cyanide 1,200 420 NL NL NL NL NL Total Lead 690 320 NL NL NL NL NL Total Nickel 3,980 1,690 NL NL NL NL NL Total Zinc 2,610 1,050 NL NL NL NL NL Trichloroethylene 54 21 0.430 0.167 0.342 0.133 Vinyl Chloride 268 104 2.134 0.828 1.699 0.659 (a) Based on Fortron's existing NPDES permit, see Section A2, page 9 of 16. (c) Since there are no process sources of chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, or zinc, the OCPSF guideline limitations do not apply. p:lhcclwilmingtlnpdes\OCPSF limits calc Revision Date:11/22/96 � � r Fortron Industries OCPSF Priortity Pollutant Limits Permit Limits (a) Current Permit Limits based on Flow of(b) Monthly Average (Ib/d) Daily Maximum (ug/l) 1.280 Daily Maximum (Ib/d) MGD Monthly Average (lb/d) x x 1.046 0.331 0.151 0.630 0.235 0.151 0.630 0.235 8.400 2.583 1.025 0.151 0.630 0.235 0.454 1.452 0.395 0.600 0.630 0.235 1.000 0.651 0.246 1.000 0.651 0.246 0.600 0.630 0.235 0.757 74.000 2.978 ' 1.100 1.131 148.000 0.406 0.192 1.131 0.299 0.160 0.876 2.861 1.110 0.884 0.491 0.224 0.600 0.630 0.235 0.159 0.608 0.288 1.561 1.740 0.822 1.131 0.470 0.331 1.131 0.299 0.160 0.175 0.630 0.235 1.434 124.000 2.252 0.726 0.175 0.267 0.171 0.199 0.576 0.224 44.000 2.455 1.633 0.470 0.310 2.167 0.865 x x 1.196 0.416 0.384 0.192 0.502 0.203 2.957 0.833 1.313 0.758 x x 3.042 1.206 x x 6.843 2.722 1.153 0.342 0.726 0.267 0.630 0.235 0.299 0.160 0.523 0.214 0.576 0.224 2.028 0.918 Page 3 of 4 p:lhcclwilmingtlnpdes\OCPSF limits calc Revision Date:11/22/96 Fortron Industries OCPSF Priortity Pollutant Limits Permit Limits (a) Current Permit Limits based on Flow of(b) Monthly Average (Ib/d) Daily Maximum (ug/l) 1.280 Daily Maximum (Ib/d) MGD Monthly Average (Ib/d) 0.950 0.427 0.630 0.235 0.726 0.288 0.737 0.438 1.324 0.769 0.630 0.235 0.278 0.160 0.715 0.267 0.598 0.235 0.854 0.278 1.495 0.726 0.576 0.224 0.576 0.224 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 0.576 0.224 2.861 1.110 Page 4 of 4 p:lhcclwilmingtlnpdes\OCPSF limits calc Revision Date:11/22/96 September 29, 2003 Mrs. Valery Stephens NC DENR/DWQ/Point Source Branch 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Subject: KOSA-Salisbury Permit Renewal NPDES Permit # NC0004944 Rowan County Dear Mrs. Stephens: Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l. d/b/a KOSA owns and operates a polyester manufacturing facility in Salisbury, North Carolina. Process wastewater and stormwater is discharged to North Second Creek in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit number NC0004944, which expires March 31, 2004. Three copies of this letter and the attached permit application are being submitted for renewal of the NPDES permit. This letter provides an overview of the KOSA Salisbury facility, summarizes recent effluent data, and proposes limits for the renewed discharge permit. Attachment A includes the permit renewal application, and Attachment B includes effluent data summary tables. Facility Location The KOSA facility is located on the south side of U.S. Highway 70 approximately 4 miles • west of Salisbury, North Carolina, near the intersection of Highway 70 and State Highway 801. The facility's location is presented on Figure 1 in Attachment A, which also shows nearby transportation routes and surface waters. Plant Overview KOSA manufactures polyester in the form of chip and fiber at its Salisbury, North Carolina, facility. Primary raw materials in these manufacturing processes include terephthalic acid, ethylene glycol, and fiber finish oils (see Figure 2 in Attachment A). Process wastewater, groundwater, sanitary wastewater, cooling tower blowdown, and water treatment plant blowdown are treated onsite before being discharged to North Second Creek. CH2M HILUPEACHTREEI159971 Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 2 September 29, 2003 Wastewater treatment consists of coarse solids removal (bar screen), equalization, biological treatment (activated sludge), and clarification, followed by a series of polishing ponds, as presented on Figure 3 in Attachment A. Waste biological sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered. Dewatered solids are disposed of off -site by Waste Management, Inc (Kernersville, North Carolina). Recovered groundwater from the interior system contains primarily ethylene glycol and is anaerobically pretreated before being discharged to the equalization tank for treatment in the WWTP. Recovered groundwater from the perimeter system contains 1,4-dioxane as the major pollutant and is discharged through the polishing ponds to Outfall 001 to North Second Creek. The plant discharges storm water associated with industrial activity through five outfalls (A, B, C, D, and 5) as presented on Figure 1 in Attachment A. The storm water outfalls are. equipped with diverter weirs that route dry weather spills to the storm water collection system and the first flush of storm water runoff to either the WWTP headworks or Number 2 polishing pond. As the storm water volume increases, flow continues to be discharged to either the WWTP or Number 2 polishing pond, but the water level in the diverter boxes increases to the overflow weir and the excess flow is discharged directly to North Second Creek and Withrow Creek. The five storm water outfalls are monitored according to the NPDES permit and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Information on the storm water outfalls is provided on the EPA Form 2C based on discussions with DWQ staff. Historical Data Review Outfall 001 Historical data from KOSA's Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) were reviewed for the period of January 1999 to May 2003 for the permit renewal application. A summary of statistical parameters for conventional data and total recoverable metals is presented in Appendix B and covers the entire review period. There were no detections for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) priority pollutants that are required for monitoring, therefore, these parameters have not been included in Table B-1. Storm Water (Outfalls A, B, C, D, and 5) KOSA collects storm water samples annually for analysis of conventional parameters as well as total toxic organics (TTO). There were no TTOs detected during the data review period (1999 through 2001) for any of the five storm water outfalls. A summary of the conventional parameter results is presented in Table B-2. Flow The average effluent flow for the January 1999 to May 2003 data review period was 1.21 mgd. KOSA recycled effluent for several days during August 2002, because of a water shortage as a result of the drought conditions. Therefore, effluent flow values for the days Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 3 September 29, 2003 that KOSA recycled were not included in the average value. Recycling occurred on August 7 —16, 2002, and August 25-29, 2002, and was approved by DWQ before it occurred. Effluent flow rates for this permit application are lower than the 1998 application. Groundwater flow rates have decreased by approximately 0.24 mgd (see Table B-3). Outfall 001 storm water flows have also decreased by approximately 0.14 mgd because of lower annual average rainfall. Outfall 001 storm water flow rates were estimated by subtracting ground water flow rate and influent flow rates from the Outfall 001 final effluent flow rate (see Table B-3). Table 1 presents the average annual rainfall and estimated Outfall 001 storm water flows for periods with average and below average rainfall. TABLE 1 Rainfall and Storm Water Flow Rates Period Rainfall (in/yr) Outfall 001 Total Flow Outfall 001 Stormwater (mgd) Flow (mgd) 1995-1997 45 1.52 0.39 1999-2002 32 1.22 0.25 Note: Average annual rainfall for Salisbury for 1948 — 2002 = 44 inches Annual average rainfall for the data analysis for the last permit renewal (1995 — 1997) was approximately 44 inches per year (obtained from the National Climatic Data Center's website) for Salisbury. Average annual rainfall for this permit renewal data review period (1999 — 2002) was approximately 32 inches, representing a 28 percent reduction. This would translate to a 28% reduction in storm water flow. The last permit application estimated Outfall 001 storm water flows for the last permit application are estimated to be 0.39 mgd. Reducing this flow by 28% would result in an estimated Outfall 001 storm water flow of 0.28 mgd. This value is comparable to the Outfall 001 storm water flow of 0.25 mgd (for the 1999 — 2002 data review period) based on differences in flow measurements. Annual average rainfall for Salisbury, NC, for 1948 through 2002 was 44 inches which is comparable to the 1995 —1997 average rainfall of 45 inches. Because of the unusually low rainfall amounts during 1999 — 2002, KOSA is requesting that the average storm water flow rate for the period of 1995 -1997 be used in determining OCPSF limits for this renewal (0.39 mgd). Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 4 September 29, 2003 Proposed Limits TSS Table 2 presents the basis for permit limits for each wastestream for calculating OCPSF- based effluent limits. The previous permit applications listed the bandcaster wastewater stream as Subpart C, Fibers. However, the bandcaster process uses water for a quench bath for the hot polymer resin. Therefore, the bandcaster wastewater stream should have been listed as Subpart D, Resins. With the last permit renewal, DWQ did not allow an allocation for boilers/chillers and the process water plant blowdown. Therefore, no allocation has been assumed for these two streams. TABLE 2 Estimated OCPSF Limits for BOD and TSS Allocation (mg/L) BOD TSS Wastestream Basis Flow Monthly Daily Monthly Daily (mgd) Avg Max Avg Max Finish OCPSF Subpart C (Fibers) 0.1 18 48 36 115 Bandcaster OCPSF Subpart C (Resins) 0.1 24 64 40 130 Cooling Towers OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.16 24 64 40 130 Process OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.106 24 64 40 130 Groundwater — Interior OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.02 24 64 40 130 Groundwater — Perimeter OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.264 24 64 40 130 Domestic Wastewater Secondary Treatment 0.061 30 45 30 45 Regulation Boilers and Chillers 0.100 WTP Blowdown 0.084 Process Storm water OCPSF Subpart D (Resins) 0.39 24 64 40 130 Proposed Mass Based Effluent Limit (Ib/d unless noted) 1.385 238 618 392 1,246 mgd Current Mass Based Effluent Limit (summer/winter, Ib/d) 150/278 300/600 435 1,382 (a) Mass -based limits = Flow x Effluent Guideline x 8.34 Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 5 September 29, 2003 BOD Water quality based limits for BOD were determined for the 1993 permit application based on DWQ's draft wasteload allocation dated May 24,1993. DWQ's modeling analysis predicted a minimum DO of 5 mg/1 (DWQ's water quality standard for DO) based on a discharge of 1.574 mgd, 131 lb /day BOD, and 17 lb /day ammonia nitrogen. The modeling used a typical CBOD decay rate and CBOD/BOD ratio. These values were adjusted using site specific information, and a minimum BOD limit of 150 lb/d was established for the summer months. Nutrients The facility is currently required to monitor for ammonia nitrogen once per week with limits of 23 lb / d monthly average and 46lb/day daily maximum. These limits are based on the oxygen demand modeling DWQ conducted for the current permit as discussed above. Metals and OCPSF Parameters There were no detections in the OCPSF parameters during the data review period. Therefore, continuing the annual monitoring frequency is requested based on the historical data. Metals detected during the data review period include copper, zinc, iron, and manganese. Permit limits for these metals were estimated based on the North Carolina Water Quality Standard or Action Level and the Instream Waste Concentration. Zinc, iron, and manganese concentrations are significantly below estimated limits. Copper concentrations sometimes exceed the estimated limit based on the North Carolina Action Level. Copper sulfate is periodically added as an algaecide to the polishing ponds. KOSA is investigating other sources of copper. However, because there have not been two consecutive toxicity test failures, KOSA does not feel that a copper limit based on the Action Level is required. Toxicity KOSA's permit requires chronic toxicity testing using Ceriodaphnia dubia as the test organism. The permit requires no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at an effluent concentration of 34 percent. There were failures for reproduction in August 2000 and August 2002. Samples collected during the following two months both passed. For recent tests, the May 2003 test failed for survival. The test in June 2003 was invalid. Retesting was performed during the week of July 7, 2003, and passed. Failures have been intermittent and review of effluent and operations data have not identified specific causes. However, significant algae growth was present on the polishing ponds during the sample collection period, and may have been the cause of toxicity. Mrs. Valery Stephens Page 6 September 29, 2003 Sludge Management Plan KOSA does not have a Sludge Management Plan. Waste biological sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered. Dewatered solids are disposed of off site by Waste Management in a Kernersville, NC, permitted landfill. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Stephen Lamb at (704) 636-6000 or Kristen Jenkins/CH2M HILL at (770) 604-9182, extension 546. Sincerely, Anthony J. Branecky Plant Manager ATL\Let pmt appl rev.doc Enclosures c: Steve Lamb Kristen Jenkins/CH2M HILL h t TABLE B-1 Statistical Parameters for WWTP Data from January 1999 to May 2003 Average Standard Maximum # of Count Daily Monthly Exceedances Deviation Detections Max Average Limit Limit Eff Flow (MGD) 1.21 (a) 0.21 2.18 1611 1611 NA 2.305 0 BOD5 (LBS/D) 55.5 24.9 195.2 1611 1611 3300/ 00 150/ 278 0 PH 7.6 0.4 6.6 - 8.9 1612 1612 6-9 0 TSS (LBS/D) 156.5 98.5 774.8 1612 1612 1382 435 0 NH3-N (LBS/D) 1.5 2.1 18.8 202 352 46 23 0 Fecal Coliform 105 45 410 226 227 400 200 1 Geomean (#/100m1) DO (mg/L) 8.5 1.8 5.1 (min) 1612 1612 5 0 Copper (mg/L) 0.050 0.022 0.130 72 72 Iron (mg/L) 0.332 0.176 0.990 69 70 Manganese 0.067 0.032 0.190 69 69 (mg/L) Chromium (mg/L) 0 0 0 29 Nickel (mg/L) 0 - 0 0 30 Silver (mg/L) 0 0 0 25 Zinc (mg/L) 0 0.123 2 30 Lead (Lbs/d) 0 0 0 4 Cyanide (Lbs/d) 0 0 0 4 (a) Effluent values for days when recycling occurred were not included in the average calculation. (b) Summer/winter limit CH2M HILL/PEACHTREE/159971 TABLE B•2 Summary of Storm Water Conventional Parameters Total Flow PH Oil and TSS BODE Total Total (mgd) Grease (mg/L) (mg/L) Nitrogen Phosphorus (m9lL) (mgl-) (mg►L) Stream A 1999 0.32 6.0 <5.0 11 2 0.53 0.031 2000 1.14 6.1 <5.0 10 3 0.43 0.04 2001 0.68 5.7 <5.0 11 4 0.76 0.039 Stream B 1999 0.092 9.2 <5.0 47 5 3.5 0.089 2000 0.33 6.3 <5.0 4 4 0.35 0.05 2001 0.20 6.9 <5.0 11 4 0.29 0.046 Stream C 1999 0.174 5.1 <5.0 762 5 2.2 0.089 2000 0.62 5.8 <5.0 20 4 1.10 0.61 2001 0.29 6.4 <5.0 15 2 <0.10 <0.030 Stream D 1999 0.027 6.3 <5.0 2 2 0.46 0.100 2000 0.10 7.0 <5.0 5 7 0.43 0.11 2001 0.05 6.8 <5.0 13 3 0.42 <0.030 Stream 5 1999 0.201 7.1 <5.0 3 3 0.45 0.130 2000 0.71 6.8 <5.0 13 5 0.48 0.32 2001 0.339 7.4 <5.0 13 8 0.86 0.23 TABLE B-3 Estimation of Annual Average Storm Water Flows All values in units of MGD Year Annual Annual Groundwater Stormwater Average Average (= Effluent - Influent - Effluent Flow Influent Flow Groundwater) 2002 1.07 0.66 0.271 0.14 2001 1.29 0.79 0.294 0.21 2000 1.31 0.71 0.273 0.33 1999 1.22 0.58 0.320 0.31 Average 1.22 0.68 0.29 0.25 1997 1.57 0.60 0.597 0.37 1996 1.54 0.59 0.62 0.33 1995 1.46 0.61 0.365 0.48 Average 1.52 0.60 0.53 0.39 Difference (2002 -0.30 0.08 -0.24 -0.14 Average -1998 Average) To: Permits and Engineering Unit Water Quality Section Attention: Mark McIntire SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No Date: April 8, 2004 NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS County: Rowan NPDES Permit No.: NC0004944 MRO No.: 03-106 II APR 1 5 2004 PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Facility and address: Arteva Specialties S.A.R.L. - KOSA Plant 7401 Statesville Boulevard Salisbury, N.C. 28145 2. Date of investigation: January 16, 2004 3. Report prepared by: Michael L. Parker, Environmental Engineer II 4. Person contacted and telephone number: Stephen Lamb, (704) 636-6000, ext. 4862. 5. Directions to site: From the jct. of US Hwy. 70 and Hwy. 801 .1.5 miles west of the Town of Cleveland, travel east on US Hwy. 70 0.2 mile. The entrance to the KOSA plant will be on the right (south) side of US Hwy. 70. 6. Discharge point(s), List for all discharge points: - Latitude: 35 ° 42' 40" Longitude: 80° 36' 10" Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map. USGS Quad No.: E 16 NE 7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application: Yes. 8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Gently rolling, 3-6% slopes. Portions of the site may be at or near the 100 year flood plain elevation. 9. Location of nearest dwelling: Approx. 1000+ feet from the WWTP site. Page Two 10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: North Second Creek a. Classification: C b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Yadkin 030706 c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Fed by a large drainage basin, the receiving stream has good flow and a well defined channel (30 feet wide x 1-2 feet deep). Downstream uses are mostly agriculture. PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS 1. a. Volume of wastewater: 2.305 MGD (Design Capacity) Sources of Wastewater* 1. Sanitary 0.061 MGD 2. Finish 0.100 MGD 3. Boilers/Chillers 0.100 MGD 4. Bandcaster 0.100 MGD 5. Cooling Tower 0.160 MGD 6. Process 0.106 MGD 7. Groundwater 0.284 MGD 8. Stormwater 0.390 MGD 9. WTP Blowdown 0.084 MGD Total Average Flow 1.385 MGD i Average Flows The stormwater and groundwater average flow listed above reflects a reduction from numbers listed in previous renewal applications. Since these waste streams are rainfall dependant, and the average rainfall during this permit cycle has been much lower than normal due to drought conditions, the average flows have been adjusted to reflect current values. b. What is the current permitted capacity: 2.305 MGD c. Actual treatment capacity of current facility (current design capacity): 2.305 MGD d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the previous two years: There have been no recently issued ATCs. e. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The existing WWT facilities specifically serving the domestic waste stream at this facility consist of a comminutor and chlorine contact chamber. From there, all domestic wastewater then flows into a lift station where it is pumped into the existing aeration basins (see next paragraph). Page Three The process water treatment facilities consist of a bar screen followed by a grit chamber, two (2) covered equalization tanks, three (3) aeration basins, three (3) secondary clarifiers, four (4) polishing ponds (one out of service), an aerobic digester, sludge filter press, and instrumented flow measurement. This facility also has two (2) contaminated GW recovery well systems with treatment (interior and perimeter GW treatment systems). The interior GW treatment system consists of eleven (11) recovery wells that receive anaerobic treatment prior to being discharged into the treatment works (after equalization). The perimeter GW treatment system consists of forty-four (44) recovery wells, flow equalization, and a U/V Peroxide treatment system. The effluent from this treatment system enters either polishing pond No. 2 or No. 4 prior to discharge. Total GW discharge is estimated to be 0.284 MGD. f. Description of proposed WWT facilities: There are no WWT facilities proposed at this time. g• Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: This facility has a generally good record of passing their toxicity test (IWC = 34%), however, algae problems in the plant's polishing ponds, and the subsequent use of copper sulfate to control the algae, may have led to some of their toxicity problems. 2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Residuals generated in the treatment process are dewatered on -site with the filter press and then disposed of at a private landfill owned by Waste Management in Forsyth County. 3. Treatment plant classification: Class IV (no change from previous rating). 4. SIC Code(s): 2821, 2824 Wastewater Code(s): 36, 14, 02, 66, 21, 73 5. MTU Code(s): 02502 PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION 1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies involved (municipals only)? No public monies were used in the construction of this facility. 2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: a. KOSA has requested that OCPSF monitoring continue at the current frequency (annually), since historical data has not detected any presence of these constituents. This Office offers no objection to this request. Page Four b. KOSA has requested that a copper limit not be included in the permit even though copper concentrations sometimes exceeded the Division's Action Level (and estimated permit limit). Kosa feels that this request is warranted since they have periodically used copper sulfate to suppress algae in the polishing ponds. Kosa is investigating other sources of copper, but they suspect the algacide to be the primary source. This Office defers any action with regards to a copper limit to the NPDES Unit. 3. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: Kosa in not under an SOC at this time nor is one being considered. 4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: There is no known alternative available that is capable of treating the amount of effluent produced by this facility. PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The permittee, KOSA Holdings, Inc. (KOSA), has requested renewal of the subject permit. There have been no changes to the WWT system since the permit was last renewed. Pending receipt and approval of the draft permit, and resolution to the issues raised by the permittee in Part III, No 2 above, it is recommended that the permit be renewed as requested. h:ldsrldsr03\kosa.dsr Signature of Report Preparer Date Water Quality (gional Supervisor ( Date Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Department of Environment and Natural Resources Alan Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality Mr. Douglas D. Jenks Senior Environmental Engineer KoSa - Salisbury Plant Post Office Box 4 Salisbury, N.C. 28145-0004 Subject: Dear Mr. Jenks: July 30, 2002 Pilot Study Request Recycle of WWTP Effluent KoSa - Salisbury Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0004944 Rowan County This Office is in receipt of your letter dated July 18, 2002 concerning a request to conduct a pilot study whereby the effluent from your WWT facility would be recycled back into your process water treatment system. In your letter you indicated that the reason for this study is due to the ongoing drought that has affected this part of the State, and the corresponding drop in stream flow of Second Creek, which is where your current process water is obtained. Once completed, the results of the pilot study will then help determine whether or not the recycling of your WWTP effluent would be acceptable in your manufacturing process. You also requested that the pilot study begin from the date of your letter and continue through November 1, 2002. Should the resulting the pilot study indicate no detrimental effects as a result of the reuse of this resulting a data froma water, a request for an amendment to the company's NPDES Permit will be forthcoming. This Office has no objection to KoSa conducting a pilot study involving the recycle of WWTP effluent back into the company's manufacturing process. This approval is effective from the date of this letter through November 1, 2002. Please note that under no circumstances should this approval be construed so as to allow KoSa to exceed any existing NPDES permit limitation or to by-pass any existing wastewater treatment process. AvxrA N-COENR Customer Service Division of Water Quality 919 North Main Street Mooresville, NC 28115 Phone (704) 663-1699 1 800 623-7748 Fax (704) 663-6040 Mr. Douglas D. Jenks July 30, 2002 Page Two If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Michael Parker or me at 704-663-1699. Sincerely, ,�. ,q4-a.-/-'6,--;=A--n-, D. Rex Gleason, P.E. Water Quality Regional Supervisor cc: Dave Goodrich /mlp hlgenlpilotstd.doc :KoS� July 18, 2002 Mr. Rex Gleason NCDENR - Division of Water Quality Mooresville Regional Office 919 North Main Street Mooresville, NC 28115 RE: WWTP Effluent Recycle Arteva Specialties S.a.r.1. d/b/a KoSA Salisbury Plant NPDES Permit NC0004944 Dear Mr. Gleason: Per Mr. Mike Myers of the Water Quality Staff in Raleigh, I am forwarding the following request to you for your consideration and approval. The KoSa-Salisbury Plant currently obtains process water from Second Creek as per our NPDES Permit (NC0004944). If the current drought condition continues we are concerned that the creek may not be able to provide our process water needs. The availability of Salisbury city water as a make up for the potential lack of creek flow is also questionable. Therefore, we would like to gain permission to recycle the effluent from our WWTP back into our process water system. I understand that a permit modification is usually necessary to allow effluent recycling. However, the time frame to accomplish this is not amenable to our situation. In conversations with Mr. Mike Parker (Mooresville) and Mr. Mike Myers, a suggestion was made that the recycling approval could be given as a "Pilot Study". As was recommended to me, following is a brief conceptual description of our plans for utilizing the WWTP effluent: 1. Continue to draw water from Second Creek, as creek flow will allow, into our process water system. 2. Temporarily install a diesel water pump, or equivalent, with necessary piping to transfer water concurrently, as needed, from one of our WWTP polishing ponds P.O. Box 4 Salisbury, NC 28145-0004 7401 Statesville Ave. (704) 636-6000 Salisbury, NC 28147 www.kosa.com Mr. Rex Gleason July 18, 2002 Page2 (#2, #3, or #4) to the process water system to make up for any lack of water availability from Second Creek and city water. 4. The combined intake water will be treated through our Process Water Plant as usual. 5. Normal WWTP effluent monitoring will continue as our NPDES permit requires. KoSa requests that the pilot study period be from receipt of this letter until November 1, 2002. Thank you for considering this request to allow for recycling of the WWTP effluent. If you have any questions, please contact me at (704) 636-6000, x4161. Sincerely, Douglas D. Jinks Sr. Environmental Engineer KoSa - Salisbury Plant CC: Mr, Dave Goodrich NCDENR - Division of Water Quality NPDES Unit Supervisor 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1617