NC0004952_Permit (Issuance)_19990329

NPDES DOCUMENT :MCANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0004952
Celanese Shelby Facility
Document Type:
Permit Issuance '.-,.
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
March 29, 1999
Thins document is printed oink reuse paper - ignore airy
content on the re-srerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
March 29, 1999
Mr. John Groves, Plant Manager
HNA Holdings. Inc.
Shelby Plant
Highway 198
Shelby, North Carolina 28152
fiVA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Shelby Facility
Permit Number NC0004952
Cleveland County
Dear Mr. Groves:
In accordance with the application for discharge permit received on July I , 1997, the Division
is forwarding herewith the subject state - NPDES 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 December 6, 1983.
The attached final NPDES permit has been modified to include the following changes:
• All references to Hoechst Celanese Corporation have been changed to HNA Holdings,
Inc.
• The pollutant analysis condition, formally an annual requirement, is now required once
during each permit cycle. Future pollutant analyses should accompany the permit renewal
application.
• Allocations for BOD5 and TSS have been revised using the three and half year average
flow as required by volume 58, number 130 of the Federal Register. Previous allocations
were not calculated using this average flow and may vary from renewal -to -renewal.
• The instream waste concentration at which chronic toxicity is evaluated has been revised
to 5.8%. The previous value. 6.5%, was apparently a calculation error.
• Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for outfall 002 have been deleted as
this wastestream is now being recycled.
• Special Condition G of the existing permit has been deleted as all waste streams
containing biocides are subject to chronic toxicity testing.
• The monitoring frequency for Subpart I parameters has been changed from quarterly to
annually, with the exception of total copper.
• Special Condition H of the existing permit has been deleted.
In the application for permit renewal, HNA requested that the effluent for TSS be defined in
a manner similar to the current definition for pH effluent. Due to the applicability of federal
guidelines for TSS. effluent shall remain defined as downstream of ALL treatment units and or
polishing ponds.
P.O. Box 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535 TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

J
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, Post Office Drawer 27447. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless
such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
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,
Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits which may be
required.
If you have any questions or comments regarding these speculative limitations, please do not
hesitate to contact Mark McIntire at telephone number [phone], extension 553.
Sincerely
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens
Cc: Central Files
%IPDES Permit File
Mooresville Regional Office. Water Quality
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
EPA, Roosevelt Childress

Permit No. NC0004952
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 provision 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,
HNA Holdings, Incorporated
f/k/a Hoechst Celanese Corporation
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Shelby Facility
On NC Highway 198
South of Shelby
Cleveland County
to receiving waters designated as Buffalo Creek in the Broad River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective May 1, 1999
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on August 31, 2003
Signed this day March 29, 1999
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0004952
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
HNA Holdings, Incorporated
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.8 MGD activated sludge wastewater treatment
facility consisting of a comminutor. bar screen and grit chamber, three (5)
equalization basins utilizing pH adjustment, two (2) aeration basins with chlorine
added on an as -needed basis, two (2) secondary clarifiers with polymer addition, a
waste activated sludge digester, two (2) sludge ponds and three (3) polishing ponds
located at HNA's Shelby facility on NC Highway 198, south of Shelby in Cleveland
County (See Part III, A of this permit); and
2. Discharge remediated groundwater. process wastewater. domestic wastewater,
clarifier blowdown, boiler water make-up and blowdown, cooling tower make-up and
blowdown, fire lagoon water, and spin finish make-up and Vectra wastewaters, as
indicated on the attached map, through outfall 001 into Buffalo Creek. a class C
water in the Broad River Basin.

SCALE 1:24000
Latitude: 35°11'15" Sub -Basin: 03-08-05
Longitude: 81°30'37"
Ouad #: G12NE
Stream Class: C
Receiving Stream: Buffalo Creek
Permitted Flow: 0.8 MGD
HNA Holdings, Incorporated
NC0004952
Former Shelby Hoechst Celanese facility

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Permit No. NC0004952
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001-
Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT;E '1.TiCS '`'. Ufi
y1- g• ,�t�9:i,
•
= = ': ';_ . ,:°.
-i�'s,, .DI SCHARGE�LIMITATIONS - v
,
- ;,; ' MONITORINGREQUIREMENTS ; Y +.
• ` Monthly Average
"
Daily MaximumY
' Measurement
e,. Frequency
r'.,�
- �
'Sample".Type,` • ..
"�`
:Samn le.;'
�'� �'� Location t
Flow (MGD)
0.800
Continuous
Recording
E
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
83.0 lbs/day
203.0 lbs/day
Daily
Composite
E
Total Suspended Residue
135.0 lbs/day
380.0 lbs/day
Daily
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E
Oil and Grease
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Semi -Annually
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi -Annually
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity'
Quarterly
Composite
E
Pollutant Analysis'
;
3
E
pH4
_
Daily
Grab
E
NOTES:
I Sample Locations: E — Effluent. For TSS. Effluent shall mean the effluent from the secondary clarifiers during the months.of May. June. July, and August and the effluent from
the final polishing ponds during the remainder of the year.
2 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 5.8%; March. June. September. December: See condition A(3) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring page.
S The priority pollutant analysis shall be conducted during the month prior to submittal of the permit renewal application; See condition A(4) of the Supplement to Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring page.
4
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample. The effluent pH of the
wastewater is defined and limited at a point between the final clarifiers and final polishing pond. such a point being after the combination of all potential influents to the polishing
pond. If the pH of the effluent from the polishing pond exceeds 9.0. there will be no effluent violation if the wastewater from the final clarifier has not exceeded 9.0 during the
thirty (30) days preceding the measurements of the pl-I above 9.0 at the effluent from the polishing pond. The pl-1 of the wastewater from the clarifiers and the pH of the effluent
from the polishing ponds (final discharge) will be monitored by continuous recorder. Upstream and downstream monitoring shall be conducted weekly in any week the pH of the
effluent from the polishing pond is outside the 6.0-9.0 range.
THERE SHALL 13E NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTI IER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS.

A (2). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL NC000-1952
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expir
the Pcrmittee is authorized to discharge from outfall serial number 001. Such discha
shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Ellittent Cha?acteristics
:\ion. Avg
Ihs/day
DailyAlax
Ibs/day
:\leasurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
-Sample
Location
:\ccnapthene
U.U`J
U.24
Annually
Crab
E.
Acenaphthylene
U.09
0.24
Annually
Grab
E
Acrylonitrile
0.39
0.99
Annually
Grab
E
Anthracene
0.09
0.24
Annually
Grab
E
Benzene
0.15
0.56
Annually
Grab
E
Benzo(a)anthraccne
0.09
0,24
Annually
Grab
E
o,4-Benzofluoranthene
U.09
U.25
Annually
Grab
E
Benzo(k)l'luoranthenc
0.09
0.24
Annually
Grab
E
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.09
0.25
Annually
Grab
E
Bis12-ethylhexyl) phthalate
0.42
1.14
Annually
Grab
E
Carbon Tetrachloride
U.07
0.16
Annually
Grab
E
Chlorobenzene
U.06
0.11
Annually
Grab
E
Chloroethane
0.42
1.09
Annually
Grab
E
Chloroform
0.09
0.19
Annually
Grab
E
2-Chlorophenol
U.13
0.40
.Annually
Grab
E
Chrvsene
0.09
0.24
.Annually
Grab
E
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.11
0.23
Annually
Grab
E
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
0.31
0.67
Annually
Grab
E
1.3•Dichlorobenzene
0.13
0.18
Annually
Grab
E
I.-I-Dichlorobenzene
0.U6
0.11
Annually
Grab
E
1.1-Dichloroethane
0.09
0.24
Annually
Grab
E
1.2•Dichloroethane
U.28
0.86
Annually
Grab
E
1.I-Dichloroechyle ne
0.07
0.10
Annually
Grab
E
12-trans•Uichloroethylene
0.09
0.22
.Annually
Grab
E
2.4-Dichlorophenol
0. f6
0.46
Annually
Grab
E
1.2-Dichloropropane
0.62
0.94
Annually
Grab
E
I.5-Dichloropropylene
U.12
0.18
Annually
Grab
E
Diethyl phthalate
U.08
0.19
Annually
Grab
E
2.4-Dimethylphenol
'-0.07
0.1-5
Annually
Grab
E
Dimethyl phthalate
0.08
0.19
Annually
Grab
E
4.6-Dinitro-o-cresol
- .32
1.13-
Annually
Grab
E
2,4•Dinitrophenol
0.29
0.50
Annually
Grab
E
2.4•Dinitrotoluene
0.46
1.16
Annually
Grab
E.
2,6•Dinitrotoluene
1.04
2.62
Annually
Grab
E
Ethylbenzene
U.13
0,44
Annually
Grab
E
Fluoranthene
0.10
0.28
Annually
Grab
E
Fluorene
0.09
0.24
Annually
Grab
E
Hexachlorobenzene
0.06
0.11
Annually
Grab
E
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.08
0.20
Annually
Grab
E
Hesachloroethane
U.09
0.22
Annually
Grab
E
Methylene Chloride
0.16
0.36
Annually
Grab
E
\lethyl Chloride
U.35
0.78
Annually
Grab
E
Naphthalene
0.09
0.24
Annually
Grab
E
Nitrobenzene
0.11
0.28
Annually
Grab
E
2-Nitrophenol
0.17
0.28
Annually
Grab
E
4-Nitrophenol
U.29
0.51
Annually
Grab
E
Phenanthrene
0.09
0.24
Annually
Grab
E
Phenol
0.06
0.11
Annually
Grab
E
Pyrene
0.10
0.27
Annually
Grab
E
1'etrachloroethylene
0.09
0.23
Annually
Grab
E
Toluene
0.11
0.53
Annually
Grab
E
Total Chromium
2.80
7.00
Annually
Grab
E
Total Copper
3.66
8.50
Annually
Grab
E
Total Cyanide
1.06
o.00
Annually
Grab
E
Total Lead
0.81
1.74
Annually
Grab
E
Total Nickel
4.26
10.0
Annually
Grab
E
Total Zinc
2.65
6.58
Annually
Grab
E
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
0.28
0.57
Annually
Grab
E
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
0.09
0.22
Annually
Grab
E
1,12-Trichloroethane
0.09
0.22
Annually
Grab
E
Trichloroethylene
0.09
0.22
Annually
Grab
E
Vinyl Chloride
0.42
I.09
Annually
Grab
C
'Sample Location: E-Efrluent

Permit No. NC0004952
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (3) QUARTERLY PASS/FAIL CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING - OUTFALL 001
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995. or
subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 5.8% (defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit
holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit
condition. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June. September and December.
Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed. using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
0required, 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 any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then
monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing,
this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.

Permit No. NC0004952
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL, CONDITIONS (Continued)
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.
A. (4) POLLUTANT ANALYSIS CONDITION
The Permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants once every five years at the effluent from the
treatment plant. The discharge shall be evaluated as follows:
1) A pollutant analysis of the effluent must be completed once every five years using EPA
approved methods for the following analytic fractions:
(a) purgeables (i.e., volatile organic compounds);
(b) acid extractables;
(c) base/neutral extractables;
(d) organochlorine pesticides and PCBs;
(e) herbicides; and
(f) metals and other inorganics.
The Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (PAM) Requirement Reporting Form A and accompanying
memo. to be provided to all discharges affected by this monitoring requirement. describes the
sampling and analysis requirements and lists chemicals to be included in the pollutant analysis.
2) Other significant levels of synthetic organic chemicals must be identified and approximately
quantified. For the purpose of implementing this requirement, the largest 10 GC/MS peaks
in the purgeable, base/neutral extractable. and acid extractable fractions (or fewer than 10. if
less than 10 unidentified peaks occur) for chemicals other than those specified on the PA
Requirement Reporting Form A should be identified and approximately quantified as stated in
the PAM Reporting Form A instructions. This part (item 2) of the PAM requirement is to be
referred to as the "10 significant peaks rule."

NCDENR/DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Section/NPDES Unit
January 4, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Rex Gleason
MRO — Water Quality Supervisor
From:
Mark McIntire
NPDES Unit
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit
HNA Holdings, Inc. — NC0004952
Cleveland County
Attached with this memorandum are copies of the draft cover letter, fact sheet, and draft permit
for the above referenced facility. Although a regional office staff report was received from your
office on August 4, 1997 for this facility, because of the elapsed time since then, I thought it
beneficial to solicit regional office comments on this draft prior to it being sent to public notice.
Please have one of your staff review the attached documents and provide comments to me by
January 27 if possible. The permit is scheduled to be published on the 276 with a proposed issue
date of March 15, 1999.
Cc: Permit File
d
i

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0004952
rma ' + i;
4; -F ,... , ef....t ....c.1iIr�MAa*QRO .....,_
Applicant/Facility Name:
HNA Holdings, Inc. — f/k/a Hoechst Celanese Corp.
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 87, HWY 198, Shelby, NC
Facility Address:
Off of HWY 198, Shelby, NC
Permitted Flow
0.8 MGD
Type of Waste:
92% industrial
8% domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
Existing renewal w/o expansion
County:
Cleveland
S '�
.. ..._ , ..., . .. ea�`ain�G , grliStaics _ _.... ,_.
Receiving Stream
Buffalo Creek
Stream Classification
C
Subbasin
03-08-05
Drainage Area (mi2):
154
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
20
Winter 7Q10 (cis):
46
Average Flow (cfs):
216
IWC (%) @ 0.8 MGD:
5.8%
cellaneou
Regional Office:
Mooresville
USGS Topo Quad:
G 12NE
Permit Writer:
Mark McIntire
Date
October 13, 1998
Summary
HNA Holdings, Inc. formerly known as Hoechst Celanese Corporation, has applied for a renewal of
the NPDES permit for its Shelby facility. The facility manufactures thermoplastic resins and then
extrudes a portion of those resins into synthetic fibers. As such, 40 CFR 414.30 and 414.40
(OCPSF federal guidelines) are applicable.
The facility is currently permitted to discharge 0.8 MGD of commingled wastewater through outfall
001 and 0.1 MGD of industrial process wastewater through outfall 002. Outfall 002 was previously
permitted (incorrectly) as non -contact cooling water. A sight investigation by the author has revealed
that outfall 002 is actually contact cooling water and therefore subject to federal OCPSF guidelines.
Since this discovery, however, HNA has opted to reuse all wastewaters previously discharged through
outfall 002. Therefore, with this permit renewal, outfall 002 will cease to exist. Outfall 001
discharges various types of wastewater including domestic, industrial process, remediated
groundwater, cooler tower blowdown, process make-up water and clarifier blowdown. Approximately
417,500 gpd of process wastewater are discharged through outfall 001. Of that portion, 36% is
subject to 414.30 while the remaining 64% is subject to 414.40. Included in that process
wastewater are flows from the groundwater remediation and cooling tower make-up water. The
groundwater remediation is a direct result of resin manufacturing and the past burying of ethylene
glycol on -site. Condensate from the manufacturing process is commingled with cooling water and
sent through the cooling towers. These towers act as wet scrubbers to assist in the removal of
pollutants from the condensate.

Proposed Changes
• Permittee name: Per permittee request, the owner name of this facility has been
changed from Hoechst Celanese Corporation to HNA Holdings, Incorporated.
• APAM Requirement: The pollutant analysis condition has been modified to reflect a
change in NC policy. The pollutant analysis is now required once every five years with the permit
renewal package.
• BOD5 and TSS allocations: Allocations for BOD5 and TSS were previously based on the design
flow of 550,000 gpd. These allocations have been revised using the past 3.5 years worth of daily
flow data to compute an average. Allocations were computed in accordance with the attached
spreadsheet.
• Deletion of outfall 002: Outfall 002 has been removed from this permit as it is now being
reused. As stated earlier, it was discovered during a site investigation that 002 was actually
discharging contact cooling water. In lieu of extensive OCPSF monitoring requirements, the
facility opted to institute a reuse plan.
• Biocide Condition: The biocide condition, formerly condition G, has been deleted.
This condition is not necessary as the waste streams containing biocides are subject to chronic
toxicity testing at outfall 001.
• Subpart I Monitoring: Subpart I requirements have been updated on page A (2) of the
draft permit. These parameters have changed slightly since the permit was issued last.
Additionally, the monitoring frequency for Subpart I requirements has been changed from
quarterly to annually due to continued non -detection of these parameters. Total copper, the only
parameter detected, has been installed on the effluent page with a monthly monitoring frequency.
• Special Condition A(5): This condition has been deleted. In previous permits, this
condition required the facility to submit groundwater monitoring reports with DMRs during those
months that remediated groundwater is discharged to the waste treatment facility. Submittal of
these groundwater reports is not necessary as the groundwater contamination is a direct result of
manufacturing on -site and is covered by the monitoring requirements for outfall 001.
Toxici :
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Chronic P/F
001: Chronic P/F @ 6.5%
001: Chronic P/F @ 5.8%
March, June, September, December
The previous instream waste concentration of 6.5% was apparently an error. The correct value is
5.8%. This facility has been in compliance with its toxicity testing requirement for at least the past 4
years.
Metals:
Total copper monitoring has been installed on the effluent page in light of the fact that it has been
detected at significant concentrations during subpart I monitoring.
Instream Monitoring:
There are no instream monitoring requirements. This facility is effluent limited.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: February 10, 1999
Permit Scheduled to Issue: March 29, 1999

HNA Holdings, Inc. - f/k/a Hoechst/Celanese
NC0004952
Month
I Flow
Jan-95
0.5977
Feb-95
0.5354
Mar-95
0.5101
Apr-95
0.4792
May-95
0.5579
Jun-95
0.6465
Jul-95
0.6042
Aug-95
0.6382
Sep-95
0.5525
Oct-95
0.5604
Nov-95
0.6022
Dec-95
0.5955
Jan-96
0.6469
Feb-96
0.5895
Mar-96
0.5632
Apr-96
0.5204
May-96
0.4925
Jun-96
0.4799
Ju1-96
0.4998
Aug-96
0.4847
Sep-96
0.481
Oct-96
0.468
Nov-96
0.4871
Dec-96
0.5316
Jan-97
0.5032
Feb-97
0.4901
Mar-97
0.4573
Apr-97
0.4455
May-97
0.4093
Jun-97
0.4369
Jul-97
0.4456
Aug-97
0.4218
Sep-97
0.4312
Oct-97
0.3889
Nov-97
0.4326
Dec-97
0.4321
Jan-98
0.5078
Feb-98
0.4251
Mar-98
0.4556
Apr-98
0.4957
May-98
0.3824
Jun-98
0.3244
Jul-98
0.3181
Aug-98
0.3611
Sep-98
0.3379
Average Flow from 1/95 - 9/98: 0.48949 MGD
Information provided by HNA with this permit renewal indicates that outfall 001 is designed to discharge
550,000 gpd. Of that 550,000 gpd, approximately 76% is process wastewater on any given day.
Applying this 76% to the average flow computed above yields an actual average process flow for the
investigation period of: 0.372012 MGD.
Actual average process flow: 0.37201 MGD
The process wastewater flow at this facility is split between two 40 CFR 414 subparts, subparts C and D.
Approximately 36% 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)
I Daily Maxi Mon. Avg.
BODS 48 18
TSS 115 36
40 CFR 414.41 (Subpart D - All units are mg/L)
'Daily Maxi Mon. Avg.
BOD5
TSS
64 24
130
40
Process Flow applicable to subpart C: 0.13392 MGD
Process Flow applicable to subpart D: 0.23809 MGD
Subpart C Allocation - lbs/day
I Daily Maxi Mon. Avg.
BOD5
TSS
53.61252
128.44666
20.104695
40.20939
Subpart D Allocation - lbs/day
I Daily Maxi Mon. Avg.
GODS
TSS
127.08153
228.34962
47.655573
79.425955
Domestic Allocation (Q = 60,500 gpd) - Assuming secondary limits - lbs/day
I Daily Maxi Mon. Avg.
BOD5
TSS
22.70565 15.1371
22.70565 15.1371
Total Allocation (Sum of C, D, and Domestic) - lbs/day
I Daily Maxi Mon. Avg.
BODS
TSS
203
380
83
135
Mark McIntire
10/13/98

State Contact:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit. please contact
Mark Mclntire at [phone] ext. 555.

• C
ae-,5"te/w I l I e cis
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 4K b1)3 it)k ct(s
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION r(Je
POST OFFICE BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535 44
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A STATE NPDES PERMIT
ofi c s ran.
Zit 0191 •ti -tz,. -
On the basis of thorough staff review and application of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of 514- (
North Carolina, Public Law 92-500 and other lawful standards and regulations, the North Carolina {
444.
Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue a permit to discharge to the persons listed
below effective 3/29/99 and subject to special conditions.
Persons wishing to comment upon or object to the proposed determinations are invited to submit same in
writing to the above address no later than 3/12/99 . All comments received prior to that date will be
considered in the formulation of final determinations regarding the proposed permit. A public meeting may
be held where the Director of the Division of Environmental Management fmds a significant degree of
public interest in a proposed permit.
A copy of the draft permit is available by writing or calling the Division of Environmental Management,
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535, [phone].
The application and other information may be inspected at these locations during normal office hours.
Copies of the information on file are available upon request and payment of the costs of reproduction.
All such comments or requests regarding a proposed permit should make reference to the NPDES permit
number listed below.
Date 2t)kkI
4
A. Preston Howard Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Management
Public notice of intent to issue a State NPDES permit to the following:
1. NPDES No. NC0004952. HNA Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Hoechst Celanese Corp), P. O.
Box 87, Shelby, NC 28150 has applied for a permit renewal for its Shelby facility located on NC
Highway 198, south of Shelby, Cleveland County. The facility discharges 0.80 MGD of treated domestic
and industrial wastewater from one outfall and noncontact cooling water from one outfall into Buffalo
Creek, a Class C stream in the Broad River Basin which has a 7Q10 flow of 20.00 cfs. No parameters are
water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.
2. NP_DES_ No. NC0004685, PPG Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc., Route 4, Shelby, NC 28150
has applied for a permit renewal for a facility located at the Shelby Facility on NCSR 1313, northwest of
Shelby, Cleveland County. The facility discharges 1.3 MGD of treated domestic and process water from
the manufacture of fiberglass fiber from one outfall into Brushy Creek, a Class C stream in the Broad
River Basin which has a 7Q10 flow of 4.00 cfs. The facility discharges non -contact cooling water and
stormwater from one outfall into Overflow Branch, a Class C stream in the Broad River Basin. Fluoride
are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of the immediate receiving
waters will be utilized which may affect limits for dischargers downstream.

�-jrrvt w6� if r
WWTP Permit Renewal
Meeting Agenda
July 301997
• Introduction
• Permit Conditions
- • Ph at Clarifiers 0v10,,'/1 IA F( c r
• TSS Issue
,(_ o r o�- rt c Q S s
• Chronic Toxicity - Biocide ' y �(c ,�`�
g ,_ • Annual Monitoring - OCPSF - ��� a Pa "'` `L " o �s F ea �.
V ' `� �-• Pond Closure � �, ��,-,
� ,+ 7� ` • - rr o p o w Gf
/
• Permit Limit Changes
• Plant Tour
//,..;
• /9,.4,‘ /fV,174.f - o/c
� i"
r/o / / -- ) {� d
d � �•
• , /-/ u,f_f, S '1, �� ( / ( i c
o / rev 4`•IJ
G •.t 1 0 . Z 7/5 i146- 7a
pr. Cf Jl.
• I-S k• Yi r J VL /"L't rr
UK •/i4tI
4o
•
IQi
ZY 5vo
. c GLG
1,6
7 7.

at( Nam, v� 1 1, .
.• ) M T
,71 4.,,e t L c.
sti o
rCT
gat
f2 ro
P��r
• EL re ssc I
130L-t, Pacers S.
Goes L
J
p0 (i ,Y.v.L cL i e
ca G ( e_d .
4"1,1
Y"c--r
v
C re-eis
ro-ot,e,
-i- 41) G,;(—
e "ac is . ( �- _ 1.�6*--L
`1
coo 1
b..�-� il.-
• t
° KTrc.�Jatr
G IL +
a,et
T - Z8 q .( — 30
reS 1(4 c` e c-
f41,)
v 1`��,..en,' -z-c-. s' - - +--� 1 , i-e s
P
G.. 7 r` e 7` Pi`.e t 7c,0
(L0 ((- s (c- `fie-)
wv c i.., 0 C— € w_ S,
J
• 0010,0
Lae
poZ,
/, t 814
;-(" s
-g !„.,(
'I—
�„ � ve s.-t- ( J
-�-�-, f �" . M T.
e „?so- 30.�G
a 1 . ,n w.+-,>
e 104s /')
Vf Le... rice I
c
v0 (c�,L.�
1,,L -i3,

iicona
December 28, 1998
JLM:98:006
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Attn: Division of Water Quality
ATTN: Mr. Mark D. McIntire
P.O. Box 29535
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Reference:
Ticona, ...
Shelby Plant
Highway 198
Shelby, NC 28152
Telephone [phone]
NPDES Permit Number NC0004952 — Change in Signatory Approval
For NPDES Permit Reports - HNA Holdings, Inc. (f.k.a. Hoechst
Celanese Corporation -Shelby Plant)
Dear Mr. McIntire:
This letter is to notify your agency of a change in ownership of a portion of the assets of
the HNA Holdings, Inc. plant located in Shelby, NC. This plant was formerly known as
Hoechst Celanese Corporation's Shelby plant; however, the ownership was changed
earlier this year to HNA Holdings, Inc. (Hoechst North America, Inc.). HNA Holdings has
sold a portion of the facility's assets to another company, KoSa, earlier this month.
KoSa, purchased the fiber manufacturing assets at the facility; as a part of this
transaction, the fiber -manufacturing operations, most of the site's warehouses, a portion
of the maintenance facilities, and some of the utilities operations became KoSa assets.
HNA Holdings, Inc. (through its subsidiary company, Ticona) will continue to own and
operate the wastewater treatment operations at the plant, as well as the polymer
manufacturing facilities and the site's boilers.
In addition to the changes in ownership of the assets, many of the HNA personnel have
been transferred to the new company. As a result of these changes, the primary
signatory authority for HNA Holdings, Inc., has changed. Mr. John Groves, the Plant
Manager for Ticona (a wholly -owned subsidiary company of HNA Holdings, Inc.), will
sign all submissions from the facility for HNA Holdings, Inc. No changes in the permits
were required since all of the permits of the facility are in the name of HNA Holdings, Inc.
Mr. Groves will sign all submissions from the facility starting with the December 1998
reports.
Please make a note in your files of these changes. Should you have questions, please
do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
With Kind Regards,
Qi
rry McMurray
Sr. Safety/Environmental Engine
CC: Mr. Rex Gleason, NCDENR, Mooresville Regional Office
Hoechst •
Ticona - A member of the
Hoechst Group

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes_No X
If Yes, SOC No.
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Mark McIntire
Date: August 4, 1997
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: Cleveland
Permit No. NC0004952
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Shelby Plant
P.O. Box 87
Shelby, NC 28151-0087
2. Date of Investigation: July 30, 1997
• 3. Report Prepared By: Todd St. John
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Jeff Randolf [phone]
5. Directions to Site: From the intersection of I-85 and I-77 travel south on I-85.
Approximately 5 miles after crossing into South Carolina, exit at Highway 198. Travel north
on Highway 198 approximately 5 miles. The facility is located on the right hand side.
6. Discharge Point(s). List for all discharge points:
Outfall 001 and Outfall 002 combine before discharging at the following coordinates:
Latitude: 35° 11'14" Longitude: 81° 30' 35"
Attach a U.S.G.S. map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on
map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No.: GI2NE U.S.G.S. Name: Blacksburg North, NC -SC
7. Site size and expansion are consistent with application?
Yes X No_ If No, explain:

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The WWT facilities are located on gentle
slopes. The facilities are not in a flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: None within 400 feet.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Buffalo Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: BRD05
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Buffalo Creek
appears to have uses consistent with Class C.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 0.8 MGD from Outfall 001. Outfall 002 does
not currently have a volume limitation. (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the wasiewater treatment facility? Same
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)? Same
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct
issued in the previous two years: N/A
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities:
Outfall 001 - Process water treatment consists of screens and a grit chamber, 3
equalization lagoons and a 500,000 gallon storage tank. The domestic treatment
consists of a comminutor. At this point the two flows combine. The combined
treatment consists of dual aeration basins with chlorination and FT-355 addition,
polymer addition, dual clarifiers, three aerated polishing ponds with chemical
addition for foam control and/or algicides. Also, there are two RCRA remediation
systems that discharge to polishing pond "A": 1)The WWTP for treating
contaminated discharge from the "inner tier wells" consists of an equalization tank,
an inclined plate clarifier, and a sequencing batch reactor, air stripping and carbon
filtration. 2) The other system for the "outer tier wells" consists of air stripping and
carbon filtration.
There is an aerated sludge digesting lagoon and two sludge storage ponds.
Outfall 002 - Consists of extruded polymer fiber contact cooling water with no
treatment.
Page 2

f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: N/A
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Process waters, contact cooling water, and
ethylene glycol from the groundwater remediation system could have toxic impacts.
Also, the algicides and other chemical additions could have toxic impacts.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ permit no.: WQ0011038
Residuals Contractor: EWR, Inc.
Telephone No.:
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): Class IV
4. SIC Code(s): 3079
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities. i.e., non -contact cooling
water discharge from a metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary: 36 Secondary: 02
Main Treatment Unit Code: 05203
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved (municipals only)? N/A
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: The water discharged from
outfall 002 has heretofore been labeled as non -contact cooling water. This water is actually
contact cooling water, and, as a result, monitoring and limitations may be necessary, or the
discharge could be combined with outfall 001 effluent for sampling.
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: N/A
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge options
available. Please provide regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: N/A
Page 3

Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
Other Disposal Options: N/A
5. Other Special Items: See Part IV - Recommendations below.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Hoechst Celanese has applied to renew its NPDES Permit for its Shelby Plant. During the
site review several issues arose which need to be resolved including the issues brought forward by
Hoechst Celanese.
Currently, the discharge from outfall 002 consists of contact cooling water. It appears from
earlier inspections and reports that this water was assumed to be non -contact cooling water.
However, because it is contact cooling water additional monitoring and limitations should be
required. The contact cooling water is used to cool extruded polymer fibers. It is likely that this
water contains polymer constituents as well as actual pieces of polymer fibers. It is recommended
that this process water be either discharged to the head of the treatment works, be monitored
separately, or be combined with effluent from outfall 001 prior to testing.
During the past year, Hoechst Celanese has had three monthly average limitations violations
for TSS and one monthly average and three daily maximum limitations violations for BOD. The
Company attributes these violations to algal blooms in the polishing ponds. The company has
requested that it be allowed to sample at the clarifier discharge because the violations. However, this
Office is opposed to allowing monitoring at the clarifier discharge because the discharge at outfall
001 would still contain TSS and BOD in excess of the permitted limitations. It is also important to
note that the groundwater remediation facilities discharge into polishing pond "A" which is after the
final clarifiers. Also, the Company already is discharging on a pounds per day basis as opposed to
a concentration basis. Mass based limitations are usually much easier to achieve than concentration
based limitations. It is recommended that the permit limitations be reviewed based on process flow
data only (i.e. no non -contact cooling water, etc.) to ensure that the correct pounds per day
limitations are allocated.
It is recommended that the current pH testing methods, which allow effluent at outfall 001
to exceed a pH of 9.0 as long as the clarifier effluent had a pH less than 9.0, 30 days prior, be
eliminated. The writer is not aware of any other WWTP that has this condition. Also, the
groundwater remediation facilities discharge into polishing pond "A" which is after the final
clarifiers.
Page 4

The Company also requested that permit condition Part III, G., be removed from the permit
because it is redundant with the toxicity testing requirements. This Office does not understand how
preparing a biocide worksheet is creating redundancies with the toxicity testing. The worksheet
could easily be prepared on a spread sheet program and the map should always be the same. It is not
clear how this activity would be very burdensome.
The Company has also requested that certain aspects of monitoring for organics be reduced
as described in the cover letter of the renewal application. The writer spoke with Chet Whiting of
the Laboratory Certification Group, who indicated that the testing looks like a combination of EPA
test methods Nos. 624 and 625. Mr. Whiting indicated that any certified laboratory would have to
run a complete analysis and could not be certified to run individual parameters. Therefore, since the
laboratory would have to run the entire analysis, it does not seem to be overly burdensome to report
the results. Therefore, there does appear to be sufficient reason to grant this request.
The Company has had some BOD and TSS violations; however, no decision has been made
regarding enforcement. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this situation would affect the renewal
process. Therefore, this Office recommends renewing the permit, but, before the permit is drafted
the issues regarding pH sampling, the contact cooling water from outfall 002. and the process
wastewater flow -based BOD and TSS limitations should be resolved.
r , .
Signature/of Report Preparer
' N o
Water Qualityegional Supervisor
Y/2- 07
Date
Page 5

Hoechst Celanese
February 12, 1998
NCDEHNR
Division of Water Quality
ATTN: Mr. Mark D. McIntire
P.O. Box 29535
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Reference:
Dear Mark:
002 Outfall Water Recycling Project
NPDES Permit Number NC0004952
Supplement to Permit Renewal Application
HNA Holdings, Inc. (f.k.a. Hoechst Celanese Corporation)
Shelby, NC Facility
Textile Fibers
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
PO Box 87
Shelby, NC 28151-0087
704 482 2411
Ognal
FEB 1 71999
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
The HNA Holdings, Inc. Shelby, North Carolina facility has been investigating ways to recycle
and reuse flow from 002 Outfall, thus eliminating its discharge to Buffalo Creek. This idea can
be realized by recycling this water within the facility.
Presently an average of 1 million gallons per day (MGD) of raw water is pumped from Buffalo
Creek to the facility. The water goes through the site's raw water treatment system and is used
in various ways by the facility (Reference Figure 1). The proposed water recycling project
would route the water presently sent tc 002 Outfall back to the site's raw water treatment
system. Recycling this water would reduce the raw water demand from Buffalo Creek on
average from 1 MGD to 0.9 MGD. A block flow diagram of this process along with estimated
flows is provided in Figure 2.
In summary, we are proceeding with this water recycling project which will eliminate the flow
from 002 Outfall. It is estimated the project will take approximately six (6) months to complete.
Since this project will eliminate the flow from 002 Outfall, we are requesting that the current
monitoring requirements continue on 002 Outfall for the next six months while the flow from 002
outfall is redirected for recycle and reuse. At that point, we would request that outfall 002 be
removed from the plant NPDES permit.
A quick review of the future status of Outfall 002 would be greatly appreciated. Should you have
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
With Kind Regards,
qq-6
Jeff Randolph
Sr. Environmental Engineer
Attachments
mjr98012.doc
Hoechst

RAW WATER
INTAKE FROM
BUFFALO CREEK
1.0 MGD
c)
rn
WATER
TREATMENT
SYSTEM I
c.3
L7
q
y
CLARIFIER
SLOWDOWN
GROUND—
WATER
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
E-iSTiNG WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM AVERAGE T LOWS
:;MGD = 1,000,000 GALLONS PER DAY)
LOSS
BOILER
WATER
MAKE—UP
SLOWDOWN
00
0
U
03
v
.147 MGD
PROCIDYNE P.S.
L&K OPEN SUMPS
CHILL WATER
SYSTEM K
TT CHILL WATER
SUMP
WASTE TREATMENT
WASH DOWN
VECTRA
.1285
MGD V
.1 MGD
DISCHARGE 002
.55 MGD
PROCESS i .153 MGD
WATER
LOSS
,0
c,
CO
c3
CONTACT
PROCESS
COOLING
WATER
.139
MGD
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
DISCHARGE 001 PLANT FLOW
DRY WEATHER .15 MGD
LOSS
COOLING
TOWER
MAKE—UP/
SLOWDOWN &
FIRE LAGOON
WET WEATHER
SPIN FINISH
I MAKE—UP
I & VECTRA
CLEVELAND
COUNTY
SANITARY
DISTRICT
0
c-3
O
CIO
O
7
POTABLE
WATER
re") CO
0 0
CONSUMED
IN
I PRODUCT
STORM STORMWATER RUN—OFF
COLLECTION
WATER FROM APPROX.
SYSTEM 250 ACRES
STORMWATER RUN—OFF FROM APPROX. 250 ACRES
*(FOR WET WEATHER FLOW .6 MGD TO .75 MGD)
os
= O
n
am
r
a
(;)%1
m
0
z
0
Fri
m
z
ON1MV IO 33N3J3338
CD
m
0
2
0
m
2
c
N
N
a
Co
V
C'7
6e R.-1 4 - 39-e- F a

FIGURE 2
002 OUTFALL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM
(MGD = 1,000;000 GALLONS PER DAY)
RAW WATER FROM
BUFFALO CREEK 0.9 MGD
0.1 MGD (RECYCLED)
RAW WATER
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
i
CLARIFIER
BLOWDOWN
1
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
OTHER USES
(SEE FIGURE 1)
PROCESS
COOLING WATER
i.
LOSS
FIRE
LAGOON
1
COOLING
TOWER
MAKE-UP/
BLOWDOWN
Note: Refer to Figure 1 for average water flows.

D Av I S Engineering
Architecture
FLl1YD Emirmental & Laboratory Services
�:�1-:>�:�:i:'e•-, �: '�":>�.,,my-r�-.,�t:ta�a�,a mr..w,��3'F,�,�.Y'.s:--..-""-.�'F:�GX��at..in�9a=�:.'y�u`.�- ��-.��
�v�BII4b�
SEP 1 41997
P.O. Drawer 428 Greenwood, SC 29648. 816 East Durst Avenue Greenwood, SC 29649 • [phone] (office) [phone] (fax)
September 9, 1997
Serial No. SMK-071-97
File No. 10766.00
CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CERTIFICATE NO. P 030 138 445
Mr. Mark D. McIntire
NCDEHNR
PO Box 29535
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Reference: NPDES Permit Renewal
Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Shelby, Cleveland County, North Carolina
NPDES Permit Number NC0004952
Dear Mr. McIntire:
This letter is in response to the questions posed by your office regarding the above referenced permit
renewal. Specifically, this letter quantifies which wastewater streams are subject to the categorical
standards for Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) [40 CFR 414]. Furthermore, a
quantification is provided determining which Subpart of the regulation each of these streams is subject
to: Subpart C-Other Fibers [40 CFR 414.30], which cover SIC Code 2824, and/or Subpart D-
Thermoplastic Resins [40 CFR 414.40], which covers wastewaters generated under SIC Code 2821.
Based upon the water balance diagram submitted with the facility's permit renewal package, the streams
subject to the OCPSF regulations are as follows:
11°.•
Miscellaneous Process Water (Procidyne PS, L&K Open Sumps, etc.)
Contact Process Cooling Water (Bandcaster Water)
Cooling Tower Make-UpBlowdown & Fire Lagoon
Spin Finish Make Up and Vectra
Groundwater Treatment
With respect to manufacturing processes, these streams can be delineated as follows:
128,500 gpd
139,000 gpd
40,000 gpd
35,000 gpd
75,000 gpd V
SIC CODE 2824-SUBPART C
OTHER FIBERS
SIC CODE 2821-SUBPART D
THERMOPLASTIC RESINS
STREAM
PERCENT OF
FLOW
VOLUME OF
FLOW (gpd)
PERCENT OF
FLow
VOLUME OF
FLow (gpd)
Misc. Process Water
80%
102,800
20%
25,700
Bandcaster Water
0%
0
100%
139,000
CT Make -Up & Fire
Lagoon
50%
20,000
50%
20,000
Spin FinishlVectra
80%
28,000
20%
7,000
Groundwater
0%
0
100%
75,000
CIO

Mr. Mark D. McIntire
September 9, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Also enclosed with this letter are several spreadsheets developed to aid in the permit development
process. The first spreadsheet uses the flow contributions from the preceding chart to develop BOD and
TSS limits for the facility based upon the "building block" approach for the wastewater sources.
Parameter concentrations for this approach were taken from the OCPSF guidelines, where applicable,
from the intake concentrations from Buffalo Creek, or, in the case of sanitary discharge, from the
recommended secondary treatment standards for such a stream, per Section 2B .0406(a)(2) of the North
Carolina State regulations applicable to municipal wastewaters and other similar discharges.
Also provided is a table which compares current permit limits to the above OCPSF limits. Note that this
chart does not incorporate water quality standards into the limits comparison. This is because the State
has indicated that the water quality model for the stream will not be re-evaluated as part of this permit
renewal. Thus, water quality based limits will remain as previously determined. The final attachment is
a chart showing the recommended limits for the facility based upon OCPSF limits, water quality
standards, and anti -backsliding provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Jeff Randolph at the
Shelby facility at [phone] or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
DAVIS & FLOYD, INC.
SMK/ptl
Enclosures: As stated in letter
cc: Mr. Jeff Randolph, Hoechst Celanese Corporation (Shelby)
Mr. Steve Simpson, Hoechst Celanese Corporation (Salisbury)

Hoechst Celanese Corporation
Shelby, North Carolina
Effluent Limitaitons and Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
Monitoring Requirements
Lbs/day
Units (Specify)
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location*
E
Monthly
Average
Daily Maximum
Monthly
Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
0.8 MGD
Continuous
Recorder
BOD, 5 day, 20° C
85.8
212.2
Daily
Composite
E
TSS
152.8
395.0
_
Daily
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200.0/100 mL
400.0/100 mL
Weekly
Grab
E
Oil & Grease
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
_
Semi -Annually
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Semi -Annually
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity**
Quarterly
Composite
E
Pollutant Analysis***
Annually
-
E
* Sample Locations: E-Effluent, I -Influent
** Chronic Toxicity (Cerodaphnia) P/F at 6.2% [0.8MGD/12.9MGD {Summer 7Q10}=6.2%]; March, June, September, and December; See Part III, Condition E.
*** See Part III, Condition F.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Hoechst Celanese Corporation
Shelby, North Carolina
Projected Discharge Limits ,
Monthly Average Limitaitons
BOD5
TSS
Source
mg/L
Flow (MGD)
Mass (lbs./day)
mg/L
Flow (MGD)
Mass (lbs./day)
Clarifier Blowdown
2.4
0.055
1.10
53
0.055
24.31
Boiler Water
2.4
0.017
0.34
53
0.017
7.51
Misc. Process Water (2824, OCPSF §C)
18
0.1028
15.43
36
0.1028
30.86
Misc. Process Water (2821, OCPSF §D)
24
0.0257
5.14
40
0.0257
8.57
Bandcaster Water (2821, OCPSF §D)
24
0.139
27.82
36
0.139
41.73
Cooling Towers & Fire Lagoon (2824, OCPSF §C)
18
0.02
3.00
36
0.02
6.00
Cooling Towers & Fire Lagoon (2821, OCPSF §D)
24
0.02
4.00
40
0.02
6.67
Spin Finish & Vectra (2824, OCPSF §C)
18
0.028
4.20
36
0.028
8.41
Spin Finish & Vectra (2821, OCPSF §D)
24
0.007
1.40
40
0.007
2.34
Sanitary
30
0.0605
15.14
30
0.0605
15.14
Groundwater Treatment
24
0.075
15.01
40
0.075
25.02
Combined
16.8
0.55
92.60
31.8
0.55
176.57
Daily Maximum Limitaitons
BOD5
TSS
Source
mg/L
Flow (MGD)
Mass (Ibs./day)
mg/L
Flow (MGD)
Mass (lbs./day)
Clarifier Blowdown
3.6
0.055
1.65
79.5
0.055
36.47
Boiler Water
3.6
0.017
0.51
79.5
0.017
11.27
Misc. Process Water (2824, OCPSF §C)
48
0.1028
41.15
115
0.1028
98.60
Misc. Process Water (2821, OCPSF §D)
64
0.0257
13.72
130
0.0257
27.86
Bandcaster Water (2821, OCPSF §D)
64
0.139
74.19
130
0.139
150.70
Cooling Towers & Fire Lagoon (2824, OCPSF §C)
48
0.02
8.01
115
0.02
19.18
Cooling Towers & Fire Lagoon (2821, OCPSF §D)
64
0.02
10.68
130
0.02
21.68
Spin Finish & Vectra (2824, OCPSF §C)
48
0.028
11.21
115
0.028
26.85
Spin Finish & Vectra (2821, OCPSF §D)
64
0.007
3.74
130
0.007
7.59
Sanitary
45
0.0605
22.71
45
0.0605
22.71
Groundwater Treatment
64
0.075
40.03
130
0.075
81.32
Combined
44.0
0.55
227.59
97.7
0.55
504.23

Hoechst Celanese Corporation
Shelby, North Carolina
Comparison of Current and Potential Future NPDES Requirements
Parameter (units)
Average
WWTP
Effluent
Current Permit
Future Based on
OCPSF Guidelines
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow (MGD)
0.55
0.8
-
BOD5 (lb/day)
(mg/L)
20
85.8
12.9
212.2
31.8
92.60
16.82
227.59
44.03
TSS (lb/day)
(mg/L)
50
152.8
22.90168
395
59.20264
176.57
31.77
504.23
97.69
Fecal Coliform (col/100mL)
4.9
200
400
-
-
Oil & Grease (mg/L)
5
MR
MR
-
-
Total Nitrogen (lb/day)
18.3
MR
MR
-
-
Total Phosphorus (lb/day)
1.15
MR
MR
-
-
pH (std. units)
-
-
6.0-9.0
-
6.0-9.0
MR: Montior & Report

Hoechst Celanese
December 23, 1997
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section, Permits and Engineering Unit
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Reference: NPDES Permit No. NC0004952
Stormwater Permit No. NCS000064
Sludge -Land Application Non -Discharge Permit No. WQ0011038
Hoechst Celanese Corporation - Name Change
Shelby, North Carolina Plant
Cleveland County
Textile Fibers
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
PO Box 87
Shelby, NC 28151-0087
704 482 2411 -
To Whom It May Concern:
On November 12, 1997, we informed you that the Hoechst Celanese Corporation is undergoing
a corporate reorganization and that there would technically be a new owner for the Shelby,
North Carolina plant. Attached is a copy of that prior correspondence.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the reorganization, as it affects the Shelby, North
Carolina plant, has been canceled. We are withdrawing our request to transfer the permits
referenced above to FKAT LLC.
While the reorganization will proceed for other businesses within Hoechst, the business at the
Shelby, North Carolina plant will not be included in the reorganization plans. The operations at
the Shelby, North Carolina plant will continue to be part of the Hoechst Celanese Corporation.
However. please note that Hoechst Celanese Corporation will still be changing its name to HNA
Holdings, Inc. as of January 1, 1998. Therefore, we request that the name of the permit holder
for the permits referenced above be changed to "HNA Holdings, Inc.", effective January 1, 1998.
We appreciate your assistance with this matter. We apologize for any inconvenience this
change in the corporation's plans may have caused you. If you have any questions, or
additional information is required, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely.
Jeff Randolph
Sr. Environmental Engineer
Attachments
cc: Dave Goodrich - NPDES Permitting
Bradley Bennett - Stormwater Permitting
Michael Allen - Non -Discharge Permitting
Hoechst

ern
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
October 20, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Goodrich
FROM: D. Rex Gleason
PREPARED BY: Todd St. John
SUBJECT:
Hoechst Celanese/Shelby Plant WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0004952
Cleveland County
The proposed closure plan regarding the lagoons is inadequate for the following reasons:
1) This Office does not agree that the storm water that has accumulated in the subject lagoons
is not wastewater. The lagoons had been used to store WWTP residuals. All subsequent
waters added to these have, as a result, contacted WWTP residuals. The water should be
tested and discharged either through the WWTP or through outfall 001 as effluent.
2) There is no proposal for the proper disposal of any residuals left in the lagoons. All residuals
need to be removed and properly disposed of before closure.
If you have any questions, please advise.
gg
OCT 21199/
POINT SOURCE BRANCH

Hoechst Celanese
June 24, 1997
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Water Quality/WQ Section
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Reference: NPDES Permit Renewal Number NC0004952
Hoechst Celanese Shelby Plant
Cleveland County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Textile Fibers
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
P.O. Box 87
Shelby, NC 28151-0087
This letter is written to request the renewal of the above referenced NPDES permit, per the
requirements of your letter dated May 27, 1997. Also enclosed are the necessary materials
for this permit renewal:
(a) The completed application form, signed and submitted in triplicate;
(b) A processing fee of $250, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0105(b);
(c) Priority Pollutant Analysis per the requirements of 40 CFR 122;
(d) A narrative description of the sludge management plan for the facility (Please see
Appendix B of this renewal package).
As you and your staff prepare the renewed permit for the facility, there are several items that
Hoechst Celanese respectfully requests considering:
(1) It has been historically documented that the polishing ponds being used at the
facility exhibit a large algae bloom, especially during the warm summer months.
This is not a source specific occurrence; it is a natural occurrence in all types of
ponds and lagoons throughout the region. While this is a naturally occurring
phenomenon, it also has a direct impact on the water discharging from the pond.
Specifically, the pH of the discharge stream is elevated. Instead of artificially
controlling the discharge pH through the introduction of additional chemicals, the
current permit contains a clause allowing pH measurements for Outfall 001 to be
made between the final clarifiers and the final finishing pond (SECTION A. ().
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL - Page Two). This
is a clause that allows Hoechst Celanese to continue to operate in a manner
consistent with the most environmentally sound management systems, while
minimizing the interference with the natural life cycles of the surrounding areas.
This is a condition that benefits all parties involved, and should be retained in the
permit renewal.
ISO-9002
lD V
Hoechst
CERTIFICATED FIRM

(2) An additional effect of this algae growth is the additional Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) loadings that have been witnessed at the outfall during the summer months.
This is an effect that has been both recognized and documented in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater -19th Edition. According to
the procedures contained in Standard Methods, there is a direct correlation
between the chlorophyll a content in the water and the amount of solids contained
in the discharge (page 10-25 [Appendix A]). Chlorophyll a tests conducted on the
Shelby plant discharge during May and June of 1997 indicate that as much as 75
percent of the TSS levels can be attributed to algae growth. While this additional
solids loading has not affected the facility's ability to meet the daily maximum
limitation, it has at times presented a problem meeting the more stringent monthly
average limitation. Other data linking the pond's TSS concentrations to the
natural algae growth are contained in Appendix A of this renewal package.
Hoechst Celanese Corporation underscores its belief that the natural biological
processes occurring in the polishing ponds should not be inhibited. However, the
facility also realizes that allowing these natural processes to occur can, and has,
caused the facility at times, during the summer months, to be in violation of the
permitted monthly average TSS limits. Hoechst Celanese proposes instead that a
condition be established pertaining to TSS levels that would allow for these
natural processes to continue without artificial interferences. Specifically, the
permit condition for the monthly average TSS should mirror the language already
established in the permit for the management and control of pH:
7
/ The effluent monthly average TSS of the wastewater is defined and
limited at a point between the final clarifiers and the final polishing
pond, such a point being after the combination of all potential
influents to the polishing pond, and shall not be more than 152.8
pounds per day (current monthly average limit). If the monthly
• average TSS concentration of the effluents from the polishing
ponds exceeds 152.8 pounds per day, there will be no effluent
violation if the wastewater TSS monthly average from the final
clarifier has not exceeded 152.8 pounds per day during the thirty
(30) days preceding the measurements of the monthly average
TSS above 152.8 pounds per day of the effluent from the polishing
ponds.
(3)
SECTION E. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY), Item G. Biocide
Condition, states that the facility must notify the Department in writing no fewer
than 90 days prior to the introduction of any biocide into the cooling water stream.
All cooling tower water is combined with, and treated in the same manner as all
other waters collected for discharge through Outfall 001. As such, the cooling
system water is subject to the effluent aquatic toxicity testing as required by the
permit for Outfall 001 discharge. Because of this testing, the requirements of Item
G seem redundant and overly burdensome, and we request that future permits
eliminate this unnecessary condition.
7

(4) Inspection of the parameters required to be monitored by the facility show that all
compounds required for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) analysis are also contained in the Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring
Report required under Item F of SECTION E. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT
LIMIT (QRTRLY) of the permit. Additionally, historical data indicate that a very
limited number of these parameters have ever been shown to be present in the
discharge from the facility, nor is there reason to believe that any of these other
constituents would ever be present. In order to relieve the reporting burden on the
facility, as well as to relieve the paperwork burden on the regulators, we suggest
the following: During the first quarter of the monitoring year, an analysis
consistent with the APAM parameters (of which the OCPSF parameters are a
subset) will be conducted. From the results of this analysis, a list of parameters
will be compiled consisting of all specific compounds (except those tentatively
identified) found by the APAM analysis to be present in the discharge at levels
greater than the method detection level for the test. For the remaining three
quarters of the year, all compounds detected at levels above the method detection
level during the initial test will be sampled for and reported. During the first
quarter of each subsequent year, this cycle will be repeated.
We appreciate your time and cooperation in working with us so that we may develop a permit
that accomplishes the needs and goals of both the Division of Water Quality and our facility.
Should you have any questions about these matters or any material contained in this permit
renewal application, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mr. Jeff Randolph, Site
Senior Environmental Engineer, at [phone].
Sincerel ,
Les oriner
Operations Manager
Hoechst Celanese Shelby Plant
MJR97039.DOC
Enclosures
3

HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
CHLOROPHYLL a RESULTS
DATE
CHLOROPHYLL a
ALGAE MASS
TSS
PERCENT OF TSS
RESULTS (mg/L)
(mg/L)
RECORDED
ATTRIBUTABLE
img/L)
TO ALGAE
May 1, 1997
0.381
25.53
33.5
76.2%
June 18, 1997
0.374
25.06
67
37.4%
July 8, 1997
0.326
21.84
46.99
46.5%
July 21, 1997
0.310
20.77
56
37.1%

RAW WATER
INTAKE FROM
BUFFALO CREEK`
1,000,000 GPD
WATER
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
a
c�
tri
CLARIFIER
BLOW -DOWN
HOECHST CELANESE - SHELBY PLANT
WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM AVERAGE FLOWS
BOILER
WATER MAKE-
UP / SLOW-
DOWN
a
c�
0
0
0
LOSS
10
Qcjua-
co
14 7,000 GPD
OD-
800,000 GPD
0
0
0 LOSS
0
u)
PROCIDYNE P.S.
L & K OPEN SUMPS
CHILL WATER SYSTEM K
TT CHILL WATER SUMP
WASTE TREATMENT WASH DOWN
VECTRA
PROCESS
WATER
153,000 GPD
t,iiii500,000 GPD
CONTACT
PROCESS
COOLING
WATER
128,500 GPO 139,000 GPD
0
a
0
0
0
COOLING
TOWER o
MAKE-UP/ —
BLOWDOWN ^�
& FIRE LAGOON
d
c)
0
0
re7
SPIN FINISH
MAKE-UP
& VECTRA
0
0
cD
0
LOSSCO-
o
0
GROUND-
WATER
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
100,000 GPD
DISCHARGE 002
550,000 GPD
550,000 GPD.
DISCHARGE 001
DRY WEATHER
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
WET WEATHER
FLOW 150,000 GPD
STORMWATER RUN-OFF FROM APPROX. 250 ACRES
a
CD
ir
40,000 GPD
STORM
WATER
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
• (FOR WET WEATHER FLOW 600,000 TO 750,000 GPD)
CLEVELAND COUNTY
SANITARY DISTRICT
0
a
0
0
0
s
0
POTABLE
WATER
CONSUMED
IN PRODUCT
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
to
0
o
STORMWATER RUN-OFF FROM
APPROX. 250 ACRES

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 8, 1997
Mr. Les Conner, Operations Manager
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
P. O. Box 87
Shelby, North Carolina 28151-0087
Avi"A,....„.......1.117
C)EHNF=1
Subject: Receipt of NPDES Permit Application
Permit No. NC0004952 Renewal
Shelby Plant
Cleveland County
Dear Mr. Conner:
The Division acknowledges receipt of your NPDES permit application for renewal and $250 check
(# 6059953) received July 1, 1997.
I am, by copy of this letter, requesting that the Mooresville Regional Office Supervisor prepare a
staff report and recommendations regarding this discharge. This Application has been assigned to me for
review. If you have any questions regarding this application, I can be contacted at [phone],
extension 553.
Mark D. McIntire, E.I.T.
Environmental Engineer
cc: Mooresville Regional Office / Water Quality Section (with attachments)
Permits & Engineering Unit / Mark McIntire
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]/FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Hoechst Celanese
June 24, 1997
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Water Quality/WQ Section
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Reference: NPDES Permit Renewal Number NC0004952
Hoechst Celanese Shelby Plant
Cleveland County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Textile Fibers
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
P.O. Box 87
Shelby, NC 28151-0087
This letter is written to request the renewal of the above referenced NPDES permit, per the
requirements of your letter dated May 27, 1997. Also enclosed are the necessary materials
for this permit renewal:
(a) The completed application form, signed and submitted in triplicate;
(b) A processing fee of $250, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0105(b);
(c) Priority Pollutant Analysis per the requirements of 40 CFR 122;
(d) A narrative description of the sludge management plan for the facility (Please see
Appendix B of this renewal package).
As you and your staff prepare the renewed permit for the facility, there are several items that
Hoechst Celanese respectfully requests considering:
(1) It has been historically documented that the polishing ponds being used at the
facility exhibit a large algae bloom, especially during the warm summer months.
This is not a source specific occurrence; it is a natural occurrence in all types of
ponds and lagoons throughout the region. While this is a naturally occurring
phenomenon, it also has a direct impact on the water discharging from the pond.
Specifically, the pH of the discharge stream is elevated. Instead of artificially
controlling the discharge pH through the introduction of additional chemicals, the
current permit contains a clause allowing pH measurements for Outfall 001 to be
made between the final clarifiers and the final finishing pond (SECTION A. ().
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL - Page Two). This
is a clause that allows Hoechst Celanese to continue to operate in a manner
consistent with the most environmentally sound management systems, while
minimizing the interference with the natural life cycles of the surrounding areas.
This is a condition that benefits all parties involved, and should be retained in the
permit renewal.
MO -soot
OR ST
Hoechst
CERTIFICATED FIRM

(2) An additional effect of this algae growth is the additional Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) loadings that have been witnessed at the outfall during the summer months.
This is an effect that has been both recognized and documented in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater -19th Edition. According to
the procedures contained in Standard Methods, there is a direct correlation
between the chlorophyll a content in the water and the amount of solids contained
in the discharge (page 10-25 [Appendix A]). Chlorophyll a tests conducted on the
Shelby plant discharge during May and June of 1997 indicate that as much as 75
percent of the TSS levels can be attributed to algae growth. While this additional
solids loading has not affected the facility's ability to meet the daily maximum
limitation, it has at times presented a problem meeting the more stringent monthly
average limitation. Other data linking the pond's TSS concentrations to the
natural algae growth are contained in Appendix A of this renewal package.
Hoechst Celanese Corporation underscores its belief that the natural biological
processes occurring in the polishing ponds should not be inhibited. However, the
facility also realizes that allowing these natural processes to occur can, and has,
caused the facility at times, during the summer months, to be in violation of the
permitted monthly average TSS limits. Hoechst Celanese proposes instead that a
condition be established pertaining to TSS levels that would allow for these
natural processes to continue without artificial interferences. Specifically, the
permit condition for the monthly average TSS should mirror the language already
established in the permit for the management and control of pH:
The effluent monthly average TSS of the wastewater is defined and
limited at a point between the final clarifiers and the final polishing
pond, such a point being after the combination of all potential
influents to the polishing pond, and shall not be more than 152.8
pounds per day (current monthly average limit). If the monthly
average TSS concentration of the effluents from the polishing
ponds exceeds 152.8 pounds per day, there will be no effluent
violation if the wastewater TSS monthly average from the final
clarifier has not exceeded 152.8 pounds per day during the thirty
(30) days preceding the measurements of the monthly average
TSS above 152.8 pounds per day of the effluent from the polishing
ponds.
(3) SECTION E. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY), Item G. Biocide
Condition, states that the facility must notify the Department in writing no fewer
than 90 days prior to the introduction of any biocide into the cooling water stream.
All cooling tower water is combined with, and treated in the same manner as all
other waters collected for discharge through Outfall 001. As such, the cooling
system water is subject to the effluent aquatic toxicity testing as required by the
permit for Outfall 001 discharge. Because of this testing, the requirements of Item
G seem redundant and overly burdensome, and we request that future permits
eliminate this unnecessary condition.
2

(4) Inspection of the parameters required to be monitored by the facility show that all
compounds required for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) analysis are also contained in the Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring
Report required under Item F of SECTION E. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT
LIMIT (QRTRLY) of the permit. Additionally, historical data indicate that a very
limited number of these parameters have ever been shown to be present in the
discharge from the facility, nor is there reason to believe that any of these other
constituents would ever be present. In order to relieve the reporting burden on the
facility, as well as to relieve the paperwork burden on the regulators, we suggest
the following: During the first quarter of the monitoring year, an analysis
consistent with the APAM parameters (of which the OCPSF parameters are a
subset) will be conducted. From the. results of this analysis, a list of parameters
will be compiled consisting of all specific compounds (except those tentatively
identified) found by the, APAM analysis to be present in the discharge at levels
greater than the method detection level for the test. For the remaining three
quarters of the year, all compounds detected at levels above the method detection
level during the initial test will be sampled for and reported. During the first
quarter of each subsequent year, this cycle will be repeated.
We appreciate your time and cooperation in working with us so that we may develop a permit
that accomplishes the needs and goals of both the Division of Water Quality and our facility.
Should you have any questions about these matters or any material contained in this permit
renewal application, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mr. Jeff Randolph, Site
Senior Environmental Engineer, at [phone].
Sincerel
i.JAA
Les ! • ner
Operations Manager
Hoechst Celanese Shelby Plant
MJR97039.DOC
Enclosures
3

hoechst-shelby
FACILITY Hoechst
OCPSF Flow 0.29 MGD Flow is based on pr esses waters only
7010s 20.6 cfs (C ✓JaffI�j C/ f 1
Qavg 219 cfs / Human Hlth
PF 0.8 MGD Human Hlth Stdrd (WS) Allowable Allowable
Limit Limit Fedl Standard Stdrd(WS) Allowable Allowable Aquatic Life Human Hlth Limit Daily Monthly
Daily Monthly Daily Monthly State Aquatic Water& conc. Aquatic conc Water&Org Based Max Avg.
max avg max avg Life organisms Life Water&Org on:
Parameter ug/l ug/1 #/d #/d stdrd µg/I µg/l µg/I µfill #/day #/day #/day
Acenaphthene 59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd 1200 no stdrd 21135.48 no stdrd 140.903 OCPSF 0.143 #/day 0.053
Acrylonitrile (c) 242 96 0.585 0.232 FC no stdrd 0.059 no stdrd 10.48 no stdrd 0.070 CHRONIC 10.479 µg/I
Benzene (c) 136 37 0.329 0.089 SS no stdrd 1.19 no stdrd 211.36 no stdrd 1.409 OCPSF 0.329 #/day 0.089
Carbon Tetrachloride (c) 38 18 0.092 0.044 SS no stdrd 0.254 no stdrd 45.11 no stdrd 0.301 OCPSF 0.092 #/day 0.044
Chlorobenzene 28 15 0.068 0.036 FC no stdrd 680 no stdrd 11976.77 no stdrd 79.845 OCPSF 0.068 #/day 0.036
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 140 68 0.339 0.164 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.339 #/day 0.164
Hexachlorobenzene (c) 28 15 0.068 0.036 FC no stdrd 0.00075 no stdrd 0.133 no stdrd 8.88E-04 CHRONIC 0.133 µg/I
1,2-Dichloroethane (c) 211 68 0.510 0.164 FC no stdrd 0.38 no stdrd 67.49 no stdrd 0.450 CHRONIC 67.493 µg/I 0.164
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 54 21 0.131 0.051 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.131 #/day 0.051
Hexachloroethane (c) 54 21 0.131 0.051 FC no stdrd 1.9 no stdrd 337.46 no stdrd 2.250 OCPSF 0.131 #/day 0.051
1,1-Dichloroethane (c) 59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.143 #/day 0.053
1,1,2-trichloroethane (c) 54 21 0.131 0.051 FC no stdrd 0.6 no stdrd 106.57 no stdrd 0.710 OCPSF 0.131 #/day 0.051
Chloroethane 268 104 0.648 0.252 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.648 #/day 0.252
Chloroform (c) 46 21 0.111 0.051 FC no stdrd 5.7 no stdrd 1012.39 no stdrd 6.749 OCPSF 0.1 1 1 #/day 0.051
2-Chlorophenol 98 31 0.237 0.075 FC no stdrd 120 no stdrd 2113.55 no stdrd 14.090 OCPSF 0.237 #/day 0.075
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 163 77 0.394 0.186 FC no stdrd 2700 no stdrd 47554.84 no stdrd 317.032 OCPSF 0.394 #/day 0.186
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 44 31 0.106 0.075 FC no stdrd 400 no stdrd 7045.16 no stdrd 46.968 OCPSF 0.106 #/day 0.075
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 28 15 0.068 0.036 FC no stdrd 400 no stdrd 7045.16 no stdrd 46.968 OCPSF 0.068 #/day 0.036
1,1-Dichloroethylene (c) 25 16 0.060 0.039 FC no stdrd 0.057 no stdrd 10.12 no stdrd 0.067 OCPSF 0.060 #/day 0.039
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 54 21 0.131 0.051 FC no stdrd 700 no stdrd 12329.03 no stdrd 82.194 OCPSF 0.131 #/day 0.051
2,4-Dichlorophenol 112 39 0.271 0.094 FC no stdrd 93 no stdrd 1638.00 no stdrd 10.920 OCPSF 0.271 #/day 0.094
1,2-Dichloropropane 230 153 0.556 0.370 FC no stdrd 0.52 no stdrd 9.16 no stdrd 0.061 CHRONIC 9.159 µg/I
1,3-Dichloropropylene (c) 44 29 0.106 0.070 FC no stdrd 10 no stdrd 1776.13 no stdrd 11.841 OCPSF 0.106 #/day 0.070
2,4-Dimethylphenol 36 18 0.087 0.044 FC no stdrd 540 no stdrd 9510.97 no stdrd 63.406 OCPSF 0.087 #/day 0.044
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (c) 285 113 0.689 0.273 FC no stdrd 0.11 no stdrd 19.54 no stdrd 0.130 CHRONIC 19.537 µg/I
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (c) 641 255 1.550 0.617 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 1 .550 #/day 0.61 7
Ethylbenzene 108 32 0.261 0.07710/NOE( 325.000 3100.000 5724.19 54600.00 38.161 364.000 OCPSF 0.261 #/day 0.077
Flouranthene 68 25 0.164 0.060 FC no stdrd 300 no stdrd 5283.87 no stdrd 35.226 OCPSF 0.164 #/day 0.060
Methylene Chloride (c) 89 40 0.215 0.097 FC no stdrd 4.7 no stdrd 834.78 no stdrd 5.565 OCPSF 0.215 #/day 0.097
Methyl Chloride 190 86 0.460 0.208 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.460 #/day 0.208
Hexachlorobutadiene (c) 49 20 0.119 0.048 SS no stdrd 0.445 no stdrd 79.04 no stdrd 0.527 OCPSF 0.1 19 #/day 0.048
Naphthalene 59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.143 #/day 0.053
Nitrobenzene 68 27 0.164 0.065 FC no stdrd 17 no stdrd 299.42 no stdrd 1.996 OCPSF 0.164 #/day 0.065
2-Nitrophenol 69 41 0.167 0.099 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.167 #/day 0.099
4-Nitrophenol 124 72 0.300 0.174 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.300 #/day 0.1 74
2,4-Dinitrophenol 123 71 0.297 0.172 FC no stdrd 70 no stdrd 1232.90 no stdrd 8.219 OCPSF 0.297 #/day 0.1 72
4.6-Dinitro-o-cresol 277 78 0.670 0.189 FC no stdrd 13.4 no stdrd 236.01 no stdrd 1.573 OCPSF 0.670 #/day 0.189
Phenol 26 15 0.063 0.036 FC no stdrd 21000 no stdrd 369870.97 no stdrd 2465.806 OCPSF 0.063 #/day 0.036
1 2/29/93
1

FACILITY Hoechst
OCPSF Flow 0.29 MGD
7010s 20.6 cfs
Qavg 219 cfs
PF 0.8 MGD
Parameter
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (c)
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene (c, PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (c, PAH)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene (c, PAH)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (c,PAH)
Chrysene (c, PAH)
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene (c)
Toluene
Trichlororethylene (c)
Vinyl Chloride (c)
PAH (total -µg/I) (c)
▪ Total Chromium
▪ Total Copper
• Total Cyanide
• Total Lead
▪ Total Nickel
▪ Total Znc'
hoechst-shelby
Flow is based on processes waters only
Human Hlth
Human Htth Stdrd (WS) Allowable Allowable
Limit Limit Fedl Standard Stdrd(WS) Allowable Allowable Aquatic Life Human Hlth Limit Daily Monthly
Daily Monthly Daily Monthly State Aquatic Water & conc. Aquatic conc Water&Org Based Max Avg.
max avg max avg Life organisms Life Water&Org on:
ugrl ugA #/d #/d stdrd µg/I µg/l 11g/1 11g/1 #/day #/day #/day
279 103 0.675 0.249 FC no stdrd 1.8 no stdrd 319.70 no stdrd 2.131 OCPSF 0.675 #/day 0.249
57 27 0.138 0.065 FC no stdrd 2700 no stdrd 47554.84 no stdrd 317.032 OCPSF 0.138 #/day 0.065
203 81 0.491 0.196 FC no stdrd 23000 no stdrd 405096.77 no stdrd 2700.645 OCPSF 0.491 #/day 0.196
47 19 0.114 0.046 FC no stdrd 313000 no stdrd 5512838.71 no stdrd 36752258 OCPSF 0.114 #/day 0.046
59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 0.78 no stdrd 0.005 CHRONIC 0.781 µg/I
61 23 0.148 0.056 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 0.78 no stdrd 0.005 CHRONIC 0.781 µg/I
61 23 0.148 0.056 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 0.78 no stdrd 0.005 CHRONIC 0.781 µg/I
59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 0.78 no stdrd 0.005 CHRONIC 0.781 µg/I
59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 0.78 no stdrd 0.005 CHRONIC 0.781 µg/I
59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.143 #/day 0.053
59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd 9600 no stdrd 169083.87 no stdrd 1127.226 OCPSF 0.143 #/day 0.053
59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd 1300 no stdrd 22896.77 no stdrd 152.645 OCPSF 0.143 #/day 0.053
59 22 0.143 0.053 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.143 #/day 0.053
67 25 0.162 0.060 FC no stdrd 960 no stdrd 16908.39 no stdrd 112.723 OCPSF 0.162 #/day 0.060
56 22 0.135 0.053 FC no stdrd 0.8 no stdrd 142.09 no stdrd 0.947 OCPSF 0.135 #/day 0.053
80 26 0.193 0.063 SS/AO 11.000 6800.000 193,74 119767.74 1.292 798.452 OCPSF 0.193 #/day 0.063
54 21 0.131 0.051 SS no stdrd 3.08 no stdrd 547.05 no stdrd 3.647 OCPSF 0.131 #/day 0.051
268 104 0.648 0.252 SS no stdrd 2 no stdrd 355.23 no stdrd 2.368 OCPSF 0.648 #/day 0.252
aromatic hydrocarbons SS no stdrd 0.0028 no stdrd 0.50 no stdrd 0.003 CHRONIC 0.497 µg/I
2770 1110 0.000 0.000 SS 50.000 no stdrd 880.65 no stdrd 5.871 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
3380 1450 0.000 0.000 SS -AL 7.000 no stdrd 123.29 no stdrd 0.822 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
1200 420 0.000 0.000 SS 5.000 no stdrd 88.06 no stdrd 0.587 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
690 320 0.000 0.000 SS 25.000 no stdrd 440.32 no stdrd 2.935 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
3980 1690 0.000 0.000 SS 88.000 25 1549.94 440.32 10.333 2.935 OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
2610 1050 0.000 0.000 SS -AL 50.000 no stdrd 880.65 no stdrd 5.871 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
'Total Znc for Rayon Fiber Manufacture
that uses the viscose process and Acrylic
Fiber Manufacture that uses zinc
chloride/solvent process is 6,796 ug/L and
3,325 ug/L for maximum for any one day
and maximum for monthly average, respectively.
Metal should only be limited if Total metal bearing wasteflow:
process contains metal bearing wasteflow.
Cyanide should only be limited if Total cyanide bearing wasteflow:
process contains cyanide bearing wasteflow.
1 2/29/93 2