NC0003719_Engineering Alternatives analysis_20040828

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIN` COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0003719
Cedar Creek site WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA5
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Monitoring Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
August 28, 2004
This; document is printed on reuse paper - igiiare any
content on the reYerise side

DAK Americas
FIBERS, MONOMERS & RESINS
Mrs. Susan Wilson
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mrs. Wilson,
Cape Fear Site
3500 Daniels Road, NE
Leland, NC 28451
August 26, 2004
Subject: Engineering Alternative Analysis Submittal
Permit NC0003719
DAK Americas Cedar Creek Site
As indicated in our letter dated July 15, 2004 DAK Americas is submitting an Engineering
Alternative Analysis (EAA) for the Cedar Creek Site as requested by the Division. Please find
enclosed three copies of the EAA for your review. An additional copy will be sent to Mr. Paul
Rawls in your Fayetteville Regional office.
Once the Division has reviewed the EAA, we will anticipate another meeting to be scheduled to
discuss the next step.
If you have any question or concerns please contact me at 910-371-5082 or 910-262-2288 or
Penny Mahoney at 910-371-5232.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey C. Richardson
Cc: File Room
Paul Rawls, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Ms. Penny Mahoney, DAK Americas

ft,
INIMew
MEW
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (E
To
Evaluate Waste Disposal Alternatil
For
DAK Resins, LLC
3468 Cedar Creek Road
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28312
Cumberland County
NPDES Permit No. —NC0003719
Submitted
August 1 2004
s1�6 f H. f�`
6io
l2G/oq
Prepared By
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
3128 Highwoods Boulevard, Suite 140
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
TStearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
AUG 3G
FONT

NM
ININI
Table of Contents
mn
Section 1 Introduction 1-1
piR 1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Report Outline 1-1
im Section 2 General Information 2-2
2.1 Plant Description 2-2
F-+ 2.2 Current Wastewater Flows and Loading 2-5
2.3 NPDES Permit 2-6
min 2.4 Industrial Pretreatment Permit 2-6
Section 3 Wastewater Disposal Alternatives Analysis 3-1
pm 3.1 Alternative No. 1— No Capital Improvements to Cedar Creek WWTP and
Maintain NPDES Permit 3-1
3.2 Alternative No. 2 — Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Maintain NPDES Permit
p.' 3-2
3.3 Alternative No. 3 — Discharge Untreated Wastewater to Fayetteville PWC's
rmil Rockfish Water Reclamation Facility 3-3
3.4 Alternative No. 4 — Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Discharge to Fayetteville
PWC's Rockfish Reclamation Facility 3-4
3.5 Alternative No. 5 — Land -based Disposal Systems 3-6
3.6 Alternative No. 6 — Wastewater Reuse 3-8
Pon
Section 4 Opinion of Costs 4-1
4.1 Capital Costs 4-1
rim
4.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs 4-1
4.3 Present Worth Analysis 4-2
MI
Section 5 Recommendation 5-1
rim
ml Stearns & %der, PLLC ' DAK Resins
4 and tists Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Environmental EngineersEngineering Alternatives Analysis

List of Tables
falli
Table
F., 2-1 Wastewater Treatment Facility Identification Summary
2-2 Summary Of Wastewater Treatment Facility Components
"'4 2-3 Average Operational Parameters (January — June 2004)
2-4 Wastewater Characteristics (January — June 2004)
pm 4-1 Opinion Of Probable Capital Cost
4-2 Opinion Of Probable O&M Cost
1.' 4-3 Opinion Of Probable Present Worth Cost
rim
rum
rag
Pr
tam
MI
riq
rag
rim
lug
List of Figures
Figure
1 Wastewater Treatment Facility Aerial Photo
2 Existing Wastewater Process Flow Diagram
3 Alternative A — Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade
4 Alternative B — Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade
Appendix
Appendices
A NPDES Permit Modification
B Fayetteville PWC — Industrial User Wastewater Survey and Permit Application
C Vendor Literature
D Cumberland County Soils Information
E Opinion of Probable Capital Costs
F Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
4 Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
ii
DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
MI

MI
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is being prepared as part of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit modification required by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) for the sale of Monsanto
Agricultural Company's Wastewater Treatment Facility located on Cedar Creek Road in
Farl
Fayetteville, North Carolina to DAK Resins, LLC. The EAA's objective is to evaluate
wastewater disposal alternatives to determine the most cost-effective and
environmentally sound disposal solution.
1.2 Report Outline
This evaluation follows the outline described in the guidance document for evaluating
wastewater disposal alternatives prepared by the NC DWQ as follows:
• Location and description of the existing wastewater treatment facility
• Current wastewater flows and loadings generated at the facility
• NPDES permit requirements for discharging treated wastewater to the Cape Fear
River
• Industrial Pretreatment permit requirements issued by the Fayetteville Public Works
Commission (PWC�
• Evaluation of disposal alternatives, as outlined in the EAA guidance document
• Present worth analysis of potential disposal alternatives
• Recommendations for wastewater disposal
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
4 Environmental Engineers and Scientists
1-1
DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

IMOR
•
Purl
r
summary of the identification information for the wastewater treatment facility.
Section 2 General
Information
2.1 Plant Description
The former Monsanto Wastewater Treatment Facility owned by the Monsanto
Agricultural Company, presently operated by DAK Resins is located on Highway 53
(Cedar Creek Road), south of Fayetteville in Cumberland County. The DAK Services
Complex provides utilities and treats wastewater for the DAK Resins facility, the DuPont
EUM
rml
Teijin Films facility and internal use. Treated wastewater is discharged into the Cape Fear
River, which is classified as Class C water, as shown on Figure 1. Table 2-1 provides a
TABLE 2-1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY
Facility Name
DAK Resins, LLC
Facility Address
3468 Cedar Creek Road
County
Cumberland
Facility Phone/Fax
[phone]/[phone]
NPDES Permit No.
NC0003719
Discharge Receiving Stream
Cape Fear River
Stream Class
C
River Basin
Cape Fear
Outfall Location (Latitude/Longitude)
34°58'08"/ 78°46'58"
Permitted Flow (mgd)
0.5
The wastewater treatment facility consists of the following components listed in Table 2-
2.
Mal
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
LEnvironmental Engineers and Scientists
2-2
DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

MEI
FeRi
PEI
fun
Feet
Pal
len
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COMPONENTS
Facility' Component
Description ..
Spill Basin
One 1.0 MG in -ground concrete PVC lined basin
used as a temporary holding basin.
Equalization Tanks
Two 660,500-gallon aboveground, fiberglass tanks.
Each 55 feet in diameter with a 37-foot side water
depth.
PH Pit
An in -ground concrete pit with three chambers
providing a total capacity of 140,000 gallons.
Location where nutrients (urea and phosphoric acid)
are added, pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide,
and addition of steam during winter operations.
Aeration Basin No. 1
Aeration Basin No. 1, currently not in service, is a
4.4 MG concrete basin used as an
emergency/temporary holding basin. The basin is
equipped with two 75 horsepower (Hp) aerators and
six 150 (Hp) aerators.
Extended Aeration
Activated Sludge Process
Aeration Basin No. 2
Aeration basin No.2 is a 1.2 MG concrete basin with
a 6.5-foot side water depth and equipped with seven
aerators and two 75 hp mixers. Five aerators are
fixed (two 40 hp, two 50 hp, and one 75 hp) and two
floating aerators, each 40 hp.
Chemical Lift Station
Two pumps; one duty pump with a capacity of 160
gpm and a second stand-by unit with a capacity of
300 gpm.
Secondary Clarifier
One secondary clarifier 90 feet in diameter with a
14-foot side water depth.
RAS/WAS Pump Station
Three pumps each 25 horsepower with a capacity of
900 gpm. Common discharge manifold.
Parshall Flume
One Parshall flume is used for measuring flow
discharged from the facility.
Aerobic Digester
One in -ground concrete basins equipped with
surface aerators. Digester has a capacity of 0.550
MG and is equipped with two 25 horsepower
aerators.
Sludge Storage Basin
One 1.0 MG in -ground concrete basin with two 25
horsepower mixers.
Sludge Drying Beds
Three sludge drying beds, each 240 feet by 30 feet.
A process flow diagram of the existing treatment facility is provided in Figure 2. A brief
description of the process flow follows.
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
2-3 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

me Wastewater generated from resin manufacturing at the DAK Resins facility and the
DuPont Teijin Films facility is currently conveyed to the two equalization basins. The
equalization basins dampen variations in flow and organic concentrations before
discharging the wastewater to the biological treatment process.
Flow from the equalization basins is routed to the pH pit. Urea and phosphoric acid are
iw added to supplement the nutrient deficient wastewater and sodium hydroxide is added for
pH adjustment. During winter operations, steam is added to increase the wastewater
"`' temperature to improve the biological degradation rates.
mil The activated sludge process is a 1.2 MG in -ground concrete basin with a 6.5-foot side
water depth, which receives flow from the pH pit. Seven surface aerators provide oxygen
m' to the process biology. Two 75 horsepower mixers supplement the mixing achieved by
the seven aerators to maintain the biological solids in suspension.
fart
fag
Aeration basin effluent flows to a 90-foot diameter secondary clarifier with a 14-foot side
water depth. Discharge from the secondary clarifier flows through an effluent Parshall
flume followed by the existing chlorine contact basin, no longer used, and directed to the
plant outfall. A portion of the settled solids from the secondary clarifier is returned to the
aeration basin and the remaining solids wasted to the aerobic digester.
The aerobic digester is a 0.550 MG in -ground concrete basin equipped with two 25
horsepower surface aerators. Digested solids are conveyed to a 1.0 MG sludge -settling
basin to allow thickening of the stabilized solids before applying the solids to the sludge
drying beds. The facility recently utilized a contractor, who used a belt filter press to
dewater the stabilized solids during wet periods of the year. Dewatered solids are
disposed of at the nearby landfill. Decant from the 1.0 MG sludge settling basin is
returned to the aeration basin.
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
2-4 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Table 2-3 summarizes the average operational parameters for the activated sludge process
from January through June of 2004.
TABLE 2-3
AVERAGE OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS (JANUARY — JUNE 2004)
Parameter'.._
Value
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS)
4,644 mg/L
Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS)
3,917 mg/L
MLVSS/MLSS Ratio
0.84
Food to Microorganism ratio (F/M)
0.18
Solids Retention Time (SRT)
26 days
Secondary Clarifier Underflow Concentration
5,531 mg/L
pH
7.6
2.2 Current Wastewater Flows and Loading
The flows and wastewater constituents are representative of the blended wastewater from
the DAK Resins and DuPont Teijin Films facilities. Section 15A NCAC 2H .0219
provides minimum design flows from typical residential and commercial sources, which
are not applicable to this treatment facility because the wastewater flow is industry
specific. Flow projections are therefore based on available operational data. Both
facilities already implement reuse of plant process water and employ low -flow devices
where applicable to reduce wastewater generation.
Table 2-4 summarizes the current minimum, average, and maximum flows and loadings
to the treatment facility for the period of January through June 2004.
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
2-5 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

TABLE 2-4
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS (JANUARY — JUNE 2004)
Parameter
- Minimum;
Average
-Maximum
Effluent Flow (gpd)*
0**
231,000
416,000
Chemical Oxygen Demand, COD (mg/L)
2,240
4,746
12,740
Chemical Oxygen Demand, COD (lb/day)
1,848
6,615
18,919
Total Suspended Solids, TSS (mg/L)
5
183
1,170
pH
5.20
7.61
8.40
Temperature (°C)
13
20.6
29.1
**Clarifier shut down **561,000 gallons were treated off -site during upset conditions in March
2004
2.3 NPDES Permit
On June 7, 2004, the NC DWQ NPDES Permitting Unit issued an NPDES permit
modification to DAK Resins for the operation of the former Monsanto Wastewater
Treatment Facility for a permitted discharge of 0.50 mgd. The NPDES permit was
contingent upon DAK Resins submitting an EAA demonstrating the need to discharge
treated process water to the Cape Fear River. A copy of the NPDES permit modification
is provided in Appendix A.
2.4 Industrial Pretreatment Permit
As part of the EAA, an evaluation of discharge to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) must be performed. A copy of the industrial wastewater survey and permit
application provided by the Fayetteville PWC is provided in Appendix B.
/ Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
LC Environmental Engineers and Scientists
2-6 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

cog
Section 3 Wastewater
Disposal Alternatives
Analysis
In order to provide cost-effective, environmentally sound wastewater disposal, several
wastewater treatment alternatives were considered. They are as follows:
3.1 Alternative No. 1-- No Capital Improvements
to Cedar Creek WWTP and Maintain NPDES
Permit
Alternative No. 1 involves operating the existing wastewater treatment plant without any
modifications because it currently provides secondary treatment within the NPDES
permit limits established when Monsanto Agriculture Company owned the facility. No
major capital improvements appear necessary at this time in order to meet the currently
proposed NPDES permit limits. This alternative does not, however, account for
improvements that would allow the existing WWTP to operate more cost effectively.
The advantages of this alternative include:
1. No capital investment at this time to meet the current NPDES requirements.
2. Site is attractive for recruiting other industries.
A few disadvantages are, however:
1. Does not optimize process to reduce power consumption
2. Does not optimize process to reduce chemical feed requirements
3. Continued operation of the WWTP to meet NPDES requirements.
4. Continued solids disposal
A, Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
isiu Environmental Engineers and Scientists
3-1 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

rs�
3.2 Alternative No. 2 — Upgrade Cedar Creek
WWTP and Maintain NPDES Permit
Alternative No. 2 involves providing new process equipment that would allow the
existing facility to operate more cost effectively (i.e. reduced operations and maintenance
cost), although these improvements are not necessary to meet the currently proposed
NPDES limits. The proposed improvements would include a new aeration system and
final clarification system to reduce power consumption and enhance solids removal.
Because previous WWTP upgrades provided treatment capacity for larger organic
loadings and higher process flows, the WWTP is oversized for the current hydraulic and
organic loadings. The existing aeration basin has a capacity of 1.2 million gallons with a
6.5-foot side water depth. The basin's large footprint requires significant mixing energy,
which is accomplished with seven surface aerators and two mixers. In addition, the
shallow tank depth results in poor oxygen transfer. Unfortunately, these factors result in
significant power consumption.
To reduce operations and maintenance costs, several options appear feasible. As shown
on Figure 3, one possible alternative would be to convert the existing equalization tanks,
which are much smaller than the existing aeration tanks, into two sequencing batch
reactors (SBRs). The current aeration tanks and clarifier would be abandoned.
As shown on Figure 4, a second alternative would be to convert the existing secondary
clarifier into an aeration basin and construct a dissolved air flotation (DAF) system for
final clarification. A DAF system would be constructed above ground to avoid the
excavation cost associated with a new below ground clarifier.
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
3-2 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Mal
1.4
possible treatment options is included in Appendix C.
Regardless, both alternatives appear similar in cost, but further evaluation will be
performed as part of a preliminary engineering analysis. Catalog information for both
Some advantages of an upgraded WWTP are:
1. Significantly reduces power consumption
2. Reduces chemical feed requirements
3. Reduces sludge production
,., 4. May reduce the need for steam addition to heat the wastewater during the winter
months
Fan 5. Site is attractive for recruiting other industries.
Some disadvantages are:
Pot 1. Construction sequencing would be critical to maintain production and ensure
compliance with the NPDES permit.
2. Continued solids disposal
3.3 Alternative No. 3 — Discharge Untreated
Wastewater to Fayetteville PWC's Rockfish
Water Reclamation Facility
Alternative No. 3 would allow DAK Resins to abandon the existing Cedar Creek WWTP
and discharge untreated process water into Fayetteville PWC's wastewater collection
system via a new pumping station located west of the manufacturing facility. While this
alternative would allow DAK Resins to abandon its wastewater treatment facility
zitStearns & Wheler, PLLC 3-3 DAK Resins
Environmental Engineers and Scientists Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

1,301
eliminating the need for further capital investment and eliminating significant power
consumption costs, it would result in DAK Resins being subject to discharge user fees for
flow and possible surcharges for high organic loadings. Therefore, the cost savings
associated with abandoning the Cedar Creek WWTP must be compared to the costs of
increased wastewater fees from Fayetteville PWC.
Some advantages of this alternative are:
1. Allows DAK Resins to discontinue its NPDES permit
2. Allows DAK Resins to abandon its wastewater treatment plant and associated
liabilities
3. DAK Resins would abandon its solids handling facilities
4. Significantly reduces power consumption
A few disadvantages of this alternative are:
1. DAK Resins would be subject to fees for wastewater treatment
2. DAK Resins would be subject to financial surcharges when organic loadings are
higher than allowed in Fayetteville PWC's pretreatment ordinance.
3. Site becomes less attractive for recruiting potential industries.
3.4 Alternative No. 4 — Upgrade Cedar Creek
WWTP and Discharge to Fayetteville PWC's
Rockfish Reclamation Facility
Alternative No. 4 involves construction of additional treatment processes to reduce power
consumption and reduce organic concentrations in the wastewater to avoid financial
surcharges from Fayetteville PWC. As with Alternative No. 3, a modified biological
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
it Environmental Engineers and Scientists
3-4 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

PER
013
1. Allows DAK Resins to discontinue its NPDES permit
2. Significantly reduces power consumption
3. Process upsets would result in violations of the pretreatment ordinance and not an
NPDES permit
treatment process would still be necessary to optimize operations and maintenance costs,
but not to meet the current NPDES permit requirements.
Some advantages of this alternative are:
A few disadvantages of this alternative are:
rag
1. DAK Resins would be subject to fees for wastewater treatment
mit 2. Management of a pretreatment program becomes necessary
3. The solids handling process would still need to be managed
4. Process upsets could result in additional financial surcharges from Fayetteville
PWC
5. Site becomes less attractive for recruiting potential industries.
3.5 Alternative No. 5 — No Upgrades to the Cedar
Creek WWTP and Discharge Treated Effluent
to Fayetteville PWC's Rockfish Reclamation
Facility
1.1
Under this alternative, effluent from the Cedar Creek WWTP would be conveyed to the
rarl recently constructed pump station and force main installed by DAK Resins and pumped
to a nearby lift station operated by the City of Fayetteville.
rim
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC 3-5 DAK Resins
Environmental Engineers and ScientistsCedar Creek Plant, North Carolina L
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

MR
Advantages include:
1. No capital improvements would be required for the wastewater treatment facility.
2. Allows DAK Resins to discontinue its NPDES permit.
Disadvantages include:
1. DAK Resins would be subject to surcharge fees, when effluent quality exceeds
the industrial pretreatment requirements.
2. Increased operational and maintenance costs associated with the pump station.
,,4 3. The solids generated would still need to be managed.
4. Site becomes less attractive for recruiting potential industries.
3.6 Alternative No. 6 — Land -based Disposal
Systems
Land based disposal systems such as a low-pressure pipe system, drip irrigation, mound
systems, and spray irrigation were also evaluated for both untreated wastewater and
min treated wastewater. Direct application of raw wastewater using one of these land applied
disposal systems was not considered a viable solution, based on wastewater composition
m► and its potential detrimental impact on the receiving soil and groundwater. Consideration
was, however, given to using one of these disposal systems for land applying the treated
effluent from the existing wastewater treatment facility.
fowl According to Cumberland County tax records, the DAK Resins owns approximately 68
acres of land along Cedar Creek Road. A significant fraction of the total acreage includes
Firi manufacturing facilities, parking lots, access roads, administration buildings and the
WWTP, as shown on the aerial photograph — reference Figure 1.
Stearns & Wheler,PLLC 3-6 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

FINI
mg
MR
PM
rW$
MI
RI
MEI
Fayetteville PWC recently performed an industrial wastewater survey to determine the
composition and concentrations of the treated effluent, as part of the industrial
pretreatment permitting process. A copy of this survey is provided in Appendix B. The
treated effluent exceeded the groundwater quality standards, as cited in section 15A
NCAC 02L, for arsenic, lead, nickel, and selenium. Although the concentrations for
these constituents were marginal, additional treatment would likely be required to comply
with the groundwater quality standards.
According to the County's soil survey map provided in Appendix D, the soil at the DAK
Resins facility is characterized as a sandy loam. The soil's assimilation capacity for
either land application or subsurface disposal systems depends on the following soil
parameters:
• Soil texture
• Soil structure
�, • Location of impervious areas
• Bulk density
1.+ • Seasonally saturated soils
Other important parameters include the depth to groundwater and the hydraulic gradient.
An assimilation rate of 1.0 gallon per day per square foot was applied based on the soil
ran texture and the low effluent suspended solids concentration (<20 mg/L). A disposal area
of approximately 11.5 acres would be required based on the permitted flow of 500,000
f"' gallons per day. The 11.5 acres is, however, based on land applying wastewater 365 days
per year which will not be possible because of inclement weather conditions during some
v.. times throughout the year. Assuming the facility could not land apply wastewater 30
days per year, the facility would need 15 million gallons of storage based on a permitted
0.1 flow of 500,000 gpd.
Stearn
s & Wheler, PLLC
3-7 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

a
Fig
The existing site conditions, wastewater composition, and storage requirements required
for a land disposal system is cost -prohibitive and not practical. Therefore, land disposal
systems were eliminated from further consideration.
3.7 Alternative No. 7 — Wastewater Reuse
The use of treated effluent to reduce potable water use was also considered for process
1.1 water. Water needs are estimated at approximately 170,000 gallons per day, which is
significantly less than the 500,000 gpd of permitted capacity being requested.
The beneficial reuse of treated effluent for process water in the manufacturing process
r.R, was also considered. By reusing treated effluent within the manufacturing facility, the
quantity of potable water purchased from Fayetteville PWC could be reduced. When
FM comparing the quality of water needed for the manufacturing process to the quality of the
treated effluent, additional wastewater treatment systems would be necessary. This likely
includes ultra filtration and reverse osmosis technologies. Based on the current costs
(capital and operations and maintenance) of such systems, this alternative is currently
ob► considered cost prohibitive and not further evaluated.
MI
MI
pm & Wheler, PLLC 3-8 DAK Resins
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
Creek Plant, North Carolina
Lit
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
rmt

Section 4 Opinion of Costs
4.1 Capital Costs
An opinion of probable capital cost for all alternatives is summarized below. Detailed
estimates for Alternative Nos. 2 and 4 are provided in Appendix E. Alternative Nos. 1, 3,
and 5 do not require initial capital investment to meet the current NPDES permit limits
and therefore, no costs are identified.
TABLE 4-1
OPINION OF PROBABLE CAPITAL COST
Alternative
Opinion of Probable.
Capital Costs.
No.
Description
1
No Upgrades to Cedar Creek WWTP and
Maintain NPDES Permit
$O
2
Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Maintain
NPDES Permit
$960 000
'
3
Discharge Untreated Wastewater to
Fayetteville PWC
$0
4
Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Discharge
to Fayetteville PWC
$960,000
5
Discharge Treated Wastewater To
Fayetteville PWC
$0
4.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs
An opinion of probable operations and maintenance costs for Alternatives No. 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 are summarized below. Detailed estimates are provided in Appendix F.
none,it Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
4-1
DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

FIR •
PEI
fml
tug
Myr
fag
TABLE 4-2
OPINION OF PROBABLE O&M COST
Alternative
Opinion:of Probable
O&M :Cost
No.
Description . `
1
No Upgrades to Cedar Creek WWTP and
Maintain NPDES Permit
$1,007,896
2
Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Maintain
NPDES Permit
$640 000
'
3
Discharge Untreated Wastewater to
Fayetteville PWC
$1,380,000
4
Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Discharge
to Fayetteville PWC
$1,160,000
5
Discharge Treated Wastewater to Fayetteville
PWC
$1,392,896
4.3 Present Worth Analysis
A 10-year present worth analysis was performed to compare the present worth value of
the wastewater disposal alternatives based on the estimated initial capital investment
necessary to implement the alternative plus the estimated annual operations and
maintenance costs. The life cycle cost analysis is based on a 4 percent interest rate.
TABLE 4-3
OPINION OF PROBABLE PRESENT WORTH COST
Opinion of :
Cost.
Alternative
Not `
No. 2
• No. 3
No. 4
N o. 5
Capital Cost
$0
$960,000
$0
$960,000
$0
O&M Cost
$1,007,896
$640,000
$1,380,000
$1,160,000
$1,392,896
Present Value
$8,200,000
$6,200,000
$11,200,000
$9,240,000
$11,300,000
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
4-2 DAK Resins
Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Section 5 Recommendation
Based on the alternatives evaluation, Alternative No. 2, which includes modifications to
the existing DAK Resins wastewater treatment plant and continued surface water
discharge to the Cape Fear River, is recommended. While some capital investment is
necessary to accomplish this, an upgraded plant whereby the current high costs associated
with aerating the wastewater and inefficient solids removal are addressed, a significant
reduction in operations and maintenance cost can be achieved. Alternative 1, operating
�'► the facility without upgrading is the second lowest cost alternative.
rim
reit
Stearns & Wheler PLLC 5-1 DAK Resins
r� Environmental E inegrs and 3aen�sts Cedar Creek Plant, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Figures
� Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
�✓ Environmental Engineers and Scientists

RESETTLING PONDS
SPILL BASIN
EMERGENCY
HOLDING
•EQ TANKS
-- CHEMICAL
Ll FT STATION
AERATION
BASIN
4
SLUDGE
SETTUNG
BASIN
DATE: 8/18/04 JOB No.: 40159
DAK RESINS
CEDAR CREEK SITE
FAYETTEVILLE. NC
FIGURE 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AER{AL PHOTO

•
•
•
•
a..
4
a.
•
COOUNG TOWER BASINS
••
•
•
•
. •
.•
d,
•.
4
••
RESETTLING PONDS
0.50 MG EACH
(NOT IN SERVICE)
�r
IIIEXISTING
COOUNG
TOWERS
SPILL
BASIN
1.0 MG
4 •
• •i
DISTRIBUTION
BOX
WASTEWATER FROM DAK
RESINS AND DUPONT
TEIJIN FACILITY
4
•
• 4:
AB NO. 1
4.4 MG
•
•
•
:•
DISTRIBUTION BOX
EQ TANKS
0.66 MG EACH
1
0
10
LINETYPE LEGEND:
LIQUID PROCESS STREAM
SOLIDS PROCESS STREAM
TEMPORARY BY—PASS LINE
RECYCLE STREAM
DAK SERVICES
INTER —CHEMICAL UFT STATION
pH PIT
CHEMICAL ADDITION LOCATION
(UREA. PHOSPHORIC ACID AND CAUSTIC SODA)
RAS/WAS
PUMP STATION 7
SC
DIA. 90 FT.
SWD 14 FT.
RAS/WAS
DECANT
ABBREVIATIONS:
AB AERATION BASIN
DIA. DIAMETER
EQ EQUALIZATION
FT. FEET
MG MILUON GALLONS
NO. NUMBER
RAS RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SC SECONDARY CLARIFIER
SWD SIDE WATER DEPTH
WAS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
4
POLYMER
ADDTIION
. • •
AB NO. 2
1.2 MG
4 •
4.4
FORMER CHLORINE
CONTACT BASIN
•• 4
SLUDGE SETTLING BASIN
1.0 MG
TO SLUDGE
DRYING
BASIN
• : a a4
WAS
4
DIGESTER NO. 2
0.550 MG
•
4
.4•
.4
OUTFALL TO
CAPE FEAR RIVER
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
RALEIGH. NORTH Cr1t OUNA
DATE: 8/18/04 JOB No.: 40159
DAK RESINS
CEDAR CREEK SITE
FAYETTEVILLE. NC
FIGURE 2
EXISTING WASTEWATER PROCESS FLOW MAGMA

•
• • a
•
•
.•f ..'
•
• f•
•
COOUNG TOWER BASINS
. •.a
d
••
RESETTLING PONDS
0.50 MG EACH
(NOT IN SERVICE)
1 /— EXISTING
COOUNG
TOWERS
SPILL .aa
BASIN
1.O MG
4 •
•4►
pH PIT
CHEMICAL ADDITION LOCATION
(UREA, PHOSPHORIC ACID AND CAUSTIC SODA)
r.
i ?:4
EMERGENCY
HOLDING TANK
(FORMERLY AB NO. 1)
4.4 MG
. L
•
•
WASTEWATER FROM DAK
RESINS AND DUPONT
TEIJIN FACILITY
EXISTING EQ TANKS
CONVERTED TO
TWO SBR'S
0.66 MG EACH
LINETYPE LEGEND:
INTER —TRANSFER LIFT STATION
(FORMERLY CHEMICAL UFT STATION)
1/—
UQUID PROCESS STREAM
SOUDS PROCESS STREAM
TEMPORARY BY—PASS UNE
RECYCLE STREAM
DECANT
ABBREVIATIONS:
AB AERATION BASIN
DIA. DIAMETER
EQ EQUALIZATION
FT. FEET
MG MIWON GALLONS
NO. NUMBER
RAS RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SBR SECONDARY BATCH REACTORS
SC SECONDARY CLARIFIER
SWD SIDE WATER DEPTH
WAS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.4
SLUDGE SETTLING BASIN
1.0 MG
,; • • TO SLUDGE
•
DRYING
BASIN
•
' • • •
•
E
ABANDONED AB
•
•4 •. 4
•
FORMER CHLORINE
CONTACT BASIN
. •
•' DIGESTER NO. 1
0.375 MG
•
f •
4.
• •
:• f •• •
• • <
OUTFACE TO
CAPE FEAR RIVER
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientism
RALSON. North MOLINA
DATE: 8/18/04 JOB No.: 40159
DAK RESINS
CEDAR CREEK SITE
FAYE1TEVILLE. NC
FIGURE 3 — ALTERNATIVE A
1WSTIONGER TREMOR' FACILITY UPGRADE

•a
•
•
1•
•
COOUNG TOWER BASINS
'. \ • "`• •• • . V
..
•
4.
•
4
4•
RESETTLING PONDS
0.50 MG EACH
(NOT IN SERVICE)
• • ti
4
1per-EXISTING
COOUNG
TOWERS
SPILL
BASIN
1.0 MG
4• •y 4
•
• • • q •.• •
EMERGENCY
HOLDING TANK
(FORMERLY AB NO. 1)
4.4 MG
V. •
•
EQ TANKS
0.66 MG EACH
•
WASTEWATER FROM DAK
RESINS AND DUPONT
TEIJIN FACILITY
LINETYPE LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS:
INTER —TRANSFER UFT STATION
0 (FORMERLY CHEMICAL UFT STATION)
0
pH PIT
CHEMICAL ADDITION LOCATION
(UREA. PHOSPHORIC ACID AND CAUSTIC SODA)
RAS/WAS
PUMP STATION
SC CONVERTED
TO AB
DIA. 90 FT.
SWD 14 FT.
UQUID PROCESS STREAM
SOLIDS PROCESS STREAM
TEMPORARY BY—PASS UNE
RECYCLE STREAM
DECANT
AB AERATION BASIN
DAF DISSOLVED AIR FLOATATION
DIA. DIAMETER
EQ EQUALIZATION
FT. FEET
MG MIWON GALLONS
NO. NUMBER
RAS RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SC SECONDARY CLARIFIER
SWD SIDE WATER DEPTH
WAS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
•
• • • •
• •
• • .
ABANDONED AB
1.4
• ••. d• •
•
.•.
SLUDGE SETTLING BASIN
1.0 MG
TO SLUDGE
DRYING
BASIN
a• 414. `;
4
DIGESTER NO. 1
0.375 MG
•
.d
WAS
• 4
ABANDONED CHLORINE
CONTACT BASIN
jStearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
RALEIGH. NORM CAROUNA
DATE: 8/18/04 JOB No.: 40159
DAF
OUTFALL
TO CAPE
FEAR
RIVER
a.—
DAK RESINS
CEDAR CREEK SITE
FAYETTEVILLE, NC
FIGURE 4 — ALTERNATIVE B
WASIESUER TREANDIT RCM UPGRADE

Appendix
Pt Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists

a
Cad
Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
COVER PAGE
Company Name: DAK RESINS, LLC
Name of responsible person on site at the facility authorized to represent the
company in official dealings with the Sewer Authority and/or the City.
Stanley Carter
Name of alternative on site person familiar with the day to day operations,
environmental permitting requirements, monitoring, record keeping, and
data management..
Anthony Hudson
Title: Service Complex Manager
Years with firm: 1
_
Title SHE Leader Years with firm
Phone # [phone]
Fax # [phone]
Phone # [phone]
Fax # [phone]
Physical street address of facility
3468 Cedar Creek Road
Official mailing address, if different. Note if same.
3216 Cedar Creek Road
City. Fayetteville
State: NC
Zip: 28312
City: Fayetteville
State: NC
Zip: 28312
,m, The information provided by you on this questionnaire serves two functions:
ran
funt
1. The information is used to determine if your facility needs an Industrial User Pretreatment
Permit (IUP) for the discharge of wastewater to the local sewer.
2. If an Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) is required, this survey serves as the
application for an Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP).
Requests for confidential treatment of information provided on this form shall be governed by procedures specified in 40 CFR
Part 2. In accordance with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 403, Section 403.14 and the Local Sewer Use
Ordinance (SUO), information and data provided in this questionnaire which identifies the content, volume and frequency of
discharge shall be available to the public without restriction.
This is to be signed by an authorized official of your firm, as defined in the Local Sewer Use Ordinance or the NC Model
Sewer Use Ordinance, Section 1.2, after completion of this form.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted. Based upon my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
persons directly responsible for gathering the infomnation, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting
false information, including the possibility of fine and/or imprisonment for knowing violations.
Signature of Authorized Representative Date
listed above (seal if applicable)
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settingslak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 1 of 20

Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
1. Provide a brief narrative description of the type of business, manufacturing processes, or
service activities your firm conducts at this site.
r
r
The DAK Resins plant manufactures polyester pellets that are used in the plastic container market. The manufacturing process is
completely automated and is controlled from a central control room. Raw materials and catalysts are continuously fed into a serif
of continuous polymerization vessels to produce polyester resin. The resin is extruded and cut into 1/8" cube pellets. The pellets
then undergo another heat treatment phase to produce the desired polymer properties. The finished product is shipped via the
railroad to customers.
The DTF plant consists of 10, essentially identical, batch production lines for making polyester resins (PET). The PET
manufacturing process is a two step process. The first step involves the esterification of dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene
glycol, with catalyst and additives to form monomer. Once the esterification process is complete, the monomer batch is 71,
transferred to the polymerization reactor. Upon completion of polymerization, the batch is extruded through a die head to a chip I
cutter/ dryer. PET chips are then transferred to a blending silo and processed through a screener. The final product is transferred
to a finish silo from which they are loaded into shipping containers (railcars, bulk trailers, super sacks, oversea containers, or
boxes) to be sent to customers.
DTF batch sizes are approximately 5000 lbs., and the total processing time for a batch is approximately 8 hours (4 hours in the
esterifier and 4 hours in the polymerizer). Esterification and polymerization / chip cutting run in parallel on each line.
The DAK Services Complex provides utilities to the DTF and DAK Resins facilities at the Cedar Creek site. DAK Services
complex provides steam, cooling water, chilled water, potable water, and accepts wastewater from DTF and DAK resins facilitie:
2. List the primary products produced at this facility:
DAK Resins: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) in the form of chips.
DTF: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) in the form of chips.
DAK Utilities: Utilities including Cooling Water, Steam, Chilled Water, and Treated Wastewater
3. List raw materials and process additives used:
DAK Resins: Raw Materials: Ethylene Glycol
Terephthalic Acid
Process Additives: Antimony Trioxide
Cobalt Acetate
Diphenyl
Diphenyl Oxide
Phosphoric Acid
Phosphorous Acid
PH Adjustment: Caustic — Potassium Hydroxide
DTF: Raw Materials: Ethylene Glycol
Dimethyl Terephalate
Diethylene Glycol
Primary Additives: Antimony Triacetate
Antimony Oxide
Cobalt Acetate
Magnesium Acetate
Phosphoric Acid
Trimethyl Phosphate
Barium Sulfate
China Clay
r
r
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settings\ak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 2 of 20

Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
Silica
Titanium Dioxide
DAK Services Complex:
Raw Materials: None
Additives/ Other:Acetic Acid
Anhydrous Ammonia
Chemtreat P898L
Chemtreat P899L
Diesel Fuel No. 2
Ethylene Glycol
Fuel Oil No. 2
Fuel Oil No. 6
Gasoline
Muriatic Acid
Nalco 8306 Plus
Phosphoric Acid
Propane
Sodium Chloride
Sodium Hydroxide
Sodium Hypochlorite
Ultrion 8185 Clarification Aid
4. Axe biocides added to any water discharged to the POTW, if yes
describe:
Yes
No
5. Describe weekly production schedule, including shifts worked per day, employees per
shift, and primary operation during shift.
X
DAK Resins: The plant operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There are approximately 50 day employees that work form
7:45 am until 4:15 pm Monday through Friday. In addition, there are 4 shifts consisting of 7 employees each. The shift
employees work a rotating shift schedule. Each day is covered by two shifts , one working from 7 am to 7 pm and the other
working from 7 pm to 7 am. The site also employees contract workers. There are 13 permanent contract workers that work 4-10
hour shifts (Monday through Thursday.) During plant shut -downs, the number of contract workers increases.
DTF: The DTF plant operates 24 hours per day, 36 ys a year. The plant operates on a 12 hour shift basis with approximatel•
10 employees per shift. There are approximately 77 total plant employees. The employees that do not work on a shift (about 37)
work from 7:45 am to 4:15 pm providing support to the production operations.
DAK Services Complex: The DAK Services Complex operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The plant operates on a 12 hot
shift basis with approximately 4 employees per shift. In addition, there are employees that work from 7:30 — 4:30 Monday
• through Friday. The total number of employees at the plant is approximately 25.
6. Production process is:
If both please enter, % continuous =
Tide: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:\Documents and Settings\ak\iocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Check, if all continuous
Check, if all batch
% Batch =
67%
(100 %DAK)
33%
(100 % DTF)
Page 3 of 20

Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
7. Does production vary significantly (+- 20 %) by season. Describe.
Yes
No
x
8. Are any significant (+- 20 %) changes in production that will affect wastewater discharge expected in
the next 5 years. If yes, please describe.
Yes
No
x
The business plan for the DAK Americas resins plant calls for an expansion within the next 5 years. The expansion
project has not been authorized at this time, but DAK would like to have it considered in the PWC long term planning.
9. List all current waste haulers. Give name, address, phone numbers, volume and materials hauled off.
1. Omni- Giant Resource
Recovery
2. Waste Management
3. RINECO
4. Waste Management
5. Safety-Kleen Systems
6. Sampson County Landfill
7. Safety-Kleen Systems
755 Industrial Rd., Sumter, SC 29151
Lab Solvents/ Methylene Chloride — 385 lbs. liquid
Waste Paints —190 lbs liquid
Waste Oils — 567 lbs liquid
Contaminated Absorbal —15,092 lbs Solid
Ethylene Glycol Sludge — 28,200 lbs Liquid
Phenol/ TCE Solids — 379 lbs Solid
Nalsperse — 128 Liquids
Lab Solvents/ Phenol TCE — 1,053 lbs
4201 Distribution Dr., Fayetteville, NC 28301— [phone]
Non -Hazardous Waste — (Trash)
Benton, Arkansas [phone]
Liquid and Non -Hazardous wastes for fuel blending — 50,000 lbs annually
Hazardous waste liquid — 600 lbs annually
Kemersville, NC [phone]
Non -Hazardous still bottoms —145,000 lbs annually
Smithfield, Kentucky [phone]
Liquid and Solid Non -Hazardous wastes for fuels blending — 40,000 lbs annually
Roseboro, NC [phone]
Trash —133,000 lbs annually
St. Paul, NC [phone]
Used Oil — 32001bs annually
10. Attach a copy of laboratory analyses performed in the last year on the wastewater discharge(s) from
your facilities. Summarize data on the attached Data Summary Form.
11.
Attached
Attach sketch or schematic showing sampling points and all connections to the sewer.
PFD provided
12. Complete the Wastewater Pollutants Checklist attached to this Survey.
Attached
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settings\ak\local Settings\Temporary Internet Files1OLK141I08544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12./30/97
Page 4 of 20 r

fore
PER
rag
Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
13. Do you have, or have you ever applied for, been issued, or been denied an NPDES
permit to discharge to the surface waters or storm sewers of North Carolina? If yes, list
all other NPDES permits, permit numbers, dates, and names used to apply for them, or
reason denied.
Dupont Tejiin Films: NCS000056
DAK Services Complex: NC0003719
Yes
No
14. Do you have, or have you ever applied for or been issued an Industrial User
Pretreatment Permit (IUP) to discharge wastewater to the sewer collection system. If
yes, list all other IUP permits, permit numbers, dates, and names used to apply for them.
Yes
No
15. Do you have, or have you ever applied for or been issued any other Environmental
Permits (for example; air, RCRA, groundwater, stormwater, general, Non -Discharge,
septic tank, etc.). If yes, list all other permits, permit numbers, dates, and names used to
apply for them.
Air Quality , 08907R2,10/11/01, Dupont Teijin Films
Air Quality, 04051 R29, DAK Resins
Air Quality, 04319T18, DAK Services Complex
EPA ID No., NCD990714479, 10/24/01, Dupont Teijin Films
Non -Discharge Permit, W0003842, 11/16/90, ICI Americas
Yes
No
16. Is a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan prepared for this
facility?
17. Is a Spill /Slug Control Plan required by the POTW, prepared for this facility?
18. Do you have any underground storage tanks at your facility? If yes, list contents and
volume of each tank.
x
x
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
X,
Title: I[U Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settingslak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97 Page 5 of 20

Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
19. Do you have any above ground storage tanks at your facility? If yes, for each tank, list
the contents, volume, whether the tank has any spill prevention or containment
devices, such as dikes, and procedures for draining any containment devices.
Yes
•
# of Tanks
No
61
Tank Description
Contents
Volume
Comments
Dowtherm Storage Tank *
Dowtherm A
26,580 Gallons
Diked Area
OSC Rentention Tank*
Wastewater
31,125 Gallons
Diked Area
Caustic Tank *
Sodium Hydroxide
5834 Gallons
Diked Area
Ethylene Glycol Tank
(NGT) **
Ethylene Glycol
370,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Ethylene Glycol Tank
(PGT) **
Ethylene Glycol
370,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Methanol (CMT) **
Methanol
530,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Dowtherm A (Dirty) **
Dowtherm A
27,500 Gallons
Diked Area
Dowtherm A (Clean)**
Dowtherm A
10,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Ethylene Glycol Tank
(RGT) **
Ethylene Glycol
93,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Ethylene Glycol Tank
(MGT) **
Ethylene Glycol
6,000 Gallons
Diked Area ,
Ethylene Glycol Tank
(FGT) **
Ethylene Glycol
3,100 Gallons
Diked Area
No. 2 Fuel Oil Storage **
No. 2 Fuel Oil
300,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Tank **
Dimethyl Terephthalate
300,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Gasoline Storage Tank **
Gasoline
500 Gallons
Double Containment
Wall
Ethylene Glycol Storage
Tank (CGS) **
Ethylene Glycol
2,500 Gallons
Diked Area
Methanol (CMS) **
Methanol
2,500 Gallons
Diked Area
Diethylene Glycol (DTF)
**
Diethylene Glycol
' 14,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Diethylene Glycol (DAK)
**
Diethylene Glycol
51,700 Gallons
Diked Area
Ethylene Glycol
(WGT)**
Ethylene Glycol
14,600 Gallons
Diked Area
Ethylene Glycol
(CGT)**
Ethylene Glycol
164,000 Gallons
Diked Area
Still Bottom Residue
(WS) **
Ethylene Glycol Residue
14,600 Gallons
Diked Area
Large Equalization Tank
A
Wastewater
660,500 Gallons
Large Equalization Tank
Wastewater
660.500 Gallons
# 6 Fuel Oil Stora . e Tank
# 6 Fuel Oil
1,500,000 Gallons
# 6 Fuel Oil Stora. e Tank
# 6 Fuel Oil
200,000 Gallons
Diesel Storage
# 2 Fuel Oil
1,000 Gallons
Gasoline Stora • e
Gasoline
1,000 Gallons
Demineralizer _
Dimineralized Water
3,000 Gallons
Salt Tank #5
Salt Water
684 Gallons
Salt Tank #6
Salt Water
684 Gallons
Tank Description
Contents
Volume
Comments
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:\Documents and Settings1ak1Local Settings\Tenporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
r
r
r
Page 6 of 20 r

A.
Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
Tank #7
Salt Water
684 Gallons
_Salt
Tank #8
Salt Water
684 Gallons
_Salt
Salt Tank #9
Salt Water
684 Gallons
Water Softening Tank #5
Soft Water
1000 Gallons
Water Softening Tank #6
Soft Water
1000 Gallons
Water Softening Tank #7
Soft Water
1000 Gallons
Water Softening Tank #8
Soft Water
1000 Gallons
Water Softening Tank #9
Soft Water
1000 Gallons
Neutralization Tank
Water, Sodium
Hydroxide, Sulfuric Acid
20,000 Gallons
Demineralized Water
Tank #1
Demineralized Water
20,000 Gallons
Demineralized Water
Tank #2
Demineralized Water
30,000 Gallons
Demineralized Water
Tank #3
Demineralized Water
30,000 Gallons
Chilled Water Make-up
Tank
Chilled Water
15,000 Gallons
Deaerator
Water, Steam,
Compressed Air
30,000 Gallons
Knockdown Tank
Compressed Air,
Condensate
500 Gallons
Chemical Storage Tank
#1720 Boiler Feed Water
1450 Gallons
Chemical Storage Tank
#1802 Corrosion
Inhibitor
1500 Gallons
Chemical Storage Tank
#7200 Boiler Feedwater
Treatment
1500 Gallons
Blow Down Flash Tank
Water, Stearn,
Comjressed Air
500 Gallons
Propane Tank
Propane
1000 Gallons
Domestic Water Tank #1
Water from PWC
250,000 Gallons
Domestic Water Tank #2
Water from PWC
250,000 Gallons
North Caustic Tank
Sodium Hydroxide
8000 Gallons
South Caustic Tank
Sodium Hydroxide
9,500 Gallons
North Diesel Storage
Tank
# 2 Fuel Oil
1000 Gallons
South Diesel Storage
Tank
#2 Fuel Oil
1000 Gallons
Chemical Storage Tank
8306 Cooling Water
Corrosion Inhibitor
1000 Gallons
Chemical Storage Tank
8300 Disperant and scale
inhibitor
1450 Gallons
_
Chemical Storage Tank
7342 Chlorine Enhancer
& Biodispersant
1000 Gallons
Oil Skimmer Tank #1
Recovered Oil
1000 Gallons
Oil Skimmer Tank #2
Recovered Oil
1000 Gallons
* Denotes a DAK Resins Tank
**Denotes a DTF Tank
No asterisk Denotes DAK Services Complex
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settingslak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files1OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 7 of 20

Industrial User Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
PART II, Water Supply, Use, & Disposal Worksheet:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Water Used for:
(DAK Resins, DTF,
DAK Services combined)
Water
Source(s)
Avg.
gal/day
Max.
gal/day
Measure
Estimate
Disposal
Method(s)
Avg.
gal/day
Max.
gal/day
Measure
w
Process water
Washdown water
Water into product
Air Quality Permitted units
Domestic - toilets, drinking, cafe
Cooling water, Process NON -Contact
Boiler / Cooling tower blowdown
Cooling water, HVAC
Other: Condensate
Stormwater
Process Generated Water
(see Source List below)
(see Disposal List below)
1
65,660
109,100
X
2
65,660
109,100
1
2,000
3,500
X
2
2,000
3,500
1
4,100
5,900
X
2
4,100
5,900
1
50,000
60,000
X
2
50,000
60,000
1
2,880
- 4,320
X
2
2,880
4,320
X
1
28,620
50,000
209,680
100,000
X
X
2
2
28,620
50,000
209,680
100,00
X
X
Totals =>
203,260
492,500
Totals =>
203,260
492,500
Typical Water Sources:
1. City / Public supply
2. Private wells, drinking
3. Groundwater remediation wells
4. Private ponds
5. Surface waters of NC, please identify
6. Include others if applicable
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settings\ak'Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Possible Water Disposal Methods
1. Sanitary sewer, with pretreatment
2. Sanitary sewer, without pretreatment
3. Storm sewer
4. Surface waters of NC
5. Evaporation
6. Land applied
7. To groundwater
8. Septic Tank
9. Waste Haulers (identify)
10. Water into Product
11. Include others, if applicable
Page 8 of 20
•

rani
Mg
NEI
PART III, PRETREATMENT FACILITIES:
Are there any pretreatment devices or processes used for treating wastewater before being
discharged to the sewer? Check all that are present, and describe.
1. Flow equalization
2. Activated Carbon
3. Activated Sludge
4. Air Stripping
5. Centrifugation
6. Chemical Precipitation
7. Chlorination
8. Cyanide Destruction
9. Cyclone
10. Dissolved Air Floatation
11. Filtration
12. Flocculation
13. Grease Trap
14. Grit Removal
15. Ion Exchange
16. Neutralize, pH adjust
17. Other Biological Treatment
18. Ozonation
19. Reverse Osmosis
20. Screening
21. Sedimentation
22. Septic Tank
23. Silver Recovery
24. Solvent Separation
25. Spill protection
List any others.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No pretreatment facilities =>
Aerated equalization =>
NON -Aerated equalization >
Total volume of equalization (million gal.) =>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes
Yes
Yes
7.8
Describe any, if present.
DAK Resins OSC Column
DAK Services Complex
DAK Services Complex
DAK Services Complex
DAK Services Complex
DAK Resins
Title: lU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:\Documents and Settings\ak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK14\108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 9 of 20

PART IV, CATEGORICAL INFORMATION:
1. When were operations started at this facility
Facility start up date
2. List all Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for your facility. These may be
found on State Unemployment forms, tax forms, accounting records, or from the
Chamber of Commerce.
DAK Resins
DAK Services Complex
1967
2821
4939
3. Has this facility ever been considered a Categorical Industrial User (CIU) as described
by the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR)?
If yes, give complete 40 CFR number =>
OCPSF, Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fiber Manufacturing
No
4. Are any other facilities owned and/or operated by your company permitted as
Categorical Industrial Users (C1Us) as described by the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR)?
If yes please give name(s), location, and 40 CFR number. Yes
No
40 CFR 414
Subpart D
x
r
Title: 1U Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Seuingslak\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files10LK14308544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97 Page 10 of 20 7

IOW
A
f
Mot
EmPt
fun
PART IV, CATEGORICAL INFORMATION:
(continued)
5. Check any activities listed below that are performed at your facility:
Check
below
40 CFR#
Industrial Activity
Check
40 CFR#
Industrial Activity
467 Aluminum Forming
427 Asbestos Manufacturing
461 Battery Manufacturing
431 Builders paper & board nulls
407 Canned & preserved fruits & veg.
408 Canned & preserved seafood
458 Carbon black Manufacturing
411 Cement Manufacturing
434 Coal Mining
465 Coil Coating
468 Copper Forming
405 Dairy products processing
469 Electrical, electronic components
413 Electroplating
457 Explosives Manufacturing
412 Feedlots
424 Ferro allay Manufacturing
418 Fertilizer Manufacturing
464 Foundries, Metal Mold & Casting
426 Glass Manufacturing
406 Grain mills
454 Gum & Wood Chemicals Mfg.
460 Hospitals
447 Ink formulating
415 Inorganic chemical Manufacturing
420 Iron & Steel Manufacturing
425 Leather Tanning & Finishing
X
432 Meat products
433 Metal finishing
464 Metal molding and casting
436 Mineral mining and processing
471 Nonferrous Metal, Form & Powders
421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
414 OCPSF, Organic Chemicals, Plastics,
& Synthetic Fiber Manufacturing
435 Oil & gas extraction
440 Ore mining and dressing
446 Paint formulating
443 Paving and roofing materials Mfg.
455 Pesticide Manufacturing
419 Petroleum Refining
439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
422 Phosphate Manufacturing
459 Photographic supplies
463 Plastics molding and forming
466 Porcelain enameling
430 Pulp, paper, and paperboard
428 Rubber Manufacturing
417 Soap & Detergent Manufacturing
423 Steam Electric power Generation
409 Sugar processing
410 Textile Mills
429 Timber products processing
Others
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settings\ak\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPercnit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 11 of 20

Wastewater Pollutant Checklist
Chemical Name
EPA
Storet
Check if
Present at
Check if
Absent at
Check if
Present in
Check if
Absent in
Concentration in
Discharge, if
Code
Facility
Facility
Discharge
Discharge
Known
(m)
Acid Extractable Organics
2-Chlorophenol
34586
X
X
2.4-Dichlorophenol
34601
X
X
2,4-Dimethvlohenol
34606
_
X
X
2.4-Dinitrophenol
34616
X
X
2-Methvl-4,6-dinitrophenol
34657
X
X
4-Chloro-3-methvlphenol
34452
X
X
2-Nitroohenol
34591
X
X
4-Nitrophenol
34646
X
X
PentachloroDhenol
39032
X
X
Phenol
34694
X
0.26
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
34621
X
X
Base Neutral Organics
12,4-Trichlorobenzene
34551
X
X
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
34536
X
X
1.2-Dinhenvlhvdrazine
34346
X
X
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
34566
X
X
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
34571
X
X
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
34611
X
X
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
34626
X
X
2-Chloronaphthalene
34581
X
X
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
34631
X
X
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
34636
X
X
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
34641
X
X
Acenaphthene
03405
X
X
Acenaphthylene
34200
X
X
Anthracene
34220
X
X
Benzidine
39120
X
X
Benzo (a) anthracene
34526
X
X
Benzo (a) pyrene
34247
X
X
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
34230
X
X
Benzo (ghi) perylene
34521
X
X
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
34242
X
X
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
34278
X
X
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
34273
X
X
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
34283
X
X
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
39100
X
X
Butyl benzyl phthalate
34292
X
X
Chrysene
34320
X
X
Di-n-butyl phthalate
39110
X
X
r
r
r
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and SettingslakWocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermitdoc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 12 of 20

F
Wastewater Pollutant Checklist
Chemical Name
EPA
Storet
Check if
Present at
Check if
Absent at
Check if
Present in
Check if
Absent in
Concentration in
Discharge, if
Code
Facility
Facility
Discharge
Discharge
Known
(mgiD
Base Neutral Organics (continued)
Di-n-octyl phthalate -
34596
X
X
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
34556
X
X
Diethyl phthalate
34336
X
X
Dimethyl phthalate
34341
X
X
Fluoranthene
34376
X
X
Fluorene
34381
X
X
Hexachlorobenzene
39700
X
X
Hexachlorobutadiene
34391
X
X
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
34386
X
X
Hexachloroethane
34396
X
X
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene
34403
X
X
Isophorone
34408
X
X
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
34428
X
X
N-nitrosodimethylamine
34438
X
X
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
34433
X
X
Naphthalene
34696
X
X
Nitrobenzene
34447
X
X
Phenanthrene
34461
X
X
Pyrene
34469
X
X
Metals
Aluminum
01104
X
X
Antimony
01097
X.
X
Not Known
Arsenic
01002
X
X
0.020 mg/1
Beryllium
01012
X
X
Cadmium
01027
X
X•
Chromium
01034
X
X X.
Not Known
Copper
01042
X'
X
0.11 mg/1
Lead
01051
X
X
0.017 mg/1
Mercury
71900
X,
X
0.00040 mg/1
Molybdenum
01062
X
X
0.013 mg/1
Nickel
01067
X
X
0.19 mg/1
Selenium
01147
X
X
0.015 mg/1
Silver
01077
X
• X
Thalium
00982
X
X
1.2 mg/1
Zinc
01092
X
X
Tide: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settfngs\ak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Filesl0LK141108544006 WastewaterPerrnit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 13 of 20

Wastewater Pollutant Checklist
Chemical Name
EPA
Storet
Check if
Present at
Check if
Absent at
Check if
Present in
Check if
Absent in
Concentration in
Discharge, if
Code
Facility
Facility
Discharge
Discharge
Known
(mg/1)
Other Inorganics
Barium
01007
- X
X
Chloride
00940
X
X
Cyanide
00720
X
X
Fluoride
00951
X
X
Purgeable Volatile Organics
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
34506
X
X
1,1,22-Tetrachloroethane
34516
X
X
1,12-Trichloroethane
34511
X
X
1,1-Dichloroethane
34496
X
X
1,1-Dichloroethvlene
34501
X
X
1,2-Dichloroethane
34531
X
X
1,2-Dichloronrouane
34541
X
X
2-Chloroethvl vinyl ether
34576
X
X
Acrolein
34210
X
X
Acrvlonitrile
34215
X
X
Benzene
34030
X
X
Bromodichloromethane
32101
X
X
Bromoform
32104
X
X
Bromomethane
34413
X
X
Carbon tetrachloride
32102
X
X
Chlorobenzene
34301
X
X
Chloroethane
34311
X
X
Chloroform
32106
X
X
Chloromethane
34418
X
X"
cis 1,3-Dichlorovrooene
34704
X
X
Dibromochloromethane
32105
_
X
X
Ethvlbenzene
34371
X
X
Methylene chloride
34423
X
X
Tetrachloroethvlene
34475
X
X
Toluene
34010
X
X
trans 1,3-Dichloroorouene
34699
X
X
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
34546
X
X
Trichloroethvlene
39180
X
X
Trichlorofluoromethane
34488
X
X
Vinyl chloride
39175
X
X
Others
Xylene
—
X
X
1,2 - Dichloroethane
32103
X
X
Styrene
X
X
r
1mi
r
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settings\ak\L.ocal Settings1Temporary Internet Files1OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 14 of 20

1
Data Summary Form
<= Receiving POTW
<= Receiving NPDES #
<= Specific Sample Location!
i.e., Give IU Name, IUP#, and/or pipe#
Lab => Laboratory performing analysis =>
MDL => Laboratory Method Detection Limits =>
Notes => Notes =>
BOD
TSS
Ammonia
<?
Conc. Results from
Lab
mg/1
<?
Conc. Results from
Lab
mg/1
<?
Conc. Results from
Lab
mg/1
Q = Flow
Sample
ID, or
Count
Date Sample
Collected
Notes about Sample
M = Metered
E = Estimated
mgd gal/day
1
3/18/2004
120 mg/1
300 mg/1
>0.1 mg/1
2
3/19/2004
170 mg/1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
etc
,
TNS =>
Max. value =>
Avg. (use 1/2 BDL) =>
Total number of samples =>
Maximum data value (mg/1) =>
i
Avg. data value, Include BDL values as 1/2 detection limit =>
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settings\ak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 15 of 20

Sample
ID or
Count
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
etc
Data Summary Form
<= Receiving POTW
<= Receiving NPDES #
<= Specific Sample Location!
i.e., Give IU Name, IUP#, and/or pipe #
Arsenic
Copper
Chromium
Cadmium
COD
Lab =>
MDL =>
Notes =>
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
Conc. Results
from Lab
Conc. Results
from Lab
Conc. Results
from Lab
Date Sample
Collected .
< •<?
<�
mg/1
mg/1
<?
mg/1
<?
mei
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
0.020
0.11
-
0
-
TNS =>
Max. Value =>
Avg. (use 1/2 BDL) =>
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settingslak\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Fi1es1OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 16 of 20

l 1'
a
Data Summary Form
<= Receiving POTW
<= Receiving NPDES #
<= Specific Sample Location!
i.e., Give IU Name, IUP#, and/or pipe #
Lab =>
MDL =>
Notes =>
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Sample
ID or
Count
Date Sample
Collected
<? :
<?
<?
<?
<?
<?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
etc
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
0
0.017
0.00040
0.19
0
1.2
_
,
INS =>
Max. Value =>
Avg. (use 1/2 BDL) =>
Title: IU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:\Documents and Settings\ak\local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK14\108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 17 of 20

Data Summary Form
<= Receiving POTW
<= Receiving NPDES #
<= Specific Sample Location!
i.e., Give IU Name, IUP#, and/or pipe #
Lab =>
MDL =>
Notes =>
Oil & Grease
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Selenium
Phenol
Other
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Conc. Results
from Lab
mg/1
Sample
ID or
Count
Date Sample
Collected
<?
<?
< `?
<?
<?
<?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
etc
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
0
0
0.013
0.015
0.26
-
.
-
-
,
,
1
TNS =>
Max. Value =>
Avg. (use 1/2 BDL) =>
Title: lU Wastewater Survey & Permit Application
File name: C:1Documents and Settingslak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK141108544006 WastewaterPermit.doc
Revision date: 12/30/97
Page 18 of 20
a

Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
Part V, Waste Reduction Information :
State Pretreatment Rule 15A NCAC 2H.0916 (c)(1)(M) requires Significant Industrial Users to include a
description of current and projected waste reduction (pollution prevention) activities. The codes listed are
standard EPA codes found on Toxic Release Inventory and other environmental forms. Please check all
applicable codes for your facility related to wastewater discharge.
Current
Projected
Code
Description
W13
Improved maintenance scheduling recordkeeping, or procedures
W14
Changed production schedule to minimize equipment and feedstock changeovers
W19
Other changes in operating practices (explain briefly in comments)
W2I
Instituted procedures to ensure that materials do not stay in inventory beyond shelf -
life
W22
Began to test outdated material -continue to use if still effective
W23
Eliminated shelf -life requirements for stable materials
W24
Instituted better labeling procedures
W25
Instituted clearinghouse to exchange materials that would otherwise be discarded
W29
Other changes in Inventory control (explain briefly in comments)
W3 1
Improved storage or stacking procedures
W32
Improved procedures for loading, unloading and transfer operations
W33
Installed overflow alarms or automatic shutoff valves
W34
Installed secondary containment
W35
Installed vapor recovery systems
W36
Implemented inspection or monitoring program of potential spill or leak sources
W39
Other spill and leak prevention (explain briefly in comments)
W41
Increased purity of raw materials
W42
Substituted raw materials
W49
Other raw material modifications (explain briefly in comments)
_
W51
Instituted recirculation within a process
ANIII

Industrial User Wastewater Survey
& Permit Application
}
Current
Projected
Code
Description
W52
Modified equipment, layout, or piping
W53
Use of a different process catalyst
W54
Instituted better controls on operating bulk containers to minimize discarding of
empty containers
W55
Changed from small volume containers to bulk containers to minimize discarding
of empty containers
W58
Other process modifications (explain briefly in comments)
_
W59
Modified stripping / cleaning equipment
W60
Changed to mechanical stripping / cleaning devices (from solvents or other
materials)
.
W61
Changed to aqueous cleaners ( from solvents or other materials)
W62
Reduced the number of solvents used to make waste more amenable to recycling
W63
Modified containment procedures for cleaning units
W64
Improved draining procedures
W65
Redesigned parts racks to reduce dragout
W66
-A
Modified or installed rinse systems
W67
Improved rinse equjpment design
W68
Improved rinse equipment operation
W71
Other cleaning and degreasing operation (explain briefly in comments)
W72
Modified spray systems or equipment
W73
Substituted coating materials used
W74
Improved application techniques
W75
Changed from spray to other system
W78
Other surface preparation and finishing (explain briefly in comments)
W81
Changed product specifications
W82
Modified design or composition of product
W83
Modified packaging
W89
Other product modifications (explain briefly in comments )
_
W99
Other (specify in co comments )
Comments (PIease list corresponding code)
i
r
ii"

Appendix C
Vendor Literature
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
L, _1 Environmental Engineers and Scientists

tt�l
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CUMBERLAND AND HOKE COUNTIES, N
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
SOIL LEGEND
The tint letter, always a capital. is the initial letter of the soil name.
The second letter is a capital if the mapping unit is broadly defined
f ; otherwise, it is a small letter. The third letter, If used. is always
a cepitel and shows the slope. Symbols without slope fetters ere
those of nearly level soils or miscellaneous areas.
11 The composition of these units is more variable than that of
others In the survey area but has been controlled well enough to
be interpreted for the expected use of the soils.
SYMBOL NAME
AsA Altavista fine sandy loam. 0 to 3 percent slopes
AuA Autryvile loamy send. 0 to 2 percent slopes
AyB Aycock loam. 1 to 4 percent slopes
Bab Blaney loamy send. 2 to 8 percent slopes
BAD Blaney loamy sand. 8 to 15 percent slopes
BdB Blaney -Urban land complex. 2 to 8 percent scopes
BdD Slsney-Urban lend complex. 8 to 15 percent slopes
Bre Bragg sandy loam. 1 to 4 percent slopes
BuA Butters loamy sand. 0 to 2 percent slopes
By Byars loam
CsB Condor sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes
GO Candor sand. 8 to 15 percent slopes
Cf Cape Fear loam
Ch Chewscta loam
Co Coxville loam
Cre Craven loam. 1 to 4 percent slopes
CT Croats(' muck
De Delos: loam
DgA Dogue fine sendy loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
DhA Dothan toemy sand. 0 to 2 percent slopes
Dn Dunbar loam
DpA Duplin sandy loam. 0 to 3 percent slopes
DT Dystrochrepts. steep
ExA Exum loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
FeA Faceville loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
FaB Facevilte loamy sand. 2 to 6 percent slopes
FcB Faceville-Urban land complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes
FuB Fuquay sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
GdB Gilead !Garrey send. 2 to 8 percent slopes
GdD Gilead loamy send. 8 to 15 percent slopes
GoA Goldsboro loamy send. 0 to 2 percent slopes
Gr Grantham loam
.1T Johnston loam
KaA Kslmia loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
KeA Kenensviile loamy sand. 0 to 3 percent slopes
KuB Kureb send. 1 to B percent slopes
Lae Lakeland sand. 1 to 8 percent slopes
Lbe Lakeland -Urban lend complex 1 to 8 percent slopes
Ld Lenoir loam
Le Leon sand
Ly Lynchburg sandy loam
Mc McColl loam
Na Nahunte loam
NoA Norfolk loamy sand. 0 to 2 percent slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy send. 2 to 6 percent slopes
Pa Pactolus loamy sand
Pg Pantego loam
Pt Pin -Tarboro complex
Ra Rains sandy loam
Ro Roanoke and Wehee loam:
Ru Roanoke -Urban land complex
St Stallings loamy sand
TaB Tarboro loamy sand. 0 to 6 percent slopes
TR Torhunta and Lynn Haven soils
Ud
Ur
Udorthents. loamy
Urban land
VaB Vaucluse loamy send. 2 to 8 percent slopes
VaD Vaucluse loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent dopes
VgE Vaucluse-Gilead loamy sands, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Web Wagram loamy sand. 0 to 6 percent dopes
Wg8 Wegram-Urban land complex. 0 to 8 percent stapes
WmB Wickham line sandy loam. 1 to 6 percent slopes
WnB Wickham -Urban land complex. 1 to 6 percent slopes
Wo Woodington loamy sand
CULTUI
.BOUNDARIES
National. state
County or par.
Minor civil div
Reservation (n
state forest
and large ai
Land grant
Limit of soil st
Field sheet ma
AD HOC BOUNC
Small airport.
cemetery. c
STATE COORDI
LAND DIVISIOp
(sections and I
ROADS
Divided (medi,
if scale pert
Other roads
Trail
ROAD EMBLEN
Interstate
Federal
State
County. tarry
RAILROAD
POWER TRAN
(normally tic
PIPE LINE
(normally nt
FENCE
(notmatty n'
LEVEES
Without toa
With road
With nitro:
DAMS
Large (to S.
Medium of
PITS
Gravel pit
Mine or Q+
Por

,Htt I NUMBER 18
CUMBERLAND AND HOKE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
LBB.
e
WmB
Pains 'heel 17 j
Le
W eB
78°45'00'
0
2

Appendix E
Opinion of Probable Capital Costs
/,� Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
LEnvironmental Engineers and Scientists

Opinion of Probable Project Cost
DAK Resins - Fayetteville, North Carolina
S&W Job No. 40(59.10
Alternative No. 2 - Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Maintain NPDES Permit
and
Alternative No. 4 - Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Discharge to Fayetteville PWC System
Construction Costs
Item
Description
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Markup
Installation
Cost
I
Mobilization/demobilization
1
LS
S 30,000
0%
$ -
0%
$ -
$ 30,000
2
Dissolved Air Floatation
I
EA
$ 130,000
20%
S 26,000
50%
S 65,000
$ 221,000
3
Floating Aerators
4
EA
$ 35,000
20%
S 28,000
20%
S 28,000
S 196,000
4
Blowers
2
EA
S 15,000
20%
S 6,000
50%
S 15,000
S 51,000
5
DAF Feed Pumps
2
EA
$ 8,000
20%
S 3,200
50%
$ 8,000
S 27,200
6
Pump Control Panel
1
LS
S 12,000
20%
S 2,400
50%
$ 6,000
$ 20,400
7
Piping and Valves
I
LS
$ 30,000
20%
S 6,000
50%
$ 15,000
S 51,000
8
Concrete
90
CY
S 400
0%
$ -
0%
S -
S 36,000
9
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
1
LS
$ 5,000
0%
$ -
0%
$ -
S 5,000
10
Electrical
1
LS
$ 70,000
0%
S -
0%
S -
$ 70,000
subtotal
$ 710,000
Contingency 20% S 150,000
Opinion or Probable Construction Cost S 860,000
Related Costs
Description
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost
Basic Engineering
1
LS
S 86,000
S 86,000
Contract Administration (2% of construction)
1
LS
S 17,200
$ 17,200
Opinion of Total Related Costs $ 100,000
Opinion of Probable Project Cost S 960,000
P Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
uFJMMmwty Engineers and Sciantsts

Appendix F
Opinion of Probable Operations and
Maintenance Cost
it/� Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists

Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
DAK Resins - Fayetteville, North Carolina
S&W Job No. 40159.10
Alternative No. 1- No Upgrades and Maintain NPDES Permit
Item
I Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
Cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Electricity 700 kWh $ 0.045
Nutrients 1 LS $ 30,000
Chemicals 1 LS $ 195,896
Lab Expense 1 LS $ 156,000
Sludge disposal 1,425 lb $0.25
Maintenance and materials 1 LS $ 100,000
Administrative 1 LS $ 120,000
$ 276,000
$ 30,000
$ 195,896
$ 156,000
$ 130,000
$ 100,000
$ 120,000
-' "-intenance
$ 1,007,896
!i-,—,--—cn—..a...L'_ r1____a2___ --
Cost
Notes:
1. Costs for electric
700 x o, o(.( /_,Le.24___J30
0,-)D ( Jo) 4,21
r2J-7,E7i
ricas based on previous year's data.
fiNt Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
L1 Environmental Engineers end Saenuw

Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
DAK Resins - Fayetteville, North Carolina
S& W Job No. 40159.10
Alternatives No. 2 - Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Maintain NPDES Permit
Item Description I Quantity Units
Unit Cost
Cost
1 Electricity 150 kWh
2 Chemicals 1 LS
3 Solids disposal 1,250 lb
4 Nutrients 1 LS
5 Maintenance and Materials 1 LS
6 Lab Expense 1 LS
7 Administrative 1 LS
$ 0.045
$ 100,000
$ 0.25
$ 30,000
$ 50,000
$ 156,000
$ 120,000
$ 60,000-
$ 100,000
$ 115,000
$ 30.000
$ 50.000
$ 156.000
$ 120,000
Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
$ 640,000
Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
v Environmental Engineers and Scientists
tl' �`�7 1) 03

Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
DAK Resins - Fayetteville, North Carolina
S&W Job No. 40159.10
Alternative No. 3 _-_Discharge Untreated Wastewater to Fayetteville PWC's System
Item I Description I Quantity I Units I Unit Cost I
Cost
1 POTW Cost for treatment - tlow based - normally 100% of time 400 I,000 gpd $ 3.29
$ 481,000
2 POTW Cost for treatment - BOD based - normally 80% of time 3,980 lbs/day $ 0.3115
$ 363,000
3 POTW Cost for treatment - BOD based - peak discharge 20% of time 10,200 lbs/day $ 0.3115
$ 232,000
4 POTW Cost for treatment - TSS based - none normally 0 lbs/day $ 0.1342
$ -
5 POTW Cost for treatment - TSS based - peak discharge 20% of time 2,500 lbs/day $ 0.1342
$ 25,000
Electricity 0 kWh $ 0.045
$ -
'er, Labor 0 LS $ -
Maintenance 0 LS $ -
$ -
$ -
Lab Expense 1 LS $ 156,000
$ 156,000
0 ( Administrative I LS $ 120,000
$ 120,000
Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
S 1,380,000
INN
T Stearns & Wheler, PLLC
Ll, Environmental Engineers and Scientists
NMI

Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
DAK Resins - Fayetteville, North Carolina
S&W Job No. 40159.10
4.1
Alternative Na 4 - 'Upgrade Cedar Creek WWTP and Discharge to Fayetteville PWC System
Item Description Quantity I Units I Unit Cost
I Cost
1 POTW Cost for treatment - tlow based - normally 100% of time 400 1,000 gpd $ 3.29
$ 480,340.00
2 POTW Cost for treatment - BOD based 0 lbs/day $ 0.3115
$ -
3 POTW Cost for treatment - TSS based 0 Ibs/day $ 0.1342
$ -
4 Electricity 250 kWh $ 0.045
$ 99,000
5 Chemicals 1 LS $ 100,000
$ 100,000
6 Solids disposal 1,250 lbs/d $ 0.25
$ 115,000
7 Lab expense 1 LS $ 156,000
$ 156,000
8 Maintenance and materials 1 LS $ 75,000
$ 75,000
9 Nutrients 1 LS
$ 30,000
10 Administrative 1 LS $ 100,000
$ 100,000
Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
S 1,160,000
a/41 Stearns
t Environmental Eng Ierl annd'Sciennbs s

Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
DAK Resins - Fayetteville, North Carolina
S&W Job No. 40159.10
Alternative No. 5 - Discharge Treated Wastewater to Fayetteville PWC's System
Item
I Description I Quantity I Units I Unit Cost
I Cost
1
POTW Cost for treatment - flow based - normally 100% of time
400
1,000 gpd $ 3.29
$ 385,000
2
POTW Cost for treatment - BOD based - normally 80% of time
0
Ibs/day $ 0.3115
$ -
3
POTW Cost for treatment - BOD based - peak discharge 20% of time
0
lbs/day $ 0.31 15
$ -
4
POTW Cost for treatment - TSS based - none nominally
0
Ibs/day $ 0.1342
$ -
5
POTW Cost for treatment - TSS based - peak discharge 20% of time
0
lbs/day S 0.1342
$ -
6
Electricity - based on 5 months of billing records prorated for one year
/10)
kWh $ 0.045
$ 276,000
7
Nutrients
I
LS
$ 30,000
8
Chemicals
1
LS
$ 195,896
9
Maintenance
1
LS
$ 100,000
10
_ Solids Disposal
1
LS
$ 130,000
11
Lab Expense
t
LS
$ 156,000
12
Administrative
I
LS
$ 120.000
Opinion of Probable Operations and Maintenance Cost
S 1,392,896
LT, StearnseEngineers �S &Wheler,PLLC

Re: DAK EAA
Subject: Re: DAK EAA
From: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:47:06 -0400
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Thanks
Susan Wilson wrote:
Paul/Dave,
Jeff Richardson with DAK called me today. They have hired an engineering firm and
plan to have something submitted by August 26. They are also scheduled to meet with
PWC folks next week. I told him that date was fine, but I would let you guys know and
ya'll could call him if it was a problem (since I'm heading out).
His no. is 910 371 5082
1 of 1 8/5/2004 2:52 PM