NC0004375_Performance Summary_20000905

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNINO COVER !MEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0004375
Clariant Corporation
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Performance Summary
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
September 5, 2000
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the resrerse side

Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, NC 28266
704.827.9651
Clariant
September 5, 2000
Mr. Kerr T. Stevens
Director
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
N Ei
1
SEP 11 2000 :..:_
DE:1R - W'A11K QUALITY
POItlT SOURCE BRANCH
Re: NPDES Permit Number 0004375; Clariant Corporation - Mt. Holly Plant Facility
Revisions
Dear Mr. Stevens;
This is to notify the Division that Clariant Corporation is reducing certain manufacturing
operations at the Mt. Holly Plant this year. Operations shutdowns are occurring in a staged fashion
between late August through year end. Roughly 50% of the site's organic synthesis and dyes
finishing capacity will be decommissioned. By early 2001, the site will have reduced infrastructure
size and capacity as well.
Engineering, construction/decommissioning, and operating details are currently underway.
Cessation of manufacturing operations will occur more quickly than associated shrinkage of
infrastructure facilities.
Preliminary engineering studies indicate that 40 — 53% of the BOD loading of the site
wastewater treatment plant, (WWTP), will be eliminated. Production and infrastructure related
wastewater flow is estimated to decrease between 42% and 50%. Stormwater, RCRA, CERCLA
and other non -production related flows will not be affected.
The WWTP primary and secondary treatment systems are currently larger than will be
necessary for the anticipated future load. We therefore wish to make several modifications in the
primary and secondary treatment systems to improve WWTP operating efficiency and decrease
operating costs. Engineering design and operating details of the revisions are underway and will be
completed within the next 30 days.
While modifications will not be large in scope or cost, we believe that an Application for
Authorizations to Construct may be required; 15 NCAC 2H.0138(b).
We also believe the changes in manufacturing and infrastructure operations may require
Clariant to submit a new NPDES permit application to the Division, 40 CFR 122.62 (a)(1).

Mt. Holly Plant Facility Revisions Letter of September 5, 2000 page 2
Realizing that the foregoing information is general in nature, we would appreciate a
determination by the Division as to whether such submittals are required. If the Division agrees that
a NPDES permit application and Application for Authorizations to Construct are required, would
you please forward the appropriate forms to the following address.
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
Clariant Corporation — Mt. Holly Plant
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, North Carolina 28266-9246
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at [phone]. If a
meeting would be beneficial, we are at your service. Thank you for your help and advice.
Sincerely;
.4ty P.74nctezises,
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
Plant Services Manager
cc: Mr. David A. Goodrich, NCDENR
Mr. Edward Pyles, Director — TLP Operation
Mr. Daniel Trueman, Mt. Holly Plant Manager

MEMORANDUM
AMR 1
Date: March 10, 2000
To: Meeting Attendees
From: Rick Carrier, Brown and Caldwell
2000
OENR - WATER OUA1.11Y
18362-01/05
18362-01/09
Subject: February 11, 2000, Meeting Regarding Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU)
Wastewater Treatment at Clariant NPDES Facility
NPDES permit: NC0004375
CMU PN: 622-97-682
A meeting was held on February 11, 2000, at North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) offices in Raleigh to discuss the
ramifications of treating domestic wastewater from the CMU Long Creek sewer collection
system at the Clariant Corporation (Clariant) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The
following persons were in attendance:
Rick Carrier, Brown and Caldwell
Dave Goodrich, DWQ
Mark McIntire, DWQ
Jackie Nowell, DWQ
Gary Sanderson, Clariant Corporation
Barry Shearin, CMU
A brief overview of the proposed project was presented by Mr. Carrier. Brown and Caldwell is
designing a new pumping system including flow equalization to replace the existing Long Creek
pumping station and force main. The new system is being designed for an average dry weather
flow of approximately 2 mgd and a peak wet weather flow in excess of 14 mgd. Both Clariant
and CMU wish to consider the use of the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to treat flows
from the Long Creek sewer system.
The existing Clariant WWTF is adjacent to the pumping station site and is presently permitted to
discharge at flow rates up to 3.9 mgd. The WWTF is designed for a hydraulic flow of
approximately 5 mgd. Recent process changes have resulted in significantly lower flow rates
through the WWTF and Clariant expects further flow reductions in the near future to possibly as
low as 0.5 mgd. The proposed project will eliminate the need for CMU to pump the wastewater
several times in route to the CMU McAlpine Creek WWTF. It will also allow discharge directly
to the Catawba River instead of to the relatively small McAlpine Creek tributary. Clariant's
treatment efficiency will benefit from the carbonaceous BOD and phosphorous in the CMU
wastewater.
A treatability study is planned to verify that the proposed concept is technically sound and to
develop treatment plant concepts. DWQ will want to review the treatability information. DWQ
DI PhD CALDWELL
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\MM 00-02-11 - NCDWQCIariant.doc

Meeting Attendees
March 10, 2000
Page 2
would like the study to address the effect of reducing the percentage mix of domestic wastewater
and will be looking for flexibility on the part of Clariant and CMU.
CMU is working with DWQ to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSO's) associated with the
existing Long Creek pumping and force main system. CMU intends to place an advertisement in
the Charlotte Observer detailing their plans for the system and would like to include information
on the proposed project as part of their overall strategy. CMU has significant money set aside
for sewer rehabilitation. A manhole rehabilitation project has been designed and additional
infiltration and inflow reduction methods are being considered for the basin. CMU is purchasing
a set of portable diesel driven pumps to improve the reliability of the pumping station.
Ultimately, growth in the Long Creek basin will exceed the capacity of the Clariant WWTF and
CMU would like to have a regional plant in place at that time. CMU is proceeding with the
construction of a parallel sewer for the Long Creek basin and has performed flow monitoring
which shows the need for increased sewerage capacity on the west side of Mecklenburg County.
CMU is presently exploring several regional treatment solutions but have not completed their
planning efforts. Based upon experience with the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus
County and Union County, it appears that it will take approximately 8 years from concept
through construction for a new plant.
In general, DWQ approves of the proposed concept. Mr. Goodrich noted that the following
similar projects have already been in operation in North Carolina:
• JPS elastomerics (formerly Cramerton Automotive) in Cramerton had an underutilized
WWTF (i.e., 4 mgd permitted capacity with less than 0.25 mgd process flow) and was
approved to accept Cramerton's domestic sewage flow. Cramerton took over ownership and
operation of the facility.
• Monsanto in Fayetteville accepts and treats flows from several other nearby Organic
Chemical, Petroleum, and Synthetic Fiber (OCPSF) industries.
Mr. Goodrich noted that DWQ has concerns regarding eutrophication water quality problems in
Lake Wylie related to elevated nitrogen and phosphorous levels. Although there currently are no
known algae problems in the lake, DWQ is concerned about possible future problems. DWQ
feels that the Best Available Technology (BAT) levels for domestic dischargers is well defined;
however, BAT levels for industrial dischargers are less defined. DWQ anticipates that Clariant
will be required to meet BAT -based limits in the future.
DWQ anticipates that a concentration -based summer nitrogen limit of 6 mg/1 and year-round
phosphorous limit of 1 mg/1 will be imposed on all domestic discharges in the Lake Wylie basin
with any requested POTW expansion. DWQ is more concerned about nitrogen loadings to Lake
Wylie than phosphorous. A total maximum daily load (TNIDL) is being developed for nutrient
IIN AND CLIItt
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP1MM 00-02-11 - NCDWQCIariant.doc

Meeting Attendees
March 10, 2000
Page 3
loadings to Lake Wateree, South Carolina. Recent work by the South Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Conservation (SCDHEC) did not include fate and transport of
nutrients.
Clariant believes that the use of an anoxic zone at the front of their aeration basins as
recommended in their recent BAT study will significantly reduce the total nitrogen loading from
both CMU and Clariant. Clariant's influent organics include. a relatively high nitrogen
component and a 6 mg/1 total nitrogen limit would be excessively restrictive. Clariant currently
adds phosphoric acid as a nutrient to support their activated sludge biomass. Clariant also adds
lime for alkalinity which tends to tie up the phosphorous.
DWQ is encouraging industries to undertake pollution prevention programs. Clariant has
already implemented a pollution prevention program in accordance with a recent study.
DWQ will review the proposed project following the treatability study based upon cost and other
factors. In general, DWQ would look favorably upon a program that will not increase overall
phosphorous loads and that will reduce the nitrogen loading to the Catawba River. Clariant
noted that the only way that the project will be feasible from their perspective is if the cost is
relatively low in comparison to other projects competing for their limited capital funds.
DWQ has not recently modelled the Catawba River/Lake Wylie system. The Receive2 model
was based upon the Mountain Island Lake discharge and was updated last in 1980. A WASP
model would be required now to ascertain the impact of a proposed discharge and would require
full calibration information including instream monitoring. DWQ's 1995 model of the main
channel of the Catawba River demonstrated that the combined influence of Clariant, Mount
Holly, and Belmont at nitrogen and phosphorous discharge limits in excess of 6 and 1 mg/1
respectively did not degrade water quality in Lake Wylie. This effort was performed by Steve
Bevington. DWQ does not believe that modeling will be required for the proposed project
because the total flow discharged will not exceed the present permitted capacity of 3.9 mgd. The
present limits are based upon OCPSF effluent guidelines. DWQ did perform a Walker Bathtub
analysis of Lake Wylie as part of their ongoing discussions with SCDHEC.
The NPDES permit modification process was discussed:
• The treatability study results should be submitted to DWQ with a 30-day period for them to
review. DWQ would like the study to develop several options for treatment based upon
differing discharge limits.
• Following review, DWQ, Clariant and CMU will meet to discuss and negotiate new
discharge limits.
• Upon completion of negotiations, Clariant will submit a request to modify their NPDES
permit.
BROWN AND CLIJt
C:1WINDOWSITEMP\MM 00-02-11 - NCDWQCIariant.doc

Meeting Attendees
March 10, 2000
Page 4
• The overall permit processing time may be reduced by approximately 2 months by directly
requesting a public hearing with the request for a permit modification. The Catawba River
Foundation (CRF) will likely be interested in the project and CMU/Clariant plan to involve
them in the process. Michael Jones is the technical advisor to the CRF and works closely
with Donna Lisenby.
• A draft permit will then be issued for final negotiation four to six months following the
request. Clariant will have 30 days to provide a written response to the draft permit.
• Following final negotiations, a modified permit will be issued and Clariant may operate
under the new permit following a 15-day waiting period.
DWQ believes that the OCPSF issues raised in Clariant's response to their October 1996 draft
NPDES have now been resolved and should not be an issue for the proposed project. Clariant
should expect to receive their new permit prior to completion of the negotiation process for this
project. A "reopener" clause may be included regarding nitrogen in Clariant's permit.
A compliance schedule may be required by DWQ as part of the revised permit.
Wasteload allocations and permit limits are typically set in Dave Goodrich's group. The
Mooresville regional office will comment on any permit modification request and the modelling
unit will also have influence on the proposed limits. Any request for a permit with limits greater
than 6 mg/1 nitrogen and 1 mg/1 phosphorous will ultimately require approval by Colleen
Sullens. The Catawba Basin Plan allows for reduced total pollutant loadings rather than
restrictive concentration based permit levels. Dave Goodrich will discuss the project with
Dennis Ramsey regarding any compliance concerns.
A finding of no significant impact (FONSI) will be required from NCDENR. The
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Long Creek pumping station project should include a
discussion of the proposed project and possible impacts on rare and endangered species,
archaeological sites, wetlands, etc. A copy of the EA should be sent to Dave Goodrich. Rick
Carrier will discuss the project with Gloria Putnam prior to submitting the EA.
RAC:dm
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Houston Flippin, Brown and Caldwell
Mr. Thomas Howard, CMU
BROWN AND CLILL
C:IWINDOWSITEMP\MM 00-02-11 - NCDWQClariant.doc

/ 0114 ,,,./effb'
c/fid/7 - 86v-1
- A ', 74Late„ g» • (,z106-e r -
a 2 Ad Gd 17.x, / r Nam. Z,L(c0 4,71 " 4'`5
ww- Tltic 7,4+,4 J . 4* 4--A Oil- /7‘ - /6
. At/
2/// ZaOv
_ s tir ,& .f>zeRn C44v3o als C, ug
42.) Ag-At-c., 440.1-/g/4-1,
GJh
Pio
? ��-V fluwt - Sutic J_NI
/Gtrf /I 1'/d {'./i'7 d+- /67 4,7 ? UivlGyrrn r g rte.
GfAvy fl'
444,e,dc.71417- 7 5
sine re- « 74 0
aLhh

page,.
KPh7'
3.9,UC-v
(dte GPI iE a (4444 '4- iru..tv- f ce4.4 s
<tit)A4u41- 6 iT/,Q 122 ' / ,Q. 6,1/// 1.7,& 4 d
(✓�
( ,/ .f/07°,k9 w,i / . d;
/ , yik 4
//-Gci,?i
6,),..7' /kit r /;.,f- & -
%sr
.,.v Iwc. 4 /c cw t, Diu 0 I {/.4--.

C,1/ c47.r 4;
et A d7
;4 6ed-ka4,46 rvik, 1-4&01
/yR/
v /L fece -A ,
2)1- b-e-7
'14£d4/ f
4)Q u/ ll �Eul
�t4
9J
- I f/aCss /
h L a �3^¢�t ]'t C 7Ql� xyhm .l Q-7
JY/ ,?441 ( ,hl
/ 4 ; rei464.)
pail) I/ Z-t1' A42,- CAN/ tyl-Jw
i V U ,/tl� Qlic SS two us( 11,-rd
l6 wo re CAU0
w,7/6£ /
m iN[✓L.as b .kl 161r,40

14
Gen fThAeluce3i
46LveA � ce,-,, - A4,44 , c4i t /
Atc? -cAdqo
9se-4,
te

/Go vo Vf7J
5hd-,frf Ci "
' /9.r,Y—Y& 7 /k/ y (G ?. /7 /)
AJ6 ,`-7,1-/1;' — 3/j`Si/1Q. l 9
—
•
4.
75. : SW2 /Cr 4#1, (1,ezr--) (/77 8 - .(c)
� J 0• sJ /AS/o/U- o , 0 rG S Aj (�
rya. ;:6g i‘si . (2./2 /�')
J
/t 4 /4M<(7 eha/76
/ f/ A /a "(idea,
Oa ' /o • rQ
All-f) = 3, 3 2, �` r t
—
� -•� o, o /7 /e
l/ (A4 6 &J/e,-, Vih (Z 7--) Oa-3^,
C A., , (T Ul,., 1V dr c 7 1 1 f c6
� 3 d

W-4 IG Pakil %t, )2-tIf-3
iyw4d !`t VLz/ /,b ,,
iv t-r) i ' 3.41 33/ 2oJ Sf"
r flow
w/%s r ) '.- f c„.�Z p 7/4 2
ti
3 z. 9 c.
` e), ) /fit Riot_ r / h 1.?, G' N e6.C_ MT if 4,1
d l tv.vi
7///S' i LKr i� � c.-� ��, D�Jt/a''+ c.% "OCJD J c
a _ - s L{ ' ,g 4 one,-ti,, Y .vl
f 1-4 S
dam, /si
w
,ij /3 Dd uh A lid fi/0,3 -
s
Arvt.- cam. 6 - y
A.
Ci
)90 - 7/ 17 - 10 - 9/ 9 _;
4.5 /1---Q
cni e-/Vh Gam.{trIA
t/I441JtJ

pri,✓, r.✓ f /citr,,c, , A cJ /S 79/
?),,.44„„ I
/9a7
/ 9 9
/FAO t47
Cfloo/hsor; s,v
I?88 G)_GA DA- = zo/s-
7+4=o,s%
4470 l�y 7Neo = 3 2.5 c
n,.4 . I N1?+„ 7' al£471, ; = 9,5—c4
77.1)( / �,} ,,/c ca.� 1,12-1 � S �
V
/309 d Ni") 77
cZtiflE/ird . /tLl its G
XII w4✓U $471"

5/
44,-- frk-vt
• ,r1r-
etir't
'Ut 2/ (241
.je

Atm/Aim
NCDENR/DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY SECTION/NPDES UNIT
DECEMBER 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVE GOODRICI-I
FROM: MARK MCINTIRE ✓mil
MIKE MYERS;r'
SUBJECT: NUTRIENT BAT STUDIES
CLARIANT CORPORATION
CROMPTON & KNOWLES COLOR INCORPORATED
We've reviewed the BAT studies for the above referenced facilities and provide the comments bulleted below.
• The studies did not evaluate total nitrogen reduction. They only evaluated the removal of Total Non -
Refractory Nitrogen (TNN). The basic assumption is that there is a portion of nitrogen in the effluent that is
not biological treated and, therefore, is not available for biological utilization in the receiving stream. This is
a flawed argument for several reasons. First, the treatment system wasn't originally designed to remove total
nitrogen. Second, the treatment system is not representative of the environment. Third, there was no data
provided supporting the claim that the nitrogen is not available for biological uptake. The report says
nothing of the fate and transport of the so-called refractory nitrogen in the receiving stream.
• The reports indicate that, based on OCPSF guidance, the existing facilities are considered BAT facilities.
Although this may be true for the parameters regulated by the OCPSF rules, nutrients are not regulated by
these rules. The fact that the facilities may be considered BAT facilities by the OCPSF rules is irrelevant.
• The reports did not evaluate some of the more obvious treatment alternatives such as anaerobic treatment
for phosphorus and organic nitrogen removal.
• The cost estimates were inadequate. None of the costs were itemized. It is absolutely critical that costs be
thoroughly itemized in order to evaluate alternatives. Additionally, comparing municipal facilities to these
facilities is analogous to comparing apples to oranges. Municipal facilities often have the concept of
economy of scale working in their favor.
• The studies only evaluated optimization for nitrogen and phosphorus additions. They did not evaluate
optimization of alternative operating parameters, of which there are many. The facilities appear to be
operating the existing plants as if they are treating domestic wastewater (3500 mg/L MLSS, 6-9 mg/L reactor
DO, sludge age of 32 days, pH of 7.0, F/M of 0.46).

• Although the facilities have reviewed pollution prevention and waste minimization, they have apparently not
evaluated raw material substitution. Additionally, we respect the fact that there is often a lack of
communication between production staff and treatment staff. We maintain however, that improved
communication can only help to reduce and or predict the variability of the waste stream and enhance
wastewater treatment over the long term.
• Several recently published studies on di-azo dye degradation have shown promise with using a specialized
treatment organism. One of note employed a fungus for degradation. The studies did not attempt to
evaluate the opportunities of specialized bug treatment.
In summary, we feel that the studies were poorly prepared. Additionally, there seems to be a significant lack of
detail.
Cc: NPDES Permit File

Loading calculations for Clariant Corporation = NC0004375
,;+.... t., .. < ,fi < ., ., .. ..,7_:.. ...... ...... .. {. r.., .: ...
, .., . ,..s ....<: ..':, ,.....F. ,. w..,.,.
,,./., ,.:. , .:,-rQe.. i •` i.. a�.:>,.., ..: t. .€.,... t.. 7a, .... .
. a�� I s„� .� t r .._,< , ,t. t{.. 7
�,:..: „ .:_ _.� _- :
•Wastestream ., :` _ :Flow
t.,^•. ..,
,.. ,,_..
.:..., ...;,, 4- i
+,. .n _ i ,: :
, .. ......f_,Y, .,.. ....,. F _ ....; •F,',41.--:-
.; �'
, ' r : � ,
, .
.. :-:�_ . _ .
- iViCD::t .:
a.... s:,.. .
__,...., _ ..:
:,,.8,a. .. .. _,. ,_4,.. a. ., �,".'..' . � + �� ?Ei e`%-D.;s`.3:t ,, ....'ti:.; .S
_ -:,., z.. 5:{ i3d._ -1
,...r. .,..t't, . :..a E.. ;.. 7 7:
BOD .. I'VI►o>n Avers e,t t h.Y3,.,z.,
<.._., . _ . ..... � ��p .. 3.. ... 7�`II
8 , - *"`.T � �
itj:- �wq .}
t=r . 'z; .,15.
pp .'i:Y <b.9',Y 1 rM1:,_. 't• ,.a:
/Y�/�{ p��y�
_. e... i._ �2 i •i•a:i►i�la `.h.
,.. D� Dali 's"<
Con ocattoin
...e I::'N
:...
, ... _..^.+-�M-,Y 7^>
..,_�.,_ .:. , .<. ,^t:.z, t.
' ad;AllocahoA' �
= �'. i•..t
,:.. .,'., A�/1ir/� ���• i.:Y
< a . ,.....,.. < :, »�" te'.,..., e,..r„
Corti nc, o o
,.fAJA #
.. .. .... :, , E
ad Alto
Cation.
w� d
v,«.,.., Ay:
Dyes '? Chemical Manufacturing
0.77
45
289
120
I
771
Groundwater
0.29
45
109
120
290
Process Stormwater
0.087
45
33
120
87
Specialty Chemicals (herbicides)
0.08
45
30
120
80
Contact Steam Generation
0.015
45
5.6
120
15
Sanitary
0.058
30
15
45
22
Non -Process Stormwater
0.138
1
1
1.5
2
Filter Backwash Background
0.087
2
1.5
2
1.5
TOTAL
1.525
484
1268
.. >... _ � , .f : :, .aE ., r, ..
r ::. , . � .
was�'pQream , .
�.•�Y� . ,., ...,: .., ..,:.., .,
.,. t.,i1 .. ,' ...
.. .,.,.sat ..... .,,.;�„w. € ....r,.;
, � F ... .., ..
. f
Flow GD
., , �.
, _ . ... ..:......<„ ...
,, s i ,, ,; , h•�� i.
.,..}.� .T5S:..1Vion
_.,, ,_ 3,
,. ��3i-.
Aver.... e� .,,.� •,
'VW
.€..' .
,SS MaximnAi
Daily
COAC. AIlOCBttOD
.c,,, t �,,. �., >i r>-. s a.�
...,,. ,...:., , <i++.,A.,. ;,,.._,.,
..
`u '' LO A •
3, [.i �. il��?,3, i ';�c E
. .. ra*}� ., ... . ..
Catl
onc. on
', ; y� f..:.....:.s,
..-,.., .:..a, d....,,.. ._ ... -.i., .
Load Alto on
Cats
f.s,.. �,
,.. .., +"„
Dyes `d Chemical Manufacturing
0.77
57
366
183
1175
Groundwater
0.29
57
138
183
443
Process Stormwater
0.087
57
41
183
133
Specialty Chemicals (herbicides)
0.08
57
38
183
_
122
Contact Steam Generation
0.015
57
7
183
23
Sanitary
0.058
30
15
45
_
22
Non -Process Stormwater
0.138
30
22
45
52
Filter Backwash
0.087
30
35
45
33
TOTAL
1.525
661
2003
Clariant Corporation - 4/13/99
McIntire

FACILITY =>
PiPDES Pernsit # =>
OCPSF Flow =>
Qpa>
WS Clans ?
',7Q10s =>
erage Stream Flows >
Clariant
NC0004375
1.24 MGD 4
3.90 MGD
yes
329 cfs
3.016 cfs
1
2
3
4
OCPSF Subpart I Calculations
This process wastewater flow Is based on the following contributions:
Dyes Chemical Manufacturing
Groundwater
Process Stormwater
Specialty Chemicals
Contact Steam Generation
0.77 MGD
0.29 MGD
0.087 MGD
0.08 MGD
0.015 MGD
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
Parameter
OCPSF
Daily
Maxienutm
llg/I,
OCPSF
Monthly
Average
OCPSF
Daily
Maxiasurm
lbs/day
OCPSF
Monthly
Average
Ibs/day
Federal
Criteria or
State
Standard
Standard
Aquatic
Life
Itg/L
Human
Health
Standard.
Water
Consumption
Standard
Carcinogen?
min
criteria
1+
Water Qual
Allowable
Load
lbsiday►
OCPSF
Daily
Maximum
lbs/day
find min.
Limit
Based On:
Daily
Maximum
Limit
Monthly
Average
Lbrilt'
Ibs/day
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
3.4-Benzofluoranthcne
Benzo(klfluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1.2-DIchlorobenzcnc
1.3-Dichlorobenzcne
1.4•Dichlorobenzene
1.1•Dichloroethane
1.2•Dichloroethane
I . I-Dlchloroethylene
1.2-trans•Dichloroe thylene
2.4•Dichlorophenol
1.2-Dichloropropane
1.3-Dichloropropylene
Diethyl phthalate
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
4.6•Dinitro-o-cresol
2.4-Dinitrophenol
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
2.6•Dinitrotolu ene
Ethylhenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hcxachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Methyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nltrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
59
59
242
59
136
59
61
59
61
279
38
28
268
46
98
59
57
163
44
28
59
211
25
54
112
230
44
203
36
47
277
123
285
641
108
68
59
28
49
54
190
89
59
68
69
124
59
26
22
22
96
22
37
22
23
22
23
103
18
15
104
21
31
22
27
77
31
15,
22
68
16
21
39
153
29
81
18
19
78
71
113
255
32
25
22
15
20
21 0.559
86 1.968
40 0.922
22 0.611
27 0.704
41 0.715
72 1.284
22 0.611
15 0.269
0.611
0.611
2.507
0.611
1.409
0.611
0.632
0.611
0.632
2.890
0.394
0.290
2.776
0.476
1.015
0.611
0.590
1.688
0.456
0.290
0.611
2.186
0.259
0.559
1.160
2.382
0.456
2.103
0.373
0.487
2.869
1.274
2.952
6.640
1.119
0.704
0.611
0.290
0.508
0.228
0.228
0.994
0.228
0.383
0.228
0.238
0.228
0.238
1.067
0.186
0.155
1.077
0.218
0.321
0.228
0.280
0.798
0.321
0.155
0.228
0.704
0.166
0.218
0.404
1.585
0.300
0.839
0.186
0.197
0.808
0.735
1.170
2.641
0.331
0.259
0.228
0.155
0.207
0.218
0.891
0.414
0.228
0.280
0.425
0.746
0.228
0.155.
FC
FC
FC
1•C
SS
FC
PC
PC
FC
FC
SS
PC
PC
SS
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
PC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
PC
FC
FC
FC
PC
PC
PC
FC
FC
SS
FC
FC
PC
PC
PC
PC
FC
FC
FC
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
325
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
2700
none
0.66
110000
71.4
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.031
5.9
4.42
21000
none
470
400
0.031
12000
17000
2600
2600
none
99
3.2
140000
790
39
1700
120000
2300
2900000
765
14000
9.1
none
29000
370
14000
0.00077
49.7
8.9
none
1600
none
1900
none
none
none
4600000
1200
none
0.059
9600
1.2
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
1.8
0.254
488
none
5.7
120
0.0028
2700
2700
400
400
none
0.38
0.057
700
93
0.52
10
23000
540
313000
13.4
70
0.11
none
none
300
1300
0.00075
0.44
1.9
none
4.7
none
17
none
none
none
21000
4/13/99
no
no
Yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
AO
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
1.200.00
none
0.059
9.600.00
1.200
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
1.800
0.254
488.00
none
5.70
120.00
0.003
2.700
2.700
400.00
400.00
none
0.38
0.06
700.00
93.00
0.52
10
23.000
540
313.000
13.40
70.00
0.11
none
325.00
300.00
1.300.00
0.001
0.44
1.90
none
4.70
none
17.00
none
none
none
no 21.000
2163.31
none
0.96
17306.48
19.51
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
29.27
4.13
879.75
none
92.69
216.33
0.05
4867.45
4867.45
721.10
721.10
none
6.18
0.93
1261.93
167.66
0.94
18.03
41463.44
973.49
564263.33
24.16
126.19
1.79
none
585.90
540.83
2343.59
0.012
7.15
30.90
none
76.42
none
30.65
none
none
none
37857.92
0.611
0.611
2.507
0.611
1.409
0.611
0.632
0.611.
0.632
2.890
0.394
0.290
2.776
0.476 0.476 OCPSF
1.015 1.015 OCPSF
0.611 0.046 CHRONIC
0.590 0.590 OCPSF
1.688 1.688 OCPSF
0.456 0.456 OCPSF
0.290 0.290 OCPSF
0.611 0.611 OCPSF
2.186 2.186 OCPSF
0.259 0.259 OCPSF
0.559 0.559 OCPSF
1.160 1.160 OCPSF
2.382 0.937 CHRONIC
0.456 0.456 OCPSF
2.103 2.103 OCPSF
0.373 0.373 OCPSF
0.487 0.487 OCPSF
2.869 2.869 OCPSF
1.274 1.274 OCPSF
2.952 1.789 CHRONIC
6.640 6.640 OCPSF
1.119 1.119 OCPSF
0.704 0.704 OCPSF
0.611 0.611 OCPSF
0.290 0.012 CHRONIC
0.508 0.508 OCPSF
0.559 0.559 OCPSF
1.968 1.968 OCPSF
0.922 0.922 OCPSF
0.611 0.611 OCPSF
0.704 0.704 OCPSF
0.715 0.715 OCPSF
1.284 1.284 OCPSF
0.611 0.611 OCPSF
0.269 0.269 OCPSF
0.611
0.611
0.959
0.611
1.409
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.046
2.890
0.394
0.290
2.776
OCPSF
OCPSF
CHRONIC
OCPSF
OCPSF
CHRONIC
CHRONIC
CHRONIC
CHRONIC
OCPSF
OCPSF
OCPSF
OCPSF
0.611
0.611
29.496
0.611
1.409
1.400
1.400
1.400
1.400
2.890
0.394
0.290
2.776
0.476
1.015
1.400
0.590
1.688
0.456
0.290
0.611
2.18E
0.259
0.559
1.160
28.821
0.456
2.103
0.373
0.487
2.869
1.274
54.992
6.640
1.119
0.704
0.611
0.375
0.508
0.559
1.968
0.922
0.611
0.704
0.715
1.284
0.611
0.269
Ibs/day
Ibs/day 0.228
ug/L
lbs/day 0.228
Ibs/day 0.383
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ibs/day 1.067
lbs/day 0.186
lbs/day 0.155
lbs/day 1.077
Ibs/day 0.218
Ibs/day 0.321
ug/L
lbs/day 0.280
Ibs/day 0.798
lbs/day 0.321
lbs/day 0.155
lbs/day 0.228
lbs/day 0.704
Ibs/day 0.166
lbs/day 0.218
Ibs/day 0.404
ug/L
Ibs/day 0.300
Ibs/day 0.839
Ibs/day 0.186
lbs/day 0.197
lbs/day 0.808
Ibs/day 0.735
ug/L 1.170
Ibs/day 2.641
Ibs/day 0.331
Ibs/day 0.259
lbs/day 0.228
ug/L
Ibs/day 0.207
Ibs/day 0.218
Ibs/day 0.891
Ibs/day 0.414
Ibs/day 0.228
lbs/day 0.280
Ibs/day 0.425
Ibs/day 0.746
Ibs/day 0.228
Ibs/day 0.155
0228

OCPSF Subpart I Calculations
Paramctcr
OCPSF
Daily
Maximum
PC/I.
OCPSF
Monthly
Average
KIX
OCPSF
Daily
Maximum
lbs/day
OCPSF
Monthly
Average
lbs/day
Federal
Criteria or
State
Standard
Standard
Aquatic
Life
per,
Human
Health
Standard
A2 L'
Water
Conawnption
Standard
Pg/L,
Carcinogen? min
criteria
pale
Water Qual
Allowable
Load
lbs/day
OCPSF
Daily
Maximum
lbs/day
find chin.
Limit
Based On:
Daily
Maximum
Limit
Monthly
Average
Limit
lbs/day
Ryraahthene OP 22 0.694 0.226 FC none >?[7610. 1 no 1.�00 2166.65 0.624 0.094 OCPSF 0.694 lbs/day 0.228
Tetrachloroethylene 56 22 0.580 0.228 SS none 8.85 0.8 yes 0.80 13.01 0.580 0.580 OCPSF 0.580 lbs/day 0.228
Toluene 80 26 0.829 0.269 SS 11 200000 6800 no 11.00 19.83 0.829 0.829 OCPSF 0.829 lbs/day 0.269
Total Chromium 2770 1110 28.692 11.498 SS 50 none none no 50.00 90.14 28.692 28.692 OCPSF 28.692 lbs/day 11.498
Total Copper 3380 1450 35.011 15.020 SS -AL 7 none 1300 no 7.00 12.62 35.011 12.619 CI IRONIC 387.976 ug/L
Total Cyanide 1200 420 12.430 4.350 SS 5 220000 700 no 5.00 9.01 12.430 9.014 CI IRONIC 277.126 ug/L 4.350
Total Lead 690 320 7.147 3.315 SS 25 none none no 25.00 45.07 7.147 7.147 OCPSF 7.147 lbs/day 3.315
Total Nickel 3980 1690 41.226 17.505 SS 88 4600 25 no 25.00 45.07 41.226 41.226 OCPSF 41.226 lbs/day 17.505
Total Zinc 2610 1050 27.035 10.876 SS -AL 50 none none no 50.00 90.14 27.035 27.035 OCPSF 27.035 lbs/day 10.876
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene 140 68 1.450 0.704 FC none 940 260 no 260.00 468.72 1.450 1.450 OCPSF 1.450 lbs/day 0.704
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 54 21 0.559 0.218 FC none none none no none none 0.559 0.559 OCPSF 0.559 lbs/day 0.218
1.1.2-Trichioroethane 54 21 0.559 0.218 FC none 42 0.6 yes 0.60 9.76 0.559 0.559 OCPSF 0.559 lbs/day 0.218
Trichluruethylene 54 21 0.559 0.218 FC none 81 2.7 yes 2.70 43.90 0.559 0.559 OCPSF 0.559 lbs/day 0.218
Vinyl Chloride 268 104 2.776 1.077 SS none 525 2 yes 2.00 32.52 2.776 2.776 OCPSF 2.776 lbs/day 1.077
Column Calcs:
1
2
OCPSF Guidelines (see 40 CFR 414.90)
OCPSF Guidelines (see 40 CFR 414.90)
3 col 1 • OCPSF Flow • 8.34/1000
4 co! 2.00PSF Flow • 8.34/1000
5. 6. 7. 8. 9 from Fed /state water quality standards
10 if %VS class then find minimum of col 6. 7. a' 8. Otherwise find minimum of col 6'Q 7.
11 if parameter is a carcinogen then all load = 8.34 • Qavg• co! 10 /1000. Otherwise all load = 8.34 • 7Q10 * col 10 /1000.
12 copy of column 3
13 find minimum of col 11 and 12.
14 note which Toad is lower.
15 if limit is not based on OCPSF guidelines then calculate concentration based on Qp. Otherwise copy OCPSF load
16 if limit is not based on OCPSF guidelines then use units of 'ug/1'. Otherwise use 'lds/dayi.
17 if limit is not based on OCPSF guidelines then leave balnk. Otherwise copy OCPSF limits from col. 4.
4/13/99

Clariant Corporation Comment #1
Ing
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
Pin
BOD5 discharge limits of 366.2 lbs/day [monthly average] and 988.8 lbs/day [daily
maximum] (effective 12/01/97).
B. Comments:
lini
1. The proposed BOD5 effluent limits of 366.2 lbs/day [monthly average] and 988.8 [daily
maximum] beginning on 12/01/97 constitutes almost a 58% reduction from the current ' ; :-
r
— limits. The facility's 1996 DMRs show that the facility cannot achieve these more
stringent BOD5 limits within the short time period specified in the permit without
substantial modification to the existing treatment system. Clariant estimates it would take
.. a minimum of 12 months from the effective date of the permit just to evaluate how to
comply with the more stringent BOD5 limits. The actual design, approval and J
construction of a new treatment system would take longer. J
2. Discharges of BOD5 at current levels have not caused water quality problems. During the
period of the current permit (1991-1996), Clariant (formerly Sandoz) has upgraded its o . r` {
WWTP at considerable costs to improve treatment performance. No water quality
violations have occurred as a result of Clariant's wastewater discharge at current permitted �.
BOD5 levels. The Division's "Catawba River Basin Wide Water Quality Management
Plan," July, 1995, indicates on Pages 4-45 that water quality standards have been met ( •
consistently in the Catawba River mainstream arm of Lake Wylie from 1990 through.n:
1995.
3. The BOD5 limit of 366.2 lbs/day proposed by the Division is based on an average OCPSF
flow of 0.78 MGD which the Division calculated based on a long-term average WWTP
effluent flow of 1.42 MGD from 1991-1995 and an assumed percent (i.e., 54.6%) of flow
from OCPSF processing. Clariant's production, and subsequently the OCPSF flow, were
artificially low during 1992 through 1995 due to depressed economic conditions and sales.
The Mt. Holly facility is a batch manufacturing plant serving the textile industry, and the
facility's production varies with the needs of the textile industry. For example, in 1991,
due to a good textile market, the WWTP effluent flow was 1.66 MGD. If this permit is
based upon the low flow of 1.42 MGD, Clariant will have no flexibility during the term'
of this permit to manufacture products at the higher capacity observed during the term of
the current permit (i.e., 1991). EPA Guidelines (58 Federal Register 36890) allow use
of annual average flow, calculated over one year (i.e., 1991), to determine OCPSF process
wastewater flows.
Page 1 of 17 October 30, 1996

4. Clariant questions whether the use of a flow of 1.42 MGD from the WWTP is truly
representative of the plant's operation during 1991-1995. We are continuing to evaluate
""' data on the proper representative flow during this period considering the complexity of
our operation, the use of the flow equalization pond, seasonal variations in plant
performance, and the operation of treatment systems prior to the installation of recent
improvement. We would like to develop a mutually agreeable method to determine the
representative flow for use in this permit.
5. In this permit, the Division has included only average 1991-1995 wastewater flows from
dye and chemical manufacturing and storm water (process) as OCPSF process wastewater
for determination of representative OCPSF flow. Based on information presented in Table
VII-50 and Pages VII-153 through VII-157, of the OCPSF Development Document
[Attachment 1], the following wastewater and respective flows shown below should also
be designated "contaminated non -process wastewaters" and included as OCPSF process
wastewaters. We have confirmed this interpretation with Mr. George Jett, U.S. EPA
contact for the OCPSF standard. In addition, the facility's current permit properly
includes contaminated non -process wastewaters as OCPSF process wastewater.
Contaminated Non -Process Wastewater Flows
1995 Flow
Contaminated Groundwater 130,000 gpd
Water Treatment Filter Backwash 87,000
Sanitary (receiving biological treatment) 58,000
Steam Generation Condensate 98,000
TOTAL 373,000 gpd
6. Based on the inclusion of contaminated non -process wastewaters as OCPSF process
wastewaters, as described above, the proper BOD5 allocation at flows of 1.410 and 1.66
MGD is shown on Page 4 of these comments.
7. On May 2, 1988, Clariant [as Sandoz Chemical Corp.] submitted two applications to the
North Carolina DEHNR and to EPA for Fundamentally Different Factors variances at the 1
Mt. Holly plant. One of the FDF variance applications specifically requested a variance G�
"M from the BOD5 limits of the OCPSF effluent guidelines. To the best of our knowledge, j : • r
neither EPA nor the North Carolina DEHNR has ever formally acted upon the FDF
variance application. We are, therefore, hereby restating our pending request for an FD
variance from the OCPSF BOD5 limits. We are requesting this variance pursuant to the ,.. `
Clean Water Act, 15A NCAC 2B.0226, and NCGS 143-215.3(e). (' s
Page 2 of 17
October 30, 1996

1104
C. Requested Action:
1. In order to retain maximum flexibility to operate the facility, Clariant requests that the
BOD5 limits be set based on a flow figure more representative than 1.42 MGD. For
example, using the representative annual flow of 1.66 MGD recorded during 1991, the
BOD5 limits should be 573.3 lbs/day [monthly average] and 1564.5 lbs/day [daily
maximum]. We request that at a minimum, the Division use 1.66 MGD as the
representative flow but that the Division continue to work with Clariant to develop a
mutually agreeable method for determining a more representative flow figure, before
issuing a final permit.
2. Regardless of the flow number used, the calculation of BOD5 limits in this permit should
be based on the proper percentage of OCPSF process wastewater in the effluent (i.e.,
1504 6 ). For example, using the flow of 1.42 MGD proposed by the Division, the correct
OD5 limits should be 512.3 lbs/day [monthly average] and 1401.9 lbs/day [daily
maximum] to accurately reflect the proper percentage of OCPSF process wastewater in
l the effluent.
IOW
EMI
054
1051
Page 3 of 17
October 30, 1996

I 1
1 1 • 1
CD
.p
0
9661 'OE iag0100
OCPSF Wastewater
Dye and chemical Mfg. 2
C9ntaminated Groundwater
vWater Treatment Filter Backwash 2
Sam Generation2
VSanitar receivin biological Y( g 3 g ical treatment)
S ormwater (process)3
Mfg. (OCPSF)
F)
Pesticide Wastewater
Stormwater (non-process)4
Total2
Clariant Corp (NC0004375) - Proposed Limits
BOD5- Monthly Avg.
(45mg/1) (0.77 MGD) (8.34)
(45mg/1) (0.130MGD) (8.34)
(45mg/1) (0.087MGD) (8.34)
(45mg/1) (0.098MGD) (8.34)
(45mg/1) (0.058MGD) (8.34)
(45mg/1) (0.087MGD) (8.34)
(45mg/1) (0.074MGD) (8.34)
(1.61bs/ l 0001bs) (12, 0001bs/day)
(1 mg/1) (0.13 8MGD) (8.34)
(lb/day) BOD5- Daily Max
= 289.0 (120mg/1) (0.77MGD) (8.34)
= 48.8 (120mg/1) (0.130MGD) (8.34)
= 32.7 (120mg/1) (0.087MGD) (8.34)
= 36.8 (120mg/1) (0.098MGD) (8.34)
= 21.8 (120mg/1) (0.058MGD) (8.34)
= 32.7 (120mg/1) (0.087MGD) (8.34)
= 27.8 (120mg/1) (0.074MGD) (8.34)
= 19.2 (7.41bs/10001bs)(12,0001bs/day)
= 1.2 (lmg/1)(0.138MGD) (8.34)(1.5)
510.0
Notes:
1. BOD5 allocations based on annual average wastewater flow for 1995 of 1.410 MGD. See flow schematic dated 5-20-96.
2. Flows indicated above are 67.7 % of effluent flow.
For LTA flow of 1.42 MGD from 1991-1995, BOD5 allocations are:
Monthly average BOD5 =512.3 lbs/day, Daily max BOD5 =1401.9 lbs/day
For LTA flow of 1.66 MGD, BOD5 allocations are:
Monthly average BOD5 = 573.3 lbs/day, Daily max BOD5 =1564.5 lbs/day
3. Flow of 0.087 MGD based on annual average rainfall for areas 1,3 and 4 from stormwater runoff map.
4. Concentration based on SW application (1992). Sites average 5mg/1-83 % reduction at WWTP yields lmg/1 allocation.
(lb/day)
= 770.6
= 130.1
= 87.1
= 98.1
• 58.0
87.1
• 74.1
= 88.8
• 1.7
1,395.6

NMI
Clariant Corporation Comment #2
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
COD discharge limit of 108.0 lbs/day [monthly average] and 156.0 lbs/day [daily
maximum] measured at Location I2.
B. Comments:
1. The COD effluent limits in the draft permit are based on the pesticide effluent guidelines
in 40 CFR Part 455. The only wastewater that arguably falls within the pesticide category
— originates in the manufacture of the herbicide Norfluorazon. Of the 80,000 gallon/day of
wastewater exiting the Norfluorazon process area, Clariant estimates that at most 3,000
to 6,000 gallons/day of wastewater from the pump seals may be subject to the pesticide
effluent guidelines. Clariant will evaluate the option of eliminating the pump seal water
discharge entirely. In the interim, Clariant proposes to sample the pump seal water to
verify compliance with the COD limits in this permit condition.
MEI
2. Since only a small percentage of the wastewater exiting the Norfluorazon process is
subject to the pesticide effluent guidelines under this permit condition, the majority of the
wastewater exiting the Norfluorazon process area (approximately 74,000 gallons/day)
should be allocated to the OCPSF floessince this water is derived from specialty synthetic
organic chemical production. ; s; c -
C. Requested Action:
r..
Modify the definition of sample location "I2" to read "pump seal water at pesticide
manufacturing plant," and allocate the non -pesticide containing process water to the OCPSF flow.
.� [see
Comment # 1(B)0
\14)� • \
1-A)Y\ LP'
\%\‘ft`P'Ly)"
,
,"/
r
1L, rs
VIM
Page 5 of 17
October 30, 1996

IMO
NMI
MIMI
Clariant Corporation Comment #3
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
Upstream ("U") and downstream ("D") monitoring location requirement for B
dissolved oxygen, temperature and con ctivity.
B. Comments:
1. Clariant has been reporting values for these parameters for the past five years as a part
of its existing permit. Sampling and analyses have been performed by a third party who
has recently informed Clariant that it will not perform these tests in the future because this
condition has recently been removed from the third party's NPDES permit. Clariant has
neither equipment nor personnel for obtaining river samples, and see no reason to conduct
such sampling when the Division has apparently eliminated this requirement for other
dischargers in this part of the river.
2. Attached to these comments is a table of upstream and downstream data taken over the
past five years for the parameters at issue [Attachment 2]. It is apparent that the Mt.
Holly Plant's effluent is in compliance with the permit discharge limits at the point of
discharge and that the discharge has had no impact on the downstream parameters.
3. It appears from the public notice accompanying the draft permit that the only water
quality limited parameter in this permit is NH3-H. Using the applicable testing and
measurement table in 15A NCAC 2B.0508 (i.e., Chemical and Allied Products; Effluent
Limited), there is no upstream ("U") and downstream ("D") monitoring requirement for
the parameters of BOD5, dissolved oxygen, temperature or conductivity.
C. Requested Action:
Delete the sampling and analyses of upstream and downstream river water as a
requirement of this permit for BOD5, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity.
NMI
Page 6 of 17 October 30, 1996

Pill
Clariant Corporation Comment #4
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
The effluent limitations for the fifty-six named chemicals beginning with "acenapthene"
and ending with "vinyl chloride."
B. Comment:
For the reasons discussed in Comment #1, Clariant objects to all effluent limitations
derived for these chemicals based on an assumed OCPSF flow factor of 0.78 MGD.
C. Requested Action:
Effluent limitations based on a flow factor of 0.78 MGD should be recalculated based on
the OCPSF process flow described in Comment #1.
Page 7 of 17
October 30, 1996

FIR
PIO
PIR
Clariant Corporation Comment #5
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
The effluent limitations for the following chemicals:
Acrylonitrile 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
Hexachlorobenzene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-Dichloropropane Benzo(a)pyrene Chrysene
B. Comments:
1. The concentration limits for each of these chemicals is between 8 and 74 times lower than
the limits listed in the applicable regulation [i.e., 40 CFR Part 414, Subpart I]. There is
no justification in the record for the lower limits.
2. There is no monthly average nor day maximum figures for most of these chemicals.
C. Requested Action:
14) hrnci
1. The Division should justify the lower concentration limits, or use the applicable limits
specified in the applicable regulation [i.e., 40 CFR Part 414, Subpart I].
2. The Division should explain the absence of monthly average and daily maximum figures.
/95 v-44
tamq
Page 8 of 17 October 30, 1996

POI
REX
1
PER
Clariant Corporation Comment #6
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
The effluent limitations for the following chemicals and parameters:
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(1,2,3-ed)pyrene
Total PAH
B. Comment:
wo-1 «-r-C c- f
r
Neither of the specific chemicals nor total PAH appear in the applicable OCPSF
regulations at 40 CFR Part 414, Subpart I, the applicable pesticide regulation at 40 CFR Part 455,
or the Federal Water Quality Standards ("gold book"). Their inclusion in this permit is therefore
both unjustified and unreasonable.
C. Requested Action:
The Division should delete Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-ed)pyrene and PAH from
the permit.
'�' Page 9 of 17 October 30, 1996

MEI
Clariant Corporation Comment #7
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION B(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
"The permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in
accordance with the following schedule:
Permittee shall comply with the Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the
permit unless specified below."
B. Comments:
1. If the Division persists in drastically reducing the facility's BOD5 limits, Clariant's current
wastewater treatment system cannot meet the proposed discharge limits by 12/01/97.
Therefore, Clariant requests that any final permit containing BOD5 limits below the
currently permitted limit contain a realistic compliance schedule. December 1, 1997, is
not realistic. The proposed BOD5 effluent limits of 366.2 lbs/day [monthly average] and
MEP 988.8 [daily maximum] beginning on 12/01/97 constitutes almost a 58% reduction from
the current limits. The facility's 1996 DMRs show that the facility cannot achieve these
more stringent BOD5 limits within the short time period specified in the permit without
substantial modification to the existing treatment system. Clariant estimates it would take
a minimum of 12 months from the effective date of the permit just to evaluate how to
comply with the more stringent BOD5 limits. The actual design, approval and
construction of a new treatment system would take longer. These time periods should be
addressed in a specific compliance schedule.
2. As currently drafted, the effluent limitation for BOD5 and TSS becomes effective on
12/01/97 instead of the effective date of the permit. As stated previously, Clariant objects
to both the numerical BOD5 limits and the effective date. However, since the effective
date specified in the permit for TSS is other than the effective date of the permit itself,
this permit condition should be clarified to recognize the separate effective date.
NMI
C. Requested Action:
�• 1. Amend this provision to read as follows:
"The permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in
accordance with the following schedule:
Page 10 of 17
October 30, 1996

IMP
MOM
WWI
MO
Permittee shall comply wi 1 h the Final Efflue'Limitations by the effective date of the
permit :? rrlati \ L J tIL 5p d 1# C p rirltt, whtcbe x, unless specified
...................................
below."
2. If the Division retains the proposed BOD5 effluent limits of 366.2 lbs/day [monthly
average] and 988.8 [daily maximum], the Division should provide a realistic compliance
schedule in this permit condition to meet those limits.
3. If the Division retains the proposed BOD5 effluent limits of 366.2 lbs/day [monthly
average] and 988.8 [daily maximum], the Division should at a minimum, amend the
effective date of the effluent limitation for BOD5 from "(eff 12/1/97)" to "(effective one
year after the effective date of this permit)."
\AA , 0") /ell)
\nA \:\/\.,ker
' Or. v\-‘
7 / AcoPIP \ \ai\ tsitk'a
Gil
7
�hfr\
y
\o)
\ct,J
1)\
Page 11of17
October 30, 1996

IMO
Clariant Corporation Comment #8
PERMIT CONDITION: PART III, SECTION D
A. Contested Permit Condition:
The permittee shall continually evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives and pursue
the most environmentally sound alternative of the reasonably cost effective alternatives. If the
facility is in substantial noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit or
governing rules, regulations or laws, the permittee shall submit a report in such form and detail
as required by the Division evaluating these alternatives and a plan of action within sixty (60)
days of notification by the Division.
B. Comment:
There is no regulatory or statutory authority to require the permittee to continually
--� evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives. The relevant statute [NCGS 143-215.1(b)(2)] only
requires that disposal alternatives be considered at the time of the permit decision.
INN
NMI
OM
INN
C. Requested Action:
Delete the word "continually."
Page 12 of 17 October 30, 1996

NMI
Clariant Corporation Comment #9
PERMIT CONDITION: PART III, SECTION E
A. Contested Permit Condition:
"The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using -test krocedures
outlined in ..."
B. Comment:
1. This draft permit condition is an unjustified departure from the current permit language
which requires that Clariant's discharge not exhibit chronic toxicity in any two
consecutive toxicity tests. We are aware of no statutory or regulatory changes that require
a modification of the current permit language. In addition, the Division has not altered
its policy that only the failure of two consecutive chronic toxicity tests will constitute a
violation of the permit. Therefore, there is no justification for changing this permit
condition. To avoid any confusion on the public's part as to what constitutes compliance
with this permit, the permit condition should explicitly reference the failure of two
consecutive tests.
2. The test results from the ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure have been
shown to have high variability (Francisco et. al., 1993; Parkhurst et. al., 1992)'. High
variability indicates that only a limited amount of confidence can be placed on a single
outcome of the ceriodaphnia chronic effluent test. While we concur that it is important
to monitor effluent toxicity to confirm that toxic chemicals in toxic amounts are not
contained in the treated effluent and also concur that the ceriodaphnia bioassay test is an
acceptable procedure, the permit should reflect the reliability of the ceriodaphnia chronic
bioassay test results by requiring two consecutive test failures to indicate the occurrence
of chronic effluent toxicity and a violation of the NPDES permit.
C. Requested Action:
Amend the permit condition to be identical with the current permit language and read as
., follows:
"The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity
is using the test procedures outlined in..."
in aii . t�4'4o consCcutiV c
' Francisco, Donald E., Michael C. Elias, Christine A. LaRoccca; Francis A. Digiano and Marilyn J.
— Maerker, "Chronic Toxicity Bioassay with Ceriodaphnia Dubia," Water Resources Research Institute of the
University of North Carolina, August, 1993.
Parkhurst, B.R., W. Warren -Hicks and L.E. Noel, "Performance Characteristics of Effluent Toxicity
Tests: Summarization and Evaluation of Data," Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry, Vol II, pp. 771-791, 1992.
Page 13 of 17 October 30, 1996

t�l
rig
PR
PIR
PER
Clariant Corporation Comment #10
PERMIT CONDITION: PART III, SECTION F
A. Contested Permit Condition:
Staging requirement.
B. Comments:
Clariant fully supports the inclusion of the staging requirements in this permit. However,
the formulas contained in this condition are not consistent with the BOD5 and NH3 effluent limits
set in Part I, Section (A)(1). While Clariant continues to object to the lower BOD5 limits in
Part I, Section (A)(1), the permit conditions for staging still need to be consistent with the final
BOD5 limits.
C. Requested Action:
The staging requirement limits in Part III, Section F, should be consistent with the limits
for BOD5 and NH3 set elsewhere in the permit.
SEP
Page 14 of 17 October 30, 1996

MEI
Clariant Corporation Comment #11
PERMIT CONDITION: PART III, SECTION G
A. Contested Permit Condition:
"It has been determined by the Division of Water Quality through intensive water quality
studies that discharges upstream of Lake Wylie, including this discharge, need to control nutrients
through the application of the best available technology (BAT) that is economically achievable.
The permittee shall provide the Division with a study which fully investigates the feasibility of
meeting a monthly average TP limit of 1.0 mg/1 and a summertime TN limits of 6 mg/1. If it is
determined to be beyond reasonable BAT to reach such concentrations of nutrients, the Division
will apply BAT limits based on the results of this study and the performance of other similar
plants.
The nutrient study should be completed by November 1, 1999, and submitted to the
r=s+ following address:..."
B. Comments:
1. Clariant requests that the Division identify in the record and provide coriesof sp 4 f c ✓
studies —referred to __in. -this_ dition. Moreover, Clariant requests that the Division
document in the record for this permit the specific basis it is relying on to conclude that
this discharge needs to control phosphorus and nitrogen.
2. The Division's determination to control nutrients in the Catawba River Basin through the
application of best available technology (BAT) to all discharges is rulemaking under the C ,
North Carolina Administrative Procedures Act, NCGS §150B because it constitutes the
adoption of a standard (i.e., nutrient limits) of general applicability. It is improper for the 11'-"
Division to impose such limits in individual permits without having first established such �' , r/`%
standard nutrient limits under the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act. If the Division wishes to adopt a basinwide standard for nutrient limits, it cannot
''" avoid compliance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,
merely by issuing numerous individual permits with the same standard nutrient limits.
3. The total phosphorus limit of 1.0 mg/1 and the summertime total nitrogen limit of 6 mg/1
on Clariant's discharge are not limits authorized by regulation or statute. Therefore, the
Division lacks authority to require the permittee to fund and provide a study which
Pal investigates the feasibility of meeting such limits.
4. Clariant objects to this permit condition to the extent that it is considered a requirement
to apply BAT -based limits on TP or TN at any time during the term of this permit and
objects to the TP limit of 1.0 mg/1 and the TN limit of 6 mg/1. Any effluent TN limits
on the Clariant discharge are not justifiable based on available information. On Page 4-45
of the Division's "Catawba River Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan," July,
1995, (Catawba Basin Plan) the Division indicates that nutrient loadings to Lake Wylie
from the Catawba River mainstream arm (which includes the Clariant discharge) have
been relatively low and water quality standards have been met consistently from 1990
through 1995. ` ; , . rl >75
•
zcz
/ /t
Page 15 of 17
October 30, 1996

PSI
MEI
ORR
FOR
MEI
rail
PM
4 (5 Unless the Division can present data which clearly demonstrates that the Catawba River
' mainstream arm or main bodyof Lake Wylie is eutrophic and that the agal growth is
,��,. Y P g
��t limited by available nitrogen, then the permittee is reluctant to conduct a costly study to
,('Q- determine BAT nitrogen removal for Clariant wastewater as a condition of obtaining this
permit.
C. Requested Action:
Delete permit condition Part III, Section G.
"" Page 16 of 17 October 30, 1996

POI
POI
Clariant Corporation Comment #12
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
Effluent limitations on the following chemicals:
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloromethane
Tribromomethane
Trichloromethane
B. Comments:
Pol 1. Since Clariant will monitor for compliance with the pesticide effluent COD limitations
at the pesticide manufacturing plant (Location I2), the limits specified for these eight
chemicals should be monitored at that sample location and not at Outfall 001.
P,
MR
PM
WM
PM
WI
fnl
Mi
PP
2. The effluent limits for the above eight chemicals appear to be derived from the pesticide
effluent guideline in 40 CFR Part 455, Table 4. The proper table is Table 5 if monitored
at I2.
3. Four of the eight pesticide -regulated chemicals are also OCPSF regulated chemicals that
are identified elsewhere in the permit condition under another name and with different
effluent limits. To the extent the list of eight chemicals remains applicable to Outfall 001,
the duplicative chemical listings and conflicting effluent limitations should be reconciled.
The following chemicals are duplicates:
Chloromethane = methyl chloride
Dichloromethane = methylene chloride
Tetrachloromethane = carbon tetrachloride
Trichloromethane = chloroform
‘/
C. Requested Action:
Identify the sample location for the eight pesticide regulated chemicals as I2 and
recalculate the effluent limits using 40 CFR Part 455, Table 5.
"'y Page 17 of 17 October 30, 1996

`IA E54
United States Industrial Tedtnol
Environmental Protection ofV Division
Agency WH '%2
Minahutgt.on, DC 20460
Water
EPA 440/1-87/009
October 1987
- 1 7
Development Final
Document for
- ATTACHMENT 9
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
standards for the
organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers
Point Source Category
Volume 1
REPRODUCED=Y
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161

H. LIMITATIONS DEVELOPMENT
This section describes the methodology used to develop BPT, BAT, and PSES
effluent limitations and standards and includes discussions of data editing
criteria, derivation of long-term averages, and derivation of "Maximum for
Monthly Average" and "Maximum for Any One Day" variability factors.
1. BPT Effluent Limitations
As discussed in Section VI, the Agency decided to control BODS and TSS
under BPT. This section discusses the data editing rules and methodology used
to derive the final BPT effluent limitations guidelines for BODS and TSS.
a. Data Editing Criteria
Two sets of data editing rules were developed for BPT; one set was used
to edit the data base, which was utilized to calculate the long-term averages
(LTA) BODS and TSS values for each subcategory, while the second set was used
to edit the BPT daily data base, which was utilized to derive variability
factors.
b. LTA Data Editing
The two major forms of data editing performed on the LTA data base
obtained through the 1983 Section 308 Questionnaire were the dilution adjust-
ment assessments made for each full -response, direct discharge OCPSF facility
which submitted BODS or TSS influent and/or effluent data and a BPT perform-
ance edit.
Dilution Adjustment - Since the limitations apply to all process
wastewater as defined in Section V, the Agency grouped all volumes of process
and non -process wastewater for the purpose of adjusting reported plant -level
BODS and TSS concentrations for dilution by nonprocess wastewater. This also
permitted the Agency to estimate engineering costs of compliance based on the
proper process wastewater flows and conventional pollutant concentrations.
For example, if BOD5 was reported as 28 mg/1 at the final effluent sampling
location with 1 MGD of process wastewater flow that was combined with 9 MGD of
uncontaminated nonprocess cooling water flow, then the BODS concentration in
VII-153

the process wastewater alone was actually 280 mg/1 before dilution. This
conservatively assumes that the cooling water flow is free of BOD5 and TSS.
However, in the Agency's judgment, many of the sources and flows reported
as nonprocess wastewater by plants in their respective Section 308 Question-
naires are contaminated by process sources of BOD5 and TSS. Table VII-50
presents a list of the miscellaneous wastewaters reported in the Section 308
Questionnaires as nonprocess, which EPA has determined to be either contam-
inated (and therefore process wastewater) or uncontaminated with conventional
pollutants. The Agency reviewed this list after receiving public comments on
both NOAs criticizing some of its assignments and determined that, in general,
its assignments were correct.
Since the limitations apply to process wastewater (which includes
"contaminated nonprocess" wastewater) only, the relative contributions of
process wastewater versus "uncontaminated nonprocess" wastewater,were deter-
mined at the influent and effluent sample sites. These data were used to
calculate plant -by -plant "dilution factors" for use in adjusting pollutant
concentrations at influent and effluent sampling locations as appropriate.
The general procedure for determining sample -site dilution factors and
adjusting BOD5 and TSS values was as follows:
• Sum uncontaminated nonprocess wastewater flows for an individual plant
(e.g., Plant No. 61 uncontaminated nonprocess wastewater flow =
0.280 MGD)
• Sum process wastewater flow for an individual plant (e.g., Plant No.
61 process wastewater flow = 0.02 MGD)
• Divide the sum of uncontaminated nonprocess wastewater flows by the
total process wastewater flow to determine dilution factor (e.g., for
Plant No. 61, 0.280 MGD/ 0.02 MGD = 14.0)
• Apply the sample -site dilution factor (plus 1) by multiplying by the
reported BOD or TSS value to be adjusted (e.g., for Plant No. 61,
196 mg/1 effluent BOD5 x (14.0 + 1) = 2,940 mg/1 effluent BOD5.
VII-154

J
1
i
TABLE VII-50.
CONTAMINATED AND UNCONTAMINATED MISCELLANEOUS "NONPROCESS" WASTEWATERS
REPORTED IN THE 1983 SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE
Contaminated "Nonprocess" Wastewaters
(therefore designated as
process wastewater)
Uncontaminated Nonprocess Wastewaters
Air Pollution Control Wastewater (B5) Non -Contact Cooling Water (B1)
ani` tary receiving biological treat'-)
ment) (B4)
Boiler Blowdown
Sanitary (indirect discharge)
team Condenses e
Vacuum Pump Seal Water
Wastewater Stripper Discharge
Bi from Vertac
Boiler Feedwater Lime
Softener Blowdown
Contaminated Water Offsite
Condensate
Storage, Lans, Shops
Laboratory Waste
Steam Jet Condensate
Water Softener Backwashing
Miscellaneous Lab Wastewater
Raw Water Clarification
Landfill Leachate
Water Treatment
Technical Center
Scrubber Water
Utility Streams
Washdown N-P Equipment
Contact Cooling Water
Vacuum Steam Jet Slowdown
Densator Blowdown
Bottom Ash -Quench Water
Demineralizer Washwater
Sanitary (no biological treatment,
direct discharge) (B4)
Cooling Tower Blowdown (B2)
Stormwater Site Runoff (B3)
—Deianized-Water Regeneration
Miscellaneous Wastewater (conditional)
Softening Regeneration
Ion Exchange Regeneration
River Water intake
Make-up Water
Fire Water Make-up
Tank Dike Water
Demineralizer Regenerant
Dilution Water
Condensate Losses
Shipping Drains
Water Treatment Blowdown
Cooling Tower Overflow
Chilled Water Sump Overflow
Air Compressor and Conditioning Blow
Firewall Drainings
Other Non -contact Cooling
Miscellaneous Leaks and Drains
Boiler House Softeners
Fire Pond Overflow
Boiler Regeneration Backwash
Groundwater (Purge)
Firewater Discharge
Freeze Protection Water
VII-155

TABLE VII-50.
CONTAMINATED AND UNCONTAMINATED MISCELLANEOUS "NONPROCESS" WASTEWATERS
REPORTED IN THE 1983 SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE
(Continued)
Contaminated "Nonprocess" Wastewaters
(therefore designated as
process wastewater)
Uncontaminated Nonprocess Wastewaters
Water Softening Backwash
Lab Drains
Closed Loop Equipment Overflow
filter Backwash)
Demineralizer Wastewater
Laboratory Offices
Demineralizer Blowdown
Utility Clarifier Blowdown
Steam Generation
RO Rejection Water
Power House Blowdown
Inert Gas Gen. Blowdown
/ Contaminated Groundwater
Potable Water Treatment
Unit Washes
Non -Contact Floor Cleaning
Slop Water from Dist. Facilities
Laboratory and Vacuum Truck
Ion Bed Regeneration
Tankcar Washing (HCN)
Film Wastewater
Generator Blowdown
Air Sluice Water
Research and Development
Quality Control
Steam Desuperheating
Pilot Plant
Other Company Off -site Waste
Ion Exchange Resin Rinse
H2 and CO Generation
Demineralizer Spent Regenerants
Lime Softening of Process
Miscellaneous Service Water
Recirculating Cooling System
HVAC Blowdown Lab Utility
Condenser Water Backwash
Deonfler Regenerant
Raw Water Filter Backwash
Distribution
VII-156

TABLE VII-50.
CONTAMINATED AND UNCONTAMINATED MISCELLANEOUS "NONPROCESS" WASTEWATERS
REPORTED IN THE 1983 SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE
(Continued)
Contaminated "Nonprocess" Wastewaters
(therefore designated as
process wastewater)
Uncontaminated Nonprocess Wastewaters
Iron Filter Backwash
Area Washdown
Vacuum Pump Wastewater
Garment Laundry
Hydraulic Leaks
Grinder Lubricant
Utility Area Process
Contact Rainwater
Alum Water Treatment
Incinerator H2O
Product Wash
Backflush from Demineralizer
Water Clarifier Blowdown
Water Treatment Filter Wash
Equipment Cooling H2O
Belt Filter Wash
Ejector
OGPSF Flow from Another Plant
VII-157

ATTACHMENT 2
River Sampling & Testing Data
U - Upstream, D - Downstream
All Figures are Monthly Averages
Month BOD-U BOD-D DO - U DO - D Temp. - U Temp. - D Conductivity
U D
1991
Jan 1.3 ppm 1.9 ppm 11.2 11.0 9.5°C 9.5°C
pm Feb 2.1 1.6 11.7 11.6 10.3 10.4
Mar 3.9 2.9 11.0 10.6 12.5 12.9
Apr 3.0 2.9 9.8 9.8 17.3 17.8
WI May 3.2 2.8 8.7 9.1 21.4 22.7
Jun 1.8 2.5 7.9 8.2 25.3 26.1
Jul 1.4 1.7 6.9 7.4 28.1 28.8
MI Aug 1.0 1.7 7.0 7.0 27.7 27.7
Sep 158091b/day 107881b/day 7.7 7.8 26.4 30.0 72.5 112.1
Oct 20790 17526 8.5 8.9 20.6 20.6 76.7 145.1
mn
Nov 14735 12863 9.5 9.4 14.1 14.1 72.5 91.2
Dec 16092 15353 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.5 70.3 86.8
1992
Jan 40774 42525 11.2 11.1 8.9 9.1 84.3 77.4
mi Feb 27909 22482 11.9 11.6 8.8 9.5 79.2 99.3
Mar 70161 71232 11.2 11.2 11.4 11.5 89.2 89.7
Apr 23646 24231 9.6 9.5 16.6 17.5 94.5 98.4
May 30696 28996 9.0 8.7 19.6 20.0 80.4 85.4
Jun 71209 61342 8.1 8.0 21.5 22.0 79.3 84.2
Jul 38669 28972 7.0 7.7 27.2 27.9 81.8 97.7
rim Aug 24521 22174 6.9 7.6 26.9 27.1 80.4 146.8
Sep 18452 21252 7.1 7.7 25.8 25.7 82.9 131.6
Oct 62830 26138 8.5 8.8 19.5 19.3 86.2 95.1
Nov 47178 40248 9.3 9.1 15.5 15.4 84.6 91.3
Dec 38123 44034 10.7 10.4 10.4 10.6 79.2 90.1
1993
Jan 37272 42125 10.9 11.2 9.9 9.6 77.3 81.?
�, Feb 54659 49942 11.6 11.4 8.4 8.9 79.3 80.6
Mar 41078 53504 10.7 10.8 9.4 9.6 74.5 79.2
Apr 55644 44989 9.8 10.0 14.1 14.3 92.8 80.4
raw+ May 33675 21471 8.2 8.3 19.8 20.0 78.0 71.9
Jun 20801 16039 6.7 7.1 25.8 26.7 81.4 119.3
Jul 12133 8913 5.5 6.0 30.5 32.0 91.6 117.2
'ur' Aug 15119 20613 9.4 7.1 29.2 29.4 81.7 122.2
Sep 9121 11945 6.9 7.7 28.1 28.2 69.5 112.6
Oct 5838 7061 8.3 9.0 21.5 21.5 68.8 134.0
ow Nov 5221 7181 9.6 9.7 15.1 14.8 69.0 135.8
Dec 8016 13122 9.5 9.6 10.8 10.6 75.7 87.?

Month BOD-U
River Sampling & Testing Data
U - Upstream, D - Downstream
page 2
BOD-D DO - U DO - D Temp. - U Temp. - D Conductivity
U D
1994
Jan 59972 75651 11.3
Feb 48483 66091 10.8
Mar 35302 41490 10.4
Apr 56022 44355 9.1
May 1.3 ppm ' 1.8 ppm 7.9
Jun 2.5 2.7 6.8
Jul 3.1_ 3.0 6.6
Aug 1.6 2.0 7.0
Sep 0.9 1.3 7.2
Oct 1.6 1.0 8.3
Nov 1.4 1.4 ' 8.9
Dec
1995
Jan 2.6
Feb 109739 lb/day
Mar 28671
Apr 9491
May 12442
Jun 68098
Jul 43328
Aug 26078
Sep 50589
Oct 53556
Nov 36519
Dec 16735
2.1 .11.6
84665 lb/day 11.3
39.668 9.9
9572 8.5
13718 7.6
47729 7.7
30068 6.6
26168 6.6
41462 7.7
55934 7.5
39300 9.3
14031 10.9
11.3 8.4 8.1 80.1 83.9
11.0 8.8 9.0 78.1 75.1
10.5 12.2 12.8 73.7 81.8
9.2 19.3 19.0 76.5 74.9
7.8 22.3 22.5 72.4 99.9
7.6 27.2 28.1 67.1 104.7
7.6 28.5 29.2 72.8 88.9
7.3 28.6 28.9 58.6 72.9
7.7 25.8 24.8 62.8 74.0
8.5 19.8 19.4 61.4 74.0
9.1 16.7 16.2 57.1 68.9
11.4 9.1 9.5 192.0 66.5
11.2 7.5 8.3 74.3 69.3
-10.4 13.4 14.0 66.2 71.6
8.9 20.0 19.3 66.4 80.3
7.5 22.5 23.0 59.6 75.8
7.3 25.7 25.8 51.6 54.4
7.1 29.7 30.5 61.7 81.8
7.2 30.5 30.5 68.6 89.9
7.9 26.7 26.5 69.0 75.7
7.9 21.8 21.8 65.5 68.0
9.2 14.4 13.6 66.2 70.0
10.7 11.1 10.7 69.3 90.8

OCPSF Process Waters
Pesticide wastewater
Groundwater2
Stormwater (process)3
Stormwater (non-proc)4
Sanitary
OCPSF Process Waters
Pesticide wastewater
Groundwater
Filter Backwash
Stormwater (Process)3
Stormwater (non-Proc)4
Sanitary
Clariant Corp (NC0004375) - Proposed Limits
BOD5 - Monthly Avg.
(45 mg/I)(0.78 MGD)(8.34)
(1.6 Ibs/1000 Ibs)(12,000 Ibs/day)
(32 mg/I)(0.17)(0.13 MGD)(8.34)
(45 mg/I)(0.087 MGD)(8.34)
(1 mg/I)(0.138 MGD)(8.34)
(30 mg/I)(0.058 MGD)(8.34)
TSS - Monthly Avg.
(57 mg/I)(0.78 MGD)(8.34)
(1.8 Ibs/1000 Ibs)(12,000 Ibs/day)
(30 mg/I)(0.087 MGD)(8.34)
(57 mg/I)(0.087 MGD)(8.34)
(30 mg/I)(0.138 MGD)(8.34)
(30 mg/I)(0.058 MGD)(8.34)
(lb/day)
= 292.7
19.2
5.9
32.7
1.2
= 14.5
366.2
BOD5 - Daily Max. (lb/day)
(120mg/I)(0.78 MGD)(8.34) = 780.6
(7.4 Ibs/1000 Ibs)(12,000 Ibs/day) = 88.8
(32 mg/I)(0.17)(0.13 MGD)(8.34)(1.5) = 8.8
(120 mg/I)(0.087 MGD)(8.34) = 87.1
(1 mg/I)(0.138 MGD)(8.34)(1.5) = 1.7
(30 mg/I)(0.058 MGD)(8.34)(1.5) = 21.8.
988.8
(lb/day) TSS - Daily Max. (lb/day)
= 370.8 (183 mg/I)(0.78 MGD)(8.34) =1190.5
= 21.6 (6.1 Ibs/1000 Ibs)(12,000 Ibs/day) = 73.2
= 0.0 = 0.0
= 21.8 (45 mg/I)(0.087 MGD)(8.34) = 32.7
= 41.4 (183 mg/I)(0.087 MGD)(8.34) = 132.8
= 34.5 (45 mg/I)(0.138 MGD)(8.34) = 51.8
= 14.5 (30 mg/I)(0.058 MGD)(8.34)(1.5) = 21.8
504.6 1502.8
Summary
Existing Permit
Proposed Permit
Mo. Avg. (lb/day)
Daily Max. (lb/day)
Mo. Avg. (lb/day)
Daily Max. (lb/day)
COD
BOD5
TSS
108
852
976
156
2236
2928
108
366.2
504.6
156
988.8
1502.8
1 Flow of 0.78 MGD based on LTA of 1.42 MGD from 1991 - 1995. Flow schematic shows 54.6% of flow is from OCPSF processing.
2 Assumes no BOD5 reduction in air stripper. 83% reduction in WWTP. Conc. of 32 mg/I from Clariant data submitted 6-24-96.
3 Flow of 0.087 MGD based on annual average rainfall for areas 1,3 and 4 from stormwater runoff map.
4 Concentration based on SW application (1992). Sites average 5 mg/I - 83% reduction at WWTP yields 1 mg/I allocation.
Revised 8/1/96
m
a
RIO
0
m
0
n
A
.a.
-1
0
0
0
g
7E
0
r
0
3
PostYlt M brand fax transmittal memo 7671
0
a
cn
v

IS
PRODUC`1" 5
GROuND
IZEMCDIf rtoi
STRIPPER
100
I_KPLIUE RCll7
Sewee SUwGQ
RcRA
(CEcL-R) 30
DVL-S Ci-1ET'1ICQL5
MFrJUt 1-CTL1RL
??0
H��r31c.1 .
Ma IQur(ACTuije.
80
,,I I\iO i Col.1't'�1CT
�jl CooLI).1G
qs
EVRt?otRRTIOI,1
1(00
ST e RV\
GE+JI RPT1ow1
W8
STOR IA w aT w.
225
6'
,,KAllvJ'
PoTA$LE JrWa1=Q.
CHRZ1o7TE
S q �i %-r .
iJRTER
TN-R.eraTM6 -1Y
FIt_�e�z c3rackwas)-1 S7
1,305
FLO\,J
SETTLIt•G
CR•.1RL
NE.u'rRRuR.crt 1o0
STORM `' Loy,/
NEUIT'RRL\ sr'IoU
SToR \ FLov!
STuRRGE
r
PRttna2.Y
CLARIFLERS
SLU GE
F 1 I.T RR--r local
SLUDGE.
LAIDi)LA_
•
198
e- Ck2ORP-rloti
RcTIVRTEo
SL.IDGE
fAcrlva,-;)
S LU X
STo-RM F Low
STORAGZ.
8-7
SToRfla
C RTAWBA RIVER
SECONDA2.Y
GLR'ZIF\>='�S
Po�IS1-11t.1G,
Pow D
POL1sFit�Ct
Po,a-0
Posx-
RC-ZRTloh.1
EFFLuccaT
1NG
1 /-1 10
DISCt-icl c c 0O1
C LRR1RJT C oRP. - PLRLI'T
W (TER TLow SGHEMRTIC
ALL FLow s tA! T-kouSR.1D5 oV GRL.Lotls 1�EZ P1
Nc000<-I-is)
SK- IVPDES. Fo
RE'J, D -ri -2.0-9(.,

MEETING AGENDA
CLARIANT CORPORATION
APPROACH TO DEFINE BAT
NOVEMBER 10, 1998
AEI JOB NO. N130-24A
I. Basis for BAT Study
II. Plan to Define BAT
A. Figure 1
B. Use of Variability Factors
C. Evaluation of Similar Facilities
D. Definition of Nutrient Goals
i. TN/6 (Summer)
ii. TP/1
E. Technologies to Achieve Goals
F. Cost Benefit Analysis (Figure 2)
III. Project Status
IV. Comments/Suggestions
V. DEHNR Schedule to Implement BAT Criteria
VI. Permit Status
25032

' (2) When daily average river flow is calculated to be > 175 cfs but _< 250 cfs:
BOD5 + 0.54(NH3-N) <_ 1044 lb/day
A DMR sheet shall be used to monitor compliance with BOD and NH3 staging requirements
during the summer (April 1 - October 31)
G. NUTRIENTS
It has been determined by the Division of Water Quality through intensive water quality studies that
discharges upstream of Lake Wylie, including this discharge, need to control nutrients through the
application of the best available technology (BAT) that is economically achievable. The permittee
shall provide the Division with a study which fully investigates the feasibility of meeting a monthly
average TP limit of 1.0 mg/I, and a summertime TN limit of 6 mg/l. If it is determined to be
beyond reasonable BAT to reach such concentrations of nutrients, the Division will apply BAT
limits based on the results of this study and the performance of other similar plants.
The nutrient study should be completed by November I, 1999, and submitted to the following
address:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section Technical Support Branch
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535

•
cn
E
POLLUTANT
RANGE OF BAT
TECHNOLOGY
•
COST (/lbs POLLUTANT REMOVED)
APPROACH .TO DEFINE BAT
A.
:;eplumber 16. 19J7 5:56:16 p.m.
Drawing: (:: \r RAW1NC:41011 1.I)wc

Define if Clariant has
OCPSF BAT Plant
Conduct
Treat:thi I nv
TestinLz
Define Long
Term Average
TN and TP
Determine
Variability
Factors
Determine
Necessary
Monthly
Average TN and
TP for Existing
Facility
-t►
Define
Additional end
of pipe and In -
Plant Treatment
to Achieve TN
of 6 and TP of I
Determine Additional
Treatment
Technology to
Achieve BAT
Evaluate TN and TP at
Similar Facilities
Evaluate
Application of
TN and TP
Technologies to
Clariant Facility
Perform
Economic
Analysis of TN
and TP
Technologies
Define BAT
Criteria
FIGURE 1 - APPROACH TO DEFINE TN AND TP BAT
�r•.i !r,,,..� \„ vt %'s.:,.‘
FILE \.1\a: !err

( ( .'; f4: (az
4--brAs5- 774 Tr (4 Al /7-
/1/,,,/t
(744.44771- ave074. 4ec65.74-- 40vege,
Loh;
611:101eil.ren
1707in7 /111601( 4,,nivytt /77? ef
•
l; LI ( )7 rke-A' / 71 7 .
•
, 1/1/.:C ei7f Yi6 frefizzlie6d,- e64,0,09.4.714
mit
eri trv! •
p-/Pf=r7`
e/41/1-4'n1- r)711/ rm( 4 %/11- (litr--
fr'„,.?.
Oda &)7
1v6 t)rn4
/km Az- keelbekdir fk5. ..., ,,,:: ,i-e-, _
kih-,A7 ,s,,/„4 ,versnit illlO)q4 I pill/a Intl-14:S- etd Iliklite-(..
-116 41ft" I del irrtilt 7—A/ &lye- ,-41/4.14.;ie tir
gai4( 4-rat-11 / I I ' ril it 4 jiff- .5-:.fct/6-.Q. 144 //.
m7r./? 4 ce-nee-iv
a b-elf .6P/10w? pi inereig#174 hiral/ cA,orfrpee fl;R--e-d—
M-7-74: A f'e 6 rI4 1e4f 7,4_4(" 4 q. ma*, ex-
firt:C7‘17.7 plit-ri 15 .
:_.7,,;:f.,: r 1 ;t.ol 71 P / 7? --,-.1,i0 -1- el Arlittvie.. /LC
1 / , I. , i[ . /_ • , ,
-nit a i -/,- e-ov7 if ‘ieific- iftl/
--,z ) ,_. 1
ii-LM -et_i//#77 /7.,:',11.';'„,:eri;,-..-74.:c,
4. -.
,

/611 66 A CY16 eAC
at114' 4'01/4i-izvt /1-:, 5/zing ,i 711 `4/1,,j rvti
-5(,) ing I
72E41 iv zip4fre..... and 54teff czynilvitt
(.7/4,1e/.e; tke i\)(11/ -/p
-"zbP tc,eteil re/4mo
6-7) ZIT -
pv:( (-7-r e a
fri(Li PY1 P -A/1/ mcci
• )
%-7" M/277-K 41.4a4 al; holityn`71%-e- / bc-toi Ye-
yezf et) ./117(tifrr6/. ,e.7 /.-f?
t,',64•1-t; 7/-`4.,' c /X,,rn-_;e:c, ai A/ f.e:),A4,„41-4- A' ll : of/ i4; i
r i, 4.
/ 6.r,ifrale, 4 /1/1/74-1- ;It-i- —C.:5-40N_ /L.- 3.
, . / ri..6_, .5 ''-' •0` flil / p .
teld It 5
44. C.114 b. 5 /1 414 i/V..
itlet 714( ,t,- leec 1,,/ 2e) A /rAi ,) . I/
,----- iz
- 4.2
/C
1-61‘1'eet-4:-.4/ttivinik?
.1° .1{,h(; r m Pi/
.
I
c,iieln, c,r7 ,ry,/ 46)7 raiii4./,?-6
,i•-• .4.••••••••.'
ri
11(4i
e
rie7 'If 4 #7 ,;-C4f,5 6(fc8c. rztie truck(' i'aftl," •
• (.0-' b • •
1/4,

(4147e/7(
/
-7 Li -
I
(C"? Ii4Cif47617:

Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, NC 28266
7041111):081-•
Clariant
July 28, 1998
Mr. David Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Proposed Compliance Schedule for BOD Effluent Limit Reduction — Clariant
Corporation NPDES Permit Number 0004375
Dear Mr. Goodrich;
I am writing with respect to the compliance schedule in the pending NPDES permit for BOD
effluent reduction.
Clariant has performed a number of batch and continuous treatability studies to determine
the most cost efficient approach to debottlenecking the existing wastewater treatment plant to
achieve BOD removal efficiency increases required to meet the more restrictive limits in the
pending NPDES permit. We have been working under the assumption that the daily average BOD
limit will be roughly 500 pounds per day. If this assumption is valid, the majority of the bench
scale work is completed. Process design is underway currently.
Our preliminary "order of magnitude" cost estimates show that the capital and operating
costs of the debottlenecking work are substantial and will add significantly to the site's operating
budget.
Attached is a proposed compliance schedule. The schedule assumes that the NPDES permit
will have BOD limits in the 500 pounds per day range. If the permit is more restrictive, all of the
treatability work and process design done to date will have to be redone. This would add
approximately nine more months to the schedule. Clariant's proposed date for compliance with the
lower BOD limits is October 1, 2001. Please review this proposal and let me know whether or not
it is acceptable to the Division.
The treatability studies have uncovered a phenomena that is of concern when testing
Clariant's final effluent. Ammonia compounds cause a 10 — 20% inflation of final BOD
concentration analyses. Concentrations of CBOD, BOD, and ammonia were analyzed during most
of the study work to date.
onn
JUI. 9 � IY.0
POINT SOURCE BRANCH

Letter to Mr. David Goodrich, dated July 28, 1998 page 2
The Division has placed winter and summer ammonia limits on Clariant's effluent. We
request that CBOD testing be allowed for compliance with effluent BOD limit. Otherwise, Clariant
effluent BOD will be more severely restricted because of the ammonia contribution.
Data tables of the treatability results are being compiled and will be available if you would
like to review them for the ammonia contribution to BOD test results.
Clariant is proceeding with process design and mechanical design aspects of the wastewater
plant debottlenecking work. We are doing so under the assumption that the Division will issue the
NPDES permit soon and that the BOD limit will be in the 500 pounds per day range. If either of
these assumptions is in error, please let us know as soon as possible.
If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Thank you for your help
during this process.
Sincerely;
-an l -
/7e?//44itiv-
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
ESHA Leader

Clariant Corporation — Mt. Holly Plant
Project Schedule: Wastewater Treatment Plant Debottlenecking
G.P. Sanderson 07.28.98
3/97 6/97 121/97 3/98 6/918 9/98 12/98 3/99 6/99 9/99 12/99 3/00 6/010 9/010 12/00 3/01 6/01 9/01 12/01 3/012
Treatability Study & Process
Design
Design Engineering
Estimating &
Project Approval
Specifications &
Procurement
Construction
Start Up
Compliance
Demonstration

Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, NC 28266
704.827.9651
Clariant
July 10, 1998
Mr. David Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Renewal of Clariant's NPDES Permit No. 0004375
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
We appreciate your efforts in working with us to propose acceptable BOD5 limits in our
draft permit. At this time, as I have indicated, it appears that we are close to agreement on limits
that the plant will attempt to meet. We have, however, recently learned about a flow calculation
method used in EPA Region 6 that we believe would justify even higher BOD limits. We
wanted to bring this issue to your attention at this time, and perhaps to raise it in the future if we
find that we are unable to meet the limits that are being proposed.
As you know, the OCPSF guidelines require effluent limitations on BOD and other
pollutants to be calculated separately for every facility as a function of process flow. The
guidelines provide only concentration values for each regulated pollutant, and permit writers are
supposed to calculate "mass -based" effluent limitations as the product of that concentration and
the flow.
EPA generally recommends (in preambles and elsewhere) that permit writers use the
long-term daily average flow to calculate mass limitations. The OCPSF regulations, however, do
not specify that or any other particular flow value. The regulations instead use the phrase "the
process wastewater flow," and permit writers are free to use their discretion in selecting a proper
flow value. In fact, concentration values in the OCPSF guidelines were developed exclusively
from concentration data collected from various OCPSF facilities. Flow variability was not taken
into account when the OCPSF guidelines were derived, and thus the relationship between flow
and concentration was never established. As such, the effluent guideline values reflect variability
in concentration, but not variability in mass.
Our counsel has encountered this issue in the past and has discussed it with Pat Bradley
and George Jett at EPA Headquarters, who referred him to Ed McHam at EPA Region 6. He was
told that, because Mr. McHam deals with such a large number of OCPSF facilities in his Region,

Mr. David Goodrich
July 10, 1998
Page 2
he is considered the national expert on OCPSF issues. Mr. McHam confirmed that the OCPSF
guidelines did not account for variability in mass. As such, he reportedly takes the position that
EPA cannot justify requiring a long-term daily average flow value for calculating effluent
limitations. He said that EPA Region 6 routinely uses flow values more closely related to higher
production levels, such as the highest of the monthly averages over the past year, or even the
highest of the monthly averages over the past few years.
The use of long-term daily average flows can lead to more strict mass -based limitations
than would otherwise be allowed. In our case, for example, the BOD limit proposed by the
Division is based on a long-term average WWTP effluent flow of 1.42 MGD from 1991-1995,
and an assumed percent of flow from OCPSF processing. The average of the highest monthly
averages during each of the past five years, on the other hand, gives a flow value of 2.05 MGD.
We believe that the 2.05 MGD flow value could legitimately be used by the Department in
calculating BOD limits for our plant. (That number would then need to be reduced by an
assumed percentage of flow from OCPSF sources, to which a credit of BOD should be added to
reflect intake pollutants from the Catawba River.)
In view of our continuing negotiations over the BOD issue, I wanted to be sure that you
had the opportunity to know of this approach from EPA Region 6 in case you were not already
aware of it. For your information, I have attached a copy of a fact sheet and response to
comments for an NPDES/OCPSF permit issued to a Monsanto facility in the Region as an
example of this approach.
Should you wish to discuss this issue further, please do not hesitate to call. Again, we
appreciate your willingness to work with us in developing the permit limits.
Sincerely,
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
ESHA Leader
Enclosure

Jun-08-98 09:42
From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
8041UUlliS I-iu3 r•ucis4 r—UN
FACT SHEET
for the drafr National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
to discharge ro waters of the United States.
Permit No. TX0003875
Applicant:
Issuing Office:
Prepared By:
Permit Action:
Monsanto Chemical Company
Chocolate Bayou Plant
P.O. Box 71].
Alvin, Texas 77512-9888
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Eduard C. McHam, Engineer
Industrial Permits Section (6W-PI)
Permits Branch
Water Management Division
[phone]
Proposed reissuance of the permit issued 5/29/87 with
an effective date of 6/30/87 and an expiration date of
9/23/90
Date Prepared: 5/29/90
Unless otherwise stated, citations co 40 CFR refer to promulgated regulations
listed at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of 7/1/89.
I. APPLICANT ACTIVITY
The applicant currently manufactures industrial organic chemicals.
II. DISCHARGE LOCATION
As described in the application, the plant site is located in Brdzoria County,
Texas. The discharge is to Chocolate Bayou (Tidal) in Segment No. 1107 of the
San Jacinto -Brazos Coastal Basin.
III. RECEIVING STREAM USES
The known uses of the receiving waters are:
Segment No. 1107
- contact recreation
- high quality aquatic habitat
IV. STREAM STANDARDS
The general criteria and numerical criteria which make up the stream standards
SUN 08 '98 09:49
8047887123 PAGE.02

Jun-08-98 09:42
From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
804T88T1Z3 T-T53 P.U3/33 t-UIU
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PACE 2 OF 25
are provided in the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, 31 TAC Sections
307.1 - 307.10 (13 TexReg 1776, 4/15/88).
V. pISCHARcE DESCRIFTTON '
The following is a quantitative description of the discharge described in the
EPA Permit Application Forms 1 and 2C dated 3/23/90 and received 3/23/90:
A. FLOW (MOD).
Outfall Frequency Max 30-pay Max Daily
001 Continuous 4.350 6.820
101 Continuous 1.994 4.142
002 Intermittent 6.470 22.110
003 Intermittent ---- 2.360
s
B. gFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS (mg[1 unless otherwise stated)
Outfal]. Parameter pax 30-Day Max Daily
001 COD 90
001 TOC 47
101 BOD5 52 225
101 TSS 73 392
101 TOC 277 659
101 COD . 287 790
101 Zinc (Total) ---- 0.09
101 Benzene 0.082 0.159
101 Ethylbenzene ---- (*)
101 Toluene ---- 0.91
101 Phenol ---- (*)
(*) — Not Detected
VI. TEN1TATIVE D TER14INATTON
0n the basis of preliminary staff review, the Environmental Protection Agency
after consultation with the State of Texas has made a tentative determination
to reissue a permit for the discharge described in the application.
VII. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
A. OUTFALL 00] (FINAL)
During the period beginning the effective daze of the permit and lasting
through the expiration date pf the permit,
the permiccee is authorized to discharge from Final Oucfall 001 - the

Jun-00-98 09:43 From-HUNT0N WILLIAMS 8047887123 1-03 N.U4/S3 t-utu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PACE 3 OF 25
discharge of the main oucfall canal to Chocolate Bayou. The main outfall
canal consists of the combined effluents from Internal Outfall 101 and the
Clean Water Ditch System. The Clean Water Ditch System consists of low
contamination potential nonprocess area stormwater, low contamination
potential process area stormwater from certain specialty chemical
manufacturing area(s), cooling tower blowdown (nonchromate corrosion
inhibitors), boiler blowdown, and utility wastewater. The term "utility
wastewater" means wastewaters from, but not limited to, safety showers,
firewater equipment testing, freeze protection, steam trap discharge,
refrigeration unit condensate, and some housekeeping activities.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permirtee as specified
below:
.Effluent Characteristic
Flow (MGD)
pH Minimum/Maximum Values
(Standard Units)
Temperature (°F)
Toxicity Testing Information
Low -Flow, Pass/Fail,
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Fecundity/Growth,
Mysidopsis Bahia
Low -Flow, Pass/Fail,
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
Mysidops_is bahia
Low -Flow, Pass/Fail,
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Growth,
Cyprinodon variegates
Low -Flow, Pass/Fail,
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
Cyprinodon vat}egatus
1/2 Low -Flow, Pass/Fail,
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
ltysidopsis bahia
1/2 Low -Flow, Pass/Fail,
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
Cyprinodon variegacus
Discharge L#.mi ratiops
Mass Other Units
(lbs/day) (mg/1 unless stated)
Pally Avg Daily Max Daily Avg — Daily IIax
Mao
oo IV
IODWID OD
Report
6.01/
Report
9 01/
---- ---- 103a/
et We W
dior. low
Submit
Report
Report
Report
Report -
Report
Report
w.

. Jun-08-98 09:43 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS 804(UV id i-ray r.uaiao r-uiu
•
PERMIT N0. TX0003875
Effluent Characterjsric
Flow (MCD)
FACT SHEET PAGE 4 OF 25
Jonitoring Requiremerrs
Measurement Sample
Frequency 1212e
Continuous Record3i
pH Minimum/Maximum Values 1/Day Grab
(Standard Units)
Temperature (°F) 6/Day , In Situ
Toxicity Testing Information 1/Quarter Footnote`'
Low -Flow, Pass/Fail, 1/Quarter 24-Hr. Composites'
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Fecundity/Grouch,
Mysidopsis pahia
Low -Flow, Pass/Fail, 1/Quarter 24-Hr. Composites'
Stacie Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
Mysidopsis Bahia
Low-Flow Pass/Fail, 1/Quarter 24-Hr. Composites'
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Growth,
Cyprinodon variegatus
Low -Flow, Pass/Fail, 1/Quarter 24-Hr. Composites'
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
Cyprinodon varieatus,
1/2 Low -Flow, Pass/Fail, 1/Quarter 24-Hr. CoatpQsiteS'
Static Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
Mysidopsjs bahia
•
1/2 Low-Flbw, Pass/Fail, 1/Quarter 24-Hr. Composites'
Stacie Renewal, 7-Day
Chronic, Lethality,
Cyprinodon variegatus
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than
trace amounts.
Acute toxic criteria apply at the edge of the zone of initial dilution (ZID),
and chronic toxicity criteria apply at the edge of the mixing zone. The ZID
is defined as a volume within a radius of 30 feec'extending into the receiving
water from a point where the discharge reaches the receiving water. The
critical dilution at the edge of the ZID is defined as 38% effluent. The
mixing zone is defined as a volume within a radius of 156 feet extending into
the receiving water from a point where the discharge reaches the receiving
water. The critical dilution at the edge of the mixing zone is defined as 10%
effluent.
TI tKI Ota ' QQ 171
8047887123 PAGE.05

• J un-08-98 09:43 From-HUNTON W I LL I AXIS
•
dU4(0611i4 1-104 r•uaia4 r-uiu
below:
Effluent
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PAGE 5 OF 25
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the following location(s): ac the main outfall canal weir
structure discharge point.
FOOTNOTES
1f
?/
Si
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units. The permictee shall report on the Discharge Monitoring
Reports both the minimum and maximum instantaneous (rather than the
daily average and daily maximum) pH values measured during the sampling
month.
Instantaneous maximum.
During the occasional periods of weir structure flooding, flow
measurements shall not be subject to the accuracy provisions established
at Part III.C.6 of this permit. During the flooded weir conditions, the
daily flow values may be estimated using best professional judgment.
Submit information required by Part II.H.12 of the permit.
See Part II.H of the permit.
B.
OUTFALI. 101 (INTERNAL)
During the period beginning the effective date of the permit and lasting
through the expiration date of the permit.
the permictee is authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 101 - the
internal discharge of the biological treatment facility to the main outfall
canal for discharge co Chocolate Bayou via Final Outfall 001. The biological
receives sanitary Wastewater and high contamination potential process area
wastewater/process area wastewater from the Oily Wastewater Sewer System not-'
being directed to deep well disposal.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
Characteristic
Flow (MGD)
BOD5
TSS
Acenaphthene
Acrylonicrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
DiscbArge
Mass
(lbs/day)
Daily Avg Daily Max
427
616
0.26
1.15
0.44
0.22
0.18
0.82
0.18
1075
1899
0.71
2.91
1.63
0.46
0.34
1.68
0.34
Ltmi Cations
Other Units
(gag/1 unless scaled)
Patty Avg Daily Max
Report Report
WeIdnw
•
de MI
Tt tl. �o 00 MO • MA
8047887123 PACE.06

, Jun-08-98 09:43
From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
MMMMMULS I-134 r.u1u3a r-uiu
PERMIT NO, TX0003875
FACT SHEET PACE 6 OF 25
1,2-Dichloroechane 0.82 2.53
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.25 0.65
Hexachloroechane 0.25 0.65
1,1-Dichloroechane ' 0.26 0.71
1,1,2-Trichloroechane 0.25 0.65
Chloroethane 1.25 3.22
Chloroform 0.25 0.55
2-Chlorophenol 0.37 1.18
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.92 1.96
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.37 0.53
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.18 0.34
1.1-Di.chloroethylene 0.19 0.30
1.2-trans-Dichloroethylene 0.25 0.65
2.4-Dichlorophenol 0.47 1.35
1,2-Dichloropropane 1.84 2.76
1,3-Dichloropropylene 0.35 0.53
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.22 0.43
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1.36 3.42
2,6-Dinicrocoluene 3.06 7.70
Ethylbenzene 0.38 1.30
Fluoranchene 0.30 0.82
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether 3.61 9.09
Methylene Chloride 0.48 1.07
Methyl Chloride 1.01 2.28
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.24 0.59
Naphthalene 0.26 0.71
Nitrobenzene 0.32 0.82
2-Nitrophenol 0.49 0.83
4-Nitrophenol 0.86 1.49
2,4-Dinicrophenol 0.85 1.48
4,6-Dinizro-o-Cresol 0.94 3.33
Phenol 0.18 0.31
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 1.24 3.35
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 0.32 0.68
Diethyl Phthalate 0.97 2.44
Dimethyl Phthalate 0.23 0.56
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.26 0.71
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.28 0.73
3,4-Benzofluoranthene 0.28 0.73
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.26 0.71
Chrysene 0.26 0.71
Acenaphzhylene 0.26 0.71
Anthracene 0.26 0.71
Fluorene 0.26 0.71
Phenanthrene 0.26 0.71
Pyrene 0.30 0.80
Tetrachloroechylene 0.26 0.67
Toluene 0.31 0.96
Trichloroethylene 0.25 0.65
Vinyl Chloride 1.25 3.22
Zinc (Total) 0.44 1.63
•
WI WO
W ▪ OW
W WO
OM
-
OW W
410 W. OP
MOO
WWWW
WWWw
WWWw
WWWW
MMilww
W OOP
WWWW
WWWW
MIWWw
w PO OW W
MP GRP OW Go
wwwW
MWMW
WWWW
wwWW
wmPOW
W WO OW OM
W.
W OW
MOO
WWWW
W wwW
WWWW
W CP WO OW
,IMP MP
41.
WWWW
WWW
W WWW
MWWOO
W W GP WO
WWWW
W WWW
W WWW
WWWW
W OOOPm
WWW
WWW
W WO
GO
OD W
OP W OP

Jun-08-98 09:44 From-HUN1ON WILLIAMS
0U4t00(IL4
1-I 44 r.Wwww I vow
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
Eff1uenc Character}scic,
Flow (MOD)
BODS
TSS
Acenaphthene
Acrylonicrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1.2-Dichloroethane
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroechane
1,1.2-Trichloroethane
Chloroechane
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1,2-Dichloropropane
1.3-Dichloropropylene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinicrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrocoluene
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinicrophenol
4.6-Dinitro-o-Cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-Hthylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimechyl Phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4-Benzofluoranchene
FACT SHEET
Monitoring
1easurement
requency
Continuous
3/Week
3/Neek
1/Year
1/Year
2/Month
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year. 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
2/Month 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
2/Month 24 -I4r .
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
2/Month 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24 -Hr .
2/Month 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
1/Year 24-Hr.
PAGE 7 OF 25
Requirements
Sample
Me
Record
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr - Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
24-Hr. Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
JUN 08 '98 09:51
8047887123 PAGE.08

• Jun-08-98 09:44 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
804T88T113 1-04 r.ubiss r-uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PAGE 8 OF 25
Benzo(k)fluoraachene 1/Year 24-Hr Composite
Chrysene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Acenaphthylene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Anthracene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Fluorene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Pbenanthrene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Pyrene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Tetrachloroethylene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Toluene 2/Month 24-Hr. Composite
Trichloroechylene 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Vinyl Chloride 1/Year 24-Hr. Composite
Zinc 3/Week 24-Hr. Composite
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the following location(s): at the combined discharge of the
two biological treatment facility final clarifiers prior to commingling with
any other screams.
C. OUTFALL 002 (FINAL)
During the period beginning the effective date of the permit and lasting
through the expiration date of the permit,
.the permittee is authorized to discharge from Final Outfall 002 - the
intermittent discharge to Chocolate Bayou of low contamination potential
nonprocess area stormwater from the plant drainages system.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow (MGD)
pH Minimum/Maximum Values
(Standard Units)
ptscharge Lipieations
Mass Other Units
(Ms/day) (mg/1 unless stated)
pai.ly Avg Daily Max pally Avg Da4ly Max
TOC -
Fffluenz Characteristic
Flow (MGD)
pH Minimum/Maximum Values
(Standard Units)
TOC
$ot icoring
Measurement
Frequepcy
1/Dayl'
1/Daya'
1/Dayal
Report Report
6.0 / 9.01I
75
Requ.reme1nts
Sample
IY2e
Estimate
Grab
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible
trace amounts.
Crab
foam in other than

Jun-08-98 09:44 I•rom-HUHIUN WILLIAMS
ou4looiIL3
I-I44 r•lu/JJ 1 ulu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PAGE 9 OF 25
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken ac the following locacion(s): at the "F" Street ditch where the
ditch crosses the dock road (plant -west of the Final Outfall 001-weir
structure discharge).
£OOTNOTEs
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units. The permittee shall report on the Discharge Monitoring
Reports both the minimum and maximum instantaneous (rather than the
daily average and daily maximum) pH values measured during the sampling
month.
When discharging. The initial sample shall be taken within 30 minutes
after the discharge begins.
D. fITTFALL 003 (FINAL).
During the period beginning the effective dace of the permit and lasting
through the expiration date of the permit,
the permitcee is authorized to discharge from Final 0utfall 003 - the
intermittent discharge to Chocolate Bayou of low contamination potential
stormvater and utility wastewater (as defined at Part I, Final 0ucfal] 001)
from the plant drainage system.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Efflue.nr Characteristic Discharge Limitations
Mass Other Units
(lbs/day) (mg/1 unless stated)
Daily Avg Daily fax pally 4vg Daily Max
Flow (MCD)
pH Minimum/Maximum Values
(Standard Units)
TOC
Affluent Characteriscz c
•
Report Report
6.01M 9.01I
Hon} taring_$equtrejents
Measurement Sample
Frequency Ina
Flow (MGD) 1/Daya' Estimate
pH Minimum/Maximum Values 1/Dayar Grab
(Standard Units)
TOC 1/DayZJ Grab
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than
trace amounts.
75
OMA 7oo174 7, pan= 1 m

, Jun-08-98 09:45 From-HUNTON W I LL I AIMS
•
UUM UUII r.si/ r-uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET PAGE 10 OF 2S
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the following locacion(s): at the gate valve located
approximately 75 feet upstream from the actual discharge point Which is
located plant -east of the Final Oucfall 001 weir structure discharge.
FOOTNOTES
i1
II
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units. The permittee shall report on the Discharge Monitoring
Reports both the minimum and maximum instantaneous (rather than the
daily average and daily maximum) pH values measured during the sampling
month.
When discharging. The initial sample shall be taken Within 30 minutes
after the discharge begins.
VIII. pRAFT PERMIT RATIQ0TAJ.E
The following section secs forth the principal facts and the significant
factual, legal, methodological. and policy questions considered in preparing
the draft permit. Also set forth are any calculations or other necessary
explanations of the derivation of specific effluent limitations and
conditions, including a citation to the applicable effluent limitation
guideline or performance standard provisions as required under 40 CFR Part
122.44 and reasons why they are applicable or an explanation of how the
alternate effluent limitations ere developed: .
A. REASON FOR PERMIT R€ISSUANCE
It is proposed the current permit be reissued for a 5-year term following
regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 122.46(a). The current permit was issued
5/29/87 with an effective date of 6/30/87 and an expiration date of 9/23/90.
.The permit renewal application vas received 3/23/90.
B. IJATER QUALITY SUMMARY
The receiving scream for Finaa. Qutfalls 001, 002, and 003 is Chocolate Bayou
(Tidal), Segment No. 1107 of the San Jacinto -Brazos Coastal Basin. This
waterbody is classified for contact recreation and high quality aquatic
habitat. The receiving waterbody is effluent limited (The State of Texas Water
Quality Inventory. 8th Edition, Publication No. LP86-07, Texas Water
Commission, October 1986. Page 235). Effluent limitations and/or conditions
established in the draft permit are in compliance with State water quality
standards and the applicable water quality management plan. Additional
discussion of the water quality aspects of the draft permit will be found at
Section VIII.D. of this fact sheet.

Jun-08-98 09:45 Frcm-HUNTON WILLIAMS dU4(UIlCS
i—raa r.st/aa ruiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PACE 11 OF 25
C. TECHNOLOGY -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS/CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL COMMENTS
Regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 122.44(a) require technology -based
effluent limitations to be placed in NPDES permits based on effluent
limitations guidelines (G/L's) where applicable, on BPJ (best professional
judgment) in the absence of guidelines, or on a combination of the two. This
facility is a member of the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) Point Source Category. Effluent limitations guidelines applicable to
the discharges of process wastewater from this facility have been promulgated
at 40 CFR Part 414 Subparts F, G. and H. Pollutant mass permit allocations
for the process wastewater contributions to the wastewater treatment facility
are based on these national G/L's while mass allocations for the nonprocess
wastewater contributions to the Wastewater treatment facility are based on
BPJ .
Following regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 122.44(1)(2)(ii), the draft
permit limits are based on either technology -based effluent limits pursuant to
40 CFR Part 122.44(a) or on Stare water quality standards and requirements
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 122.44(d), whichever is more stringent. In all cases,
the technology -based effluent limits are more stringent than those based on
state numerical eater quality standards.
2. OUTFA'T_L 001 (FINAL)
a. GENERAL COjENTS
Final Outfall 001 is the discharge of the main outfall canal to Chocolate
Bayou. The main outfall canal consists of the combined effluents from
Internal outfall 101 and the Clean Water Ditch System. The Clean Water Ditch
System consists of low contamination potential nonprocess area stormwater, low
contamination potential process area stormwater from certain specialty
chemical manufacturing area(s), cooling rover bloudovn (nonchromate corrosion
inhibitors), boiler blowdovn, and utility wastewater. The term "utility
wastewater" means wastewaters from, but not limited to, safety shovers,
firewater equipment testing, freeze protection, steam trap discharge,
refrigeration unit condensate, and some housekeeping activities.
b. EFFLUENT LIMITS/CONDITIONS
Effluent limitations and conditions for Final Outfall 001 are based on the
current permit requirements.
3. OUTFALL 101 (INTERITAt.)
a. GtERAJ. COMMENTS
Internal Outfall 101 is the internal discharge of the biological treatment
facility to the main outfall canal for discharge to Chocolate Bayou via Final
Outfall 001. The biological receives sanitary wastewater and high
contamination potential process area wastewater/process area wastewater from
the Oily Wastewater Sewer System not being directed co deep well disposal.
OMA 710a71')Z Pr 1'a

Jun-08-98 09:45 From-HUNT0N WILLIAMS 804T88T1Z3 I-04 r.ii/ i r-uru
. r
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET PAGE 12 OF 25
b. EFFLUENT LIMITS/CONpTTIONs
The calculations of the technology -based Mass limits are presented at Appendix
A.
Regulations promulgated ar 40 CFR Part 122.44(i)(1) require permits to
establish monitoring requirements which assure compliance with permit
limitations. The permit establishes a 3/weekmonitoring frequency for RODS
and TSS following current permit requirements. A monitoring frequency of
1/year is established for all toxic priority organics except the following
which are co be monitored 2/month:
Benzene
Echylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Toluene
These toxic organic pollutants have been identified as being associated with
the product/processes employed at this facility. While there is a potential
for excursions, Monsanto reports actual mass discharge levels well below draft
permit limits. The "1/year" toxic priority organics have been identified as
either (1) not being associated with the product -processes employed ac the
facility or (2) nor expected to be present in the effluent in excess of levels
attainable through the application of BAT (best available technology
economically achievable). These judgments are based on information contained .
in the Form 2C renewal application received 3/23/90 and the letter Yee
(Monsanto) co Huffman (EPA) dated 5/9/90.
The draft permit also establishes mass limits for total zinc with monitoring
3/week. The Monsanto letter of 5/9/90 identifies zinc as being associated
with the manufacturing operations. Regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part
414.91(b) require metals mass limits co be based on the flow(s) from the
metal -bearing streams rather than the total treatment system discharge. No
mecal-bearing stream flow data were given in the 5/9/90 Monsanto letter. For
purposes of this draft permit, the zinc technology -based limit is based on a
flow equal to 5% of the total OCPSF wastewater flow. The permittee is
encouraged co submit metal -bearing scream(s) flow data for the establishment
of zinc mass limi,cs in the final permit.
4. OUTFALLS 002 AND 003 (FINAL)
a. CFNERAL C0HME ITS
Final Outfall 002 is the intermittent discharge to Chocolate Bayou of low
contamination potential nonprocess area stormwater from the plant drainage
system. Final Oucfall 003 is the intermittent discharge to Chocolate Bayou of
low contamination potential stormwater and utility wastewater (as defined at
Final Outfa).1 001) from the plant drainage system.
71 01 1 /1/1 • ,•/ 6 0.11/1 . r�1
e1A w/7AArl� — • Metet.• 4?

. Jun-08-98 09:46 From-HUNTON WILLIAM
dUi41l t1LJ 1-IC4 r.14/44 r-ulu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET
b. EFFLUENT LIMITS/CONDITIONS
Effluent limitations and conditions for Final OutfallS 002 and 003 are based
on the current permit requirements.
D. VAT
1.
UALI
ED UENT
ITA • S CO
ITIO S
GENERAL CoOMENTS
PAGE 13 OF 25
The Clean Water Act (CWA) stares that "...iz is the national policy that the
discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited...(CWA, Section
101]." To insure that the CWA's prohibitions on toxicdischarges are met, EPA
has issued a "Policy for the Development of Water Quality -Based Permit
Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (49 fa 9016-9019, 3/9/841." In support of
the national policy, the "Region 6 Policy for Third Round Issuance" and the
"Region 6 Third Round NPDES Permit Implementation Strategy" were issued on
3/11/87 and 4/1/87 (revised 10/31/89), respectively. The Regional policy and
strategy are designed to insure that no source will be allowed to discharge
any wastewater which (1) results in instream aquatic toxicity; (2) causes a
violation of an applicable narrative or numerical State water quality standard
in non-conformance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 122.44(d); () results
in the endangerment of a drinking water supply; or (4) results in aquatic
bioaccumulation which threatens human health.
The Region is now implementing its policy in conformance with the
Regonal
strategy. The 5-year NPDES permits contain technology b effluents
reflecting the best controls available. Where these technology -based permit
limits do not protect eater quality or the designated uses, additional water
quality -based effluent limitations and/or conditions are inched in the NPDES
permits. State narrative and numerical water quality standards are used in
conjunction with EPA criteria and other toxicity data bases to determine the
adequacy of technology -based permit limits and the need for additional water
quality -based controls.
The discharge from this facility is to Chocolate Bayou. In accordance with
the Texas Water Quality Standards and the Implementation Plan, acute toxic
criteria apply at the edge of the zone of initial dilution (ZID). and chronic
toxicity criteria apply ac the edge of the mixing zone. The ZID is defined as
a volume vichin a radius of 30 feet extending into the receiving water from a
point where the discharge reaches the receiving Water. The critical dilution
at the edge of the ZID is defined as 38% effluent. The mixing zone is defined
as a volume within a radius of 156 feet extending into the receiving water
from a point where the discharge reaches the receiving water. The critical
dilution at the edge of the mixing zone is defined as 10% effluent.
2. STATE WATER QUALITY NUMERICAL STANDARDS
a. SCREENING
State standards -based numerical limits at the EOP (end -of -pipe) are calculated
ac Appendix B. Appendix C presents a comparison of state standards -based
numerical limits, technology -based limits, and current discharge levels.
There is no exceedance of state numerical standards.
AAi1'7AA717Z PQf;F . 14

Jun-00-98 09:46 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
UU4(dfliJ I-123 r.I3/.3 r-usu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 PACT SKEET PAGE 14 OF 25
b. PERMIT ACTION
No permit action is taken since there is no exceedance of state numerical
standards.
3. AOUATIC ORGANISM TOXICITY CRITERIA
a. SCREENING
Appendix D shows che comparison of the edge-of-MZ pollutant concentrations
With biosnonicoring criteria. There are pollutants present in the facility's
discharge that have che potential to causeaquatic toxicity. However, there
is no exceedance of aquatic organism numerical toxicity criteria.
b. FERMIT ACTION
The provisions of this section apply to Final Outfall 001.
Based on information contained in the permit application, EPA has determined
that there may be pollutants present in the effluent(s) which may have the
potential to cause toxic conditions in the receiving scream in violation of
Section 101(a)(3) of the Clean Water Act. In addition, EPA is required under
40 CFR Part 122.44(d)(1) to include conditions as necessary to achieve the
States' water quality standards as established under Section 303 of the Clean
Water act. The Stare has established a narrative criteria which, in part,
state that "surface waters will not be toxic to men or terrestrial or aquatic
life."
Thole effluent biomoricoring is the most direct measure of potential toxicity
which incorporates the effects of synergism of effluent components and
receiving stream water quality characteristics. Eiomonicoring of the effluent
is, therefore, required as a condition of this,permit to assess potential
toxicity. The biomonitoring procedures stipulated as a condition of this
permit are as follows:
TOXICITY TESTS mOUENCY
Chronic static renewal 7-day 1/Quarter
survival, growth, and fecundity
test using pysidopsis bahia
(Method 1007.0)
Chronic static renewal 7-day 1/Quarter
larval survival and growth test
using sheepshead minnow (Cypri.nodon
varieeacus,) (Method 1004.0)
Toxicity tests shall be performed in accordance with protocols described in
the latest revision of the "Short -Tema Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms,
EPA/600/4-87/028, May 1988." The stipulated test species are appropriate to
measure the toxicity of the effluent consistent with the requirements of the
State water quality standards. The biomonitoring frequency has been
TIM nQ 'QQ
8047887123 PAGE .15

. Jun-08-96 09:46 From-HUNION WILLIAMS
nU4rdnfIc*
1-1Q4 r.00loo r-uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET PAGE 15 OF 25
established to reflect the likelihood of ambient toxicity and to provide data
representative of the toxic potential of the facility's discharge in
accordance with regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 122.48.
Results of all dilutions as well as the associated chemical monitoring of pH,
temperature, hardness, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and salinity shall be'
documented in a full report according co the test method publication mentioned
in the previous paragraph. This full report need nor be submitted unless
requested. However, the full report is to be retained following the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 122.41(j)(2). The permit requires the submission of
certain toxicity testing information as an attachment to the Discharge
Monitoring Report.
This permit may be reopened to require effluent limits, additional testing,
and/or ocher appropriate actions to address toxicity if biomonitoring data
show actual or potential ambient toxicity to be the result of the u,ermittee's
discharge to the receiving stream or water body. Modification or revocation
of the permit is subject to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 122.62. Accelerated
or intensified toxicity testing may be required in accordance with Section 308
of the Clean Water Act.
c. DILUTION SERIES
The permit requires five (5) dilutions in addition to the control (0%
effluent) to be used in the toxicity tests. These additional effluent
concentrations shall be 2.5%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 40%. The low -flow effluent
concentration (critical dilution) is defined as 10% effluent. The 1/2
low -flow effluent concentration is defined as 20% effluent. The dilution
values used in the permit have been calculated and specified by the Texas
Water Commission.
4. AQUATIC ORGANISM BICACCUKULATION CRITERIA
a. SCREENING
Pollutant discharge levels at the edge of the mixing zone in Chocolate Bayou
are compared to chronic marine bioaccumulation criteria at Appendix E of this
fact sheet. The pollutant discharges do not exceed chronic marine
bioaccusaulation criteria.
b. PERMIT ACTION
No permit action is taken since there is no exceedance of chronic marine
bioaccumulation criteria.
5. pRINKc1G WATER NM CRITERIA
The receiving stream segment is not classified for public water supply.
Therefore, no screening is conducted on the discharges with drinking water
criteria.
CUM A.700,14 06= la

Jun-08-98 09:4T From-HUNTQN WILLIAMS
I-(*3 r.iti4a r—uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET PAGE 16 OF 25
IX. VARIANCE REQUESTS
No variance requests have been received.
X. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The following section is a list of the fact sheet citations to applicable
statutory or regulatory provisions and appropriate supporting references to
the administrative record required by 40 CFR Part 124.9:
A. PERMIT(S)
NPDES Permit No. TX0003875 issued 5/29/87 with an effective date
of 6/30/87 and an expiration dace of 9/23/90.
B. APPLICATTON(S)
EPA Application Forms 1 and 2C dated 3/21/90 and received 3/23/90.
C. CLEAN WATER ACT CITATION(S)
Section 101
Section 101(a)(3)
Section 303
D. 40 CFR CITATTOp(S)
122.41(j)(2)
122.44(a)
122.44(d)
122.44(d)(1)
122.44(i)(1)
122.44(1)(2)(ii)
122.46(a)
122.48
122.62
414.91(b)
414 Subparts F. G, and H
E. LETTERS/MEMORANDA/RECORDS OF COMjUNTCATION
Letter Yee (Monsanto) to Huffman (EPA) dated 5/9/90
F. MISCELLANEOUS
Policy for the Development of Water Quality -Based Permit
Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (49 ER 9016-9019, 3/9/84]
Quality Criteria for Water (1986), EPA 440/5-86-001, 5/1/86
The Scare of Texas Water Quality Inventory, 8ch Edition,
Publication No. LP86-07, Texas Waxer Commission, October 1986,
JUN 08 '98 09:53
8047887123 PAGE.17

Jun-08-98 09:47 From-HUHTON WILLIAMS
•
dU4(tltl(It� i-iO4 r.ioiQo r-uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
Pages 235.
Region 6 Policy for Third Round Issuance, 3/11/87
Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, 31 TAC Sections 307.1 -
307.10 (13 TexReg 1776, 4/15/88)
Region 6 Third Round NPDES Permit Implementation Strategy, 4/1/87,
Revised 10/31/89
Short -Terra Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms,
EPA/600/4-87/028, May 1988
XI. CERTIFICATION
FACT SHEET PAGE 17 OF 25
The permit is in the process of certification by the State agency following
regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 124.53. A draft permit and draft
public notice will be sent to the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers; to
the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, prior to the publication of that notice.
XII. FTNA1. DETERMINATION
The public notice describes the procedures for the formulation• of final
determinations.
OMAM00.71 7? oon= 1 A

Jun-08-98 09:47 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS 8047887123 T-153 F.19/43 h-U1U
410
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET PACE 18 OF 25
APPENDIX A
OCPSF TECHNOLOGY -BASED MASS LIMITS CALCULATIONS
A. FLOW CALCULATIONS: CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AND TOXIC ORGANICS
OCPSF Process Wastewater
Total Internal Outfall 101 Flow for July 1989 1.66 MGD
(Highest Daily Avg. Flow Reported on
Discharge Monitoring Reports 1988-1989)
Less Sanitary Wastewater (See Below) -
0.22
Total 1.44
Flow Race — (8.34 lb/gal)*(1.44*106 gal/day)
12.0096x106 lb/day
Sanitary Wascewpmep '
Form 2C (II.B) Sanitary Influent to Treatment
Form 2C (II.B) Total Internal Outfall 101
Actual Sanitary Wastewater
(200 gpm/1500 gpm)*(High Daily
101 Flow)
(200 gpm/1500 gpm)*(1.66 MCD)
0.22 l(CD
Flow Rate — (8.34 lb/gal)*(0.22*106 gal/day)
— 1.8348*106 lb/day
B. A0D5 AND TSS (ASS LIMITS: OUTFALL 101 (1NTERJAL)
DOD5 Avg Process Wastewater 40 CFR Parc 41ft Concentration (Adjusted)
Subpart ,,,,,. w Conc (ppm) — Cone (1 pm)
F . 88.15 30 26.45
G 7.35 34 2.50
H 4.50 45 + 2
Adjusted 30.98
MODS Max Process Wastewater 40 CFR Part 414 Concentration (Ad usted
Sub_ o, arc * Conc (pprp) — Comic (ppm)
F 88.15 80 70.52
G 7.35 92 6.76
11 4.50 120 + 5.40
Adjusted 82.68
200 gpm
1500 gpm
Avg. Total
•
or A4 oor„'17 con 1 o

. Jun-08-98 09:4T From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
•
•
804188(I"L3 i-tni r.cuwao r-u:u
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PAGE 19 OF 25
ySS AVE Process Wastewater 40 CFR part 414 Concentration (xdiusted),
Subpa.rr * Conc (ppm) a Conc (ppm)
F 88.15 46 40.55
G 7.35 49 3.60
H 4.50 57 * 2.57
Adjusted 46.72
TSS Max Process Wastewater 40 CFR Part 414 Concentration (Adjusted)
_per 8 * Cone (pprg) - Comic (ppm)
F 88.15 149 131.34
G 7.35 159 11.69
H 4.50 183 t 8 26
Adjusted 151.22
OCPSF ?rocess Wastewater 40 CFR Part 414 Mass Allocations
Cone (ppm) * Flow (1.06 lb /day) - lb day
BOO avg 30.98 12.0096 372.06
GODS max 82.68 12.0096 ' 992.95
TSS avg 46.72 12.0096 561.09
TSS max 151.27 12.0096 • 1816.69
Sanitary Wastewater BPI Mass Allocations
Cone (ppm) * glow (106 lb/day) - lb/tea
BOOS avg 30 1.8348 55.04
SODS max 45 1.8348 62.57
••TSS avg 30 1.8348 55.04
TSS max 45 1.8348 82.57
$0D5 Summary
Max
OCPSF Process Wastewater 372.06 . 992.95
Sanitary Wastewater t 55 04 t 82.57
Total lb/day (rounded off) 427 1075
TSS Summary ___A.vv--- Max
OCPSF Process Wastewater 561.09 1816.69
Sanitary Wastewater t 55 04 t 62-57
Total lb/day (rounded off) 616 1899
T� x mei • Pe1 ITA • C A
AAd7A177171 PAfF . 20

• Jun-08-98 09:48 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS 804T88T123 I-(53 r.Lii66 P-u(U
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET PAGE 20 OF 25
C. TOXIC ORGANTC MASS LIMITS: OUTFALL 101 (INTERNAL.)
The following calculations are for benzene. Limits for other toxic organic
pollutants are calculated in a.similar manner.
Basis: 40 CFR Parc 414 Subpart I
Conc (ppm) * Flow (106 1plday) - lb/day
Benzene avg
Benzene max
0.037
0.136
12.0096
12.0096
0.44
1.63
D. ''LOU CALCULATIONS: TOXIC METALS
Zinc -Bearing OCPSF Process Wastewater
The zinc -bearing OCPSF process wastewater for draft permit purposes is
estimated to be 5% of the total OCPSF process wastewater (12.0096*106 lb/day).
Flow Rate - (0.05)w(12.0096*106 lb/day)
- 0.60048*106 lb/day
E. TOXIC METAL MASS LT4LITS : OUTFALL 101 (INTERNAL)
fetal -Bearing OCPSF Process Wastewater 40 CFR Part 414 Mass Allocations
Basis: 40 CFR Parc 414 Subpart I
Conc (ppm) * Flow (106 lb/diEy) - lb/da/
Zinc avg .
Zinc max
1.050
2.610
0.60048
0,60048
0.63
1.57
TI tKI MO ' QC MQ : r~A
AAd7101017177 PAr;F 71

Jun-08-98 09:48
F rcm-HUNTON W I LL I AIDS
804188(I[3 1- 04 r.cci44 r-uiu
PERMIT N0. TX0003875
FACT SHEET
APPENDIX 8
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAYS, ESTUARIES, AND WIDE TIDAL RIVERS
AVERAGE FLOW < 10 MGD
DILUTION @ EDGE OF 39 FT ZID (%):
DILUTION @ EDGE OF 156 FT MZ (%):
PARAMETER
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (3)
CHROMIUM (6)
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
PARAMETER
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (3)
CHROMIUM (6)
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
MARINE
ACUTE
STANDARD
(ug/1)
149
45.62
1100
4.37
5.6
140
2.1
119
410
2.3
98
LTA
ACUTE
(WLA*0.32)
(ug/1)
125.5
38.4
•
926.3
3.7
4.7
117.9
1.8
100.2
345.3
1.9
82.5
MARINE
CHRONIC
STANDARD
(ug/a.)
78
10.02
50
4.37
5.6
5.6
0.025
13.2
54
89
LTA
CHRONIC
(W A#0.61)
tug/1
475.8
61.1
Or VP
305.0
26.7
34.2
34.2
0.2
80.5
329.4
542.9
38.0%
10.0%
PAGE 21 OF 25
NI.A W. A
ACUTE/0.38 CHRONIC/0.10
(ux/1) (ug/1)
392.1 780.0
120.1 100.2
2894.7 500.0
11.5 43.7
14.7 56.0
368.4 56.0
5.5 0.3
313.2 132.0
1078.9 540.0
6.1
257.9 890.0
LIMITING
LTA
fug/1)
125.5
38.4
305.0
3.7
4.7
34.2
0.2
80.5
329.4
2.5
82.5
RG147887123 PAGE . 22

Jun-08-98 09:48
From -HUNTON WILLIAMS
tlU4( 1IL4 1-t3* r.c3i44 r-uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
12ABANETER
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (3)
CHROMIUM (6)
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
DAILY AVC
(LTA*1.47)
(ug/1)
184.4
56.5
448.4
5.4
6.9
50.2
0.2
118.4
484.2
3.7
121.3
FACT
APPENDIX
DAILY MAX
(LTA*3.11)
iug/1)
390.2
119.5
948.6
11.4
14.7
106.2
0.5
250.4
1024.4
7.8
256.7
(*1) Practical Quantification Level
SHEET
8 (CONT.)
PAGE 22 OF 25
STATE WQ STDS. LIMITS
DAILY AVC DAILY MAX
(uF/1 ) (ugil)
184.4 390.2
56.5 119.5
448.4
10.0 (*1)
20.0 (*1)
50.2
20.0 (x'1)
118.4
484.2
3.7
121.3
(PQL) controls
948.6
11.4
20.0 (*1)
106.2
20.0 (*1)
250.4
1024.4
7.8
256.7
the limit.
ota4•7e0.7j ,. Ponp 77

Jun-08-98 09:48 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
dU4(U 1I � 1104 r.4q/44 r usu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
FACT SHEET PAGE 23 OF 25
APPENDIX C
FINAL OUTFALL 001 CONCENTRATION COMPARISON OF STATE STD -BASED LIKITS,
TECHNOLOGY -BASED LIMITS, AND FORM 2C APPLICATION EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS
STATE WO -LIMITS TECH LIMITS FORM 2C (*1)
AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX
immEng Sup/]) (ue,�/1) (ug/l) ,[ug/4 fug/1) (ug/l)
ARSENIC 184.4 390.2 ---- ---- ---- <4.58
CADMIUM 56.5 119.5 ---- ---- ---- <4.58
CHROMIUK(3) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 20.0 (2)
CHROMIUM(6) 448.4 948.6 ---- ---- ---- 20.0 (*2)
COPPER. 10.0 11.4 ---- ---- -- -- <4.58
CYANIDE 20.0 20.0 ---- ---- ---- <4.58
LEAD 50.2 106.2 ---- ---- ---- <22.9
MERCURY 20.0 20.0 ---- ---- ..-- <0.09
NICKEL 118.4 250.4 ---- ---- ---- <9.16
SELENIUM 484.2 1024.4 ---- ---- ---- <2.29
SILVER 3.7 7.8 ---- ---- ---- <9.16
ZINC (*3) 121.3 256.7 0.02 0.06 <50.0 180.0
(*1) Except for chromium and zinc, the values are Internal Outfall 101
concentrations adjusted to equivalent concentrations at Final Oucfall
001 [101 Form 2C conc. * (1.994 MGD/4.35 HOD)].
(*2) Total chromium at Final Outfall 001 [Letter Yee (Monsanto) co McHam
(EPA) dated 5/9/90j.
(.*3) Technology -based limit concentrations are Internal Outfall 101 limits
adjusted co Final Outfall 001 flows. The Forts 2C concentrations are
taken from data submitted by Monsanto for the time period April 1987
through December 1988 [Letter Yee (Monsanto) to McHam (EPA) dared
5/9/90].
wowa
aAa7=17171 PASF . 24

Jun-08-98 09:48 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
804(U 1I s I-ros r.c3/ 4 r-uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET
APPENDIX D
BIOMONITORING SCREENING (FINAL OUTFALL 001)
CHRONIC MARINE
PAGE 24 OF 25
FORM 2C MIX ZONE BIOHONITORING
DAILY AVG (2C*10%) CRITERIA
7AR.AMETER 1u /14(*1) fug/1) (ug/1) (*2)
ARSENIC <2.29 <0.229 3.6*10
BENZENE 36.44 3.644 7.0*loz
CADMIUM <2.29 <0.229 9.3
CHROMIUM (3) <4.58 <0.458 ---
CHROMIUM (6) <4.58 <0.458 5.0*10
COPPER <2.29 <0.229 2.9
CYANIDE <2.29 <0.229 1.0
ETHYLBENZENE ND --- --- -
LEAD <11.45 <1.145 5.6
MERCURY <0.045 <0.0045 2.5*10-2
NICKEL <4.58 <0.458 8.3
PHENOL ND --- ---
SELENIUM <1.145 <0.1145 7.1*10
SILVER <4.58 <0.458 ---
TOLUENE 91.00 9.100 5.0*103
ZINC <50 ' <5.0 8.6*10
ND - Not Detected
(*1) Daily average 2C data not available. Internal Outfall 101 daily. wax.
concentrations (divided by 2) adjusted to equivalent concentrations a;
Final 0utra11 001 [101 Form 2C conc. * (1.994 MGD/4.35 MGD)j. See Notes
(*2) and (*3) of Appendix C for zinc and chromium.
(*2) Source: Quality Crireria for Uacex•I986, EPA 440/5.-86-001, 5/1/86

Jun-N-uu UV:40 rrom-nwriun WILLIAM
OU41001I44 1-I dJ I •Lv'J.l WIv
PERMIT NO. TX0003875 FACT SHEET
APPENDIX E
BIOACCUMULATION•SCREENINC (FINAL OUTFALL 001)
PAGE 25 OF 25
FORM 2C MIX ZONE BIOACCUKULATION
DAILY AVG (2Cx10%) CRITERIA
?AM(ug/I)(*1) (ug/1) (ug l) (*2)
ARSENIC <2.29 <0.229 1.75
BENZENE 36.44 3.644 1.9*102
CADMIUM <2.29 <0.229 ---
CHROMIUM (3) 20.0 2.0 3.433*10
CMP.0MIU1m (6) 20.0 2.0 - - -
00PPER <2.29 <0.229
CYANIDE <2.29 <0.229 ---
ETHYL2EN2ENE ND --- 6.449*103'
LEAD <11.45 <1.145 ---
MERCURY <0.045 <0.0045 0.15
NICKEL <4.58 <0.458 1.0*102
PHENOL ND --- 7.4015*104
SELENIUM <1.145 <0.1145
SILVER <4.58 <0.458
TOLUENE 91.00 9.100 5.0638*10`
ZINC <20.65 <2.065
MI
ND Not Detected
(*1) Daily average 2C data nor available. Internal Outfall 101 daily max.
concentrations (divided by 2) adjusted to equivalent concentrations at
Final Outfall 001 1101 Form 2C conc. * (1.994 MCD/4.35 MCA)]. See Notes
(*2) and (*3) of Appendix C for zinc and chromium.
(*2) Source: Quality Critexia for Water 1986, EPA 440/5-86-001, 5/1/86
JUN 08 '98 09:55
S047887123 PAGE.26

Jun-08-98 09:49
•
From-HUNT0N WILLIAMS
804T88T123 T-T53 P.Z1/33 t-U(U
kiiSt'UNst TO COMESTS
PtNAL PEKMLT DECtSIOS
This is our response to comments received on t.be suL j vvt dratc pe:csit in
accordance with regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 124.17.
1'ernsir No. Xx00038i
Applicant:
Issuing Office:
Prepared By:
Permit AcCion:
Monsanto Comp.ai y
P.O. Box 711
Alvin. Texas 77512-9888
U.S. Environmental Protac:ts.un Agency
Region 6
1445 Koss Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2/33
Edward C. fcliam, Engineer
Yn4usrrial Pormirs Saccnou (6W-PI)
thirtci is Branch
Waver Management Division
[phone]
Final permit decision and recponsa to comments
received on the draft perwic publicly nocicud or,
6/16/90.
Data Prepa rest : 8 /31/90
Unless otherwise stated, citations co 40 CFR. refer co promulgated regulations
Listed at Title 40, Code of Fe4eral RoguliLiorls. revised as of 7/1/89.
The following comments have been received on the draft permit:
Letter Perica (Monsanto) to Caldwell CUM) dated 8/14/90
The Texas Water Commission conditionally certified the draft permit in Ctrs
letter beinke (TWC) to Layton (EPA) dated Y/18/90
rSSqE pp.
Internal Outfall 101 mass effluent limitations in chc draft permit were
derived in part using a flow of 1.66 MCD (highest dilly average now reported
in Discharge $onicoring Report« 1988-1989). The permiccce *equests chat final
permit mass limits be derived using an Internal Outfal l 101 floe of 1.81
(daily average flow value for May 1990), eddltiouisL process flow due to
process changes of 0.014 MCI), and a groundwater remedi ation flow of 0.266 MC13.
IFO!SE NO. 1,
The request is granted. Increased mass limits for conventional and toxic
meanie pollutant based on increased flow values are calculated in the
Response to Comments Appendix A, Section A and R.
JUN 08 '98 09:55
R 4'?RR7123 PASF _ 2'7

Jun-08-98 U9:4U Prom-nunlun WILLIAM
0U41001 ICJ I'IJv r •r.u/Jd I YIY
PuN IT NO. TX0003 s 7 5
JSSu. NO, 2
RESPONSE ONSE TO means PALE 2 OF
The draft permir estaLlishw. total zinc limits of 0.63 lb/day daily average
and 1.5i lb/day daily maximum Ln%ad uts the permit writer's est*waied
zinc -bearing process now of 0.072 HCD. No credit fur zinc vas Eiven for
noanprocesa streams. The pergiil.coe requests that the final permit zinc lilac
be based an a zinc -bearing proprietary OCPSF process scream of ISO gpia (0.2)6
MGD) and an eseimaeed nonprocrss contribution (after tzedment) due to rhe
pleuc's raw water and corroaian products or 2.40 lb/day.
.RESPO TE NO. 7
The request is grantea The derxvar.on or tno anal perm r zttic 11utit is
show at rho Reporse to Comments Appendix A, Section C. The revised
technology -based zinc limits dre more stringent than state inter quality-bescd
numerical limits.
ISSUE NO 3
The draft permit es uabl ishea a total zinc monitoring frequency of 3/week Thee
perroittee requests a monitoring frequency of 2/taonc.h.
SESPONs,? no. 3
The request is granted. The current discharge levels of rocal zluc as
indicated in the EPA Application Form 2C received 3/23/90 are cell bcelov rho
newly recalculated final permit total zinc limns. Theretora, it is the BPJ
of ;be permit wirer that. a 2/mental monitoring frequency will assure
compliance with the permits limits.
ISSUE )TO _ 4
The draft permit .e tablichas affluent lim raciou% :.r Internal OutfaLl 101 for
acenaphtraeue . 2.4 -slime thylphenoi , fluoranthene , naphthalene, phenol.
b is (2 • erhylbexyl) phthalate, di-N -bury 1 phthslat.e, diethyl phthalate, diaethyl
phthalate,-amthrnccne. fluorene, phenastbrene. and pysene. The pevi ittec
rcques tb deletion of these limitations in Om final peraie.
RESPONSE NO. 4
The request is denied. The permitt.ee bases the request on the amended organic
guidelines listed at 55 fg 26692. 6/29/90, which removes tlta,e pullucants Crum
40 CFR §i 414.2S, 414.35, 414.45, 414.S5, 414.0, 414.75, 414.$5, and 414.1.01.
The draft permit limits for these 13 polluranra are based an 40 CFR Pert 414
Subpart 1 (414.91) which was nor amended.
ISSur NO. 5
Specific biomonirori=eg requirements listed at Part II.H.2 of the draft permit
read "All test organisms, procedures, and quality assurance requirements used
shall be in ac.cordaaco with the lat.e.st. cevislon or •ShurL-Term Kerhods for
Estitoactng the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine
TO II. I Can f 00 fa0 • CC
Rt i47AA7171 PAGE. 28

Jun-08-98 U8:48 tronrhUNIUN WILLIAM
nAIMIt0 1-104 r.waa r-uiu
PERMIT O. TXI)0O3B75
RESPONSE TO Cfr1MRN7'S PAGE 's OF /
and estuarine organisms,' EYt/600/4-87/028, or the most receuzc update thereof.
The following tests shall be used:
R. Chronic static renewal 7-day survival. Frovrh, and fecundity cast
uslug Mysidupsis bahia (Whod L007.0).
b. Chronic ata(.ia: ia1I w4l 7•day larval survival and Ouwth usius
shee+pshaad mi nnou (c ypriradon varinfarus) (Method 1004.0)
The permitter requests these specific biomonitoring rtaquiremenrs be revised to
read "A11 rest organisms, procedures, and qunl i ty assurance requirements used
ehcal tie iu ticcord.scsec vi th the latest .revision of 'Short -Term Merhods for
Psr1naring the Chronic Toxicity of Ei.tluents and Receiving Waters Lie
Freshwater Organisms,' EPA/600/4-89/0A1, or the mast rearm updary choreal .
Tho fol) owt ue tea cs shall be used:
a. Fathead minnow (Pi.raisphal es Freaarl as) larval survival and growth
tesr (Method 1000.0) .
ern
b. Cladoceran, egio43phnid dubt4, survival and reproduction CPSC
(HwtIod 1002.0) .
$ESLONSE Nu. 5
The tequesc is denied. Marine species are; the appropriate organisms co use in
the lnscream environment. that eaLsGs in Choiolarc bayou at the 10t critical
dilution specified in the permit. additionally. chronic marine testing 16
specified for this discharge by the Texas Water Commission [Texas Water
Commission printout dared 7/9/90 (untitled)].
TSsUE NO, .
Part 11.1l. 7 and b establish conditions under Which hioconicor.ng requirements
may be extended beyond the first year of the permit term. the permittee
requests thar the following provision be added as renumbered Part II.H.9
"Tf cane of the two test species is found to be consistently more
sensitive to the ochcr zest species during the first year of resting,
the most sensitive of the tvo species will be used for the remaining
toxicity tears."
'RESPONSE No . 6
The request is denied. The perms rtcc may request ;ha single species if the
biomontcoring Ls exLei J bdr0;01 the first year of the permit term by applyi nc
for o permit aodifleacion folLavinD regulations 'Flared oc 40 CPR Part
122.62(a)(2).
ru. ArNnew 4 017 oe r_C nc

Jun-08-98 09:49 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS
bU4fdUtI[s 1'133 r•zw a3 r-uiu
PERMIT NO. TX0003875
ISSUE NO 7
Part II.H.13 of the draft permit reads as follows:
"Tills permit may be reopened to require effluent limits. additional
testing. and/or other appropriate actions to address: toxicity -
Accelerated or intensified toxicity tesring may be required in
accordance with Sae t ion 308 of the Clean Wa re r Act "
RESPONSE To (:oMNENIS PACE 4 OF 7
The permittee requests this provision be de1cted or completely replaced uitti
the iolloving provision:
"This permit nay be reopened after oppuscunity for notice and a bearing
t.o require additional toxicity testing, appropriate corrective a.:cion
and ultimately eater quality -based effluent limits if the permittce's
toxicity tests exceed the effluent toxicity criteria set forth in chit
permit. and applicable state water quality scandar.,ta aro nor abet as a
result o.F the pet -mimesis's discharge to the receiving streams.
SP0tJSE NO. 7
The request is denied. No change is required in the permit reopencr clause to
provide the permittee an opportunity to contest any requirements imposed by
this provision. In any modification of the permit, a draft permit must he
prepared and other• procedures of 40 CFR Part. 124 (i.e., public notice)
followed j40 CFR Part 122.62, opening paragraph]. Procedures are available to
contest conditions imposed under t1,a authority of Segtion 308 of the Clean
Water Act.
ISSUE NO. 8
Part III.4.1 of the draft permit reads as follows:
"In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 122.41. et.
Seq., this permit incorporates by reference ALL conditions and
requirumerts applicable to NPLEN Permits set torch in the Clean
Carer Act, as amended. (herein -after known ez the "Act") ai well
as all applicable regulations.
The permittee requests deleting the above paragraph or clarifying its meaning
and lucent by changing the last two words to state "applicable to this
permit."
grSpotisp No 4
The request is denied. These standard "boiler place" conditions common co all
EPA Region 6 permits are self explanatory. While city provisions maybe
redundant 11s the permit alleges, the permit writer is unsure of vbat the
specific issue being raised actually is.

Jun-08-98 09:50 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS 8047887123 T-T53 P.3I/33
P2RICT Nu. Tx0003875
ISSUE. NO. 9
RESPONSE TO CURRENTS ?ACr. ) OF 7
The draft permit established both daily average arced daily maximum mass limits
at Internal Ourfall 101 for numerous toxic organic priusity pollutants: based
on 40 CFR Parc 414 Subpart 1 With a monitoring frequency of 1./year. For rho
"1/yeac" monitored pollut.autc, the permitrec requests that the daily aaxiaum
mass limits be used in place of the daily average crass limits ro a sure
compliance.
AFSP0NSF NO. 9
The request is dctnied. Regulations listed at 4u CFR Part 122.4!) (d) (1) require
the es c.d l l stsaenc of bo th daily avc rah;:• opd dla l ly awx.iegwn 1 i air i es for
continuous discharges. The dltschacges at Inzerndl Ouciall 101 arc conri nuAu, .
ISSUE p0. 10
The draft permit establishes internal OuCfall 80Ds srid TSS mass limits
beginning the erCccLive date of the final permit. The peemittee requests ths
establishment of compliance schedule allaying the Implementation of management
controls and/or technology chat will assure compliance Kith these limits.
AESPONSF on. 10
At this writing. the perwit:tee is submitting detail information on the steps
needed to meet. the final permit 1sOD3 and TSS limits end the time required to
achieve Compliance. When this Ls received, 04 tbquest for a. compliance
schedule and incerip limits will be implemented through standard EPA
enforcement protocol. •
STATE VATER OUM.TTY CERTIFICATit, rd (1ANr,I:S
As a condition of the certification by the Texas Wirer Commission, the ZLD
(zone of ini.rial dilution) for Final Ouefall 001 (Part I .A of the permit) i.c
redefined as •, , , a volume of within a radius of 39 Feat extending into the
receiving 'water troaa s point where the discharge reaches ches recalvine water."
9TIIER CHANCE,$
(a) For administrative purposes. the permit is co become effective on
November 1, 1990, following regulations promulgated ac 40 CFR Parc
124.15(b)(1).
Cb) the inland silverside minnow (Henidia baryllina) is added to the: chronic
static renewal 7-day larval survival and growth test (Parr Ii.tt) as an
alternate species co chn sheepshead minnow. The addition conforms to
the latest test procedures.
(c) At the peraitcce's request, the monitoring location description for
Internal Outran 101 has been clarified and the permLctee's name has
been changed to "HAcaaanro Company . "

Jun-08-98 09:50 Froa-HUNTON WILLIAMS 804T881IZ3 r.4cia4 r-uru
•
PERMIT NO. TX0u03875 RESPONSE TO COQIENTs
APPENDIX A
INTERM& . OUTPALL 101
OCPSF TECHNOLOGY -BASED MASS LIMITS CALCULATIONS
A. BOOS AN1 TSS_MASS MOTS
pane Prnrr.:a UActrwarar
PACE 6 OF 7
Tast..rsl . Interns I Our.fall 101 Flow (May 1990) 1.810 MGU
Increased Clow Duo zo Procacs CbaiaMoe 0.014
Crounduate,r Remediation Flaw 0.255
Lcsb Sanitary Vasccaeaccr (Sec Fact Sheet' for hatsib) - U 2?U
Taral. 1.859
Flow Eta=o — (8.34 lD/ga1)X(1.859*10' g:.1J41ay)
15.50606*10' l b/day
OCPSF Process IJAstevere)c 40 Mc Parr 414 Ka . AitocL&t io,
Cutie r1P9) * F1 t 106 wawa — lb/day
801)5 avg
80D5 max
r.;s avg
TSS max
30.98 1b130406 480.32
82.68 15.50406 1261.88
46.72 .0.5040b /24.35
151.27 15.50406. 2 345. 30
OAP
SODS Summary Avg _ Inc
OCPSP jtocoss Vascevater 480.32 1281,8d
Sand ary Wastewater 55.04 82.S7
Total lb/day (rounded off) 535 1364
T"S9 Swargry K„_ Knx
OCPSF Process Wactexacer 724 35 2345.30
Sanitary Wastewater S5.04 2_37
Total ) h/day (rounded off) 779 2428
B. TOXIC ORGANIC NikiS ,'(ht7S
The fullavLng ealaulations are for beuxcuus Liisii.s Cut other toxic orgsuig
pollutants arc caa culated in a similar manner.
Basis; 40 CFR Part 414 Subpart I
Cone (ppm) : Flow (10° lb f aav) — lb[djy
benzene on 0.037 15.50406
Benzene max 0.136 11).50406
0.57
2.11
JUN 08 '98 09:57
8047887123 PAGE.32

Jun-08-98 09:50 From-HUNTON WILLIAMS 8047887123 T-T53 P.33/33 F-010
•
PERMIT NO. TX000381b USFONSE TO C0l(M ENTS PACE 7 OF 7
C . 1Ox'YC IlETAi. HASS LIMITS.
2i nc •aearipg UCPsr Proems Wasrexjrex
Proprietary Process Scutum 0.216 MCD
plow Itaee — (8.34 lb/gaL)*(0.21G* .0* lb/day)
1 .8U146*1 n6 1 hidAy
Zinc-404ring OC SF Pro�'.es, s xre�,r�t�t 4y C.FiLlarr 41G - xc ,,Allar_s1t1S?11.4
3 isis: 40 CFR Part 4i14 Subpart I
Cons (ppml * iov (10' 1 h/dav,
avg
Zinc max
1.050
2.610
1.80144
1.80144
Zinc -Benue Nonrrocsss Uasrowobr RPJ !macs Allocations
1.89
4.70
Company atwdi cs escimaG. CCabtod eirluent dxschargcai due to Litt plant's raw
vaccr and corrosion products to ba 2.40 lb/day.
Zinc Summary Avf„-
OCPSF Process Vastewa;tr 1.89
Noaproccss Wastewater LQ
Total ih/day (rounded off) 4.3
Max
4.70
2 40
7.1
Cccapartsan WE } Isacc water Qua! lty $tandaras-fried Mmmerical Zinc Lilacs
State water qualtry standards -based numerical concentration limits of 123.3
pg/1 daily average and 256.7 mg/1 daily maximums are calculated on page l8 of
the fact sheet publicly -noticed on 6/16/90. Ace pint! 040a11 001 flow of
4.35 MCD, che allowable standards -based nuaterfcal mass limits for total zinc
are 4.4 lb/day daily average and 9.3 lb/day daily maximum. The
technology -based zinc limits are included in the final permit because they arP
more restrictive than the allowable standard., -based numerical *ass Limits.
JUN 08 '98 09: 5?
8047887123 PAGE.33