NC0004375_Wasteload Allocation_19980429

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER !;EmET
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
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
April 29, 1998
This document is printed on reuse paper - igYzore any
content on the re -sr -terse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AA
IC) EHNF�
April 29, 1998
FAX TO: Gary Sanderson
Clariant Corporation
Ned Fiss
AWARE Environmental
FROM: Dave Goodrich
(919)-733-5083, ext. 517
COMMENTS
Gary and Ned - Here is the revised permit allocation calculations reflecting the modification to
some of the flows which are considered OCPSF process wastestreams. Briefly, the rationale was:
Dye and chemical manufaturing, and process stormwater were included as in all calculations
prior to this. Groundwater was considered an OCPSF process wastestream in this version as was
the flow from the herbicide manufacturing building. These are changes from the last allocation
which Greg Nizich did, but their designation as process wastewaters is consistent with your
October 1996 allocation table. Please note that the biggest change is the use of the projected flow
for the groundwater remediation system of 0.29 MGD. This was based on Gary's April 6, 1998
letter to me and the increases in the withdrawals from the recovery wells.
Up to this point, I believe we have agreement. I would like your comments on the following:
• WTP Backwash - no BOD allowance was given as a result of location of discharge, low
initial BOD levels, and consistency with other OCPSF facilities. However, an allocation was
given for TSS.
• Sanitary - an allocation equivalent to secondary treatment was given. This was mainly an
issue of consistency.
• Steam Generation - no allowance was given from this wastestream as a result of its low
level of initial contamination and its uses in the facility. This is consistent with other applications
of the OCPSF guidelines in North Carolina.
• Herbicide Manufacturing: Once -through vacuum pump seal water - As a result of the
relatively small amount of this' discharge, and the expressed desire to cover the manufacturing
discharges in this building by OCPSF, I did not give an allowance for this water using the
pesticide manufacturing guidelines. This. will allow us to forgo the COD limitations.
Please call me if you have questions or comments.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

34)
(of5)(4- ��4)
1
CLARIANT CORPORATION - PROPOSED LIMITS
NC0004375
its
BOD5 - Monthly Average BOD5 - Daily Maximum
Flow Conc. Allocation Load Allocation Conc. Allocation Load Allocation
Wastestream (MGD) (mg/L) (Ibs/day) (mg/L) (Ibs/day)
Dyes & Chemical Manufacturing
0.77
45
289
120 771
Groundwater
0.29
45
109
120
290
Process Stormwater
0.087
45
33
120
87
Specialty Chemicals (Herbicide Mfg.)
0.08
45
30
120
80
Sanitary
0.058
30
15
45
22
Non -Process Stormwater
0.138
1
1
1.5
2
TOTALS
1.423
c-Vilio'
1251
Wastestream
Flow
(MGD)
TSS - Monthly Average
Conc. Allocation
(mg/L)
Load Allocation
(Ibs/day)
TSS - Daily Maximum
Conc. Allocation
(mg/L)
Load Allocation
(Ibs/day)
Dyes & 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 (Herbicide Mfg.)
0.08
57
38
183
122
Sanitary
0.058
30
15
45
22
Filter Backwash
0.087
30
22
45
33
Non -Process Stormwater
0.138
30
35
45
52
TOTALS
1.51
654
197-9-
4/30/98
7

Afeorf rive vtt
(i0
—
(Aie 6/fit Aprtimorl- rt. '
I3Ocrgr rr--1•:;c6--- -t.-cn-- 1 .e....
c-ir
4- ll/Q,A4 duarcAc17/40)
Af4kecal ,5-roi<4414/M1-k.
A/7-ivtibvief ‘14,41 Gthait-d c€ 7i.-e5/24y)
&c2-now6
r-L-50" I) 14/7 pyraKrer- elc-ritget,1614. wirj
5-" 5redfro
Ivyw 54A J.,74,ey
/12cli-Iii 4/1 . (ocec)
/. (4-7, -/khr\
27.'2
ikr erl I in.eitt-f- thif9
/, 5-beev /4,;1?
11:1‘46 ;it lib (fri/TP-die-454)
itlfp(26/ ."?
osed citopfe reerfi. 7/. 7 IWKir,/
Gf/a (-14 kuve.
"-• -flew t
eivff I CM11111.S.
/las Ve„c 41C:66 /it/ i/1 C ;
AA7--(Av. fuzie/e)
06161 klot rtit.cfn .
/ fre %ref
2
•fle(pe-
i, _ 7
0 tim C/9/1(6-41 -it'; •f rAit. qQ(ei--7
i -(11 (t•S 4A5 s'' cl'iete,-erit, VtaChY Vil;,, I 5 . Ph
, 7 _pi
0 , Ll.A.v-- cy 611 c IY elm IC.-

502 , 74"C a iVO 'ack-,7 , / tir cif i' ' i.4
evc c S{ i0, /EN :1' v .?
/-7(,121-v.5. ( A/e-' ileferk v de( de 16 obt.„ 0
X ,nlff < 1i1 L/t it ttJ ! 1/a c (Au ► y?
t
' .Io[ _rt rR V►
erulebtvite kr Zvi. ty d va "car 7
C �liSc it,r -r171
Lys• ..
� try iA7Ic/1
lcnie< flitL&t Gi 1r7 phi
rn (,-vev
/25-64q/ aite/e0(
le 414i IAA, -;,.'At4 6c ii l C'«.C. ('c y rr' / t 4 717 :'"yj
i'1 , .. z/ {ems / ce 5S) L -&(- �t,t-4. �i 1 r f t
c:
/ 'r / y y5f (5 { j j %`r /e(12. /l% �'G�
L'?
`g'-i .`-f 1,6:3 /12,41/
(Ytha.414-'s dare it• iteltc wa-(eK eolezvvet44.1
C
me hrvi;ig ii;r17/ ,

C1ariant
May 27, 1998
Mr. David Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, NC 28266 3')
704.827.9651
•
D
Re: NPDES Permit 0004375, response to your comment fax of April 29, 1998
Dear Mr. Goodrich;
Thank you very much for the letter and information table. Clariant understands and is in
agreement with most of the allowances developed by the Division. We appreciate your patience
and willingness to consider alternatives relative to BOD effluent limit development.
You asked for comments on BOD allocation from several sources. Clariant's comments
and requests by source are summarized below:
WTP Backwash:
r(
Catawba River intake to the filtration plant usually contains 1.5 — 2.0 mg/1 BOIL. The
87,000 gallons per day of backwash water removes the solids_ from_ the filtration media.
%Clariant expected this water to contain higher concentrations of BOD than the raw river
To confirm this, we randomly analyzed the backwash water for BOD content on
May 6 and May 8.
1 The backwash water had BOD concentrations between 7 mg/land 13 mg/1.
Clariant believes the backwash water should have a BOD allowance in the range of 7 to 20
�.� , mg/l.
Sanitary:
Clariant agrees with the division's allocation of BOD for sanitary sources.

.
.
Letter to Mr. David Goodrich — May 27, 1998 page 2
Steam Generation:
Portions of the 98,000 gallons per day of water used in the steam generation system are
contaminated because of process contact and portions are not. This fact is not apparent
from the water flow schematic submitted with the permit application or from past
discussions and correspondence. I apologize for not clarifying this. It was an oversight.
Attached is a simplified flow diagram showing the Mt. Holly Plant's steam generation and
condensate system. Approximately 15,000 gallons of the 98,000 gallons per day
throughput becomes process contact water that ends up in the site's process sewers. This
portion of the site's condensate is used in cleaning of vessels, reactors and piping.
Clariant requests that 15,000 gal/day be designated as an OCPSF contaminated source and
be given a 45 mg/1 BOD allocation. We agree with the division's conclusion that all other
water from the steam generation segment is not contaminated and should not be given a
BOD allocation.
Herbicide Manufacturing:
Clariant agrees with the Division's allocation from the herbicide operation.
Chronic Toxicity:
One item we have not discussed since our meeting in June 1997 is that of chronic toxicity
testing. Clariant remains concerned with the condition in the draft permit that failure of a
single test constitutes a permit violation. Our request in the comments to the draft permit
was that the effluent discharge would not be considered in violation unless two
consecutive tests indicated toxicity.
We recently learned of an October 14, 1996 internal DWQ memorandum that was issued
by Steve Tedder on Whole Effluent Toxicity Permit Limits and Monitoring
Requirements. The internal memorandum was written during the comment period for
Clariant's draft permit. The memorandum provides for the following: WET testing "will
be evaluated based on a quarterly average chronic value (ChV), as well as a daily
maximum acute toxicity. Should a facility fail to meet limits during a specified month, it
will be required to monitor at least once during each of the two remaining months in the
quarter. The facility may perform as much additional monitoring as it desires in order to
come into compliance over the quarter." (see p. 3 of the memo). Clariant proposes that
the test methodology in our permit be handled in accordance with the procedure set forth
in Mr. Tedder's memo.

Letter to Mr. David Goodrich — May 27, 1998 page 3
Timing of Lower BOD Limits:
Another item we have not discussed since June 1997 is delaying the effective date of the
lower BOD limit. Clariant will need to undertake process improvements in order to
achieve compliance with the lower BOD limit proposed for the new permit, regardless of
the exact number that is ultimately agreed upon. We are in the process of putting
together a proposed schedule for the design and implementation of those modifications
and plan to provide that proposed schedule to you in July. We would ask that the
schedule be incorporated into the next draft of the permit.
Thank you again for your understanding and patience during the permitting process. If
you have any questions or comments, please call me at your convenience. My phone number is
[phone].
Sincerely;
4 I
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
ESHA Leader

CLRe1F-1 - M-r-,_ .y : PLR!,_.1Y_____STOA.in. . G �R.{'ilo U E s_y_q ----- --
S PRocsss biA t.
STEAcn
G�.t�E J'rtoi s
Taitrc r- A2rr‘5
1,4_4 17/_E1 aclaws.--c161,.03L'ocu.,.. ____i
I
- 1
l ( MEAT, \
EX cti AtJC�Elz.4 ) —i -
Iw ecrto ) k Re14c.ra2s
.STgE fiLI _ ! t✓>1 'J f C�w�Z- 1a�A-r ��
No.
a
y -= --- - Z2,inoQ
SS,000
F
LAC35
rriA1vaT :MPkwlGtEs
6s.
d1n'�C•
O
7
�. Ap_fi aO etr'1arEt..1 (s�QQ >�! LQfl�.. ---
O��STE Qcr► i s . En 2m4zr],4xec.TTr.�
_
FLAllsi4eD:_ Rectotic-rs_--
L. - . 3?,_000 :CLc art _
- - iS,0_0.0_ -- - - C.Q1.L'_HrnmIATED
1

t-Ctv..y‘ • -
CLARIANT
BOD5 - Monthly Average
BQD5 - Daily Maximum
Flow
Conc. Allocation
Load Allocation
Conc. Allocation
Load Allocation
$'stestream
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(Ibs/day)
(mg/L)
(Ibs/day)
0.77
45
289
120
771
,9rotindwater
0.29
45
109
120
290
Processecial Stormwater
0.087
45
33
120
87
Chem. Chemicals 4 . Mfg.)
�P ty ( 9 )
0.08
45
30
120
80
Sanitary
0.058
30
15
45
22
Non -Process Stormwater
0.138
1
1
1.5
2
TOTALS
1.423
476
1251
9
----- 5 .
.13905 - Monthly Average
BOW - Daily Maximum
Flow
Conc. Allocation
Load Allocation
Conc. Allocation
Load Allocation
Wastestream
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(Ibs/day)
(mg/L) f
(lbs/day)
OCPSF Process Water
0.77
57
366
_
183
1175
Groundwater
0.29
57
138
183
443
Process Stormwater
0.087
57
41
183
133
Specialty Chemicals (Pest. Mfg.)
0.08
57
38
183
122
'Sanitary ,
0.058
30
15
45
22
Filter Backwash
0.087
30
22
45
33
Non -Process Stormwater
0.138
30
35
• 45
52
TOTALS
1.51
654
1979
\/\:ccitio i(oo
L .0e
4/26/98
'b. "A
� f :3.)%1
NI
4

CLARIANT
CEA aitOtAle
\i, 01'T
oq?5 f F - (4-.p
c ',S5�ft!i.)(©,77 0�5?)
�
�`� ��� r� r �-r Rd
C fi,,c)(o ,7`� ,Q)($.3)
t O
y
TK„,.5,.. .
N5,;,,.X L. i►,,, g
s f
C,�.t �,s
C„,, i, (D .1,
.,.
3 e
.r43/c,
d ATAAP
3
.
lit —P
tM
(I mi / )(1)•13firtc,,P .34)
I/ —rtrport...
--riG.:19
`1_
/
P0/114) --It ()
' -
_____„.-vci
LiV .5 n,3 I/L-- 1 .44-1 AivAP
Viiitiw5 1446tt l• a Hi t461,9
11,4. covi.ta- \pm cry\
4/25/98

Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
Clariant
April 13, 1998
Mr. David Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: NPDES Permit 0004375
Dear Mr. Goodrich;
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, NC 28266
704.827.9651
D-1
APR p 6 lor.,;
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Enclosed is a simplified flow diagram of the Norflurazon process. The first three reaction
vessels in the system produce organic chemical intermediates. The Norflurazon molecule is
synthesized in the amination reaction that takes place in SSK-354. I would be glad to discuss
any questions you may have when you have reviewed the PFD.
As I mentioned in my letter of April 6, 1998, we would like to provide you some
additional information we have become aware of from certain EPA regions regarding the
calculation of OCPSF flow and other issues. It may be helpful to you as you complete the Mt.
Holly Plant permit.
We would like to meet with you to discuss these and other issues in more detail if you
have any time in the near future. If you would prefer to call me, my direct dial phone number is
[phone].
Sincerely;
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
ESHA Leader
cc: Marty Griffin, Ned Fiss, Mike Teague

t.J14-r t-
soq.
TT'lf‘ I
I !
. •
t\)0-1ASo4
MU CS
v WC" ‘cs
Lz(SO
IA
aoT..
1
. GL K- 15.1_
.CALK7154
oiftee:rrizATIoi4 Re-N>i..xc...-r .
i
oczpit-a‘c t.3101Z. Te.P401,) REAG:r1ot
(R)
IvNiNtNR
OR,
;
tCot-(R)
•
SSK-i 3.64
C**1 1t-WT10
1c. KoF
. •
If3R (R)
14% Sot_ C.Nk)
.,- —
, A •
! i
i 'll'IPVLL ;cram. .
i 1
i
I S'T 1_,LCA-r I t,$
NORh_URRY.OM
•
^ , •
F e - .1.10R7 L.L.M.Ckt•O
_1
TV PtI R TRA L.u(D1-442 m1E:TWA. PosSAL
MULS . - VtLidocLAUDRK- _R.L17). _
ss..zgesseit cylm(21 - cAr-11
XQPIL
1 I t14*-
: • A 1 14 L__- _TIUtna-TtlL_Tla
• • 00
IL
(.1)
( LT) LF0-YCYT iLL-
R‘t1C.,, . . • •
C-LOSUSZE- ••
! I
\ISTurrpilr17
•tt.4TES-1-ro WW1:
• mot./ •12...4 _TtoCti
••••
1Sct
\'••••••-, I _
• FAQUEL,11•5' P‘-kcas
s,z?cvetzt-6.01.3
u-Ito-r2
en••••
14i CA}
w'ivr6z CZ)
- 1P-17VPLAr M.D
•••••••••
44.14
RN) 0 .• 10c7-410
r.tori Nip Fle
Lo PLD 1!%4
Loliattlirtaip
're F341(..vt• "T-o syl
13 PG1 C3 PiC9I
Tn§c) 'DI (...,ist -0 j-L-itf rpacG
0
1I
rt)

Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, NC 28266
704.827.9651
Clariant
April 6, 1998
Mr. David Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: NPDES Permit 0004375
Dear Mr. Goodrich;
OEM%
APR iGc;ti
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Thank you for the time you devoted to our discussions regarding Clariant Corporation's —
Mt. Holly Plant NPDES permit. Per your request, I will send you a block flow diagram of the
Norflurazon process. You should receive it the week of April 6.
As I understand from our telephone conversation, you plan to issue another draft permit
for our review and comment prior to issuing a final permit. We appreciate this approach and
look forward to working cooperatively with you during this process.
I also wanted to briefly highlight a couple of points from our telephone conversation. As
Ned Fiss mentioned, the RCRA and CERCLA groundwater pumping systems currently deliver
between 225,000 and 250,000 gallons per day to the wastewater treatment plant. This is quite a
bit higher than the flow shown on the water flow schematic submitted with the permit
application of February 29, 1996. The site performed upgrading work on the large RCRA
wellpoint system in 1996 to improve its performance. In the written comments of October 31,
1996 Clariant requested the groundwater flow allocation reflect a maximum potential of 290,000
gallons per day. The actual flows are now approaching that amount.
Also, as I pointed out on the phone and as we addressed in our written comments,
Clariant critically needs effluent BOD allowances provided in the OCPSF guidance documents.
Clariant's proposal for a new daily average BOD limit of 512 pounds per day represents a 40%
reduction from the current permit limit, conforms with EPA's OCPSF guidance, and continues to
be protective of the environment.

Letter to Mr. David Goodrich — April 6, 1998 page 2
Clariant has found some additional information from certain EPA regions regarding the
calculation of OCPSF flow and other issues. It may be of use in completion of our permit. We
would be happy to provide it to you, if you believe it would be of use.
If it would be of benefit for us to meet together to discuss these and other issues in more
detail, we would like to do so. Any day or time in late April or early May would be fine. Again,
we appreciate the opportunity to work with you cooperatively. Thank you for your openness and
frank discussions in the past.
Sincerely;
4i, P/ae,af.v-
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
ESHA Leader

MAR-31-1998 18:38
AWARE ENVIRONMENTAL INC. [phone]?59 P.01
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: JI f/9?
Transmitted by: h S 5
Total Pages: 5 (including cover page)
Attention:
Company:
City:
aoddric
Me. Nrttcr-
FAXNUMBER: lg/9�733 -07/ 9
From: )Je.sg
Job. No. i`/ /3c ---� 0
Time: 6:300'fy
Message: 9,';;de ;\r ck.r7 o /973.ga
ide/71-►Y7 76 afra.vez4 orb / & �/� - I V/ipt.-Zr
4.2"14‘'r
V
rs- %C;1:::3
limn do not receive this transmission in its entirety, please call AEI at [phone].
HARD COPY TO FOLLOW I 1 It
Yes No
9306 MONRCE ROAD • SUITEJ • CHARLOTTE. N.C. 28270.1490 • 'TELEPHONE [phone] • FM (704) 845-17S9

q •` MAR-31-1998 18:38 AWARE ENVIRONMENTAL INC. [phone] P.02
Clariant
VIA FACSIMILE
October 31,1996
Mr. David Goodrich
NPOES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Ralcigh, NC 27626.0535
MOW! t A 114011 fli a aslant Ctlrp1110us
QUO Mom Rod
arartalr. NC 28205
I siVISVI viiros .Ilan. Ts+ 1111 131 ?UPI
Iav MS377.771A
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO COMMENTS ON PRI t''!' N P11l':s PERMIT
PERMIT NO. NC0004375
CLARIANT CORPORATION - it( )1,t,Y I'1.AN'I•
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Clariam Corporation herewith provides an addendum in the subject di letini nt which was hand
delivered to your office yesterday (October 3U. 1')96). We r egret we were nut able to include; this
addendum topic is the comment package. but request thin II tiS disumm•nt h..3:0111L part °ft1lC
record for the draft permit Today's comment should be c is iiidcred an ;addition to comment 111
of subject document regarding Bon allneatinn :1 u prs vier s epre%esilal I,nt nil' flow
The additional comment derives from our concern that no( ttnugh flow huts been allocated to the
contaminated groundwater waste stream. Although the 1495 average !Jim/ value of 130,000
gallons per day is correct (see thetable on page 2 of our cion ems). reason to believe
the flow will increase significantly during the lily the new NI'1 ti S Berne it
The design flow fur the RCRA area remecliadon system ix nearly 26o.o0) gallons per day, white
the CERCLA pumps typically yield 20,000 to 30.008 g:il k i in: daily S i nve the system began
operation in 1989, we have struggled to maintain them, t•lo' ,: i t by Item or kwr ability. However,
due to a variety of reasons such as system downtime, design intefficien t:iv% and modifications, the
flow has typically averaged less than capacity. It is t'larianl's goal to :tchivve maximum
pumping efficiency from the two systems at the site. ;tntl as intprov rttt•tit :tt'v math , the
maximum rate of 290,000 gallons per day can Iv achieved
Additionally, the final RCRA Part R permit fbr the site (expected to lfw• issued at any time) will
require the reassessment ofthe existing corrective actin!) 4y•1em. r ltc tl•Ctt1k ni'such assessment
could suggest a number of potential actions including, mos ti:siring t1:e tllsipIit I•rcnm the existing
system or even installing additional wells l'r pumpnnt• ::yslerll�:. �•icfun 4.1 whkli would result in
increased groundwater t'low.

MAR-31-1998 18:39
AWARE ENVIRONMENTAL INC. [phone] P.03
Clanant
Mr. David Goodrich
Comment Addadintsfor NPDE.S'Permit PICTid g4 t7s
10131/96
Page
At this time. Clariant requests that the flow allocated to contaminated un ittns twater reflect the
current maximum flow potential of 290.000 Oleos per du) which will likely be achieved within
the life of the new NPDES permit. This flow should he: considered d part ill the OCI'Sl' proems
flow used to calculate ROD and TSS limits in the new permit. I lowcver. exactly how this value
should be reconciled with the overall balance of w:tstewatrr !lows in a ndcr to establish a
• justifiable representative flow remains open for discussion isee comment t (13 H4) in CIariant's
10/29/96 comment package).
Thank you for considering this additional topic Wittig with our e i mme.nis *ubmitted may.
We look forward to tweeting with you to discuix this and «lieu is`ucy re•I:ttcxi la the dre t permit
at your earliest convet icace.
Sincerely,
CLARIANT CORPORATION
TOTAL P.03

R
wiw w�
NVIRONMENTAL INCH'
/A / [ice
VIA TELECOPY [phone]
June 18, 1997
Mr. David Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Permit Changes
NPDES Permit NC0004375
Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
AEI Job No. N130-20
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
On behalf of Clariant Corporation, we are requesting a meeting with the appropriate
representatives of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR) to discuss pending changes to the subject Clariant NPDES permit
which expired August 31, 1996.
Clariant submitted an application for permit renewal in March, 1996 and subsequently
received a draft permit from the NCDEHNR on October 1, 1996. Upon review of the draft
permit, Clariant had concerns over several significant changes which, if implemented, would
threaten continued operations at the Mt. Holly site. Clariant submitted its comments on the
draft permit to NCDEHNR on October 29, 1996 and has to date received no response from
NCDEHNR.
The subject NPDES permit is very important to Clariant for continuation of operations at the
Mt. Holly site and we would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss the draft
permit and Clariant's October 29, 1996 comments with NCDEHNR representatives before the
permit is finalized. We would propose that the meeting be held in your office in Raleigh on
any of the following dates:
• June 26, 1997;
• June 27, 1997;
• July 9, 1997;
• July 10, 1997; or
• July 14, 1997.
9305 MONROE ROAD • SUITE J • CHARLOTTE, N.C.28270-1490 • TELEPHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

Please advise us at your earliest opportunity of your selected date or other alternative dates on
which you and other representatives are available. You can contact me at [phone] or
Clariant's Gary Sanderson at [phone] to confirm the date of the meeting. We
appreciate your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
AWARE Environmental Inc.
Edward C. Fiss, Jr.,vP.E.
Manager, Process and Design Group
cc: Gary Sanderson, Clariant
Coleen Sullins, NCDEHNR
22623

AGENDA
MEETING ON CLARIANT NPDES PERMIT
N.C. DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
JULY,X 1997
lC
1. Introduction/Background
2. OCPSF Flow Determination
3. BOD5 Limit
4. COD Limit
5. Upstream/Downstream Monitoring
6. OCPSF Chemicals Limits (Comments 4, 5, 6 and 12)
7. Permit Implementation Schedule
8. Requirement to Continually Evaluate
9. Chronic Toxicity Violations
10. Flow Staging
11. Total Nitrogen Limits and BAT Study

Pee1(7-
6kr76s tr?'• (6? apkva---
Q'X SINe`i %rl 1.c-s bogstizy 5 AJ T L /-/it()rPfesa
�s p` ee/k/1-2-7noti er-l/t/C eTZ-tee 9Yt I73 .
„rift& lS Al0 ,eon ,e teZe AS S P,eDCbz.
(of ride coAlce-Al ilf re-" is 4fL RE 7? Ar✓{46 4liC
)(t7se -- / 7Vey, - /ri, /il.
(ziP,51,ovv.c
L.Eva-s I D►/�
? i'U,►J, nMc
nAkiii-f)r5 f
frorsklip0 fivairJor �s c,46( �G

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
December 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dave Goodrich
THRU: Don Safrio
Ruth Swanek(ZC�
Carla Sandersor
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Comments for Clariant Corp. -Mt. Holly Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0004375
Mecklenburg County
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed the comments from the subject facility
and our recommendations are as follows.
Item #3: Deletion of instream monitoring for BOD5, dissolved
oxygen, temperature, and conductivity.
We have reviewed instream data from 1993 thru 1996 for Clariant and we will now
concur that BOD5, NH3 and conductivity can be deleted. BOD5 values were initially
collected to determine the impact of this discharger on the Catawba River and have been
continued historically in the consequent WLAs. NH3 was collected for the same reason
and data shows that it is consistently below detection level.
A review of monthly average temperature and DO values does show that Clariant
has not violated any instream DO standards over the years. However, a look at individual
DO values does show that in July 1995, upstream and downstream values were
approximately 5.5 mg/1. Also in July and August, 1993, downstream values of 5.2 and
5.5 mg/1 were reported. While these are not contraventions and occurred infrequently, it
does show that there could be the potential for instream problems. Upstream and
downstream temperature values have had monthly averages as high as 31C in the summer
months.
We recommend that Clariant continue to monitor for DO and temperature
only during the summer months of June, July, August and September. This
reduces the number of parameters and frequency of monitoring. According to 15A NCAC
2B .0508 (b)(2), regarding tests and measurements applicable to SICs, these discharges
"..may be required to perform such additional tests as are determined by the Director to be
necessary to adequately monitor constituents of the waste discharge and their effect upon
the receiving waters." It is not unreasonable for a 3.9 MGD facility to monitor these two
parameters for protection of instream standards.
Item #10: Staging Requirement
IAU has reviewed the staging requirement and concurs with Clariant that it should
be modified to coordinate with the revised BOD5 and NH3. Because of the proposed
revision to a much lower BOD5 limit of 366.2 lbs/day, there should be a modification to

Memo to Dave Goodrich
- page 2-
the staging requirement equations. The case scenario where the river flow is greater than
175 cfs and less than 250 cfs is no longer necessary because the combination of the revised
BOD5 and NH3 limits would be much lower than the allowable 1044 lb/day per the
previous modeling analysis. Since the new guideline limits are low, the equation is only
needed when the river flow is less than of equal to 175 cfs.
There is a special DMR where staging requirement discharge flow, river flow,
effluent BOD5 and NH3 (lbs/day) and allowable BOD5 and NH3 based on the river flow is
reported by Clariant. New case scenarios are as follows:
Casel: River flow < 175 cfs, BODS + 0.54 NH3 <=566.4 lb/day
Case2: River flow > 175 cfs, BODS < 366.2 lb/day (mo.avg),
BODS < 988.8 lb/day (dly max.),
NH3 < 651 lb/day (mo.avg),
NH3 < 977 lb/day (dly max.)
If there are any questions concerning these recommendations, please contact me.
cc: Rex Gleason
WLA File

4L- ? os, 17414 $'v f vr• _ c Aoki oki /973 - 9 y,
6416.7(4 / /.1 %ram 6,wc,Zoi A /2
Lt/ (✓ ILL /LC �3yt�(, Lf� I /✓�A M .� L✓ iJ (��✓ (E I�
it ,`/ /91 14-d , 1. . , ,.� d 6v4,--.�/ �i✓
G 4,e.. a 1/;(141
.tp /99st
Q,,J : de. 9 i oL
IG�Jt✓ ��u = 64207 c 4 c 4R6y 54,0,f7A ot (0,614.44)
rf"offd.
`/r777
54as
hXaillt s fr, , i3c3D 5
/1 r 777/f 3 y/3? .o. 3 7 /. 71541
„tt/e .2677/f.3Y/ 33z2.57 — , 3 t/2
Ray /2 /?93
o, S�z ifoe AAA 5-vr7 101
: 3Sz,f 12 1- v, 52 #y' — 3r23--, 65' mGo
35-2so i' = 33 28d/8.3Y/37zs. ZZ =
t 35`21e/45 y.3y175^2,576y _

C104,./1--
I1' vat �s Ji Acre sr
/
cet►cl (.,! a /1//�
d4, oscd.j 1as- 74 o, 5-9 /0/3 = S6 6, Zg
v a <
34
/.4
3(
060. 2.+ o.sY (7)
(357. sql
717.7f
717,7'4lYY111 P
C43 41&ZJ
4.
t�✓►� �(> I7Sc�'s Bobs- d.S n)f/3G to'Of / /47
e14,1 t► ^& lawAsr3 /`r/h( T4,
(13 VA t o. 5Y (N � = ?ov,

E
Clariant Corporation
Catawba River
030834
jmn
11/18/96
Facility has numerous comments on draft permit issued in 10/96. Specifically (among
others) the reduction in BOD5 limits.
Existing:
Recommended:
by P&E
Clariant :
recommended
852 lbs/day (Mo. Avg.) and 2236 lbs/day (Da. max.)
366.2 lbs/day (Mo. Avg.) and 988.8 lbs/day (Da. max.)
573.3 lbs/day (Mo. Avg.) and 1564.5 lbs/day (Da. max.)
Corrected P&E : 512.3 lbs/day (Mo. Avg.) and 1401.9 lbs/day (Da. max.)
(Clariant)
The draft requested BOD5 limits by Clariant are still lower than the existing BOD5 limits.
IAU is to address Comment #3: Request for deletion of instream
monitoring for BODS, DO, Temperature, NH3, and Conductivity.
Clariant monitors weekly all year round for these parameters. A review of data from 1993
thru 1996, shows all average DO's reported above 5 mg/1. Reported DO minimums for the
same period show that there were some upstream and downstream values near the
standard. However, Clariant's discharge did not cause any DO violations during these
periods.
7/95
8/93
7/93
Upstream
5.5
5.6
4.8
Downstream
5.6
5.5
5.2
May recommend continuation of DO monitoring in the summer months only
(June, July, August, September are the months where the lowest DOs are
reported).
Reported NH3 values are all BDLs (<0.5). Will recommend deletion of
monitoring for instream NH3.
Temperature: Not to exceed 29C in upper piedmont. In 7/93, temperature of 31
upstream and 32 downstream. Several months with temperature ups and downstrm at 29:
8/93, 7/94, 8/94, and 8/96.
BODS: sampling instream and also reported on special staging requirement DMR where
discharge flow, river flow, effluent BOD5 and NH3 (lbs/day) and allowable BODS and
NH3 based on the river flow is reported. Case scenarios are as follows:
Casel: River flow <= 175 cfs
Case2: River flow > 175 cfs,
Case3: River flow > 250 cfs
BODS + 0.54 NH3 <=566.4 lb/day
<=250 cfs BODS + 0.54 NH3 <=1044
lb/day
BODS <=852 lb/day (mo.avg),
BODS <=2236 lb/day (dly max.),
NH3 <=651 lb/day (mo.avg),
NH3 <=977 lb/day (dly max.)

s
Clariant Corporation
page 2
Clariant has requested that the staging requirement be modified based on the new effluent
limitations. I've had some problem determining how the Case 1 and Case 2 staging
requirements were developed. It is not apparent from the WLA documentation about how
the BOD5 and NH3 lbs/day numbers were calculated. It does seem like a lb/hr value for
BOD was used but I have not found out where this value was generated from and whether
has changed from what was previously used.
lb/hr avg = 23.6 @ 95-175 cfs 23.6*24hr =566.4 lb/day
lb/hr avg = 43.5 @ 175-250 cfs 43.5 *24hr = 1044 lb/day
>250 cfs = limits given for BOD5 and NH3
Comment from Clariant, formulas in the staging requirement condition are not consistent
with the BOD5 and NH3 effluent limits given int he draft permit. i.e. >250 cfs
BOD5<=366 amd NH3 <=651. new lb/hr would be 15.25?

UPSTREAM
clariant corp.- mt. holly plt
DOWNSTREAM
I694-1)
MONTH Temp DO Saturation AW Conductivity Temp DO Saturation
Conductivity
Sep-96
27
7
88%
62
27
7.4
93%
69
Aug-96
29
6.4
83%
80
29
6.5
85%
76
Oct-94
20
8.3
91%
1.6
61.4
19
8.5
92%
1
74
Sep-94
26
7.2
89%
0.9
62.8
25
7.7
93%
1.3
74
Aug-94
29
7
91%
1.6
58.6
29
7.3
95%
2
72.9
JuI-94
29
6.6
86%
3.1
72.8
29
7.6
99%
3
88.9
Jun-94
27
6.8
85%
2.5
67.1
28
7.6
97%
2.7
104.7
May-94
22
7.9
90%
4637
72.4
23
7.8
91%
6459
99.9
Apr-94
19
9.1
98%
56022
76.5
19
9.2
99%
44355
74.9
Oct-93
22
8.3
95%
5838
68.8
22
9
103%
7061
134
Sep-93
28
6.9
88%
9121
69.5
28
7.7
98%
11945
112.6
Aug-93
29
9.4
122%
15119
81.7
29
7.1
92%
20613
122.2
Notes
f,1/, h/ r 4,h7 /99s-
ups-hwy 27 bridge
dwn-i-85 bridge
NC0004375 1 1 /1 8/96

clariant corp.- mt. holly plt
UPSTREAM IAD( DOWNSTREAM 6605
MONTH Temp DO Saturation 41000 Conductivity Temp DO Saturation AWIVF Conductivity
Jul-93 31 5.5
Jun-93 26 6.7
May-93 20 8.2
Apr-93 14 9.8
Notes
74%
83%
90%
95%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
12133
20801
33675
55644
91.6
81.4
78
92.8
Y-intorin As ()Ali) / /9 9s'
ups-hwy 27 bridge
dwn-i-85 bridge
NC0004375 1 1 /1 8/96
32
27
20
14
6
7.1
8.3
10
82%
89%
91%
97%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8913
16039
21471
44989
117.2
119.3
71.9
80.4

d (en P1644%711 P/yri
/0444a,v.Md
7�9(# —
s7 6.3
771G ,r,V 6.a
r/90 6, 2. 6-8
/Yb �� �' y
/o/9tf 7,3 , /
9/sr -tot —
7/V -; s 7/4 r s' 7 /ilqir—
c/So- 19,4
if 7 $-Y
7,
S/s y 6,3 L. f
_711y S', 7 6_b
4/1 s 4,6 6/L5/syc S. 8 6 ha/7/
it/9 3 7, 51
sls) S> 7 Oh 3
�.7
114h)
G(fc,7 f
71
T . 2 7/Z$1, 3
74

FACILITY Clariant Corp.
OCPSF Flow 1.42 MGD Flow is based on processes waters only
7010s 329 cfs
Qavg 3016 cfs Human Hlth
PF 3.9 MGD Human Hlth Stdrd (WS) Allowable Allowable
Limit Limit Fedl Standard Stdrd(WS) Allowable Allowable Aquatic Life Human Hlth Limit Daily Monthly
Daily Monthly Daily Monthly State Aquatic Water & conc. Aquatic conc Water&Org Based Max Avg.
max avg max avg Life organisms Life Water&Org on:
Parameter ug/l ug/l #Id #/d stdrd µg/I µg/l µg/i µg/l #Iday #/day #/d a y
Acenaphthene 59 22 0.699 0.261 FC no stdrd 1200 no stdrd 66510.17 no stdrd 2161.581 OCPSF 0.699 #/day 0.261
Acrylonitrile (c) 242 96 2.866 1.137 FC no stdrd 0.059 no stdrd 29.50 no stdrd 0.959 CHRONIC 29.496 µg/I
Benzene (c) 136 37 1.611 0.438 SS no stdrd 1.19 no stdrd 594.91 no stdrd 19.335 OCPSF 1.611 #/day 0.438
Carbon Tetrachloride (c) 38 18 0.450 0.213 SS no stdrd 0.254 no stdrd 126.98 no stdrd 4.127 OCPSF 0.450 #/day 0.213
Chlorobenzene 28 15 0.332 0.178 FC no stdrd 680 no stdrd 37689.10 no stdrd 1224.896 OCPSF 0.332 #/day 0.178
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene 140 68 1.658 0.805 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 1 .658 #/day 0.805
Hexachlorobenzene (c) 28 15 0.332 0.178 FC no stdrd 0.00075 no stdrd 0.375 no stdrd 1.22E-02 CHRONIC 0.375 µg/I
1,2-Dichloroethane (c) 211 68 2.499 0.805. FC no stdrd 0.38 no stdrd 189.97 no stdrd 6.174 OCPSF 2.499 #/day 0.805
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 54 21 0.640 0.249 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.640 #/day 0.249
Hexachloroethane (c) 54 21 0.640 0.249 FC no stdrd 1.9 no stdrd 949.86 no stdrd 30.870 OCPSF 0.640 #/day 0.249
1,1-Dichloroethane (c) 59 22 0.699 0.261 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.699 #/day 0.261
1,1,2-trichloroettiane (c) 54 21 0.640 0.249 FC no stdrd 0.6 no stdrd 299.95 no stdrd 9.749 OCPSF 0.640 #/day 0.249
Chloroethane 268 104 3.174 1.232 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 3.174 #/day 1.232
Chloroform (c) 46 21 0.545 0.249 FC no stdrd 5.7 no stdrd 2849.57 no stdrd 92.611 OCPSF 0.545 #/day 0.249
2 Chlorophenol 98 31 1.161 0.367 FC no stdrd 120 no stdrd 6651.02 no stdrd 216.158 OCPSF 1 .161 #/day 0.367
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 163 77 1.930 0.912 FC no stdrd 2700 no stdrd 149647.89 no stdrd 4863.556 OCPSF 1.930 #/day 0.91 2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 44 31 0.521 0.367 FC no stdrd 400 no stdrd 22170.06 no stdrd 720.527 OCPSF 0.521 #/day 0.367
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 28 15 0.332 0.178 FC no stdrd 400 no stdrd 22170.06 no stdrd 720.527 OCPSF 0.332 #/day 0.178
1,1-Dichloroethylene (c) 25 16 0.296 0.189 FC no stdrd 0.057 no stdrd 28.50 no stdrd 0.926 OCPSF 0.296 #/day 0.189
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 54 21 0.640 0.249 FC no stdrd 700 no stdrd 38797.60 no stdrd 1260.922 OCPSF 0.640 #Iday 0.249
2,4-Dichlorophenol 112 39 1.326 0.462 FC no stdrd 93 no stdrd 5154.54 no stdrd 167.523 OCPSF 1 .326 #/day 0.462
1,2-Dichloropropane 230 153 2.724 1.812 FC no stdrd 0.52 no stdrd 28.82 no stdrd 0.937 CHRONIC 28.821 µg/I
1,3-Dichloropropylene (c) 44 29 0.521 0.343 FC no stdrd 10 no stdrd 4999.25 no stdrd 162.476 OCPSF 0.521 #/day 0.343
Z4-Dimethylphenol 36 18 0.426 0.213 FC no stdrd 540 no stdrd 29929.58 no stdrd 972.711 OCPSF 0.426 #/day 0.213
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (c) 285 113 3.375 1.338 FC no stdrd 0.11 no stdrd 54.99 no stdrd 1.787 CHRONIC 54.992 µg/I 1.338
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (c) 641 255 7.591 3.020 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 7.591 #/day 3.020
Ethylbenzene 108 32 1.279 0.3791Q/NOE( 325.000 3100.000 18013.17 171817.95 585.428 5584.083 OCPSF 1.279 #/day 0.379
Flouranthene 68 25 0.805 0.296 FC no stdrd 300 no stdrd 16627.54 no stdrd 540.395 OCPSF 0.805 #/day 0.296
Methylene Chloride (c) 89 40 1.054 0.474 FC no stdrd 4.7 no stdrd 2349.65 no stdrd 76.364 OCPSF 1.054 #/day 0.474
Methyl Chloride . 190 86 2.250 1.018 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 2.250 #/day 1.018
Hexachlorobutadiene (c) 49 20 0.580 0.237 SS no stdrd 0.445 no stdrd 222.47 no stdrd 7.230 OCPSF 0.580 #/day 0.237
Naphthalene 59 22 0.699 0.261 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.699 #/day 0.261
Nitrobenzene 68 27 0.805 0.320 FC no stdrd 17 no stdrd 942.23 no stdrd 30.622 OCPSF 0.805 #/day 0.320
2-Nitrophenol 69 41 0.817 0.486 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.817 #/day 0.486
4-Nitrophenol 124 72 1.469 0.853 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 1.469 #/day 0.853
2,4-Dinitrophenol 123 71 1.457 0.841 FC no stdrd 70 no stdrd 3879.76 no stdrd 126.092 OCPSF 1 .457 #/day 0.841
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 277 78 3.280 0.924 FC no stdrd 13.4 no stdrd 742.70 no stdrd 24.138 OCPSF 3.280 #/day 0.924
Phenol 26 15 0.308 0.178 FC no stdrd 21000 no stdrd 1163928.04 no stdrd 37827.661 OCPSF 0.308 #/day 0.178
1 1/18/96 1

FACILITY Clariant Corp.
OCPSF Flow 1.42 MGD
7010s 329 cfs
Qavg 3016 cfs
PF 3.9 MGD
Parameter
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (c)
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene (c, PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (c, PAH)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene (c, PAH)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (c,PAH)
Chrysene (c, PAH)
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachforoethylene (c)
Toluene
Trichlororethylene (c)
Vinyl Chloride (c)
PAH (total -µg/i) (c)
a*Total Chromium
**Total Copper
" Total Cyanide
** Total Lead
** Total Nickel
" Total Zinc'
Flow is based on processes waters only
Limit Limit Fedi Standard
Daily Monthly Daily Monthly State Aquatic
max avg max avg Life
ugli ug/I #/d #/d stdrd µg/l
279 103 3.304 1.220 FC
57 27 0.675 0.320 FC
203 81 2.404 0.959 FC
47 19 0.557 0.225 FC
59 22 0.699 0.261 FC
61 23 0.722 0.272 FC
61 23 0.722 0.272 FC
59 22 0.699 0.261 FC
59 22 0.699 0.261 FC
59 22 0.699 0.261 FC
59 22 0.699 0.261 FC
59 22 0.699 0.261 FC
59 22 0.699 0.261 FC
67 25 0.793 0.296 FC
56 22 0.663 0.261 FC
80 26 0.947 0.308 SS/AD
54 21 0.640 0.249 SS
268 104 3.174 1.232 SS
aromatic hydrocarbons SS
2770 1110 0.000 0.000 SS
3380 1450 0.000 0.000 SS -AL
1200 420 0.000 0.000 SS
690 320 0.000 0.000 SS
3980 1690 0.000 0.000 SS
2610 1050 0.000 0.000 SS -AL
"Total Zinc for Rayon Fiber Manufacture
that uses the viscose process and Acrylic
Fiber Manufacture that uses zinc
chloride/solvent process is 6,796 ug/L and
3,325 ug/L for maximum for any one day
and maximum for monthly average, respectively.
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
11.000
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
50.000
7.000
5.000
25.000
88.000
50.000
Human Hith
Stdrd(WS)
Water &
organisms
µg/l
1.8
2700
23000
313000
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
no stdrd
9600
1300
no stdrd
960
0.8
6800.000
3.08
2
0.0028
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
no stdrd
25
no stdrd
Human Hlth
Stdrd (WS) Allowable Allowable
Allowable Allowable Aquatic Life Human Hlth Limit Daily Monthly
conc. Aquatic conc Water&Org Based Max Avg.
Life Water&Org on:
µg/i AO #/day #/day #/d ay
no stdrd 899.86 no stdrd 29.246 OCPSF 3.304 #/day 1.220
no stdrd 149647.89 no stdrd 4863.556 OCPSF 0.675 #/day 0.320
no stdrd 1274778.33 no stdrd 41430.296 OCPSF 2.404 #/day 0.959
no stdrd 17348070.31 no stdrd 563812.285 OCPSF 0.557 #/day 0.225
no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/l
no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.699 #Iday 0.261
no stdrd 532081.39 no stdrd 17292645 OCPSF 0.699 #/day 0.261
no stdrd 72052.69 no stdrd 2341.712 OCPSF 0.699 #/day 0.261
no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.699 #/day 0.261
no stdrd 53208.14 no stdrd 1729.265 OCPSF 0.793 #/day 0.296
no stdrd 399.94 no stdrd 12.998 OCPSF 0.663 #/day 0.261
609.68 376890.98 19.814 12248.957 OCPSF 0.947 #/day 0.308
no stdrd 1539.77 no stdrd 50.042 OCPSF 0.640 #/day 0.249
no stdrd 999.85 no stdrd 32.495 OCPSF 3.174 #Iday 1 .232
no stdrd 1.40 no stdrd 0.045 CHRONIC 1 .400 µg/I
2771.26 no stdrd 90.066 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
387.98 no stdrd 12609 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
277.13 no stdrd 9.007 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
1385.63 no stdrd 45.033 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
4877.41 1385.63 158.516 45.033 OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
2771.26 no stdrd 90.066 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
" Metal should only be limited if Total metal bearing wasteflow:
process contains metal bearing wasteflow.
Cyanide should only be limited if Total cyanide bearing wasteflow:
process contains cyanide bearing wasteflow.
1 1 /1 8/96 2

FACILITY Clariant Corp.
OCPSF Flow 1.66 MGD Flow is based on processes waters only
7Q10s 329 cfs
Qavg 3016 cfs Human Hith
PF 3.9 MGD Human Hlth Stdrd (WS) Allowable Allowable
Limit Limit Fedi Standard Stdrd(WS) Allowable Allowable Aquatic Life Human Hlth Limit Daily Monthly
Daily Monthly Daily Monthly State Aquatic Water & conc. Aquatic conc Water&Org Based Max Avg.
max avg max avg Life organisms Life Water&Org on:
Parameter ugli ug/l #/d #/d stdrd µg/1 µg/l 11gl1 pg/i #/day #/day #/day
Acenaphthene 59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd 1200 no stdrd 66510.17 no stdrd 2161.581 OCPSF 0.817 #/day 0.305
Acryionitrile (c) 242 96 3.350 1.329 FC no stdrd 0.059 no stdrd 29.50 no stdrd 0.959 CHRONIC 29.496 µg/I
Benzene (c) 136 37 1.883 0.512 SS no stdrd 1.19 no stdrd 594.91 no stdrd 19.335 OCPSF 1.883 #/day 0.512
Carbon Tetrachloride (c) 38 18 0.526 0.249 SS no stdrd 0.254 no stdrd 126.98 no stdrd 4.127 OCPSF 0.526 #/day 0,249
Chlorobenzene 28 15 0.388 0.208 FC no stdrd 680 no stdrd 37689.10 no stdrd 1224.896 OCPSF 0.388 #/day 0.208
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene 140 68 1.938 0.941 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 1.938 #/day 0.941
Hexachlorobenzene (c) 28 15 0.388 0.208 FC no stdrd 0.00075 no stdrd 0.375 no stdrd 1.22E-02 CHRONIC 0.375 14/1
1,2-Dichloroethane (c) 211 68 2.921 0.941 FC no stdrd 0.38 no stdrd 189.97 no stdrd 6.174 OCPSF 2.921 #/day 0.941
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 54 21 0.748 0.291 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.748 #/day 0.291
Hexachloroethane (c) 54 21 0.748 0.291 FC no stdrd 1.9 no stdrd 949.86 no stdrd 30.870 OCPSF 0.748 #Iday 0.291
1,1-Dichloroethane (c) 59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.81 7 #/day 0.305
1,1,2-trichloroethane (c) 54 21 0.748 0.291 FC no stdrd 0.6 no stdrd 299.95 no stdrd 9.749 OCPSF 0.748 #/day 0.291
Chloroethane 268 104 3.710 1.440 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 3.710 #/day 1.440
Chloroform (c) 46 21 0.637 0.291 FC no stdrd 5.7 no stdrd 2849.57 no stdrd 92.611 OCPSF 0.637 #/day 0.291
2-Chlorophenol 98 31 1.357 0.429 FC no stdrd 120 no stdrd 6651.02 no stdrd 216.158 OCPSF 1.357 #/day 0.429
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 163 77 2.257 1.066 FC no stdrd 2700 no stdrd 149647.89 no stdrd 4863.556 OCPSF 2.257 #/day 1.066
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 44 31 0.609 0.429 FC no stdrd 400 no stdrd 22170.06 no stdrd 720.527 OCPSF 0.609 #/day 0.429
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 28 15 0.388 0.208 FC no stdrd 400 no stdrd 22170.06 no stdrd 720.527 OCPSF 0.388 #/day 0.208
1,1-Dichloroethylene (c) 25 16 0.346 0.222 FC no stdrd 0.057 no stdrd 28.50 no stdrd 0.926 OCPSF 0.346 #/day 0.222
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 54 21 0.748 0.291 FC no stdrd 700 no stdrd 38797.60 no stdrd 1260.922 OCPSF 0.748 #/day 0.291
2,4-Dichlorophenol 112 39 1.551 0.540 FC no stdrd 93 no stdrd 5154.54 no stdrd 167.523 OCPSF 1 .551 #/day 0.540
1,2-Dichioropropane 230 153 3.184 2.118 FC no stdrd 0.52 no stdrd 28.82 no stdrd 0.937 CHRONIC 28.821 µg/I
1,3-Dichloropropylene (c) 44 29 0.609 0.401 FC no stdrd 10 no stdrd 4999.25 no stdrd 162.476 OCPSF 0.609 #/day 0.401
2,4-Dimethylphenol 36 18 0.498 0.249 FC no stdrd 540 no stdrd 29929.58 no stdrd 972.711 OCPSF 0.498 #/day 0.249
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (c) 285 113 3.946 1.564 FC no stdrd 0.11 no stdrd 54.99 no stdrd 1.787 CHRONIC 54.992 µg/I 1.564
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (c) 641 255 8.874 3.530 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 8.874 #/day 3.530
Ethylbenzene 108 32 1.495 0.4431/40/NOE( 325.000 3100.000 18013.17 171817.95 585.428 5584.083 OCPSF 1.495 #/day 0.443
Flouranthene 68 25 0.941 0.346 FC no stdrd 300 no stdrd 16627.54 no stdrd 540.395 OCPSF 0.941 #/day 0.346
Methylene Chloride (c) 89 40 1.232 0.554 FC no stdrd 4.7 no stdrd 2349.65 no stdrd 76.364 OCPSF 1 .232 #/day 0.554
Methyl Chloride 190 86 2.630 1.191 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 2.630 #/day 1.191
Hexachiorobutadiene (c) 49 20 0.678 0.277 SS no stdrd 0.445 no stdrd 222.47 no stdrd 7.230 OCPSF 0.678 #/day 0.277
Naphthalene 59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.81 7 #/day 0.305
Nitrobenzene 68 27 0.941 0.374 FC no stdrd 17 no stdrd 942.23 no stdrd 30.622 OCPSF 0.941 #/day 0.374
2-Nitrophenol 69 41 0.955 0.568 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.955 #/day 0.568
4-Nitrophenol 124 72 1.717 0.997 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 1.717 #/day 0.997
2,4-Dinitropheno! 123 71 1.703 0.983 FC no stdrd 70 no stdrd 3879.76 no stdrd 126.092 OCPSF 1 .703 #/day 0.983
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 277 78 3.835 1.080 FC no stdrd 13.4 no stdrd 742.70 no stdrd 24.138 OCPSF 3.835 #/day 1 .080
Phenol 26 15 0.360 0.208 FC no stdrd 21000 no stdrd 1163928.04 no stdrd 37827.661 OCPSF 0.360 #Iday 0.208
1 1 /18/96 1

Parameter
FACILITY Clariant Corp.
OCPSF Flow 1.66 MGD
7Q10s 329 cfs
Qavg 3016 cfs
PF 3.9 MGD
Flow is based on processes waters only
Human Hfth
Human Hlth Stdrd (WS) Allowable Allowable
Limit Limit Fedl Standard Stdrd(WS) Allowable Allowable Aquatic Life Human Hlth Limit Daily Monthly
Daily Monthly Daily Monthly State Aquatic Water & conc. Aquatic conc Water&Org Based Max Avg.
max avg max avg Life organisms Life Water&Org on:
ugll ugh #/d #/d stdrd µgli µg/I µg/i µg/t #/day #/day #/d a y
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (c)
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene (c, PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (c, PAH)
3,4-Benzofluoranlhene (c, PAH)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (c,PAH)
Chrysene (c, PAH)
Acenaphthyiene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene (c)
Toluene
Trichlarorethylene (c)
Vinyl Chloride (c)
PAH (total -µg/i) (c)
**Total Chromium
•' Total Copper
**Total Cyanide
**Total Lead
Total Nickel
" Total Zinc*
279 103 3.863 1.426 FC no stdrd 1.8 no stdrd 899.86 no stdrd 29.246 OCPSF 3.863 #/day 1.426
57 27 0.789 0.374 FC no stdrd 2700 no stdrd 149647.89 no stdrd 4863.556 OCPSF 0.789 #/day 0.374
203 81 2.810 1.121 FC no stdrd 23000 no stdrd 1274778.33 no stdrd 41430.296 OCPSF 2.810 #/day 1 .121
47 19 0.651 0.263 FC no stdrd 313000 no stdrd 17348070.31 no stdrd 563812.285 OCPSF 0.651 #/day 0.263
59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
61 23 0.845 0.318 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
61 23 0.845 0.318 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd 0.0044 no stdrd 2.20 no stdrd 0.071 CHRONIC 2.200 µg/I
59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.817 #/day 0.305
59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd 9600 no stdrd 532081.39 no stdrd 17292.645 OCPSF 0.81 7 #/day 0.305
59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd 1300 no stdrd 72052.69 no stdrd 2341.712 OCPSF 0.81 7 #/day 0.305
59 22 0.817 0.305 FC no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd no stdrd OCPSF 0.817 #/day 0.305
67 25 0.928 0.346 FC no stdrd 960 no stdrd 53208.14 no stdrd 1729.265 OCPSF 0.928 #/day 0.346
56 22 0.775 0.305 FC no stdrd 0.8 no stdrd 399.94 no stdrd 12.998 OCPSF 0.775 #/day 0.305
80 26 1.108 0.360 SS/AO 11.000 6800.000 609.68 376890.98 19.814 12248.957 OCPSF 1.108 #/day 0.360
54 21 0.748 0.291 SS no stdrd 3.08 no stdrd 1539.77 no stdrd 50.042 OCPSF 0.748 #/day 0.291
268 104 3.710 1.440 SS no stdrd 2 no stdrd 999.85 no stdrd 32.495 OCPSF 3.710 #/day 1 .440
aromatic hydrocarbons SS no stdrd 0.0028 no stdrd 1.40 no stdrd 0.045 CHRONIC 1.400 µg/I
2770 1110 0.000 0.000 SS 50.000 no stdrd 2771.26 no stdrd 90.066 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
3380 1450 0.000 0.000 SS -AL 7.000 no stdrd 387.98 no stdrd 12.609 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
1200 420 0.000 0.000 SS 5.000 no stdrd 277.13 no stdrd 9.007 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
690 320 0.000 0.000 SS 25.000 no stdrd 1385.63 no stdrd 45.033 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
3980 1690 0.000 0.000 SS 88.000 25 4877.41 1385.63 158.516 45.033 OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
2610 1050 0.000 0.000 SS -AL 50.000 no stdrd 2771.26 no stdrd 90.066 no stdrd OCPSF 0.000 #/day 0.000
'Total Zinc for Rayon Fiber Manufacture
that uses the viscose process and Acrylic
Fiber Manufacture that uses zinc
chloride/solvent process is 6,796 ug/L and
3,325 ug/L for maximum for any one day
and maximum for monthly average, respectively.
" Metal should only be limited if Total metal bearing wasteflow:
process contains metal bearing wasteflow.
Cyanide should only be limited if Total cyanide bearing wasteflow:
process contains cyanide bearing wasteflow.
1 1 /18/96 2

Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
From: Greg Nizich
Date: Tue, Nov 5, 1996 1:06 PM
Subject: i/s sampling for Clariant
To: Jackie Nowell
. They questioned U & D monitoring on two fronts: 1 - they have had sampling up to now
performed by a third party who had i/s monitoring required in their permit. Clariant says this
requirement was recently removed from the third party's permit. They don't see why they
must conduct i/s sampling when we are eliminating this requirement from other permits. 2 -
For effluent limited permits, the 2B .0500 regs do not require U & D monitoring for BOD,
DO, etc. (this is true) and the only WQ limited parameter is NH3-N.

10-31-93 C3:4.FM FROM CLAR:ANT CCORPORATION TO 919:?330719 POC1/303
s
Clariant
CLARIANT CORPORATION
4000 MONROE ROAD, CHARI_011E, NC 28205
Environmcnu I, Safety and
Product Safety Department
Phone: 10433 i .77100
Fax: [phone] IN
TELEFAX
TO:
COMPANY:
FAX NO:
FROM:
DATE:
4Q/Cf 0?/(7
//'/J
1 ? 4" f 216:c
/0/2/13;1,.
NO. OF PAGES (including Cover Sheet):
Comments:
IF YOU DO NOT PECENE 'TIE ENTIRE FAX, NOTIFY '/' '1'11 771

'10-31-96 03:41?M 3RCM CLAR:ANT CORPORATION TO 919:97330719
P002/003
„„k...irik.,__
Clariant
VIA FACSIMILE
October 31,1996
Mr. David Goodrich
NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
MII;NA11 A II•A1;I11% i•hl1
Ito xi r,
&mI ill & lnvirannreol.il Alims
Clariant Corporation
ono Monroe Road
Charlotte. NC 28205
rdi: M4.331.7104
I nz: 704.377,7718
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO COMMENTS ON DRA FT NP1i1+;S PERMIT
RMIT
PERMIT NO. NC0004375
CLARIANT CORPORATION - MT. 1100 1LY PICA N'l'
Dear Mr. Goodrich;
Clariant Corporation herewith provides an addendum to the subject dilet meat which was hand
delivered to your office yesterday (October 30, 1996). We reprct we wartwero not able to include this
addendum topic in the comment package, but request that this document become part oldie
record for the draft permit. Today's comment should be considered an addition to comment #1
of subject document regarding BOD allocation and proper r prescntiil lol l or now.
The additional comment derives from our concern that not cnough Ilaw has hccn allocated to the
contaminated groundwater waste stream. Although the I99S average now value of 130,000
gallons per day is correct (see the table on page 2 dour comments), we have reason to believe
the flow will increase significantly during the lire or the ne,v Nt'DES N'rmit.
The design tlow tar the RCRA area remediation system is nearly 260,000 gallons per day, while
the CERCLA pumps typically yield 20,000 to 30,000 gallons daily. - inc..c the system began
operation in 1989, we have struggled to maintain these fliw.a WI the best °four ability. 1 Iowc ver,
due to a variety of reasons such as system downtime, dcsig: r inefficiencies t .aid modifications, the
flow has typically averaged less than capacity. it is ('larian;'s goal to achieve maximum
pumping efficiency from the two systems at the site. and a i1Ylllrovetltoils are made, the
maximum rate of 290,000 gallons per day can be achieved
Additionally, the final RCRA Part B permit for the site (ex1)ected to he issued at any time) will
require the reassessment ofthe existing corrective action s* Stem. Th, rvsuits of such assessment
could suggest a number of potential actions including max ilnirang the output from the existing
system or even installing additional wells or pun 'pit iv, sytitcrrIN, uithet ;)1 whie:h would result in
increased groundwater flow.

10-31-96 03:4:?I iRCII CLAE:AMT CORPORATION TO 919:97330719 P003/003
Clariant
Mr. David Goodrich
Comment Addendum for NPDES Permit Nr0004375
10/31/96
Page 2
At this time, Clariant requests that the flow allocated to con i Omni nal ed groundwater reflect the
current maximum flow potential of 290.000 gallons per ay which will likely he achieved within
the life of the new NPDES permit. This flow should he considered part of the OCPSF process
flow used to calculate BUD and TSS limits in the new permit. I Iowevet . exactly how this.: value
should be reconciled with the overall balance or' wastewater Ilows in order to establish a
justifiable representative flow remains open for discussion t Rce con n eni 1 l 1i)(4) in t'Iariant's
10/29/96 comment package).
Thank you for considering this additional topic along with I'ur comm.-tits submitted yesterday.
We look forward to meeting with you to discrrfig this: ;and oilier icNuc?s rektticl to the dram permit
at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
CLARIANT CORPORATION
Mike Teague

Division of Water Quality
October 31, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Greg Nizich
From: Matt Matthews (^M
Subject: Comments on Draft WET Testing Language
Clariant Corporation
NPDES No. NC0004375
Mecklenburg County
We have reviewed Clariant's comments on the draft toxicity language and submit the following
responses:
1) It has been the Water Quality Section's policy since October of 1991 to consider single failures of
toxicity tests to be permit limit violations. (See attached 10/4/91 memo from Steve Tedder.) This is
consistent with Section 309 of the Clean Water Act which states that any violation of a permit
condition or limitation is subject to enforcement. However, it is not our policy or EPA's to respond
to single violations causing no known harm with a civil penalty.
2) Regarding toxicity test variability, participants in the Pellston Workshops on whole effluent toxicity
testing sponsored by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry concluded that
"USEPA-published methods (Weber et al. 1988, 1989; Weber 1993) are functional and appropriate
in the context of effluent toxicity control programs." The protocol specified in Clariant's permit is
derived from these methods.
We recommend that the draft permit whole effluent toxicity language remain as written in the final
permit. If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at 733-2136.
REFERENCE
1. G. Allen Burton Jr., chair. 1996. Effluent Toxicity Test Variability -Discussion Synopsis. In DR Grothe, KL Dickson,
and DK Reed-Judkins, eds., Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of Receiving
System Impacts. SETAC Pellston Workshop on Whole Effluent Toxicity; 1995 Sep 16-25. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL,
USA, p. 152.
Attachment
cc: Larry Ausley
iJ0
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section

Clariant Corporation
Mt. Holly Plant
P.O. Box 669246
Charlotte, NC 28266
704.827.9651
Clariant
October 29, 1996
David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Permits Group
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Draft Permit
NPDES Permit NC0004375
Clariant Coporation - Mount Holly Plant
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Clariant Corporation hereby submits written comments on the draft permit received with your
letter dated September 25, 1996. The draft permit was received on October 1, 1996. Clariant
requests that these comments become a part of the record for the permit.
Clariant wishes to acknowledge the considerable effort put forth by the Division to review the
permit application and develop the draft permit. We especially appreciate the visit to the Mt.
Holly site and the opportunity to explain our operations to you. Nevertheless, Clariant has grave
concerns over several items in the draft permit which pose significant threats to continued
operations at the Mt. Holly site. Specific comments on these and other items in the draft permit
are contained in the attached pages.
We propose a meeting, at the earliest possible date, with you, Mr. Nizich and others you deem
necessary, to discuss the draft permit and our comments. I will call you or Mr. Nizich in early
November to schedule a date.
.„..c.lariant appreciates the opportunity to comment and looks forward to working cooperatively
with you during this renewal process. If I can be of assistance or if additional information is
needed for your review, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
-ZeafiA7
Gary P. Sanderson, P.E.
Safety & Environmental Manager
l
51
LQ

ANNI
Clariant Corporation Comment #1
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(11
A. Contested Permit Condition:
.7
•
BOD5 discharge limits of 366.2 lbs/day [monthly average] and 988.8 lbs/day [daily
maximum] (effective 12/01/97).
B. Comments:
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
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.
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
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
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.
WI
MI
Contaminated Non -Process Wastewater Flows
wl
1995 Flow
Contaminated Groundwater 130,000 gpd
Mel
Water Treatment Filter Backwash 87,000
,ol, Sanitary (receiving biological treatment) 58,000
Steam Generation Condensate 98,000
0.+ TOTAL 373,000 gpd
6. Based on the inclusion of contaminated non -process wastewaters as OCPSF process
PM 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
Mt. Holly plant. One of the FDF variance applications specifically requested a variance
''" from the BOD5 limits of the OCPSF effluent guidelines. To the best of our knowledge,
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 FDF
am 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).
ma
o n Page 2 of 17 October 30, 1996

C. Requested Action:
PM 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.
OM
mg
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.,
,r 67.7%). For example, using the flow of 1.42 MGD proposed by the Division, the correct
BOD5 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
p., the effluent.
fir
MI
P,
ram
mil
WI
Pe
s.
MP
Page 3 of 17 October 30, 1996

1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
b
0
9661 'OE -ago;gyp
OCPSF Wastewater
Dye and chemical Mfg. 2
Contaminated Groundwater
Water Treatment Filter Backwash 2
Steam Generation
Sanitary(receiving biological treatment)
Stormwater (process)3
Pesticide Mfg. (OCPSF)
Pesticide Wastewater
Stormwater (non-process)4
Total2
Clariant Corp (NC0004375) - Proposed Limits
BOD5- Monthly Avg.
(45mg/1) (0.77 MGD) (8.34)
(451ng/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/ 10001bs)(12,0001bs/day)
(1mg/1) (0.138MGD) (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 66

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.
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 flow since this water is derived from specialty synthetic
organic chemical production.
C. Requested Action:
Modify the defmition 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)(4)]
Page 5 of 17 October 30, 1996

0
.m
MI
W WI
full
MR
Clariant Corporation Comment #3
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
Upstream ("U") and downstream ("D") monitoring location requirement for BOD5,
dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity.
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
w, has recently informed Clariant that it will not perform these tests in the future because this
condition has recently been removed from the third patty's NPDES permit. Clariant has
neither equipment nor personnel for obtaining river samples, and see no reason to conduct
F+ such sampling when the Division has apparently eliminated this requirement for other
dischargers in this part of the river.
w oo 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
MR 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
`-1 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
rim
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
a., requirement of this permit for BOD5, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity.
P,
Rol
NM
Page 6 of 17 October 30, 1996

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.
M" Page 7 of 17
October 30, 1996

0
MI
MI
PM
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.
MI
2. There is no monthly average nor day maximum figures for most of these chemicals.
C. Requested Action:
"' 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.
P,
PIM
PM
PM
WM
ou
"" Page 8 of 17 October 30, 1996

PS
MR
NM
MR
MI
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:
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.
PR C. Requested Action:
The Division should delete Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-ed)pyrene and PAH from
"'' the permit.
1•,
MR
Mg
MI
101
PIM
1101
Page 9 of 17 October 30, 1996

FPA
finq
MIR
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
f=+ 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
MIR 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.
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

Pennittee shall comply with the Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the
permit .?4ir w:x}{y•x<G pa•x•:v`hr:? {tile.•i..+�o-:?�•a}+:h}}. unless specified
:w}{i:::.:xxakt,:s{ +k #{Satxx
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.
`am 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)."
Fusi
PM
Fmq
Page 11 of 17 October 30, 1996

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.
C. Requested Action:
Delete the word "continually."
Page 12 of 17 October 30, 1996

PEI
PEI
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 procedures
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
"P 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.
cm, 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)1. 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
PEI
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 toxici
.................................
�•, #its using the test procedures outlined in..."
PR
1 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

c
omit
lull
PM
MP
Pr
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
MRPart I, Section (A)(1), the permit conditions for staging still need to be consistent with the final
BOD5 limits.
Clariant Corporation Comment #10
PERMIT CONDITION: PART III, SECTION F
A. Contested Permit Condition:
Staging requirement.
B. Comments:
" C. Requested Action:
The staging requirement limits in Part III, Section F, should be consistent with the limits
FM for BOD5 and NH3 set elsewhere in the permit.
pm
ralt
Pal
PEI
PM
gm
rim
"' Page 14 of 17 October 30, 1996

PER
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/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 1, 1999, and submitted to the
following address:..."
B. Comments:
1. Clariant requests that the Division identify in the record and provide copies of specific
studies referred to in this condition. 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
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
`'" Division to impose such limits in individual permits without having first established such
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
p., 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.
Page 15 of 17 October 30, 1996

Unless the Division can present data which clearly demonstrates that the Catawba River
mainstream arm or main body of Lake Wylie is eutrophic and that the agal growth is
limited by available nitrogen, then the permittee is reluctant to conduct a costly study to
determine BAT nitrogen removal for Clariant wastewater as a condition of obtaining this
permit.
C. Requested Action:
Delete permit condition Part III, Section G.
Pol
Pue
PEI
Page 16 of 17
October 30, 1996

PM
MI
Clariant Corporation Comment #12
PERMIT CONDITION: PART I, SECTION A(1)
A. Contested Permit Condition:
Effluent limitations on the following chemicals:
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
PM Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dichloromethane
i' Tetrachloromethane
Tribromomethane
Trichloromethane
B. Comments:
PM 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.
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.
W I
11,1
WI
WI
IM
PM
u m
MN
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.
Page 17 of 17 October 30, 1996

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Teefinolory Division
WH 552
PJeshi gton, DC 20460
Water
EPA 440/1-87/OQ9
October 1987
. r -171.33;
Development Final
Document for
ATTACHMENT 'I
Effluent .Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers
Point Source Category
Volume I
?,EPRCOUCED Y
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATICNAL TcC-NICAL
iNFCRMATiCN SERVICE
SPRINGFIEL.D, VA. 22161

. 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 BOD5 and TSS
under BPT. This section discusses the data editing rules and methodology used
to derive the final BPT effluent limitations guidelines for BOD5 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) BOD5 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 BOD5 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
BOD5 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 flaw, then the BOD5 concentration in
VII-153

the process wastewateralone was actually 280 mg/1 before dilution. This
conservatively assumes that the cooling water flow is free of BODS 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 BODS 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 BODS 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 B0D or TSS value to be adjusted (e.g., for Plant No. 61,
196 mg/1 effluent BODS x (14.0 + 1) = 2,940 mg/1 effluent BODS.
VIA-154

TABLE VII-50.
CONTAMINATED AND UNCONTAMINATED MISCELLANEOUS "N0NPR0CESS" WASTEWATERS
REPORTED IN THE 1983 SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE
Contaminated "Nonprocess" Wastewaters
(therefore designated as
process wastewater)
Uncontaminated Nonprocess Wastewaters
Air Pollution Control wastewater (B5)
anitary receiving biological trea-t-
men t )
Boiler Blowdown
Sanitary (indirect discharge)
team Condensate)
Vacuum Pump Seal Water
Wastewater Stripper Discharge
Bi from Vertac
Boiler Feedvater Lime
Softener Blowdown
Contaminated Water Offsite
Condensate
Storage, Lans, Shops
Laboratory Waste
Steam Jet Condensate
Water Softener Back*cashing
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 Blowdown
Densator Blowdown
Bottom Ash -Quench Water
Demineralizer Washwater
Non -Contact Cooling Water (BI)
Sanitary (no biological treatment,
direct discharge) (B4)
Cooling Tower Blowdown (B2)
Stormwater Site Runoff (B3)
Deionized 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 Slow
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
(B4)
VIIL155

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 Slowdown
Utility Clarifier Blowdovn
Steam Generation
RO Rejection Water
Power House Slowdown
Inert Gas Gen. Slowdown
Contaminated Groundwat!i)
Potable Water Treatment
Unit Slashes
Non -Contact Floor Cleaning
Slop Water from Dist. Facilities
Laboratory and Vacuum Truck
Ion Bed Regeneration
Tankcar Washing (RCN)
Film Wastewater
Generator Slowdown
Air Sluice Water
Research and Development
Quality Control
Steam Desuperheating
Pilot Plant
Other Company Off -site Waste
Ion Exchange Resin Rinse
H, and CO Generation
Demineralizer Spent Regenerants
Lime Softening of Process
Miscellaneous Service Water
Recirculating Cooling System
HVAC Slowdown Lab Utility
Condenser Water Backwash
Deonfler Regenerant
Raw Water Filter Backwash
Distribution
VII-l56

11.
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
OcPSF Flow from Another Plant
VII-157

ATTACHMENT 2
NO
fal
tail
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
,lo, 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
f-+ 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
PMAug 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
Oct 20790 17526 8.5 8.9 20.6 20.6
p`' Nov 14735 12863 9.5 9.4 14.1 14.1
Dec 16092 15353 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.5
PIP
Poil
PIP
MI
PoII
1992
Jan 40774 42525 11.2 11.1 8.9
Feb 27909 22482 11.9 11.6 8.8
Mar 70161 71232 11.2 11.2 11.4
Apr 23646 24231 9.6 9.5 16.6
May 30696 28996 9.0 8.7 19.6
Jun 71209 61342 8.1 8.0 21.5
Jul 38669 28972 7.0 7.7 27.2
Aug 24521 22174 6.9 7.6 26.9
Sep 18452 21252 7.1 7.7 25.8
Oct 62830 26138 8.5 8.8 19.5
Nov 47178 40248 9.3 9.1 15.5
Dec 38123 44034 10.7 10.4 10.4
1993
Jan 37272 42125 10.9 11.2 9.9
p, Feb 54659 49942 11.6 11.4 8.4
Mar 41078 53504 10.7 10.8 9.4
Apr 55644 44989 9.8 10.0 14.1
rim May 33675 21471 8.2 8.3 19.8
Jun 20801 16039 6.7 7.1 25.8
Jul 12133 8913 5.5 6.0 30.5
IN' Aug 15119 20613 9.4 7.1 29.2
Sep 9121 11945 6.9 7.7 28.1
Oct 5838 7061 8.3 9.0 21.5
M" Nov 5221 7181 9.6 9.7 15.1
Dec 8016 13122 9.5 9.6 10.8
9.1
9.5
11.5
17.5
20.0
22.0
27.9
27.1
25.7
19.3
15.4
10.6
9.6
8.9
9.6
14.3
20.0
26.7
32.0
29.4
28.2
21.5
14.8
10.6
72.5 112.1
76.7 145.1
72.5 91.2
70.3 86.8
84.3
79.2
89.2
94.5
80.4
79.3
81.8
80.4
82.9
86.2
84.6
79.2
77.3
79.3
74.5
92.8
78.0
81.4
91.6
81.7
69.5
68.8
69.0
75.7
77.4
99.3
89.7
98.4
85.4
84.2
97.7
146.8
131.6
95.1
91.3
90.1
81.?
80.6
79.2
80.4
71.9
119.3
117.2
122.2
112.6
134.0
135.8
87.?

River Sampling & Testing Data
U - Upstream, D - Downstream
page 2
Month BOD-U BOD-D DO - U DO - D Temp. - U Temp. - D Conductivity
U D
1994
Jan 59972 75651 11.3 11.3 8.4 8.1
pm Feb 48483 66091 10.8 11.0 8.8 9.0
Mar 35302 41490 10.4 10.5 12.2 12.8
Apr 56022 44355 9.1 9.2 19.3 19.0
E+ May 1.3 ppm 1.8 ppm 7.9 7.8 22.3 22.5
Jun 2.5 2.7 6.8 7.6 27.2 28.1
Jul 3.1 3.0 6.6 7.6 28.5 29.2
`_l Aug 1.6 2.0 7.0 7.3 28.6 28.9
Sep 0.9 1.3 7.2 7.7 25.8 24.8
Oct 1.6 1.0 8.3 8.5 19.8 19.4
A" Nov 1.4 1.4 8.9 9.1 16.7 16.2
Dec
rim
1995
Jan 2.6 2.1 11.6 11.4 9.1 9.5
PM Feb 1097391b/day 846651b/day 11.3 11.2 7.5 8.3
Mar 28671 39668 9.9 10.4 13.4 14.0
Apr 9491 9572 8.5 8.9 20.0 19.3
W+ May 12442 13718 7.6 7.5 22.5 23.0
Jun 68098 47729 7.7 7.3 25.7 25.8
Jul 43328 30068 6.6 7.1 29.7 30.5
mil Aug 26078 26168 6.6 7.2 30.5 30.5
Sep 50589 41462 7.7 7.9 26.7 26.5
Oct 53556 55934 7.5 7.9 21.8 21.8
"m Nov 36519 39300 9.3 9.2 14.4 13.6
Dec 16735 14031 10.9 10.7 11.1 10.7
80.1 83.9
78.1 75.1
73.7 81.8
76.5 74.9
72.4 99.9
67.1 104.7
72.8 88.9
58.6 72.9
62.8 74.0
61.4 74.0
57.1 68.9
192.0 66.5
74.3 69.3
66.2 71.6
66.4 80.3
59.6 75.8
51.6 54.4
61.7 81.8
68.6 89.9
69.0 75.7
65.5 68.0
66.2 70.0
69.3 90.8

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
*VA
UEHNFl
October 26,1996
Mr. James M. Kuszaj
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, L.L.P.
4101 Lake Boone Trail
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
CORRESPONDENCE TRANSMI t'1'bD BY FACSIMILE ONLY
Subject: Facility Comment Period
NPDES Permit NC0004375
Clariant Corporation
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Kuszaj:
This letter is to confirm your and your client's understanding of the deadline date for comments
regarding the above -referenced permit. The Division acknowledges that all comments submitted by
Clariant by October 31, 1996 will be considered by the Division in developing the final NPDES permit.
Please be advised that it would be extremely beneficial if the facility comments could be transmitted to the
Division by facsimile as soon as possible. This will assist in expediting the final permit. Given potential
personnel changes at the Division level and the complexity of Clariant's permit, any additional lead time
would be appreciated. The faxed comments may be addressed to Mr. Greg Nizich at facsimile number (919)-
733-0719.
I apologize for the confusion regarding the comment period. The problem of getting the material to your
client in a more timely manner was an administrative error on our part. If you have any questions concerning
this letter, please contact me at telephone number (919)-733-5083, extension 517.
S.ncerely//,
David A. Goodrich
NPDES Group Supervisor
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

f i✓
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
am ▪ A YZ REGION 4
A ��%�� ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
z —"`— a` 100 ALABAMA STREET, S.W.
O
•vi. PRI:0 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3104
OGI 2 5 1996
REF: 4WM-SWPFB
Mr. Steve Tedder
Chief, Water Quality Section
NC Dept. of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
RE: NPDES Overview
Dear Mr. Tedder:
+ t ore- (ma's
lam"- ceriv/ pical-c"
OCT 3 1 1996
WATER Q UALJTY
44
In accordance with the EPA/DEM MOA we have completed review of
the following draft permit(s) and have no objections to the
proposed permit conditions.
NPDES No. Facility
NC0001899 AlliedSignal, Inc.
NC0004375 Clariant Corporation
We request we be afforded an additional review opportunity
only if significant changes are made to the permit(s) prior to
issuance, or if significant objections to the permit(s) are
received. Otherwise, please send us one copy of the final
permit(s) when issued.
If you have any questions, please call Darryl Williams at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Dougla. Mundrick, P.E., Chief
Surface Water Permits and
Facilities Branch
Water Management Division
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Posiconsumer)