NCGNE0982_COMPLETE FILE - HISTORICAL_20131203

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
NCG PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
DOC TYPE 0' HISTORICAL FILE
MONITORING REPORTS
DOC DATE ❑ (�U13I3I�-�
YYYYMMDD

MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM Pat McCrory, Governor
Director John E. Skvarla, III, Secretary
December 3, 2013
Gilberto Cabello
Ingersoll Rand
501 Sanford Avenue
Mocksville, NC 27028
Subject: No Exposure Certification NCGNE0982
Rescission of Permit NCG030241
Ingersoll Rand
Davie County
Dear Mr. Cabello:
The Division has reviewed your submittal of the application for No Exposure Certification requesting exclusion from
NPDES stormwater permitting at Ingersoll Rand. Based on your submittal of a signed certification of no exposure and on
inspection by Aana Taylor-Smith on December 3, 2013, the Division is granting conditional exclusion from permitting as
provided for under 40 CFR 122.26(g), which is incorporated by reference in North Carolina regulations. We are also
hereby rescinding your current permit Certificate of Coverage, NCG030241.
Please note that by our acceptance of your No Exposure Certification, Ingersoll Rand is obligated to maintain no exposure
conditions at this facility. If conditions change such that the facility no longer qualifies for no exposure exclusion, you are
obligated to immediately obtain NPDES permit coverage for any stormwater discharge. Otherwise, the discharge
becomes subject to enforcement as unpermitted discharge.
Ingersoll Rand must recertify the no exposure status annually using the included form. Any "yes" answer would require
that you obtain NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharge from the facility. The annual self-recertification form
does not need to be submitted to DEMLR, unless requested. Please note that this conditional exclusion from
permitting does not affect your facility's legal requirements to obtain environmental permits that may be required under
other federal, state, or local regulations or ordinances.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Aana Taylor-Smith or me at(336) 771-5000.
Sincerely,
Matthew E. Gantt, PE
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Enclosures:
1. Annual Self-Recertification Form
CC: Stormwater Permitting Unit-- No Exposure Files
Central Files- DWR
WSRO Files--Land Quality
Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101 . Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]

v y S c t P rrnd, CAVI-r t o E4t r �
f caG+sit aw o )JGG030A t
FOR AGENCY USE ONLY
• Division of Water ualit /Surface Water Protection Hate Received
�► Q )' Year Month Dav
A7ice 13 1 It 1 1
PCDENRNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Certificate of Cov�era
C-1-o�,MEu .r NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION for Exclusion
-DN.¢ur Re3ou — NCGNEOOOO RECEIVED
N.C.Dept.of ENR
NOV 2 � 2013
Winston-Salem
NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION L Regional Office
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System application for exclusion from a Stormwater Permit based
on NO EXPOSURE:
Submission of this No Exposure Certification constitutes notification that your facility does not require a
permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity in the State of North Carolina because
it qualifies for a no exposure exclusion. A condition of no exposure at an industrial facility means all
industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter(with some exceptions) to
prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, and/or runoff. ,
For permitted facilities in North Carolina, DWQ must approve your application for No
Exposure Certification before this exclusion is effective. Until you are issued a No
Exposure Certification and your NPDES permit is rescinded, your facility must continue
to abide by the terms and conditions of the current permit.
Industrial materials or activities include, but are not limited to: material handling equipment or activities,
industrial machinery, raw materials, intermediate products, by-products, final products, or waste products.
Material handling activities include the storage, loading and unloading, transportation, or conveyance of
any raw material, intermediate product, final product or waste product. A storm resistant shelter is not
required for the following industrial materials and activities: drums, barrels, tanks, and similar containers
that are tightly sealed, provided those containers are not deteriorated and do not leak. "Sealed"means
banded or otherwise secured and with locked or non-operational taps or valves;adequately maintained
vehicles used in material handling;and final products, other than products that would be mobilized in
stormwater discharges(e.g., rock salt).
A No Exposure Certification must be provided for each facility qualifying for the no exposure exclusion. in
addition, the exclusion from NPDES permitting is available on a facility-wide basis only—not for individual
outfalls. If any industrial activities or materials are, or will be, exposed to precipitation, the facility is not
eligible for the no exposure exclusion. By signing and submitting this No Exposure Certification form, you
certify that a condition of no exposure exists at this facility or site and are obligated to comply with the
terms and conditions of 40 CFR 122.26(g).
You are required to self re-certify your No Exposure Exclusion annually.
For questions, please contact the DWQ Regional Office for your area. (See page 6)
(Please print or type)
1) Mailing address of owner/operator(address to which all certification correspondence will be mailed):
Name Ingersoll Rand
Contact Gilberto Cabello
Street Address 501 Sanford Ave
City Mocksville State NC _ ZIP Cod nr P
Telephone No. 336-751-6634 Fax: LIU
Email [e-mail] NOV 1 8 2013
Page 1 of 7
a - vuA TY
ems,
SW U-NE-12Aug2010

,
r�
NCGNE0000 No Exposure Certification
RECEIVED
N.C.Dept. of ERn
NOV 2 Z 2013
2) Location of facility producing discharge: Winston-Salem
Regional Office
Facility Name Ingersoll Rand - Mocksville
Facility Contact Christin Annie
Facility Street Address 501 Sanford Ave
City Mocksville State NC _ ZIP Code 27028
County Davie
Telephone No. 336-751-6895 Fax: [phone]
Email [e-mail]
3) Physical location information:
Please provide a narrative description of how to get to the facility(use street names, state road numbers, and
distance and direction from a roadway intersection). Intersection of Valley Rd and Sanford Ave in town of
Mocksville, NC, approx. 3 miles from Interstate 40 (exit 170)
(A copy of a map with the facility clearly located on it should be included with the certification application.)
4) is the facility located on Native American Lands? ❑ Yes X No
5) is this a Federal facility? ❑ Yes X No
6) Latitude 35.8904 N Longitude 80.5711 W (deg., min., seconds)
7) This NPDES No Exposure Exclusion application applies to which of the following:
C1 New or Proposed Facility Date operation is to begin
X Existing Date operation began 1965
to Renewal of existing No Exposure Certification Certification No.: NCGNE
8) Was this facility or site ever covered under an NPDES Stormwater Permit? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, what is the NPDES Permit Number? NCG030000 NCGo302 y 1
9) Standard Industrial Classification:
Provide the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC Code) that describes the primary industrial
activity at this facility
SIC Code: 3 5 6 3
10) Provide a brief description of the types of industrial activities and products produced at this facility:
Activities: Air compressor assembly and machining of components, painting, material handling
Finished products: air compressors, service parts
11) Does this facility have any Non-Discharge permits (ex: recycle permits)?
X No
❑ Yes
If yes, list the permit numbers for all current Non-Discharge permits for this facility:
Page 2 of 7
SWU-NE-1 Mug2010

NCGNE0000 No Exposure Certification
Exposure Checklists (1 Z - 14.)
12) Are any of the following materials or activities exposed to precipitation, now or in the foreseeable
future? (Please check either "Yes" or"No.") If you answer"Yes" to any of these items, you are not
eligible for the no exposure exclusion.
a. Using, storing, or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment, and areas where ❑ Yes X No
residuals from using, storing or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment remain
and are exposed to stormwater
b. Materials or residuals on the ground or in stormwater inlets from spills/leaks ❑ Yes X No
c. Materials or products from past industrial activity ❑ Yes X No
d. Material handling equipment (except adequately maintained vehicles) ❑ Yes X No
e. Materials or products during loading/unloading or transporting activities ❑ Yes X No
f. Materials or products stored outdoors (except final products intended for outside ❑ Yes X No
use [e.g., new cars]where exposure to stormwater does not result in the discharge
of pollutants)
g. Materials contained in open, deteriorated or leaking storage drums, barrels, tanks, ❑ Yes X No
and similar containers
h. Materials or products handled/stored on roads or railways owned or maintained by ❑ Yes X No
the discharger
i. Waste material (except waste in covered, non-leaking containers [e.g., dumpsters]) ❑ Yes X No
j. Application or disposal of process wastewater(unless otherwise permitted) ❑ Yes X No
k. Particulate matter or visible deposits of residuals from roof stacks and/or vents not ❑ Yes X No
otherwise regulated (i.e., under an air quality control permit) and evident in the
stormwater outflow
I. Empty containers that previously contained materials that are not properly stored ❑ Yes X No
(i.e., not closed and stored upside down to prevent precipitation accumulation)
m. For any exterior ASTs, as well as drums, barrels, tanks, and similar containers ❑ Yes X No
stored outside, has the facility had any releases in the past three (3) years?
13) Above Ground Storage Tanks (ASTs): If you answer"No" to any of the following items, you are not
eligible for the no exposure exclusion.
a. Are exterior ASTs and piping free of rust, damaged or weathered coating, pits, or X Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
deterioration, or evidence of leaks?
b. Is secondary containment provided for all exterior ASTs? If so, is it free of any X Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
cracks, holes, or evidence of leaks, and are drain valves maintained locked shut?
Page 3 of 7
SW U-NE-12Aug2010

NCGNE0000 No Exposure Certification
14) Secondary Containment: If you answer "No" to any of the following items, you are not eligible for the
no exposure exclusion.
a. Is secondary containment provided for all single above ground storage X Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
containers (including drums, barrels, etc.) with a capacity of more than 660-
gallons?
b. Is secondary containment provided for above ground storage containers stored X Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
in close proximity to each other with a combined capacity of more than 1.,320-
gallons?
c. Is secondary containment provided for Title III Section 313 Superfund X Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) water priority chemicals*?
d. Is secondary containment provided for hazardous substances** designated in 40 X Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
CFR §116?
e. Are release valves on all secondary containment structures locked? X Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
15) Hazardous Waste:
a. Is this facility a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility? X Yes ❑ No
b. Is this facility a Small Quantity Generator(less than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste X Yes ❑ No
generated per month) of hazardous waste?
c. Is this facility a Large Quantity Generator (1000 kg, or more of hazardous waste ❑ Yes X No
generated per month) of hazardous waste?
If you answered yes to questions b. or c., please provide the following information:
Type(s) of waste: paint-related waste, aerosols
How is material stored: 55 gal drums in Hazardous Waste Conex and at accumulation areas
Where is material stored: Hazardous Waste Conex— building with containment
How many disposal shipments per year: 5
Name of transport/disposal vendor: Giant Recovery Resources
Vendor address:755 Industrial Rd, Sumpter, SC 29151
Footnotes to Questions 14) c. & d.
*Note that amounts below the 660-gallon (single) and 1,320-gallon (combined) bulk storage minimums require
secondary containment. However, some exceptions may be made for de minimis amounts of certain substances,
and/or other qualifiers, as described in the exemptions from reporting requirements of Title III SARA 313 in 40 CFR
§372.38.
**Note that amounts below the 660-gallon (single) and 1,320-gallon (combined) bulk storage minimums require
secondary containment. However, some exceptions may be made for amounts less than the Reportable Quantities
of the hazardous substances listed in 40 CFR §117.3.
Page 4 of 7
SWU-NE-12Aug2010

NCGNE0000 No Exposure Certification
16) Other information: if you answer"Yes" to any of the following items, you might not be eligible for the
no exposure exclusion. A more in-depth evaluation of the site circumstances may be required.
a. Does your facility store used, recycled, or otherwise reclaimed pallets outside? ❑ Yes X No
b. Does your facility have coal piles on site? ❑ Yes X No
c. Does your facility store other fuel sources outside in piles, such as wood chips, ❑ Yes X No
sawdust, etc.?
d. Does your facility have air emissions associated with its industrial activity (e.g., X Yes ❑ No
degreasing operations, plating, painting and metal finishing)? If so, describe the
industrial activity: painting operation, solvent washer
e. If you answered yes to d., are those emissions permitted by an Air Quality Permit? X Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
Please specify: Air Permit#: 04756R14 Facility ID: 3000012
f. Please list any other environmental program permits (federal, state, etc.) not
specified earlier in this application (such as Hazardous Waste Permits, etc.):
Permit: NCD041414772 Program: NCDENR Hazardous Waste Permit
Permit: NCD041414772R2 Program: RCRA Part B Haz Waste Permit
Permit: 0004 Program: Industrial User Pretreatment Permit
Permit: Program:
Permit: Program:
Permit: Program:
Permit: Program:
Page 5 of 7
SW U-NE-12Aug2010

NCGNEOOOQ No Exposure Certification
17) Certification:
I certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand the eligibility requirements for claiming a condition of"no
exposure"and obtaining an exclusion from NPDES stormwater permitting..
I certify under penalty of law that there are no discharges of stormwater contaminated by exposure to industrial activities
or materials from the industrial facility or site identified in this document(except as allowed under 40 CFR 122.26(g)(2)).
I understand that I am obligated to annually self recertify No Exposure and, if requested, submit the re-certification to
DWQ or the operator of the local municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) into which the facility discharges (where
applicable). I understand that I must allow the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, or MS4 operator where the
discharge is into the local MS4, to perform inspections to confirm the condition of no exposure and to make such
inspection reports publicly available upon request.
In the event that the site no longer qualifies for a No Exposure Exclusion, I understand that I must obtain coverage under
an NPDES permit prior to an point p_ t source discharge of stormwater from the facility_.Additionally, I certify under penalty of
law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information,the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate and complete. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for
knowing violations.
certify that i am familiar with the information contained in this application and that to the best of my knowledge and belief
such information is true, complete, and accurate.
Printed Name of Person Signing:_Gilberto Cabello
Title:____Plant Manager,
(Signature of Applicant) ( to S" ned)
Please note: This applicatio for the No Exposure Exclusion is subject to approval by the
NCDENR Regional Office pri43r to issuance. The Regional Office may inspect your facility for
compliance with no exposure conditions prior to that approval. The Regional Office may also
inspect your facility at anytime in the future for compliance with the No Exposure Exclusion.
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 B(i) provides that:
Any person who knowingly makes any false statement,representation,or certification in any application,record,report,plan,or other
document filed or required to be maintained under this Article or a rule implementing this Article;or who knowingly makes a false
statement of a material fact in a rulemaking proceeding or contested case under this Article;or who falsifies,tampers with,or knowingly
renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under this Article or rules of the
[Environmental Management]Commission implementing this Article shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor which may include a fine
not to exceed ten thousand dollars($10,000).
There is currently no fee for a No Exposure Exclusion.
Pagd 6 of 7
SW U-NE-12Aug2010

NCGNE0000 No Exposure Certification
Final Checklist
This application should include the following items:
This completed application and all supporting documentation.
A map with the location of the facility clearly marked.
If the site currently has an NPDES Stormwater Permit, be sure to indicate the permit number in Question 8.
Mail the entire package to: '
Stormwater Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Note
The submission of this document does not guarantee the issuance of a No Exposure Exclusion.
For questions, please contact the DWO Regional Office for your area.
DWQ Regional Office Contact Information:
to {
Asheville Office ...... [phone] Wins n ale
Fayetteville Office ... [phone] 5° at gh
Mooresville Office ... [phone]
Raleigh Office ........ [phone] 1 �5 uc
oar -A Ic Washington Office ...[phone] 7�
Wilmington Office ... [phone] `
Winston-Salem ...... [phone] F grille
Central Office .........[phone] ;+
Wit'Yngton
Page 7of7
SWU-NE-12Aug2010

Taylor-Smith, Aana
From: Annie, Christin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:30 PM
To: Taylor-Smith, Aana
Cc: Cabello Castillo, Gilberto; Nunes, Jack; Tallent, Joyce; Gerlip, Joshua
Subject: Summary from Storm Water No Exposure Review
Importance: High
Hello Aana,
It was a pleasure to meet you today and thanks again for stopping out to help us in our No Exposure Journey. I wanted
to document some of the discussions we had today to ensure we are on the same page moving forward, please let me
know if you agree with the summary...
• Large Ceritac Discharge Piping that is meant to be secured to the outside of the building is OK to stay outside
without protective cover because it is designed as such
• Bases (supplied part)that come in pre-painted and are a final product of sorts is OK to be stored outside
without protective cover
• New Pallets are-OK to remain outside without protective cover
• Spare cooling tower is OK to remain outside without protective cover,this is designed to be outside
• Finished product is OK to remain outside without protective cover as long as it is fully covered (acting as a tarp)
and on a new pallet
• Sub-Assemblies (ex: large C-1000 cooler bundle we saw) is OK to remain outside without protective cover as
long as it is fully covered (acting as a tarp) and on a new pallet
• Poly totes and drums are OK to be outside without protective cover as long as they are not leaking, do not have
residue on the outside
We also witnessed items that will need to either go under protective cover or inside:
• Paint stands
• Used/Reconditioned Pallets
• Orange metal tubs
• Cranes
• Hoppers without lids, although it was discussed if they had a lid,they would be OK to be outside without
protective cover
We look forward to completing the actions and formalizing our application to the state. Our timeframe is mid-Nov. We
really appreciate your commitment to turning around the inspection and final approval quickly after submittal.
Thanks for working with us!
Christin Annie,CSP
Environmental,Health,and Safety Manager
Engersoll Rand industrial Technologies
Mocksville Operations
501 Sanford Ave.
Mocksville,NC 27028
Tei:336 7516895
Mobile:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:[e-mail]
1

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCG030241 Effective: 11/01/12 Expiration: 10/31/17 Owner: Ingersoll Rand Company
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Ingersoll Rand Company
County: Davie 501 Sanford Ave
Region: Winston-Salem
Mocksville NC 27028
Contact Person: Charlie Alfred Whaley Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On-Site Representative(s):
24 hour contact name Christin Annie Phone: [phone]
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 10/01/2013 Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 10:50 AM
Primary Inspector: Aana Taylor-Smith Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Technical Assistance
Permit Inspection Type: Metal Fabrication Stormwater Discharge COC
Facility Status: ■ Compliant Q Not Compliant
Question Areas: -
Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: NCG030241 Owner-Facility: Ingersoll Rand Company
Inspection Date: 10/01/2013 Inspection Type: Technical Assistance Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Visited facility 10/01/2013. Ingersoll Rand will be constructing shelters on site to comply with No Exposure Certification
requirements. Facility currently has NPDES NCG03 permit as well as DAQ permit and pretreatment permit with
Mocksville. Once sheds are built, all unfinished product, materials, used pallets, waste, etc. will be stored under cover.
Advised Ms.Annie that securely wrapped final product, sealed barrels/drums, and new pallets can be stored outside of
cover. All secondary containment is adequate. Facility has excellent stormwater BMPs and measures, including SPCC. It
is estimated that once sheds are built and all appropriate materials are under cover, there will be no impediment to issuing
No Exposure Certification. Estimated completion date for sheds: 11/11/13.
Page: 2

Taylor-Smith, Aana
From: Mickey, Mike
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:38 AM
To: Annie, Christin ([e-mail])
Cc: Taylor-Smith, Aana
Subject: FW: No Exposure Determination Question
Attachments: 2013 Merger Release.docx
Christin— I suggest starting at the bottom and reading up. In summary, the no-exposure call will be made by the
regional office. Based on the information you provided, the finished_bases do not appear to be a concern and should
not need to be under a protective cover.
As I mentioned, the NPDES stormwater program has been removed from DWQ(now DWR) and relocated to the Division
of Energy,Minerals and Land Resources(DEMLR). I attached a copy of the press release regarding the merger.
Aana Taylor-Smith is the staff person with DEMLR that now handles the no exposure requests. Her contact info is
below. I have spoken with her about the issue. Good luck. Mike.
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mickey
[e-mail]
NC Division of Water Resources
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:28 AM
To: Pickle, Ken; Mickey, Mike; Taylor-Smith, Aana; White, Sue
Cc: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: RE: No Exposure Determination Question
©h yeah,
It looks like the existing facility has standard construction built-up roofs now, with limited metal roofing in relatively
small areas.
Just in case they ask you for your advice on the design of the new storage shelters, it might be good for them to avoid
galvanized roofing since it might raise an issue with the new permit monitoring parameter,Zn, at least for as long as
they remain under NCG03. If they actually achieve no exposure conditions, presumably we would not have this concern.
Ken
Ken Pickle
Environmental Engineer
1

g f 2t�j�3 tY�oo
5pov.e wl- C_ A nyu-
wi11
�� app- by �d � 2.0►3 • iE
Wi 11 sperm tt> 1G.
�,po�- �v,,,pY�ssor loacQs,
. sr�l-tf,►-. N►c.� wndu.c�t- c�
I
C. pcnykj-e- ubois
J�GT

NCDENR I DEMLR I Stormwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/ir/stormwater
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:00 AM
To: Mickey, Mike; Taylor-Smith, Aana; White, Sue
Cc: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: FW: No Exposure Determination Question
Importance: High
Hi Mike,
Oh, one more thing. I think our current permittee reports that they want the No Exposure Exclusion in place by the end
of the year. Please note that while we regularly issue stormwater permits in advance of even the construction of a
facility, the No Exposure Exclusion has a slightly different time line.
We only issue No Exposure Exclusions on the basis of observed No Exposure conditions. Quite consistent with that, note
that the applicant's certification statement to us is his attestation that No Exposure conditions exist at the time of his
certification. I mean,we will not issue the No Exposure Exclusion until No Exposure conditions are achieved, i.e., not in
advance, but only after the fact. We will not 'anticipate' that he will one day achieve no exposure conditions.
So from today, IR has got 4+ months to design, purchase, and erect some quite large storm shelters if by the end of the
year they want to be able to certify to us that there is no exposure on the site. Since they already have coverage under
NCG03,they may want to adjust their expectations, and disconnect the project deadline for constructing the shelters (in
support of some manufacturing objective) from our issuance of the No Exposure Exclusion from permitting.
kbp
Ken Pickle
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DEMLR I Stormwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http://portal.ncdenr.org(web/ir/stormwater
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:29 AM
To: Mickey, Mike; Taylor-Smith, Aana; White, Sue; Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: FW: No Exposure Determination Question
Importance: High
Hi Mike,
2

I just pulled up a Google aerial photo of this facility. The resolution of the photo doesn't allow me to specifically identify
every item exposed at this facility, but these folks have scads of items exposed. I mean,they have extensive materials
storage outside.
So, they will be building a substantial shelter if they want to pursue No Exposure.
Probably more than one shelter, too. We may want to be sure they understand that No Exposure only applies site
wide. I mean, there are no 'partial' no exposure exclusions from permitting. I mean, No Exposure is a 100%or 0%deal.
• AST's within secondary containment are still ok for No Exposure, unless you find a containment area drain
open/operating.
• The previous opinion that I offered on the shrink-wrapped compressors (final product) still seems ok to
me. That is ok as No Exposure.
• 1 see at least one satellite operation removed some distance from the main cluster of buildings. If that area is in
use, it must also meet the No Exposure criteria.
• We have never considered the substation areas as 'exposure', so they're ok on that. Unless your site visit turns
up evidence of transformer leaks, etc. Very unlikely.
This would be a great improvement at this site from our perspective. `No Exposure' represents the best possible
approach to controlling polluted discharges in stormwater runoff.
More on the 100%-0%idea: Certainly they're not undertaking this substantial capital expense to avoid the $100/yr
permitting fee, or the-$1000/yr(?) monitoring costs. I imagine that this capital expansion is being undertaken as a
manufacturing process improvement, somehow. So,they're going to be looking at the major outside laydown areas
primarily in support of the manufacturing process objectives. Don't let them overlook the little inconsequential(to the
manufacturing process) outside exposures. Those can be killers, if they overlook them. You know, the small areas just
outside any particular outside door along the manufacturing building wall, Those small areas must also be
covered/moved/otherwise addressed to qualify for no exposure.
kbp
Ken Pickle
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DEMI_R I Stormwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: ken.pickle(cbncdenr.gov
Website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/weblir/stormwater
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:40 PM
To: Mickey, Mike; Taylor-Smith, Aana; White, Sue
Cc: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: FW: No Exposure Determination Question
Importance: High
Oh, yeah-as to how long it will take:
My guess is one to four weeks.
3

One week: if they send the N01 directly to you, and you schedule the site trip immediately, write the letter, and copy us
so Sheri can enter it in BIMS. Note that in my mind they are covered under No Exposure when they receive your
letter. We will catch up with the BIMS entries whenever that happens, but the letter itself is the document that counts,
not our dal.abase information.
Four weeks: OK, maybe they send the N01 to us. Sheri sends it to you within a week. It takes you a while to schedule a
visit because you are already scheduled two weeks out. You inspect, a weekend passes by, you're out on Monday on
another site visit, you send them the letter at your first chance, but still it has been four weeks. Again, its the letter that
counts. We catch up in BIMS sometime thereafter based on receipt of our copy of your letter.
Ken
Ken Pickle
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DEMLR I Stormwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/stormwater
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:51 AM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany
Cc: Mickey, Mike; Taylor-Smith, Aana; White, Sue; Bennett, Bradley
Subject: FW: No Exposure Determination Question
Importance: High
Bethany,
If you have just a sec, could you offer an opinion on the photos below wrt NCGNE?
At the end of July the same facility (Ingersoll Rand, Mocksville) sent photos to Mike in WSRO of their finished product
staging area, which showed numerous large industrial compressors, boxy type things shrink-wrapped and on pallets. At
that time I advised Mike that the combination of shrink wrap precluding contact with incident rainfall, and pallets
holding the compressors off the ground to preclude run on contact, and the fact that some of the compressors were
intended for outdoor use, all worked together to qualify this site for NCGNE, if there were no other exposures on the site.
Now,these photos below follow four weeks later showing another staging area for incoming components that also
might be interpreted as suitable for outdoor use, and perhaps therefore not giving rise to exposure, and therefore still
allowing the site to qualify for No Exposure, even if they remain uncovered.
Apparently from the email yesterday, the facility is contemplating building a new 'storm-resistant shelter' for other
incoming raw materials, in order to qualify for No Exposure. It appears that the question behind yesterday's email is
whether to size the new shelter(s) to include the materials pictured here, or not. That sizing determination would have
a cost impact for them, of course.
Three ideas come to mind on this question:
• Central Office needs to provide guidance based on the rules and the photos, as requested. But ultimately WSRO
will make the call based on a site visit, the rules, and any interpretation/clarification that we can supply from the
Co.
4

in favor of considering this second staging area as qualifying for No Exposure, as is.
o The material shown in the Photos really does not seem like a stormwater pollution problem. (Presuming
that tl-te photos disclose all the relevant physical facts -- ie, that we're not missing some gross aspect
that is not visible in the photos, but is present.) I mean, it's hard to see how those painted metal frames
would generate any stormwater pollution. The ones visible in the photo all look new, implying to me
that they don't stay on the site for a long time, which might be considered a stormwater risk if they
were subject to.........rusting? Decomposition? Breakdown of the paint/coating? All seems unlikely, to
me.
o And, if the pieces in the photos are typical of all that is ever going to be stored at this location, it iust
doesn't seem like a problem.
o Note that recently we have made the interpretation that incoming slabs of granite staged outdoors at a
kitchen countertop manufacturing facility qualify as No Exposure. (But as 1 recall in that instance, we
treated our determination as an exception to the strict reading of the federal rule. We also commented
that the facility could not engage in any shaping, washing, or working of the material outside and still
keep the No Exposure. This question seems somewhat similar. But similar enough?) _
Against considering the second staging area as qualifying for No Exposure.
c Federal rules provide that a storm resistant shelter is not required for, (per 40CFR122.26(g)(2)(iii)),"Final
products,other than products that would be mobilized in storm water discharge(e.g., rock salt)." My
underlining. These are not final products. The questioner describes the pieces as, "prefinished/coated
bases", and "they come to the plant as a supplied component", and "they have a protective coating on
the exterior", and the parts are a "supplied component", and "already precoated/finished upon
arrival". None of these descriptions quite makes these pieces a final product, as required by this part of
federal rule, it seems-to me. Sure, they're somebody else's final product, but the same could be said of
every incoming material at a manufacturing facility: which means that it is meaningless to make that
argument in this context. These pieces are not the applicant's final product.
a In describing the certification that the applicant must sign,federal rule repeats the requirement that
materials and activities cannot be exposed to precipitation. The applicant must certify that there is no
exposure at the site, including the no exposure for the condition described in 40CFR122.26(g)(4)(iii)(F)
"Materials or products stored outdoors(except final products intended for outside use,e.g.,new cars,where
exposure to stormwater does not result in the discharge of pollutants)" My underlining. Again, these pieces
are not final products.
o I note in each citation above that the clarifying example appears to pertain just to final products. I
mean, where rock salt is offered as a final product that would not qualify for no exposure, and where
automobiles are offered as an example of a final product that would qualify for no exposure. In each
case,the qualifying example seems to pertain to final products, only, as per the wording of each
sentence. It seems to me that there is no other sense that makes sense, according to the wording of
the rule.
o So what's behind this federal rule emphasis on final products? Why not just say any raw
materials/incoming supplies qualify for no exposure if they don't carry a risk? I don't know. Perhaps it's
the recognition that industrial facilities carry an inherent risk, and generally can be expected to change
the facility footprint, change processes, change the configuration of materials on their sites, change
management personnel, change management attention to environmental protections, change
ingredients, and change material handling practices. Given that characterization of the manufacturing
environment, losing track of the prohibition against outside storage (under the No Exposure) unless the
material is innocuous, is a risk. So, programmatically it's better to just limit the allowable storage to
final products only, and only if they don't pollute. Everything else has to be under roof. This strikes me
as a'protective and prudent stance that considers the reality of industries changing operations without
realizing the potential for stormwater impacts
5

o Intuitively, it seems to me that making an accommodation for a slab of granite outside a kitchen cabinet
shop is different than making this accommodation for Ingersoll Rand, at a site with a much more
complex imanufacturing operation. Federal rule supports neither accommodation, it seems to me, but I
feel a lot better about the one than the other.
Ken
Ken Pickle
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DEMLR j Stormwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: ,[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website:.htt orta1.ncdenr.org/web/i r stormwater
From: Mickey, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:04 AM
To: Pickle, Ken
Cc: Taylor-Smith, Aana; White, Sue
Subject: FW: No Exposure Determination Question
Importance: High
Ken —Ingersoll Rand in Davie County is trying to meet the no.exposure requirements (currently covered under
NCG030241). They manufacture air compressors. The metal bases described below mount under the
compressors. Would the bases need to be under a shelter to meet no exposure or could they remain uncovered? They
are intended for outside use. Thanks, Mike.
(Aana & Sue. I will direct Christin Annie to you with my response.)
Mike Mickey
[e-mail]
NC Division of Water Resources
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
From: Annie, Christin [rnailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:27 PM
To: Mickey, Mike
Cc: Annie, Christin
Subject: No Exposure Determination Question
Importance: High
Hello Mike,
Thanks again for your response last time. I have another question. How would the state look at these
prefinished/coated bases with respect to attaining a "no exposure" storm water determination? Would they be
6

acceptable to be stored outside with no protective cover? They come to the plant as a supplied component. The bases
are metal with a protective coating on the exterior.
Also, our piani is getting very close to making a substantial investment (exterior sheds for raw materials/returnable
pallets)to seek a storm water"no exposure" certification. How quickly after submission of the application couid the
state make a decision? We are really pushing to get the "no exposure" cert this year. Just wondering if that is feasible
and if there is anything I can do in advance to get the process rolling or to expedite the process?
Thanks again for all your help!
F
d
Sp
Parts are a supplied component, already pre-coated/finished upon arrival to the plant.
i
a
Christin Annie,CSP
Environmental,Health,and Safety Manager
7

Ingersoll Rand industrial Technologies
Mocksville Operations
501 Sanford Ave.
Mocksville,NC 27028
Tel:[phone]
Mobile:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:[e-mail]
8

Mickey, Mike
ne'—i. .. KAil,
From: Ivli key, Iv„mc
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:49 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW:Ingersoll Rand - Mocksville - No Exposure Question
Christin—The compressor units stored outside should not be a problem in regards to a no-exposure request. Please see
Ken Pickle's email below.
Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mickey
[e-mail]
NC Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone]
.FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:39 AM
To: Mickey, Mike
Cc: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: RE: Ingersoll Rand - Mocksville - No Exposure Question
Ni Mike,
Background: The No Exposure Exclusion from Permitting is only available on a site-wide basis. So, if the rest of the site
is ok, the question of No Exposure could depend on how we interpret just the compressor storage area shown in the
photos.
Observation: I note that the compressors appear to be completely shrink wrapped, and placed on pallets or other short
supports above the ground (so that presumably contact with run on is not an issue.)
Rule requirements: 40 CFR 122.26(g) requires that industrial materials and activities be protected by a storm resistant
shelter; or that where the final product is intended for outside use without generating stormwater pollution, that
physical exposure to rainfall can be considered as still qualifying for No Exposure.
Interpretation: The combination of shrink wrap (avoiding incident rainfall) and pallet support (avoiding run on contact)
is very good protection. The fact that some of the compressors are final products intended for outside installation
without pollutant potential presents us with a low risk circumstance. I think these two aspects work together to allow
this site to qualify for No Exposure, provided that there are no disqualifying conditions on the rest of the site.
Ken
Ken Pickle
1

Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http://portal.ncdenrr.orQJweb/wq[ws/su
From: Mickey, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:47 PM
To: Pickle, Ken
Subject: FW: Ingersoll Rand - Mocksville - No Exposure Question
Importance: High
Ken—Per the email below, Ingersoll Rand is contemplating submitting a no-exposure request. They want to know if
storing finished compressors outside will be a problem. The site is currently covered by NCG030241. Your thoughts
would be appreciated. Thanks, Mike.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mickey
[e-mail]
NC Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
From: Annie, Christin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:33 PM
To: Mickey, Mike
Cc: Annie, Christin
Subject: Ingersoll Rand - Mocksville - No Exposure Question
Importance: High
Hello Michael,
Thanks again for getting back with me so quickly today. here are some photos of our completed compressors that we
currently store outside. We are working towards an application for"No Exposure" and would like to understand if these
units would be OK as is or if they would be required to be put undercover? It would cost approx. $80K to build a
structure to house these units. As you can see, they are each wrapped in plastic prior to being moved outside as part of
our process. Per our engineering dept, some units are meant for outside use and others are not. No matter, each of
them are wrapped prior to being moved outside. Please let me know any questions you may have to aid in a response.
Thank you
z

r
d
Christin Annie,CSP
Environmental,Health,and Safety Manager
Ingersoll Rand Industrial Technologies
Mocksville Operations
5015anford Ave.
Mocksville,NC 27028
Tel:[phone]
Mobile:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:[e-mail]
3

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Rescurreg
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 14, 2011
Mr. Phil Wekenmann, Manager
Ingersoll Rand
501 Sanford Avenue
Mocksville, NC 27028
Subject: General Stormwater Permit Inspection
Ingersoll Rand— Mocksville Operations
Stormwater Permit No. NCG030241
Davie County
Dear Mr. Wekenmann:
On April 12, 2011, Mike Mickey of this office met with Christin Annie and John Young to
perform a NPDES Stormwater Permit Inspection at the Ingersoll Rand facility in Mocksville. The
inspection found the facility to be in compliance with the above stormwater permit. This inspection
evaluated the five (5) areas as designated on the attached inspection form. Observations from each
area are addressed below:
1. Permit
Ingersoll Rand currently holds NPDES Stormwater Permit No. NCG030241 for the discharge of
stormwater from the Mocksville operation. The permit expires next on October 31, 2012.
2, Records/Reports
Part 11, Section A of the permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SPPP). A copy of the SPPP was reviewed during the inspection. This plan was found to be
thorough and complete. The plan is routinely updated as necessary and addressed all items as
outlined by the permit.
3. Facility Site Review
A tour of the property found the site to be clean and well managed. Observations did not reveal any
problems or concerns.
4. Effluent/Receiving Waters
Stormwater from the site is discharged at seven separate outfalls that lead to an unnamed tributary
to Bear Creek, Class "WS-IV" waters in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The Division previously
granted representative outfall status by letter dated October 17, 1991. This authorization allows
outfall 92 to be sampled as representative of outfalls 1 and 5, and allows outfall 44 to be sampled
as representative of outfalls 3, C, and 7.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality,Winston-Salem Regional office
Location:585 Waughtown St Winston-Salem,North Carolina 27107 One
Phone.[phone] FAX.[phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina
tntemet:www.ncwate;quality.org Naturally
An Equal Opponunily 1 Affirmative Action Employer

Mr.Phil Wekenmann r
Page#2 f
April 14,2011 �•
5. Monitoring Program
Part 11, Section B of the permit requires the collection of semi-annual analytical samples of the
stormwater discharge during a representative storm event. A review of the facility files found that
this monitoring was being performing as required at representative outfalls 2 and 4. The last two
sampling events occurred on July 12, 2010 and September 27, 2010. The results for all parameters
were below their respective benchmark levels.
Part II, Section C of the permit requires that qualitative (visual) monitoring be performed and
documented semi-annually. The file review showed that this monitoring was also performed as
required. The last two monitoring events occurred on November 24, 2010 and March 23, 2011.
Please note that the qualitative monitoring should to be conducted at the same time as the analytical
monitoring.
Analytical monitoring for on-site vehicle maintenance listed in Section D of the permit is not
required since the facility uses less than 55 gallons of new motor oil per month when averaged over
the calendar year.
Your efforts to comply with the stormwater permit are appreciated. If you have any
questions concerning this letter, please contact Mike Mickey or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
W. Corey Basinger
Interim Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
cc: WBSCP Unit
Central Files— SWP
WSRO�

4
i
A^M. Form Approved
OMB No.204"057
_ Approval Expires
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. D.C..20460 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding
Transaction Code NPDES No. Yr/Mo/Day Inspection Type inspector FacilityType
N 5 NCG030241 11-04-12 C S 1
Facility Evaluation Rating BI QA .........Reserved...........
1 N N
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected: Entry Time: Permit Effective
1000 hrs. Date: Nov. I,2007
Ingersoll Rand—Mocksville Operations
501 Sanford Avenue
Mocksville,NC 27028 Exit Time: Permit Expiration
1055 hrs. Date: Oct.31,2012
Name(s)of On-Site Representative(s): Title(s): Phone No(s):
Ms. Christin Annie EHS Manager [phone]
Mr.John Young
Name,Address of Responsible Official: Title: Plant Manager
Mr. Phil Wekenmann Phone No. [phone] Contacted?No
Ingersoll Rand Industrial Technologies
501 Sanford Avenue
Mocksville NC 27028
Section C: Areas Evaluated During inspection (check only those areas evaluated)
X Permit NA Flow Measurement NA Operations/Maintenance NA Sewer Overflow
X Records/Reports X Monitoring Program NA Sludge Handling/Disposal NA Pollution Prevention
X Facility Site Review NA Compliance Schedules NA Pretreatment
X Effluent/Receiving Waters NA Laboratory X Stormwater
Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments
See the cover letter and attached inspection form for specific comments.
Name(s)and Signapre(s)of Inspectors: Agency/Office/Telephone: Date:
DWQ/WSRO/[phone] -A
Signature of Reviewer: Agency/Office: Date:
U DWQ/WSRO 1(336) 771-5000
EPA Form 356 -3 (Rev 9-94

Permit: NCGO30241 Owner-Facility: Ingersoll Rand Company
Typo: ComnHance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection bate:04i i ir2ui i rn3NoGtivn �sMo. r,,...,,.,,_....__.._..
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a General Location(USGS)map? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a'Narrative Description of Practices'? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years? C3 ❑ ❑
#Has the Facility evaluated feasible altematives to current practices? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a BMP summary? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan(SPRP)? ■ Cl ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the facility provide and document Employee Training? ■ ❑ ❑ Cl
#Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)? ■ ❑ Cl ❑
#is the Plan reviewed and updated annually? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program? ■ ❑ Cl ❑
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) for Ingersoll Rand was
available for review. The plan was thorough and cam plete and covered all item s listed
in Part ll, Section A of the stormwater permit.
Qualitative Monitoring Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The semi-annual qualitiative (visual) monitoring required by Part II, Section
C of the permit was being performed as required. The last two monitoring events
occurred on 11/24/10 and 3/23/11. Please note that the qualitative monitoring events
should also coincide with the analytical monitoring events.
Analytical Monitoring
Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring from Vehicle Maintenance areas? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Page: 3

Permit: NGG030241 Owner-Facility: Ingersoll Rand Company
Inspection Date: 04/11/2011 Inspection Type:Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit:Routine
Comment: The semi-annual analytical monitoring required by Part II, Section B of the
permit was being performed as required. The last two monitoring events occurred on
7/12/10 and 9/27/10. All results were below the benchmark levels contained in Table 3
of the permit. It was noted that both sampling events occurred in the second half of
2010 as the timing of rainfall events in the first half to 2010 did not allow for the
collection of a sample per Table 2 of the permit. Additionally, it should be noted that
Ingersoll Rand was previously granted representative outfall status by letter dated
10/17/91. Outfall #002 is sampled as repren sentative of outfalls 1 & 5 and outfall # 004
is sampled as representative of outfall 3, 6, & 7.
Permit and Outfalls Yes No NA NE
#Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site? M ❑ 0 Q
#Were all outfalls observed during the inspection? 0 ❑ O
#If the facility has representative outfall status, is it properly documented by the Division? ■ Q 0 Q
#Has the facility evaluated all illicit(non stormwater)discharges?
Comment: Observations at the 7 outfalls did not reveal any problems or concerns.
The Ingersoll Rand site appeared to be clean and well managed.
Page: 4

F
Mickey, Mike
From: Annie, r hrigtin f('ANNlEG1Prco 1
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:13 AM
To: Mickey, Mike
Subject: RE: Stormwater?
Attachments: image001.jpg
Hi Mike,
Our plant manager, Phil Wekenmann, is the highest ranking official at our plant and I work directly for him.
Thanks
Christin Annie
Environmental,Health,and Safety Manager
Ingersoll Rand Industrial Technologies
Mocksville Operations
501 Sanford Ave.
Mocksville,NC 27028
Tel:[phone]
Mobile:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:[e-mail]
4`l!�r 1 IJVif Panel
From: Mickey, Mike [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Annie, Christin
Subject: Stormwater ?
Hi Christin—Who is the top dog at Ingersoll? I can't figure it out from our files. Previous letters were sent to Perry
Hilton, Dennis Barnette and Charlie Whaley. Thanks, Mike.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mickey
[e-mail]
NC Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only for the recipients named.If the reader is not a representative of the intended recipient,
any review,dissemination or copying of this message or the information it contains is prohibited.If you have received this message in error.please immediately
notify the sender,and delete the original message and attachments.
2

V
t~a
GUZAILL-,1,
111.�M tr
� 9C
�ilwa w OUTFALL #3 �(^�
N�9LMM.£ Tmr
wQ
OUTFACE #b
�+ ul:i►vl�i �
Lur
NM
rI11w
n
L
EE►MA'm awn w ,mA I�
ourFaLL #s
w k�
.INN
A
lF
"! GUTFALL 02
we w
ARQ"Z PfACE11T
F
1 IN 424.237.29
x
PAVEMENT ee T19.57 ?7.00x SCALE x1 MET
ME .
TAL A.yAa A93.65 ]a0.00x 'AO Tp a 1.O
op 90. OATE A PW WAVON
ORANING NO,
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PATTERNS 2
0
INGERSOLL RANI) MOCKSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA REv.No.
AIIN v LA VAL
1"-140 APRIL 2011
N u ti. n E R M ' oA sNEfr Of
N 112017 112017S70RM.OWC

.l.i_ !.i:. -e •_. ce.. ... i[ .: ,1 4-L .. _ --- _
i \
i �-
\
% MANHOLE �-\\
i
CENTERLINE OF CREE�IC / ❑U T r ALL_ #4
ANHOLE i LAT.= 35' 53' 39'
\`\ / LON.= 80' 34' 20'
8 LON= 80. 34' 21''
r c
�- WEIR MANHOLE "i +f-
\` \�
UP
% \ MANHOLE \� GRADIANT
MANHOLE ✓� j `i�� L -
FUEL OIL, GAS \ ❑U T F A L L #3
/ & DIESEL \\\ LAT•= 35. 53' 34' / /
LON•= 80. 34' 23' i
MANHOLE
Sill PG, 4' DRAINLINE
\ \� CRffk OF\\ �., ,� MANHOLE N% P
\ DRAIN �, SURFACE !/� SP
IMP❑UNDMENT SHIPPING/RECEIVING/
AREA / SECURITY POST
\ �' �t DRAIN TANK FARM
4' PVC
,J/ \\\\ LP GAS
\� DRAINLINE FARM ✓ j!" \` �/ S i -�rE o
MANHOLE AREA \c y" \ aG�Ss vi Np'pt�Y \
-� \ �' /—•=` ' / \ SCREWpR 6,6 1 PAINT \
\ DRAIN �� _�" MANHOLE BOOTH ELECTRICAL /
r POW
HEADERY t
\ O COMPRESSOR
�-- � OPERATIONS \
\\ MANHOLE — �/ (MACHINE SHOP) e \ \
% LAT.= 35. 53' 30' MANHOLE r \
CEN / FIRE DEPARTMENT
LON_ HYDRAULIC ❑IL CONNECTION \ ;
% OF CRfE \ CUTTING OIL
% K �.� MANHOLE \ \ LESS 3 (\ \ \
/ DOWN
/ GRADIANT \ ;
\ \
SCREW
COMPRESSOR
PARKING
/ McTIGHE ,\ LOT BOTTLED
\ j
❑IL/WATER
` \
SEPARATOR AGATE #9 \ GAS
�.
MANHOLE \ ,
,
op
❑UTFALL #S \\GATE s f�- ' `° ,, r �. \ :\,
LAT.= 35' 53' 28' •' \�LON.= 80. 34' 25'
y \.
CREDIT Ess c.
\
UNI❑N AIR COMPRESSOR
\`\�'•\ % / / �� � \ POWER. ROOM
✓ -' S
SUB- ` \
STATION \,
l
PAIN , e s. 41PERA IONS / ft ASSEMB
LY B DG \\�
SHOP ` PARKING LOT
.�'-A GATE #4 ` '\
p PAINT BOTTLED
2= GATE #6 AN \ y G�
K FAR 99� GAS
BOOTHS . „ t
V� M DIESEL U
I F FUELS
❑UTFALL #Z
LAI 35. 53' 27,
LON•= 80. 34' 24' \ \ �_
\ j BOTTLED J
❑UTFALL #1 �QQ PAINT GAS
LAT.= 35. 53' 27' �. /�/ CHEMICAL FIRE DEPARTMENT
LON.= 80' 34' 23' �' BUILD feR N STORAGE
A GAS
URAL y �� CONNECTION
I G HAZARDOU& J
\� �` G WASTE
f STORAGE �
\ \ (; GATE #5
FIRE DEPARTMENT
CONNECTION
SQUARE FEET PERCENT
BUILDINGS 424,937.29 9.35%
0 = MANHOLE PAVEMENT 680,719.55 15.00%
= CATCHBASIN PERVIOUS j,434,836.81 75.65%
v = HEADWALL -
= CLEANOUT TOTAL 4,540,493.65 100.00%
= FLOOR DRAIN
= ROOF DRAIN

Mich, Mike
From: Mcpherson, Fran
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:01 PM
To: Mickey, Mike
Subject: Ingersoll Rand
Mike,
John called about permit no ncg03O241 money was posted to another Ingersoll permit It has been correct and posted to
right account.Any question give me a call or e-mail.
Fran

It 'APR-22-2005 10:51 INGERSOLL—RAND 704 892 0261 P.02/03
�Z12223��
�- REM It
State of North Carolina 'A
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourc 4�ee49S 6 %*
Division of Environmental Management
.w North Salisbury St:eet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James C. Marrin, Govcmor October 17, 1991 Ceorge T. Everitt, Ph.D.
William W. Cobcy,Jr-, Secrmry Director
Dan Schweit, Supervisor VV Y 1
Plant FacilitiesO � V
Ingersoll-Rand Company r .� LES
P .O. Box 868 f-�/}�y �]✓
Mocksvil].e, North Carolina 2702e
Subject : Request for f5`e gna it on_of_Substantially ldenti:cal7z�
�S tormwat e r_Out f a l l s,
Davie. County
Dear Mr. Schweit:
Your request dated October 9, 1991, for a determination that
stormwater effluents from certain outfalls on your site are
substantially identical at the Mocksville Ingersoll-Rand
facility, has been reviewed by members of the water Quality
Section staff. You requested that all outfalls be considered
substantially identical .
Based upon staff review of the above information, I have
concluded that the requested determination is not warranted. The
stormwater discharges from outfall #4 at the Ingersoll-Rand
facility would not be representative of the site . However,
sampling at outfall #2 and outfall #4 would provide a
representative sampling of your stormwater discharges .
Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 122 . 21 (g) (7) 1 authorize
you to sample outfall #2 as a stormwater discharge representative
of the drainage of outfalls 1 and 5, and outfall #4 as a
stormwater discharge representative of the drainage of outfalls
3, 6 and 7 for your NPDES stormwater permit application .
Regional Offices
Asheville Fawrtevilie Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmingron Winston-Salem
704/251b2138 919i48(.iS41 7041663.1699 9191733.2314 919i9466481 919/395.3900 919/761-2351
I bAution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Ralcigh, Nonh Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]

. APR-22-2005 10:51 INGERSOLL-RAND ?04 892 0261 P.03/03
Ingersoll-Rand
October 17, 1991
Page Two
If you have any questions concerning this authorization, please
contact Coleen S. Sullins, Supervisor, Stormwater Group •at
919/733-5083 .
Sincerely,
George T. Everett
cc: Coleen Sullins
Steve Mauney, Winston-Salem Regional office
TOTAL P.03

• APR-22-2005 10.51 INGERSOLL—RAND 704 892 0261 P.01iO3
CV OngerWO � �nge�tali•Rand Company Industrial 5olve Group
1 507 Sanford Avenue.Pp Box 968
Mocksville,NC 27028
33&751.6728 .
Fax:[phone]
Aprd 22, 2005
Jenifer Carter
Environmental Technician
Division of Water Quality
Winston Salem, NC
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection -- NPDES Permit # NCG030241
Please see the attached memo from NCDEHNR dated October 17, 1991. The subject
of the memo is request for designation of substantially identical Stormwater Outfalls.
If you have any questions please contact Perry Hilton at 336-751-6461 or Dennis
Barnette at 336-751-6728.
Sincerely,
�IYYYs�
Dennis Barnette
Environmental Manager
Attachment—2 pages