NC0049905_Fact Sheet_20181010

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO499O5
Permit Writer/Email Contact Qais Banihani, [e-mail]:
Date: July 25, 2018
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
N Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2' species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Associated Asphalt Salisbury, LLC
Applicant Address:
1825 Jake Alexander Boulevard West, Salisbury, NC 28147
Facility Address:
1825 Jake Alexander Boulevard West, Salisbury, NC 28147
Permitted Flow:
None
Facility Type/Waste:
100% industrial/ Stormwater
Facility Class:
I Physical/Chemical WPCS
Treatment Units:
None
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
No
County:
Rowan
Region
Mooresville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Associated Asphalt LLC,
herein called Associated Asphalt or Permittee, applied for an NPDES permit renewal. The Permittee's 5-
year NPDES permit expired on June 30, 2014.
This is a minor renewal for an industrial facility that receives liquid asphalt in bulk, and then stores
it in storage tanks (> 1 MG) before shipping to asphalt plants via tank truck. There is no onsite
Page 1 of 8

manufacturing of asphalt. The only potential waste streams would be stormwater collected from
the bulk storage containment areas, and approximately 64.3 gpd of boiler blowdown and water
softener blowdown.
This facility utilizes two wastewater outfalls:
Outfall 001 — Boiler blow down/condensate and softener blow down discharge and stormwater
are piped to a 660,000 gallons stormwater retention pond, which discharges as needed via manual
gate valve to a dry ditch parallel to the railroad tracks.
Outfall 002 — Stormwater collected from Tank #5 in stormwater containment berm, which
discharges as needed via manual gate valve to a dry ditch. The area downstream is rural with
agriculture being the primary use.
When the facility discharges, the wastewater would go to an unnamed tributary to Grants Creek>
Yadkin River>High Rock Lake. The receiving ditch is a zero -flow stream (both 7Q10 and 30Q2
= 0). The Region believes any discharge would infiltrate into the ground before reaching Grants
Creek. Although the discharge is located above High Rock Lake, nutrient monitoring was not
added, since it is not domestic waste and discharges appear to be limited.
The facility is not qualified for a stormwater general permit NCGO80000 since the bulk storage
exceed 1 MG.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfalls 001 and 002/ UT to Grants Creek
Stream Segment:
12-110
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
< 0.1
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):
0
30Q2 (cfs):
0
Average Flow (cfs):
< 0.1 (Intermittent)
IWC (% effluent):
100
303(d) listed/parameter:
No
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation
Subbasin/HUC:
03-07-04; 03040101
USGS Topo Quad:
Rowan Mills
Page 2 of 8

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for outfalls 001 and 002 were reviewed for the period of July 2014 to June 2018. Facility
has had no discharge during the permit cycle.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit does not require instream monitoring.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NA
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility has reported no
limit violations over the past five years.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): NA
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in 2016 reported that the facility was operating properly.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Page 3 of 8

Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: NA
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: NA
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of/z detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
Facility has had no discharge during the permit cycle. Therefore, no reasonable potential analysis was
conducted on effluent toxicant data.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: NA
Page 4 of 8

Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Facility has had no discharge during the
permit cycle. Therefore, no reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: Although the discharge is located above High Rock Lake, nutrient monitoring
was not added, since it is not domestic waste and discharges appear to be limited.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
1 SA NCAC 2H. 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 1 SA NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Industrials (if not applicable, delete and skip to next Section)
Describe what this facility produces: No Production
List the federal effluent limitations guideline (ELG) for this facility: NA
If the ELG is based on production or flow, document how the average production/flow value was
calculated: NA
For ELG limits, document the calculations used to develop TBEL limits: NA
If any limits are based on best professional judgement (BPJ), describe development: NA
Page 5 of 8

Document any TBELs that are more stringent than WQBELs: NA
Document any TBELs that are less stringent than previous permit: NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Page 6 of 8

11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to
submit additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 1. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
Quarterly Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 213.0505
TSS
MA 45 mg/L
No change
BPJ for boiler blow down and
DM 67.5 mg/L
water softener blow down
discharges
Total Residual
Quarterly Monitor only
No change
BPJ for boiler blow down and
Chlorine
water softener blow down
discharges
Oil and Grease
MA 45 mg/L
No change
BPJ for boiler blow down and
DM 67.5 mg/L
water softener blow down
discharges
Turbidity
DM 50 NTU
No change
BPJ for boiler blow down and
water softener blow down
discharges
Temperature
Quarterly Monitor only
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B.0200
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 213.0200
Electronic
No requirement
Add Electronic
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Reporting Special
Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
Page 7 of 8

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 08/14/2018
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Monitoring Report Violations summary sheet
• Final 2016 Integrated Report for Grants Creek
Page 8 of 8