STATEMENT Ul UASJS/TECHNICAL SUMMARY AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PRELIMINARY DECISION 

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION 

Applicant: Cooper Natural Resources Inc.; Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(TPDES) Permit No. WQ0003642000, (TX01!2038). 

Re~o>ulated Activity: Industrial Wastewater Permit. 

Type of Application: Renewal. 

Request: Renewal without Changes. 

Authority: Federal Clean Water Act §402; Texas Water Code §26.027; 30 TAC Chapter 305, 

Subchapters C-F, Chapters 307 and 319, Commission Policies; and EPA Guidelines. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION 

The Executive Director has made a preliminary decision that this permit, if issued, meets all statutory and 

regulatory requirements. It is proposed the permit be issued to expire on December I, 2014 in accordance with 

30 TAC §305.71, Basin Permitting. 

REASON FOR PROJECT PROPOSED 

The applicant has applied to the TCEQ for a renewal of its existing permit. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 

The applicant operates the Cedar Lake Plant, a producer of anhydrous sodium sulfate fi·om brine extracted from 

wells located throughout Cedar Lake, a saline lake. Withdrawn brine is piped to a brine storage tank thence to 

the Chilling Plant, where the hydrous sodium sulfate precipitates out (aka Glauber's salt). The Glauber's salt 

loses much of its water at the Swenson Evaporator Czystallizer (SEC) Plant before being subj ectec\ to fmiher 

drying at the Drying Plant. 

Spent (depleted) brine is returnee\ to Cedar Lake via Seco Draw. Plant floor washwater, condensate from 

evaporation processes, and storm water also discharge via Outfall 001 to Seco Draw. These wastewaters flow 

through an oil/water separator located just upstream of Outfall 001. 

Outfall 002 is located at the decant tower of the Salt Cake Reclamation Pone\ (SCRP). Recoveree\ sodium sulfate 

(from truck loading and other site activities) is routed to the SCRP where fresh water and/or steam condensate 

from the SEC Plant is sprayed over the salt to bring the salt back into solution where it can be pumped to the 

brine storage tanlc and processed as field brine. Wastewater from pump house floor washc\own, booster pump 

noncontact cooling water, storm water, and when operational, occasional brine tank overflow are routed to the 

SCRP, from whence they may be c\ischargec\ via Outfall 002. 

Cooling tower blowdown from the evaporation pone\ is routed to Outfall 003, as is intermittent brine tank 

overflow, storm water runoff, culvert washwater, and tanlc washdown. 

Sanitary wastewaters are routed to on-site septic tanks. Freshwater is drawn from water wells located one to 

two miles west of the site. 

The plant site is located adjacent to Cedar Lake, 8 miles east of the intersection ofF arm-to-Market Road 1066 

and Farm-to-Market Road 303, south of the Town of Loop, Gaines County, Texas 79342. 
STATEMENT OF BASIS I TECHNICAL SUMMARY AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PRELIMINARY DECISION 

TPDES Permit No. WQ0003642000 

The effluent is discharged via Outfall 001 to a ditch; thence to Seco Draw; thence to Cedar Lake; via Ontfall 002 

to Salt Cake Reclamation Pond; thence to Cedar Lake; via Outfall 003 via culverts to Coyote Draw; thence to 

Cedar Lake in Segment No. 1400 of the Colorado River Basin. The unclassified receiving waters have no 

significant aquatic life use for the ditch, Coyote Draw, and Cedar Lake. The effluent limits in the draft permit 

will maintain and protect the existing instream uses. All determinations are preliminary and subject to additional 

review and/or revisions. 

The discharge from this permit is not expected to have an effect on any federal endangered or threatened aquatic 

or aquatic dependent species or proposed species or their critical habitat. This determination is based on the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) biological opinion on the State of Texas authodzation of the 

Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES; September 14, 1998; October 21, 1998 update). To 

make this determination for TPDES permits, TCEQ and EPA only considered aquatic or aquatic dependent 

species occurring in watersheds of critical concern or high priority as listed in Appendix A of the USFWS 

biological opinion. The determination is subject to reevaluation due to subsequent updates or amendments to the 

biological opinion. The permit does not require EPA review with respect to the presence of endangered or 

threatened species. 

Segment No. 1400 is not currently listed on the State's inventory of impaired and threatened waters, (the 2008 

Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list). 

SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT DATA 

The following is a quantitative description of the discharge described in the Monthly Effluent Report data for 

the period .Ttme 2004 though May 2009. The "Average of Daily Avg" values presented in the following table are 

the average of all daily average values for the reporting period for each parameter. The "Maximum of Daily 

Max" values presented in the following table are the individual maximmn values for the reporting period for 

each parameter: 

Flow 

Outfall 

001 

002 

003 

Frequency 

Continuous 

Intermittent 

Intermittent 

Effluent Characteristics 

Outfall 

001 

002 

Parameter 

Total Dissolved Solids 

Specific Gravity (* 1) 

Chlorides 

Sulfate as S04 

Oil and Grease 

pH (Standard Units) 

Total Dissolved Solids 

Specific Gravity (*1) 

Chlorides 

Sulfate as S04 

Oil and Grease 

Average of 

Daily Avg (MGD) 

(1.06) 

(0.026) 

(0.027) 

Average of 

Daily Avg mg/L 

168,116 

164.30 

92,968 

31, 611 

N/A 

(6.1 S.U. Minimum) 

76,948 

1.08 

26,822 

49,206 

N/A 

Page 2 

Maximum of 

Daily Max (MGD) 

(1.58) 

(0.28) 

(0.06) 

Maximum of 

Daily Max mg/L 

250,345 

1175 

116, 886 

509,555 

12.9 

(8.2 S.U. Maximum) 

207,091 

1.18 

95,497 

117,690 

<5 
STATEML\ i' ' .. ,, ~T\Cl-JNICAL SUMMARY AND 

EXECUTIVE DlREC iCtCS PRELIMINARY DECISION 

TPDES Penni! No. WQ0003642000 

Average of Maximum of 

Outfall Parameter DailyAvg mg/L Daily Max mg/L 

pH (Standard Units) (7 .2 S .U. Minimum) (8.5 S.U. Maximum) 

003 Total Dissolved Solids 157,559.12 227,157 

Specific Gravity (*I) 1.14 1160 

Chlorides 52,316 97,746 

Sulfate as S04 68,317.17 96,633 

Oil and Grease N/A 17.7 

pH (Standard Units) (6.2 S.U. Minimum) (9.0 S.U. Maximum) 

(*I) No units are associated with this parmneter, dimensionless. 

Based upon a review of self-reported data above, the facility has not had m1y exceedences of permit limitations 

during the time period evaluated. 

PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS 

The draft permit authorizes the discharge of treated process wastewater (e.g., plant floor washwater, condensate 

from the evaporation processes), spent brine, m1d storm water via Outfall 001 at a daily average flow not to 

exceed 2.0 million gallons per day; decm1ted brine water, floor washdown water, condensate, non-contact 

cooling water, and storm water via Outfall 002 on m1 intennittent and flow variable basis; m1d brine water, 

condensate, tank washdown water, storm water m1d overflow from the evaporation pond via Outfall 003 on m1 

intermittent and flow variable basis. 

Final effluent limitations are established in the draft permit as follows: 

Outfall Number 

00 I, 002, and 003 

Pollutm1t 

Flow(MGD) 

Total Dissolved Solids 

Specific Gravity (*I) 

Chlorides 

Sulfate as S04 

Oil m1d Grease 

pH (Standard Units) 

Daily Average mg,/1 

(Repmi) 

Report 

Report 

Report 

Report 

N!A 

(6.0 S.U. Minimum) 

(*I) No units are associated with this parameter, dimensionless. 

Daily Maximurn mg/L 

(Report) 

Report 

Report 

Report 

Report 

20 

(9.0 S.U. Maximum) 

Regulations promulgated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations require technology-based limitations to 

be placed in wastewater discharge permits based on effluent limitations guidelines, where applicable, and/or on 

best professional judgment (BPJ) in the absence of guidelines. 40 CPR Part 436, Subpart L addresses processing 

of salines from brine lakes, which applies to the withdrawal of brine from Cedar Lake and subsequent 

processing of sodium sulfate. Best practicable control techuology (BPT) currently available at 40 CPR §436.122 

(a) states there shall be no dischm·ge of process waste water pollutants into navigable waters. However, 40 CPR 

§436.122(b) allows the aforementioned to be applied on a net basis where the source of tl1e applicant's water 

supply is the same body of water into which the dischm·ge is made. The facility draws brine from Cedar Lake 

and returns the wastewaters back to the Cedar Lake. Therefore, the "net limits" are allowed. 

Previous permitting efforts have determined that total dissolved solids, chlorides, m1d sulfates are primary 

po1Iutm1ts for chm·acterizing the nature of the wastewater discharged. Specific gravity was included as an 

Page 3 
STATEMENT OF BASIS I TECJlNICAL SUMMARY AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PRELIMINARY DECISION 

TPDES Permit No. WQ0003642000 

indicator as well as possibly to collect data to determine a correlation between it and total dissolved solids. 1 The 

existing permit requires that there be no net increase for these four parameters although the permittee is only 

required to determine "net" for sulfate. Being that process wastewater may discharge via all outfalls, the total 

sulfate out is determined using loadings from all outfalls. The net requirements are continued in the draft permit. 

The BPJ oil and grease and pH limits are continued in the draft pennit. 

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM APPLICATION 

The following changes have been made from the application, which make the draft permit more stringent. 

Retest requirements for Hexavalent Chromium and Selenium have been included in the draft permit, as the 

permittee did not test down to the Minimum Analytical Level in effluent results submitted to the TCEQ on June 

22,2009. 

See the next section for additional changes to the existing permit. 

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM EXISTING PERMIT 

No additional changes have been made to the draft permit. 

BASIS FOR PROPOSED DRAFT PERMIT 

The following items were considered in developing the proposed permit draft: 

1. Application submitted with letter dated Jtme 2, 2009 and additional information submitted with letter 

dated June 22, 2009. 

2. Existing permits: TPDES Permit No. WQ0003642000 issued May 6, 2005. 

3. TCEQ Rules. 

4. Texas Smface Water Quality Standards- 30 TAC §§307.1-307.10, effective August 17, 2000, and 

Appendix E, effective February 27, 2002. 

5. "Procedures to Implement the Texas Smface Water Quality Standards," Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, January 2003. 

6. Memos from the Water Quality Standards Tean1 and the Water Quality Assessment Team ofthe Water 

Quality Assessment Section of the TCEQ. 

7. "Guidance Document for Establishing Monitoring Frequencies for Domestic and Industrial Wastewater 

Discharge Permits," TCEQ Document No. 98-001.000-0WR-WQ, May 1998. 

8. EPA Effluent Guidelines: 40 CFR 436 Subpart L (BPT). 

9. Consistency with the Coastal Management Plan: N/A- This facility is not locataed in the Coastal Zone. 

PROCEDURES FOR FINAL DECISION 

When an application is declared administratively complete, the Chief Clerk sends a letter to the applicant 

advising the applicant to publish the Notice of Receipt of Application ru1d Intent to Obtain Penni! in the 

newspaper. In addition, the Chief Clerk instructs the applicant to place a copy of the application in a public 

place for review m1d copying in the county where the facility is or will be located. This application will be in a 

public place throughout the comment period. The Chief Clerk also mails this notice to any interested persons 

and, if required, to landowners identified in the permit application. Tins notice informs the public about the 

1

0ther Requirements No. 3.b. 

Page 4 
STATEMENT Of< h!\SiS i J t'l i INICAL SUMMARY AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PRELIMINARY DECISION 

TPDES Penni! No. WQ0003642000 

application, and provides that an interested person may file connnents on the application or request a contested 

case hearing or a public meeting, 

Once a draft penni! is completed, it is sent, along with the Executive Director's preliminary decision, as 

contained in the technical sunm1ary or fact sheet, to the Chief Clerk, At that time, Notice of Application and 

Preliminary Decision will be mailed to the same people and published in the same newspaper as the prior notice. 

This notice sets a deadline for maldng public conllllents. The applicant must place a copy of the Executive 

Director's preliminary decision and draft penni! in the public place with the application. This notice sets a 

deadline for public cmmnent. 

Any interested person may request a public meeting on the application until the deadline for filing public 

comments. A public meeting is intended for the taking of public comment, and is not a contested case 

proceeding. After the public comment deadline, the Executive Director prepares a response to all significant 

public connnents on the application or the draft penni! raised during the public conn11ent period. The Chief 

Clerk then mails the Executive Director's Response to Cmmnents and Final Decision to people who have filed 

conn11ents, requested a contested case hearing, or requested to be on the mailing list. This notice provides that if 

a person is not satisfied with the Executive Director's response and decision, they can request a contested case 

hearing or file a request to reconsider the Executive Director's decision within 30 days after the notice is mailed. 

The Executive Director will issue the permit m11ess a written hearing request or request for reconsideration is 

filed within 30 days after the Executive Director's Response to Connnents and Final Decision is mailed. If a 

hearing request or request for reconsideration is filed, the Executive Director will not issue the penni! and will 

forward the application and request to the TCEQ Connnissioners for their consideration at a scheduled 

Conm1ission meeting. If a contested case hearing is held, it will be a legal proceeding similar to a civilllial in 

state district court. 

If the Executive Director calls a public meeting or the Commission grants a contested case hearing as described 

above, the Conmrission will give notice of the date, time, and place of the meeting or hearing. If a hearing 

request or request for reconsideration is made, the Connnission will consider all public connnents in making its 

decision and shall either adopt the Executive Director's response to public comments or prepare its own 

response. 

For additional information about t!Iis application contact Hailey Jett at (512) 239-0628. 

Hailey Jett 

December 18, 2009 

Date 

Page 5 
STATEMENT OF BASIS I TECHNICAL SUMMA < Y AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PRELIMINARY DECISION 

TPDES Permit No. WQ0003642000 

Appendix A 

Calculated Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits 

TEXTOX MENU #I-INTERMITTENT STREAM 

The water quality-based effluent limitations demonstrated below are calculated using: 

Table 1, 2000 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (30 TAC 307) for Freshwater Aquatic Life 

Table 3, 2000 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards for Human Health 

Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Janumy 2003 

TPDES Permit No·. 

Pennittee Name: 

Outfall No: 

Prepared By: 

Date: 

DISCHARGE INFORMATION: 

Intermittent Receiving Waterbody: 

Segment No: 

TSS (mg/L): 

pH (Standard Units): 

Hardness (mg/L as CaC03): 

Chloride (mg/L): 

Etllnenl Flow for Aquatic Life (MGD): 

Critical Low Flow [7Q2] (cfs): 

Acute Effluent% fur Ayuatic Life: 

WQ0003642000 

Cooper Natural Resources, Inc. 

001, 002, and 003 

Hailey Jett 

1212/2009 

1400 

11 

7.6 

610 

1600 

2 

0.1 

100 

CALCULATE TOTAL/DISSOLVED RATIO: 

Partitiohing 

Intercept Coefficient 

Stream/River Metal (b) Slope (m) (Kpo) 

Dissolved 

Fraction 

(Cd!Ct) 

Water Effects 

Ratio (WER) 

Aluminum N/A N/A N/A 1.00 Assumed 1 Assumed 

Arsenic 5.68 -0.73 83134.89 0.52 

Cadmium 6.6 -1.13 264988.04 0.26 

Chromium (Tolal) 6.52 -0.93 356044.93 0.20 

Clu·omium (+3) 6.52 -0.93 356044.93 0.20 

Cluumium ( +6) N/A N/A N/A 1.00 

Copper 6.02 -0.74 177569.93 0.34 

Lead 6.45 ·0.8 413890.88 0.18 

Mercury N/A N/A N/A 1.00 

Nickel 5.69 -0.57 124855.07 0.42 

Selenium N/A N/A N/A 1.00 

Silver 6.38 -1.03 202939.01 0.31 

Zinc 6.1 ·0.7 234976.87 0.28 

AQUATIC LIFE 

CALCULATE DAILY AVERAGE AND DAILY MAXIMUM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

Acute 

Standard DailyAvg. 

Parameter (ug!L) WLAa LTAa (ugl!.) 

Aldrin 3 3.00 1.72 2.53 

Ahr111inu1n 991 991.00 567.84 834.73 

Arsenic 360 689.21 394.92 580.53 

Cadmium 252.046 986.73 565.39 831.13 

Carbmyl 2 2.00 1.15 1.68 

Page 6 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Daily 

Max. 

(ug!L) 

5.35 

1765.99 

1228.20 

1758.38 

3.56 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 
Chlordane 

Chlorpyrifos 

Chromium ( + 3) 

Chromium (+6) 

Copper 

Cyanide 

4,4'-DDT 

Dementon 

Dicofol 

Dieldrin 

Diuron 

Endosulfan I (alpha) 

Endosulfan II (beta) 

Endosulfan sulfate 

Endrin 

Guthion 

Heptachlor 

STATEMEN i c.; BA:,dS .· : cCHNICAL SUMMARY AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PRELIMINARY DECISION 

TPDES Permit No. WQ0003642000 

2.4 2.40 1.38 2.02 4.28 

0.083 0.08 0.05 om 0.15 

2412.96 11863.31 6797.68 9992.58 21140.77 

15.7 15.70 9.00 13.22 27.98 

101.245 299.00 171.33 251.85 532.83 

45.78 45.78 26.23 38.56 81.58 

1.1 1.10 0.63 0.93 1.96 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

59.3 59.30 33.98 49.95 105.67 

2.5 2.50 1.43 2.11 4.46 

210 210.00 120.33 176.89 374.23 

0.22 0.22 0.13 0.19 0.39 

0.22 0.22 0.13 0.19 0.39 

0.22 0.22 0.13 0.19 0.39 

0.18 0.18 0.10 0.15 0.32 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

0.52 0.52 0.30 0.44 0.93 

Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) 2 2.00 1.15 1.68 3.56 

Lead 725.365 4027.81 2307.93 3392.66 7177.67 

Malathion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Mere my 2.4 2.40 1.38 2.02 4.28 

Methoxychlor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Mirex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Nickel 6535.370 15511.09 8887.85 13065.14 27641.22 

Parathion (ethyl) 0.065 om 0,04 0.05 0.12 

Pentachloropllenol 16.57673 16.58 9.50 13.96 29.54 

Phenanthrene 30 30.00 17.19 25.27 53.46 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 2 2.00 IJ5 1.68 3.56 

Selenium 20 20.00 11.46 16.85 35.64 

Silver, (free ion) 0.8 28.79 16.50 24.25 51.31 

Toxaphene 0.78 0.78 0.45 0.66 1.39 

Tributlytin (TBT) 0.13 0.!3 0,07 0.11 0.23 

2,4,5 Trichlorophenol 136 136.00 77.93 114.55 242.36 

Zinc 529.683 1898.78 1088.00 1599.36 3383.68 

CALCULATE 70% AND 85% OF DAILY AVERAGE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

Parameter 70% 85% 

Aldrin 1.769 2.148 

Alumimun 584.310 709.520 

Arsenic 406.372 493.452 

Cadmium 581.790 706.460 

Carbaryl 1.179 1.432 

Chlordane 1.415 1.718 

Chlorpyrifos 0.049 0.059 

Chromium (+3) 6994.81 8493.70 

Chromh1m (+6) 9.257 11.241 

Copper 176.297 214.075 

Cyanide 26.993 32.777 

4,4'"DDT 0.649 0.788 

Dementon N/A N/A 

Dicotbl 34.964 42.457 

Dieldrin 1.474 1.790 

Dimun 123.820 150.352 

Endosulfan I (alpha) 0.130 0.158 

Endosulf.1n II (beta) 0.130 0.158 

Endosulthn sulthte 0.130 0.158 

Page 7 
Enc\rin 

Guthion 

Heptachlor 

STATEMENT OF BASIS I TECHNICAL SUA.VL .iZY AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PRELIMINARY DECISION 

TPDES Permit No. WQ0003642000 

0.106 0.129 

N/A N/A 

0.307 0.372 

Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) 1.179 1.432 

Lead 2374,864 2883.763 

Malathion N/A N/A 

Mercury 1.415 1.718 

Methoxychlor N/A N/A 

Mirex N/A N/A 

Nickel 9145.60 11105.37 

Parathion (ethyl) 0.038 0.047 

Pentachlrophenol 9.774 11.868 

Phenanthrene 17.689 21.479 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1.179 1.432 

Selenium 11.792 14.319 

Silver, (free ion) 16.977 20.615 

Toxaphene 0.460 0.558 

Tributlytin (TBT) 0.077 0.093 

2,4,5 Tdchlorophenol 80.188 97.371 

Zinc 1119.552 1359.456 

Page 8