NC0043320_WWTP Inspection_20020918

ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
September 18, 2002
Robert Calhoun
Plant Manager
P.O. Box 250
Cordova, NC 28330-0250
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
Burlington Performance Wear (formerly Burlington Industries, Inc.)
NPDES Permit No. NC0043320
Richmond County
Dear Mr. Calhoun:
Enclosed you will find a copy of. the Compliance Evaluation Inspection report for the
inspection conducted the week of September 11, 2002.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this report or require clarification on
part(s) of this report, please feel free to contact me at 910/486-1541, ext. 712.
Dale Lopez
Environmental Specialist
Id!
Enclosures: NPDES Compliance Inspection Report
ISCO Open Channel Flow Measurement Handbook, Fifth Edition, pp. 72 and 73
cc: DWQ, ESB, ATU, Kevin Bowden
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street — Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043
Phone: [phone]/FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Calhoun
Page 2
September 18, 2002
Section A. National
NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Fayetteville Regional Office
Data System Coding
Transaction Code: N NPDES NO. NC0043320
Inspector: S Facility Type: 2
Facility Evaluation Rating: 3 BI: N QA: N
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected:
Burlington Industries, Inc. WWTP
Entry Time:
Date: 020911
Inspection Type: B
Reserved:
Reserved:
02:10 PM Permit Effective Date: 000601
Exit Time/Date: 04:15 PM / 020911 Permit Expiration Date: 040229
Name(s), Title(s) of On -Site Representative(s):
Paul Smart - (Certified Grade III) — ORC
Phone Number: [phone]
Dorothy Quick — (Certified Grade II) — Back -Up ORC
Name, Title and Address of Responsible Official:
Robert Calhoun
Burlington Ind. Richmond
PO Box 250
Cordova, NC 28330
Section C: Areas Evaluated during Inspection
Contacted: No
(S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated, N/A = Not Applicable)
Facility Site. Review:;
...Laboratory: S,
.Pretreatment:;
A.
Rlow Measurements
Effluent/Receiving Waters
Compliance Schedule: N/
SeIf=MV n►tormg Program:
Operation & Maintenance: S

Mr. Calhoun
Page 3
September 18, 2002
DESCRIPTION OF BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES (RICHMOND) WWTP:
Grade III facility, 1.2 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of two aeration basins in
parallel, two clarifiers in parallel, disinfecting facility, aerobic sludge digestion and sludge drying
beds located at the Richmond Plant, on Old Cheraw Highway at the junction of NCSR 1103 and
NCSR 1109 in Cordova, Richmond County. Discharge from outfall 001 and cooling water
(outfall 002) discharge into Hitchcock Creek, a class C water in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
SECTION D: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS/COMMENTS:
PLANT TOUR-
1. Plant production was five to six days per week; five days per week the water jets were
operated. The plant changed production from 100% synthetic to 80% synthetic and 20%
wool.
2. Five pounds per day of chlorine was used for disinfecting the influent to the WWTP.
There were three to four 150-pound chlorine cylinders on -hand.
3. The #1 clarifier had a sludge blanket of 2 feet and the #2 clarifier had a sludge blanket of
1.5 feet. Three times per week the sludge blanket was measured with a sludge judge.
4. It appeared that there might be excessive turbulence in the approaching flow near the
converging section of the Parshall Flume.
LABORATORY TOUR---
1. The Total Residual Chlorine DPD powder pillows were used for analysis of the Total
Residual Chlorine, as called for by the NPDES permit. Three minutes of reaction time
was used for the analysis.
2. The thermometers used for reporting numbers used in the NPDES permit reporting were
calibrated annually with an NIST traceable thermometer and documented (Serial Number:
7593).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Please consider the approach flow conditions to the Parshall Flume, to assure accurate
discharge measurement.
Name d Signature of Inspect Agency/Office/Telephone Date
Dale Lop
-ez� �n > NCDENR/Fayetteville/[phone] 09/18/02
Name nd Si nature of Rev' wer Agency/Office/Telephone Date
Paul awls 5 , NCDENR/Fayetteville/[phone]
Action Taken
Regulatory Office Use Only
Compliance Status
_Noncompliance
Compliance
4-
Date

discharge of a Parshall flumeis not reduced (that is, the flume is oper-
ating under free flow conditions) until the submergence ratio exceeds
the following values:
50 percent for flumes 1, 2, and 3 inches (0.0254, 0.0508, and 0.0762 m) wide,
60 percent for flumes 6 and 9 inches (0.152 and 0.229 m) wide,
70 percent for flumes 1 to 8 feet (0.305 to 2.44 m) wide, and
80 percent for flumes 8 to 50 feet (2.44 to 15.2 m) wide.
When the submergence ratio exceeds the values listed above, the
flume is operatingunder submerged conditions, and submerged dis-
charge tables will have to be used to calculate the discharge. See references
[5], [6] and [7] for a complete discussion of the calculation of discharge
under submerged conditions of flow. In general, selecting and installing a
Parshall flume so that conditions of free flow exist is desired since sub-
merged conditions greatly complicate the determination of flow rate.
When selecting and installing a Parshall flume, there are a number
of factors to be considered to assure an accurate flow measurement sys-
tem. The first consideration is the size of flume to be installed. Because
of considerable overlap in flume discharges, it is possible to pass a given
discharge through any one of several different standard size flumes. The
choice of the proper size also requires consideration of other factors in
addition to capacity. For example, a different throat width, W, will be
required if 20 cfs (8980 gpm - 12.9 mgd - 566 Its - 2040 m3/hr) is to
MINIM swami;
A backwater effect is apparent in the throat of this Parshall flume, as
viewed from downstream.
72 • Flumes
J5e O 6 of N C/y ,t/E lie F /35yBFth 2JT-
imbira ooi< F/P-T/t EDJ i'O4/
be discharged with 2.5 feet (0.76 m) of depth rather than with 1 foot
(0.30 m) of depth. In the interests of economy, the smallest practical
size should usually be selected.
In selecting a flume size, it is usually necessary" to use a "trial -and -
error" system on several sizes believed adequate. The final selection is
normally made on the basis of the original channel dimensions: Thus,
if a 2 foot (0.610 m) flume can accommodate the dischargewithout
overrunning the upstream channel banks or flooding other outlets and
facilities, it would be preferred over a 3 or 4 foot (0.914 or 1.22 m)
flume. However, when the width of the channel:is considered, it may
be just as economical to use a 3 or 4 foot flume because longer and
more costly wingwalls may be needed to span the channel when using
the narrower flume. Reference [5] contains an excellent discussion of
the flume size selection process.
Wheninstalling a Parshall flume, particularly in the very small
sizes, the crest should be used as 'an index. Careful leveling is necessary
in both longitudinal and transverse directions if standard discharge
tables are to be used. The flume should be set on a solid foundation to
prevent settlement or heaving. Collars should be attached to the
upstream and/or downstream flanges of the flume, and should extend
well out into the channel banks and invert to prevent flow from
bypassing the structure and eroding the foundation.
To assure accurate discharge measurement, the approach `.flow con
ditions should be considered. The approaching flow should enter the
converging section reasonably well distributed across the entrance
width, and flowlines should be essentially parallel to the flume center-
line. Surges and waves of any appreciable size should be eliminated.
Also, the flow at the flume entrance should be free of "white" water I�r
and free from turbulence in the form of visible surface boils.
Experience has shown that Parshall flumes should not be placed at
right angles to flowing streams unless the flowis effectively straight-
ened and uniformly redistributed before it enters the flume.
Although Parshall flumes are usually self-cleaning, large rocks and
other debris in the flow may cause problems. Kilpatrick [1] notes
that, "... its use on flashy, cobble -strewn streams has been relatively
unsuccessful."
Flumes • 73
•
et,