The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0000353_Waste Load Allocation_19850224 F Engineer Date Rec. # NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION I T.') .,/.2FF/B3` , off • Date 25 �./ 2 / /� , . NFacility Name: , 4 d ri;L./siif, L<zi , Existing 0 ProposedO Permit Nb. : iV L O O D c 3 r 3 Pipe Nb. : 0.° / County: 1A-7/ 7 G // ; Design Capacity (MGD) : 3�, Industrial (% of Flow) : / DOA' Domestic (% of Flow) : t5 Receiving Stream: Non,/4 7 Rr,.,‘--- Class: C- TK Sub-Basin:1. _ 1 .0f5 g O G Di-o3-44 to .L)G (Please attach) R estor: / < 'SRN Regional Office /4'e� Reference L1SCxS Quad: �N1. M (Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form. ) Design Tamp.: Drainage Area (mi2) : 12 Avg. Streamflow (cfs) : ?.46 7Q10 (cfs) 113 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 5'3.-- 30Q2 (cfs) Location of D.O. minimum (miles below outfall) : Slope (fpm) Velocity (fps): K1 (base e, per day) : K2 (base e. per day) :, .. > i-8,, a Effluent t �'3nthl Effluent Nbnthly�6�,( y rrSS Characteristics Average w Comments Characteristics average Comments g -r (*ib) iv.s.4/v11 .$ , H -ill,r•s., (a1�) r /{ 4t ' 4.1A7.4.1.12 . s- �.� - k L(.�. A L. a) co. 4u- 4--wi. lilit.. w.»�.�j ,a 'fa atAx4 40 o "-0_ -174 -t��.e. �-w. .P�frr l0 �!i V re.c K c e..dG Z.e+.. it Origi - Alldcati ,O Comments: l e.",'c. ti.,. S AA-r....4......-4..... - .e-r...✓....•.... •--4C its.....-- - /-7/.-.-.,4 Of Revis-.• Al atioh Conf.. - 1' 0 Pre - By: �ji r. cx- -.4i Reviewed By: 7,..-S /;14Date: ijA/ PLOTTED For Appropriate .Dischargers, List Complete Guideline limitations Below Effluent lbnttriy Maximum Daily Characteristics AverageComments T oS i r 6 d' �''� Y=177:71 _ AD 4 P T Ave rie RV?.FILWt-ic1<5 ?• / S`r8 • — wi?h sr 7'a i1. to /oTT� w dT-m# /o .7-10w p — /G c — /a Type of Product Produced Lbs/Day Produced Effluent Guideline Reference aie` r , c , . . . Request No . : 2105 .. 1 --------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM RECEIVED Water Qua lit), Division Facility Name : FELDSPAR CORP OCT 29 1986 Type of Waste : FELDSPAR MINING Status : EXISTING Witstern ? A4Offica Receiving Stream : NORTH TOE RIVER eribevillo, Nor* OMANI Stream Class : C--TR Subbasin : 0110306 County : MITCHELL Drainage Area (sq mi ) : 126 Regional Office : ASHEVILLE Summer 7Q10 (cfs) : 43 Requestor : DOUG FINAN Winter 7Q10 (cfs) : 55 Date of Request : 2/21/85 Average Flow (cfs) : 260 Quad : C11SW 30Q2 (cfs) : ------------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS : DA AVG DA MAX 0 talg) Wasteflow (mgd) : 3.50 A. 00 5-Day BOD (mg/1 ) : Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1 ) : Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1 ) : TSS (4/13 ) : 1568 3137 Fecal Coliform (*/100m1 ) : pH (SU) : 6-9 -- - -- COMMENTS THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT CAUSE THE TURBIDITY OF THE RECEIVING WATERS TO EXCEED 10 NTU. IF THE TURBIDITY EXCEEDS 10 NTU DUE TO NATURAL CONDITIONS , THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN TURBIDITY . TOXICITY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND FLUORIDE WASTELOAD ALLOCATION ATTACHED. [3..1? Recommended by _ .- (1.1....(2.1_ l''' Date _W [ZW&L. P- Reviewed by : Tech . Support Supervisor ...... ...... Alf461.----- Date __Ide2thre, 1, • I) 4IF Regional Sul,1 . sor ...._41 %.= (1-Thc:),-A-,,.N. Date _ NSagr ( Permits & Engineering __ _ ...... __ Date _ • 1.) The permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity teats on a quarterly basis using protocols defined in E.P.A. Document 600/4-85/014 entitled "Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms". The testing shall be performed as a Ceriodaphnia Survival and Repro- duction Test. Effluent collection will be performed twice during each test as 24 hour composite samples. Toxicity test exposure using the first composite sample will include the first three full days of testing. Exposure to the second composite sample will in- clude the last four full days of testing. Effluent samples will be taken immediately prior to disinfection, but below all other treatment processes. The Chronic Value (ChV) must be greater than 1LZ. There will be minimally five effluent concentrations and a control exposure treatment. One effluent concentration shall equal 11 %, which represents the instream waste concentration (I.W.C.) during 7Q10 low flow conditions and daily permitted disc arge volume. The remaining concentrations shall be 3.16-.5")- ,Z2 p 4.? % There may not be more than 20% mortality in of least 8%I ffluent after 48 hours of exposure. n5t Note: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified ina:the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will re- quire immediate retesting. Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute a permit violation. Olt CV)6 g I'AC' i .. .-. .... _.-. .. ._ .- .. 'h..-.... .... .. .. __r_.. .....e. Ana . • • -5- fluoride processes (fluoride interference with other ore processing activities) . Therefore, while the waste handling demands for pure quartz are -higher than for feldspar, that demand is likely to be lower than indicated by HF use information. Another factor available • that points to this conclusion is that IMC which has the only operat- ing high purity quartz system, also has the lowest mass discharge of three facilities. It is true, however, that IMC' s wastewater control system represents what the Regional Office considers the standard for the industry. What these points show is that there are technologies which can, when applied with a strong management commitment, effec- tively reduce the quantity of fluoride released to the receiving waters. The final issue that must be discussed in recommending a weight- ing factor, is certainly equal to those just noted: i.e. ,the real world impact of the facilities receiving the allocations. In this matter we are dealing with four separate industrial corporations involved (or soon to be involved) as competitors in the same busi- ness, all located in the same general area, and all sharing a common riparian resource. Real and perceived conflicts make negotiating very difficult. Add to this a common view from all the companies that the fluoride standard is too restrictive and the recent emer- gence of the fourth competitor and you have a sensitive environment in which existing allocations must be reduced. The only way to examine this aspect of the allocation process is to calculate fluo- ride distributions for a variety of weighting factors. In doing so it will be necessary to provide the distributions- over the entire range of near term configurations: Configuration I - Unimin Corporation not producing feldspar or quartz. The Feldspar Corporation operating without the planned high purity quartz facility, Indusmin at current feldspar production, and IMC producing feldspar and high purity quartz at current levels. Configuration II - Unimin Corporation not producing feldspar or quartz, The Feldspar Corporation operating with the high purity quartz facility and Indusmin, Inc. and IMC as described in I. Configuration III - Unimin Corporation producing feldspar and quartz, and other three companies as described in I. Configuration IV - Unimin Corporation as in III, The Feldspar Corporation producing high purity quartz and the other two companies as described in I. -6- Configuration V - Unimin Corporation as in III, The Feldspar Corporation and Indusmin, Inc. producing high purity quartz and IMC as described in I. Configuration VI - The Feldspar Corporation, IMC, Indusmin, Inc. and Unimin Corporation as described in V and Indusmin, Inc. with a 50% expansion of the feldspar plant. The process in developing a specific allocation can be described as follows: A. Calculate an allocation factor (Af) for each facility within a specific configuration: Af = F + Wf xQ where: Af = Allocation factor, F = Finished feldspar in tons per month (information supplied by the company) , Wf = Weighting factor for quartz production, Q = Finished high purity quartz, tons/mo. B. Project a percentage share (PS) of available fluoride for each facility under each configuration. PS = Af x 100 SUM Af where: SUM Af = sum of all four Af' s for a particular configuration. C. Calculate the specific fluoride allocation (A-lbs/day) for each company. A = PSxAW 100 where: AW = Available wasteload to North Toe River = 574 lbs/day. • .4 . • Request No. : 2105 WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM --ItECETVED Water Quality Divider Facility Name : FELDSPAR CORP. Type of Waste : FELDSPAR MINING MAY 15 1986 Status : EXISTING Receiving Stream : NORTH TOE RIVER Western rt +onal Offtcg Stream Class : C-TR Asheville, North Caroline Subbasin : 040306 County : MITCHELL Drainage Area (sq mi ) : 1247 Regional Office : ARO 7010 (cfs) : 4/ Requestor : DOUG FINAN Winter 7010 (cfs) : 55 Date of Request : 2/21/85 3002 (cfs) Quad : C11SW Average Flow (cfs) : 260 RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS Aeote Wastef l ow (mgd) 5-Day BOD (mg/1 ) Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1 ) : Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1 ) : ,- � ' .'' TSS (+ *tj) : 3136.8 Fecal Coliform (#/100m1 ) : (5A7,110 6144-0) pH (SU) : 6-9 Fluoride (#/d) : 218 ----- COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MEMO. THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT CAUSE THE TURBIDITY OF THE RECEIVING WATERS TO EXCEED 10 NTU. IF THE TURBIDITY EXCEEDS 10 NTU DUE TO NATURAL CONDITIONS, THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN TURBIDITY. FLUORIDE LIMITS BASED ON 7010 AND BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION=0.05 MG/L. TSS LIMITS PER CURRENT PERMIT. TOXICITY LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ALSO ATTACHED. Recommended by r,�. �. Cata0 Date_S 1\1 g6_ Reviewed by: Tech. Support Supervisor 7A4g(ADate J112/e& Regional , sor____ C9�. ,�, Date__ 6 _r, �t T Permits & Engineering___ /+� Date_ 114/&_._ • • • DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT May 12, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Arthur Mouberry Forrest Westall FROM: Randy Dodd QLL) THRU: Meg Kerr 111K SUBJECT: Effluent Limitations for Feldspar Mines, North Toe River Please find attached proposed effluent limits for three Feldspar mines which discharge to the North Toe River. TSS limits are based on current permits. Please note that allowable loadings and concentrations are considerably above current discharge levels. Fluoride loadings are based on an allowable loading of 574 #/D based on a 7Q10 of 45 cfs at the mouth of Little Bear Creek, the current standard of 1.8 mg/1 , 0.05 mg/1 background fluoride concentrations, and the previously defined allocation among the three dischargers. Please note that a permitted discharge by IMC Corp. to Little Bear Creek will require a fluoride limit of 67.7 #/D, based on a 7Q10 of 0.3 cfs. Please note that an additional loading of 506.3 #/D could be allocated to Feldspar and Indusmin if 67.7 #/D were allocated to IMC. Toxicity limits and monitoring requirements have also been developed for each discharger based on the instream waste concentration and recently developed Division protocol. Please advise if questions. RCD:mlt Attachment Request No. : 2105 WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM Facility Name INDUS MIN CORP. Type of Waste : FELDSPAR MINING Status : EXISTING Receiving Stream : NORTH TOE RIVER Stream Class : C-TR Subbasin : 040306 County : MITCHELL Drainage Area (sq mi ) : 133 Regional Office : ARO 7Q10 (cfs) : 44 Requestor : DOUG FINAN Winter 7010 (cfs) : 55 Date of Request : 2/14/85 30Q2 (cfs) Quad : C11SW Average Flow (cfs) : 264 RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS Wasteflow (mgd) : 2.02 5-Day BOD (mg/1 ) . Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1 ) : Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1 ) : TSS (#/D) : 1237.6 2479.2 Fecal Coliform (#/100m1 ) : 13 144, pH (SU) : 6-9 Fluoride (#/d) : 172 COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MEMO. THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT CAUSE THE TURBIDITY OF THE RECEIVING WATERS TO EXCEED 10 NTU. IF THE TURBIDITY EXCEEDS 10 NTU DUE TO NATURAL CONDITIONS, THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN TURBIDITY. FLUORIDE LIMITS BASED ON 7010 AND BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION=0.05 MG/L. TSS LIMITS PER CURRENT PERMIT. TOXICITY LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ALSO ATTACHED. Recommended by Date -115 Reviewed by: Tech. Support Supervisor Date Regional Supervisor Date Permits & Engineering Date