NC0034860_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018 (6)

N.C. DEFT. OF
ENVIRONMENT. HEALTIV;
NATURAL RESOURCL1
DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NCO034860
INTRODUCTION
APR 26 2001
M1{SIOO OF IRVIRONOTAI MANAGE@E11
PORENIIIf jWNAI OF
Schneider Mills, Inc. (also herein referred to as Schneider Mills or the permittee) requires a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to dispose treated wastewater to the surface
waters of the state. The permittee's 5-year NPDES permit has expired and they have requested
renewal from the Division•of Water Quality (the Division). This Fact Sheet summarizes background
information and rationale used by the Division's NPDES Unit to determine permit limits and
conditions. This document also contains references to information sources relevant to this permit
renewal (superscripted numbers in order of appearance, See References).
FACILITY RECORDS REVIEW
Facility Description. Schneider Mills (Table 1) is a synthetic textile weaving facility discharging
process -contact wastes and non -process wastes through two separate outfalls. Influent to -the onsite
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) includes waste from "water jet weavers" (roughly 85%) and
fiber coating or "sizing" waste (about 15 %). Sanitary sewer (-1,200 gallon per day) comprises only
0.03 % of the WWTP influent and is judged insignificant. The WWTP discharges through Outfall 001
with a permitted flow of 0.780 MGD. Actual discharge averages 0.340 MGD (based on two years of
data) or about 44% permitted capacity. Non -contact wastewater (Outfall 002; flow not limited)
includes air-conditioning condensate, boiler blowdown, WWTP filter backwash, and stormwater.l'2
Table 1. Schneider Mills, Inc.
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name
Schneider Mills, Inc.
Applicant.Address
P.O. Box 519, Taylorsville, North Carolina 28610
.Facility Address4L1170
Hwy 16 North
.Permitted Flow (MGD) '.1
0.780 (Outfall 001); Outfall 002 not limited
Type of Waste
Industrial process wastewater. Primary SIC Codes 2221; 4941
WW Code Prim. 55, 21, 02; Treatment Unit Code 02003
Facility/Permit Status 1,2,4
Class II, Minor / Renewal
Drainage Basin / Coun
Catawba Basin / Alexander County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream '2,4Muddy
Fork Creek
Regional. Office
Mooresville
Stream Classification
C
State Grid / .
USGS To o Quad
D 14 NW /
Ta lorsville, NC
'303(d) Listed?
Not listed
.Permit Writer
Joe R. Co oron
.Subbasin 5
03-08-32
Date:
09Jan01
Drainage Areas . mi.)7
8.0
,
x�
Lat. 350 56' 10" Long. 81° 11' 29"
Lat. 350 56' 11" Long. 81° 11' 29"
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)3,71.4
Winter 7Q10 (cfs) '
'2.2
30Q2 (cfs) '
3.0
Average Flow (cfs)
8.8'
IWC (%)
46%
Fact Shcet
Renewal -- \I D S Permit. NC'00; -l800

Schneider Mills has been in business in North Carolina since 1951. At this'location Division records
date from 1972. The current permit expired on June 30, 2000 and the Division received
documentation to renew (Short Form C) on April 14, 2000. 1,4
Waste Load Allocation (WLA). The Division prepared the last WLA in April 1995 and developed
effluent limits and monitoring considering an in -stream waste concentration (IWC) of 46 % and an
average production level of 50,000.pounds of product per day.7
Verifying Existing Stream Conditions. This facility discharges to Muddy Fork Creek, a Class C
stream within the Catawba River Basin.5 Muddy Fork Creek is not "impaired" [not 303(d) listed], and
is rated in "Good to Fair" condition.5'6
CORRESPONDENCE
Staff Report. Mooresville- Regional Office (MRO) prepared a Staff Report dated November 2, 2000.
The MRO staff found the facility "...in good operational condition..." and noted that there are no
system modifications requested in the permit renewal, nor have any occurred since the permit was last
reissued. The MRO further stated that the WWTP appeared adequate to meet existing effluent limits.
They confirmed that Outfall 001 discharges treated, locally derived domestic wastewater and
industrial wastewater generated by water jet looms and sizing (fiber coating) operations. Non -contact
cooling water, boiler blow down, and WWTP filter backwash are discharged through Outfall 002.
Pending a final technical review, the MRO recommended that the NPDES Unit renew this permit.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Notices of Violation (NOVs). The Division has issued several NOVs within the last two years for
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) test failure beginning in December 1999 extending through March
2000.
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test. Quarterly monitoring results for chronic WET
testing indicate "pass" for 15 quarters beginning in 1996. However, failures occurred for four months
beginning in December 1999, recovering in April, then passing through December 2000:9,10
Dec '99
Fail
Jan '00
Fail @28.2
Feb '00
NR/Fail @<23
Mar '00
Fail
Apr '00
Pass @56.34
May '00
Pass @>90
June '00
Pass
Sep '00
Pass
Dec '00
Pass
Pact Sheet
ReneNNal --NI DCS NCO034860
Pate 2

F.-PPOV,
The Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) conjectured that related cold weather disrupted the bio-
processes requiring a recovery period," but the reason for the temporary failures has not been
established. Considering the recent five passes in the last nine months and the previously clean record
for four years, the Division does not recommend altering chronic WET Test compliance and
reporting.
PERMITTING APPROACH
The Division judges previous permit limits and monitoring requirements to be appropriate for renewal
considering recent data supplied by the permittee indicating similar product use averaging about
52,000 pounds per day (lbs./day) over two years (1999 and 2000).1,8 Limits for parameters regulated
under 40CFR 410.30 and 410.40 have been verified. Although renewal calculations suggest less
stringent limits for some parameters, the permittee's compliance with existing limits .is well
documented and the Division is bound under 40CFR 303(d); 402(c); and 122.44(1) not to "backslide"
permit limits.
Further consideration of required compliance under 40CFR 410.43(a), induced mandatory parameters
not previously permitted. These will be added to the permit for this cycle. New parameters include
sulfide, phenols, and total chromium (Table 2). Based on data provide by the permittee, limit
calculations assume 52,000 lbs./day as the average production rate with an anticipated daily
maximum of 85,000 lbs./day.. Parameters required under 40CFR are summarized in Table 3.
Table 2. Parameter Limits Calculation
40CFR
410.42 (a)
Monthly
Average
40CFR
410.42 (a)
Daily
Maximum
per 1000 lbs.
Per 1000 lbs.
Sulfide
0.1
x 52
5.1 lbs./day
0.2
x 85
17.0 lbs./day
Phenols
0.05
x 52
2.51bs./day
0.1
x 85•
8.5 lbs./day
Total Chromium
0.05
x 52
2.5 lbs./day
0.1
x 85
8.5 lbs./day
Table 3. . Applicable 40CFR Permit Limits Summary
Monthly Average
Daily Maximum
BOD, 5-day
230 lbs./day
35.4 m
445 lbs./day
68.4 m L
COD
685 lbs./day
1065 lbs./da
TSS
125 lbs./day
275 lbs./da
Sulfide
5.1 lbs./day
17.0 lbs./da
Phenols
2.5 lbs;/day
8.5 lbs./day
Total Chromium
2.5 lbs./day
8.5 lbs./day
Pact Sheet
Rencwal--NI?DLS N00034860
Ilaec 3

Further Consideration of Total Chromium. Technology -based calculations for chromium
(40CFR) were compared to the acute and chronic NC State Standards (Chronic = 50 µg/L; Acute =
1022 µg/L).to evaluate which are more stringent. Considering dilution (IWC 46 %):
Chronic Chromium — Weekly Average
50 IA = 109 µg/L
0.46
compared to: 2.5 lbs/day = 0.780 MGD (permitted flow) x 8.34 x 1 mg/L
0.384 mg/L or 384 µg/L
Therefore: because 109 µg/L is less than 384 µg/L and therefore more environmentally
conservative, 109 µg/L will be implemented to protect acute affects as a Weekly
Average. I
Acute Chromium -- Daily Maximum
1,022 µg/L = 2,221 µg/L
0.46
compared to: 8.5 lbs/day = 0.780 MGD (permitted flow) x 8.34 x 1 mg/L
1.307 mg/L or 1,307 µg/L
1,307 µg/L is less than 2,221 µg/L and therefore more environmentally conservative.
However, with a Weekly Average of 109 µg/L, a Daily Maximum of 1,307 µg/L, is
redundant to protect against acute affects. Therefore the Division will not implement
a Daily Maximum.
In -stream and Effluent Data Review.
The Division reviewed 32 months (1998 through September 2000) of Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs).11 Reports appear regular, thorough, and complete. Total discharge of treated wastewater
through Outfall 001 for this time period averaged about 0.340 MGD or 43% of permitted capacity.
Domestic waste (1,200 gallons per day) was determined to be <1% of the influent to the WWTP,
based on 250 employees each using an average of 50 gallons per day.
Effluent COD, TSR, and BODs. Effluent BOD5 monthly averages during the year 2000 ranged from
a minimum of 5.7 lbs./day to a maximum of about 45 lbs./day, with a daily maximum peak for the
year at 133 lbs./day occurring on May 3. All BOD5 values are in compliance with the permit (limit
230 lbs./day). Similarly, TSR and COD monthly average concentrations are half to one tenth of
permit limits. It appears therefore that this facility has little problem meeting permit limits, and there
does not appear to be a correlation between BOD5 and WET test failure.
Fact Sheet.
Renc«wal -- NPDES NC00 ",1860
11aae 4

Instream Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature and BOD5. Instream dissolved oxygen (DO) and
temperature data appear reasonable -and seasonally appropriate. All DO values are well above and
consistently compliant with the Stream Standard minimum of 5 mg/L.11 Year 1999 instream BOD5
monthly averages were reported regularly below detection (<2 mg/L). Monthly averages when
detected ranged about 3 mg/L with a maximum of 6 mg/L reported in August of 1999. Year 2000
BOD5 monthly averages, fell below detection (<2 mg/L) with the exception of April when upstream
averaged 4.5 mg/L (max 9 mg/L), and downstream averaged 10.5 mg/L (max. 21 mg/L).11
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA).
The.Division conducted EPA -recommended RPA analyses on 32 months of data to determine the
"reasonable potential" for identified toxicants to exceed Water Quality Stream Standards. The
Division compiled five parameters of concern listed in the previous permit: cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb),
mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), and zinc (Zn) 4,11 Results suggest no "reasonable potential' for
cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, or zinc to exceed Water Quality Stream Standards. Therefore, these
parameters will be deleted from the permit.
Lastly; data:suggest "reasonable -potential-'-for-silver, .based -on -two -sample- hits --during_ February .and-
Qctober-of 4997.-Considering-that-there-are-subsequently-three-years-of-non-detects-(12-samples),-the
Division will considerthe permittee's request to discontinue quarterly_ sampling after one_year-from -
the effective date; if silver is not detected -during that -time period_For now --silver will -remain .in -the
permit.:?
SUMMARY OF PERMITTING APPROACH
For technology -based effluent Limits for BOD5, COD, and TSR (Outfall 001)
Recommended Changes: NONE
Recommended Additions: Sulfide, Phenols, and Total Chromium with limits [40CFR 410.42(a)
— Chromium limits modified considering NC State Standards];
2/month monitoring for toxicants per Class II facility.
Recommended Deletions: Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Lead, and Zinc (based on NO reasonable
potential)
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: May 2, 2001.
Permit Scheduled to Issue: June 25, 2001
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Joe Corporon at [phone] ext. 597.
NAME: DATE:
Fact ShceL
Renewal -- NPDES N00034960
1'a2e

REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
(3 57,
� Ts2
NAME: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR: /-D, // `, DATE:
Pact Sheet
Renex%al--NPDES NCOO_4860
I'aae 7