NC0004260_Wasteload Allocation_19820527

NPDES DOCUHENT :SCANNING COVER SHEET
Permit:
NC0004260
NPDES
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
(Wasteload
Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Complete File
- Historical
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
May 27, 1982
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reverse �eeide

Facility Name:
Existing
Proposed
IZt
I
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
#LN°
Date• 3-l.'-2
Permit No.: NC- IOC/4 4.24 0 Pipe No.: CEO / County:
Design Capacity (MGD) : Of 1 t/ r`r Industrial (% of Flow) - 90 Domestic-(% of Flow) : /C7
Receiving Stream: ciNt�r Class: C._ Sub -Basin: O 3 - l) Sr — trir .3 %
RI
_
i�eieia„�c USGS Quad•��. !�- Al (Please attach) Requestor•r�p -�n/'�� Regional Office
.44Ao
(/
(Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.)
Design Temp.: G Drainage Area:
3 q- ; 2--
7Q10: _ ) , 7 `T" Winter 7Q10: r"'
Location of D.O.minimum (miles below outfall) : D . 3 ,,rr�� /
Velocity (fps): 0 . 3 K1 (base e, per day, 20°C): C. Cs
C.,
0
aw
a—
Avg. Streamflow: `--
30Q2 • / 6.4' S
Slope -
K2 (base e, per day, 20°C)•
Effluent
ICharacteristics
Monthly
Average.__
Comments
Original Allocation
Revised Allocation
ypared By:
r ! j
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
Comments
yGO1 c!
!od i'r'"! O1�
!!JJ Y
Date(s) of Recision s)
(Please attach previous allocation)
Reviewed By: � Date: V / 742-

For Appropriate Dischargers, List Complete Guideline Limitations Below
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly Aveha e_
Co . Lhanti
-t. cC 11
C0 t,
/ :1ak;v/nve.-:
nd i N
Comments
y�
O��
.37
tit/do, .
ss #
.S .,ty
B PT
Lj
/'ire r-r,r C c) (; )yr✓►4-
/DDB/mo►tf,
/
Roo o/ooi.4
'
k) '
T S S
3o,M� fit.3710n
ststi
SS. 4,,.y
B 1 T
1 ykl F-f —4)
/q /,L
/7. 3 #
j/Q
aI cl p
5:7 �a//
B PT
.
7`�s.a.
%
APT
in,'/
rn
Ia.3#d"
Wrist
le, sra
'VT
`7rPa.s�
fos
q
o.a`L Q
o..S /4
oe
m.�s-
A(
rs a v?►cffe—
o, Ioye+41_,Q
o.la l
O.lo0�0
o,/a I'
/P7
Pr
�
O.I
o.10#IA
j'T
(! rv- O pi
a,y#/
o. Bs ay
per
--/-ft-unspkwircir
I. .4
c.oelyy
,lpg-
,c),iistA,s(J;
Type of Product Produced
Lbs/Day Produced
Effluent Guideline Reference

F 4001
4-id
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name: Garlock, Inc., Precision Seal
County: Gaston Sub -basin:
Regional Office: MRO Requestor:
03-08-37
Larry Coble
Type of Wastewater: Industrial 90
Domestic 10
If industrial, specify type(s) of industry: zinc phosphatizing, chrome plating
Receiving stream: Crowders Creek
Class:
Other stream(s) affected: Class:
7Q10 flow at point of discharge: 2.6 cfs
30Q2 flow at point of discharge:
Natural stream drainage area at discharge point:
Qw = 0.148 MGD
BOD5
Fecal Coli
TSS
NH3-N
pH
Oil & Grease
Phenols
Cyanide
Tot. Chrom.
Copper
Iron
Phosphorus
Zinc
Recommended Effluent Limitations
Daily Avg.
Conc.
Load
Daily Max.
Conc. Load
1000/100m1
30 mg/1
14 mg/1
6-9 SU
10 mg/1
0.20 mg/1
0.10 mg/1
37 #/day
37 #/day
17.3 #/day
12.3 #/day
0.25 #/day
0.12 #/day
0.22 #/day
0.22 #/day
0.44 #/day
0.44 #/day
0.22 #/day
2000/100 ml
45 mg/1
21 mg/1
15 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
0.lomg/1
55.5 #/day
55.5#/day
25.9#/day
18.5 #/day
0.25 #/day
0.12 #/day
0.44 #/day
0.44 #/day
0.88#/day
0.88 #/day
0.44 #/day
This allocation is:
Recommended and
Head, Techncial Services
Reviewed by:
Regional Supervisor
Permits Manager
Approved by:
Division Director
/ /
/x*
reviewed by:
Branch 4/ LaliCekri'
for a proposed facility
for a new (existing) facility
a revision of existing limitations
BPT
WQ
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BOD5 in #/day only
a confirmation of existing limitations
Date: ?V2_.
/`,-
Date: 5/25�1 g2
s / 60c2
Date: / /

tri vtc •
G-a.-v' /o c-k_ ems r 1 u.c s kb( tet,� 7 s'ferc7' t(e
L►tiod SLRit3;/61T$e
Pni-Ae-Acte---4-1-
r7.44A-61S CT 1 D 149 f »4
L'_ Cryt. c e-K-1C..4,1.`ek, (.s e e
6_
viee eG-eLr'/ock i`s
Q
r
1
` c e n_ a -7t.
ea— _ a t9Q o
rese. H `7�10 7
1 l //0 freza .-4____L_o»'t_
"""A(Jd ��SSPkyt er Cr ly
' • ♦ f
J © W
J_
.Boar ez-vtd_NK_-�
/12o/el,.
- A._h_ % , r AM7- igesseteo C;9/ Aide
s 13 Ps s
0 ,t4.6.40
Cgop Z/ !(o, s
B 6. = 22E /UR C2LZ = / f
vT S"
nn nn--II f / /
ct.- y11 £ wLo �Ce�_CJ L-�-b o ve_. 6ct v- (D c � rL1 ---
D d �1 r �t C /RI " o / f Al cit_' 7- 32) Os

-
&Om_ resetz r vv►;'f /1%1-14;
--
p
DD.- .. 3 111ay
,3 _? --.
1V113 Iv- ' 7.3 41/dd/
a71-
sr -A, o0o Pa
c%
f6 - : 3 9. f.
Q S
S (-civil kJ r C_BoD = a X fid.Ds-
/t1e 3 0,P .------ y, cs- x Mi./3 A4 .
c moo- r7e.y-
No D -= 174. 3
4 here.
i5 po D, d, /,'•4;

C 6 faaci.i o& c
- -1a-le � r c L s `
c..J
Dig & Gar (ocI` =
37—; 2
F
r O wL 0 2, 1 items, G 7 .5"S" 30 Q z= _i' c-Fs w; '4 4.
4-DR
64 is; 3ccia'2r Leice= o. 333 c-�s 44 2
y
30
CO-- &4- Gar tdcicr: 42,5_2_ C--Fs ) C
--0,/lig.
=
O, z.3 c_-�5
C
a,,►
Y
®t 7.z AO
1
, 00 Z .y-/jf ,e g r<--/
/-
To *, ` Yl r(1_F_ _
t3 0 (,Lt..t.d - 0, /
__
fc9.2-3) (0.1---2)
3 ol;
: 0.06
V'O k % Za_f r` t •
, = LAI 7-0
____sl
0,36 Z Dlc

********** MODEL RESULTS **********
DISCHARGER :GARLOCK INC. PRECISION SEAL
RECEIVING STREA
:CROWDERS CR.
**********************************************************************
THE END D.O. IS 6.05 MG/L
**********************************************************************
THE END CLOD IS
***************
THE END NBOD IS
***************
THE U.O. MIN. 0
THIS MINIMUM IS
WHICH IS LOCATE
THE WLA FOR SEG
THE WLA FOR SEG
THE REQUIRED EF
THE WASTEFLOW E
***************
2.96 MG/L
******************************************************
5.49 MG/L
******************************************************
SEGMENT 1 IS 5.33 MG/L
LOCATED AT SEGMENT MILEPOINT 0.3
IN REACH NUMBER 1
ENT 1 REACH 1 IS 170.4 MG/L OF CBOD
ENT 1 REACH 1 IS 179.3 MG/L OF NBOD
LUENT D.O. IS 0 MG/L
TERING SEG 1 REACH 1 IS 0.052 MGD
******************************************************

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***.
DISCHARGER : GARLOCK,INC. PRECISION SEAEUBBASIN : 03-08-37
RECEIVING STREAM . CROWDERS CR. STREAM CLASS: C
7010 : 2.6 CFS WINTER 7010 : - CFS
DESIGN TEMPERATURE : 24 DEGREES C, WASTEFLOW : 0.148 MGD
ILENGTHISLOPE 1 VELOCITY IDEPTH 1 K1 I Kr I Kn I K2 10ra 1
(MILES IFT/MI I FPS I FT 1 /DAY 1/DAY I/DAY 1/DAY ICFS/MII
I I I I I I I I I
SEGMENT 1 I 3.801 25 .01 0.30 I 1 0.72 10.72 10.37 12.02 1 0.60 I
REACH 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
ALL RATES ARE AT 24 DEGREES C.
THIS HAS BEEN RERUN TO SEE IF GARLOCK CAN JUST HAVE MODS LIMITED IN
.t/DAY, WHILE GARLOCK DESIGN FLOW IS 0.148 MGD, THEY ARE PRESENTLY
RUNNING AT 0.052 MGD, THE: MODEL WAS RUN AT 0.052 MGD .

Division
MEMORANDUM
of Environmental Management
May 17, 1982
TO: Larry Coble
Mooresville Regional Office
FROM: Mark Lewis , . �-
Monitoring & Technical Services Branch
SUBJECT: Garlock, Inc.
jJ. C. DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURC S AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAY 19 1982
OWN DF Eti'JERO!":;tENTAL V1h INNE I
MOORESVILLE R E ZZVAL OfflCE
In response to Mr. Earl Staley's letter to Rex Gleason of March 9, 1982,
a Level "B" analysis has been completed assessing the water quality impact
of Garlock's request to have their BOD5 limit in pounds per day only. In
his letter, Mr. Staley stated that due to water conservation efforts and
changes in Garlock's economic situation, the present wastewater discharge is
52,000 gpd while Garlock is permitted for 148,000 gpd. Due to lack of
dilution, they are not meeting the BOD5 limit in terms of concentration, but
are remaining within the limit in terms of pounds per day.
For purposes of analysis, Garlock was assumed to be discharging at the
present average rate of 52,000 gpd. With a BOD5 limit of 37 pounds per
day this would correspond to an effluent BOD5 concentration of 85.2 mg/l.
Modeling results indicated that water quality would still be protected under these
conditions.
As there was no request for further permit modification, I am routing an
approval form with BOD5 being limited in pounds per day only and all other
parameters remaining as they are in the existing permit.
Please call if you have any further questions.

Colt Industries
vjV%arch 9, 1982
0
Mr. D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Water Quality Supervisor
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Dear Mr. Gleason:
Garlock Precision Seal
Garlock Inc
4307 South York Road
P. O. Box 1767
Gastonia, North Carolina 28052
704/864-8351
This letter is in reference to the conference that we had at
your office March 2, 1982, concerning our noncompliance with
B.O.D. As we stated at that meeting, our wastewater treat-
ment facility would be able to meet compliance if we were
limited on B.O.D. by pound per day only.
There are several reasons our facility is in noncompliance
at this time, which have nothing to do with operation or
maintenance of the facility. The main problem is that our
facility was not designed to remove B.O.D. specifically.
Attached you will find a copy of the characterization of raw
industrial and sanitary wastewater at the time the plant was
designed. As you can see from these analyses, there seemed
to be no problem with B.O.D. at that time. The B.O.D. limits
of 30 mg./1 average and 45 mg./1 maximum were sufficiently
high; so apparently, the facility was not designed with any
specific B.O.D. removal units except for the activated sludge
package plant which only treats sanitary wastewater.
Although the initial B.O.D. analysis may have not been totally
representative of the waste character, there are other factors
which have caused an increase in the B.O.D. strength of our
industrial wastewater.
One cause of increased strength of our industrial B.O.D. is
lack of dilution. In the past two years, Garlock has made
several efforts to conserve water usage in the industrial pro-
cesses. The greatest decreases in water usage are in the
recycling of chill water in the air conditioning and process
line water cooling systems. Also, less water is used in the
phosphate line process.

Mr.
. Rex Gleason.
-2- March 9, 1982
In addition to these, because of our economic situation, we
have fewer employees and are working shorter hours. This
reducfes water from the sanitary wastewater treatment system,
which has a much lower B.O.D. than the industrial wastewater.
All these factors have reduced our dilution factor by about
50%.
Anot
is o
phos
more
is i
All
a si
er factor contributing to our increased B.O.D. strength
r effort to find a more effective cleaning agent in the
hate system. Because the cleaning systems are removing
drawing oil and compounds, which have high B.O.D.s, this
creasing our B.O.D. strength.
f these factors have contributed to the development of
uation of less wastewater, but with a higher B.O.D.
We h ve tried several possible solutions to this problem
with little or no reduction in B.O.D. We have tried "super
chlorination" with only about a 5% to 10% reduction in B.O.D.
We lye tried increasing the alum dosage as much as three
time , with no reduction of B.O.D. We have tried recycling
the astewater through the system, with no noticeable reduc-
tion of B.O.D. We have tried lowering the pH to 2.5 and
increasing the alum dosage (this is supposed to remove more
emulsified oils) with no B.O.D. reduction.
Pres ntly, we are trying the addition of 50 mg./1 of activated
carb n. Also, we will begin bench tests of B.O.D. reduction
for otassium permangate. At this time we have no conclusive
resu ts. Garlock has and is still trying to find a cost
effe tive method of reducing our B.O.D.
Our resent wastewater discharge is averaging about 52,000
gallons per day. This is only 35% of our permitted discharge
of 148,000 gallons per day. Because of our small discharge flow,
we have not violated the maximum B.O.D. in pounds per day for
our NPDES permit. If Garlock had not tried to conserve water
and were discharging wastewater near our maximum permitted
flow, we would be within our permit limits now on mg./1 and
pounds of B.O.D.
The
the
to
Gar
eff
our
at
wat
wat
net effect is that we are putting less pounds of B.O.D. in
stream than our permit limits; but because we have tried
onserve water and be more efficient, we may be penalized.
ock is requesting that our permit be modified so that our
uent is limited on B.O.D. by the maximum pounds limit of
present permit only. Because there have probably been
east four years since our permit has been reviewed as to
r quality standards, there may be some improvement of the
r quality of Crowders Creek.

Mr. D
Rex Gleason_
-3- March 9, 1982
If thre are any problems in modifying the permit because
of water quality standards, Garlock also requests that
Crowdgrs Creek be remodeled to redetermine the proper waste
load allocation for the facility.
Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated. If you
should need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
,4(
Earl . Staley
Envir•nmental Control Engineer
EGS/b h
Enclo ure

3C RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Industrial and Sanitary Wastewater - Characterization of the
Industrial and Sanitary Wastewater was determined from five (5)
twenty-four (24) hour composite samples_ obtained from the samplinc
manhole downstream of the oil skimmer for the industrial waste -
stream and the package sanitary waste treatment plant. Charac-
terization of this stream is presented below:
CHARACTERIZATION OF RAW INDUSTRIAL AND SANITARY
WASTEWATER
Parameter(a) Average High 40
pH 10.9 11.6 9.0
BO05 14.7 26 5
Total Suspended Solids 145 350 3
Oil and Grease 32.7 680 21
Phenols <0.039 0.152 <0.01
NH3 as N 2.88 3.7 0.22
Phosphorus, Total 8.19 17.8 0.95
Chromium, Total <0.01 0.01 <0.01
Copper <0.023 <0.04 <0.01
Iron 14.3 51 <0.02
Zinc 11.3 32.5 0.077
Cyanide, Total <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
(a) All parameters have units of mg/1 except pH (unitless).
2922-4-2 3C-1