NC0000175_Wasteload Allocation_19950621

NPDES DOCUHENT ! CANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0000175
Unimin Quartz Operation
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
June 21, 1995
This document is printed on muse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse side

Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
From: Ruth Swanek
Date: Wed, Jun 21, 1995 12:42 PM
Subject: N. Toe fluoride
To: Steve Tedder
cc: Carla Sanderson; Don Safrit; Jackie Nowell
Jackie completed calculations for new facility below confluence of North and South Toe
Rivers. She did allocation in three different ways:
1. Pulled instream data on N. Toe and used average Fl concentration as background. The
resulting background concentration is probably high as dilution from South Toe not
accounted for. Under this scenario, new discharge could get approximately 5201b/day.
2. Used instream data on North Toe and used highest weekly average from data collected in
1994 as background on North Toe portion of flow. Zero concentration was used on South
Toe portion of flow (note link to STORET is down for a while so we could not see if data
available on this trib). Under this scenario, new discharge could get approximately 580
lb/day. (Note: I personally like this approach better than 1).
3. Calculated allowable for all mining facilities on North Toe at the confluence with South
Toe. This allowable was 963 lb/day. The already allocated amount was subtracted out
leaving approximately 3901b/day for the proposed facility.
Method 3 is assuming no decay instream while it is simply accounted for in the upstream
facilities by using actual instream data.
Please let Jackie or me know if you want to discuss these calculations further.

Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
From: Steve Tedder
Date: Tue, Jun 20, 1995 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Fluoride calculations
To: Jackie Nowell
I WOULD PROBABLY USE THE SAME FLOW AS THEIR UNIMIN QUARTZ PLANT
WHICH I BELIEVE IS 3.6MGD AND A FL LIMIT OF 218 LBS
From: Jackie Nowell on Tue, Jun 20, 1995 3:22 PM
Subject: RE: Fluoride calculations
To: Steve Tedder
Do you have a speculative wasteflow (or range of QW) on this facility, or should I use the
0.173 MGD that Unimin- Crystal asked for? I assume that this will be a larger facility?
From: Ruth Swanek on Tue, Jun 20, 1995 2:50 PM
Subject FW: Fluoride calculations
To: Jackie Nowell
Cc: Carla Sanderson
Please begin looking at this issue. If need help, come yell.
From: Steve Tedder on Tue, Jun 20, 1995 2:49 PM
Subject RE: Fluoride calculations
To: Ruth Swanek
Cc: Don Safrit
OK WHAT WOULD BE THE SITUATION IF A FACILITY NEEDED 200 LBS AND
WANTED TO LOCATE JUST BELOW THE CONFLUENCE OF THE NORTH AND THE
SOUTH TOE????? I REALIZE, THIS LOOKS IMPOSSIBLE BUT I NEED THE
ANSWER ANYWAY. THANKS
From: Ruth Swanek on Tue, Jun 13,1995 3:38 PM
Subject: Fluoride calculations
To: Steve Tedder
Cc: Carla Sanderson; Don Safrit; Jackie Nowell
Jackie has been working the fluoride calculations for Unimin There are a number of
different scenarios that can be run depending on what waste flows, stream flow, and
background conditions are assumed. Randy Dodd did current allowable loading back in
1986 and these parameters have changed. Here is a synopsis of results:
At current allowable loading: instream concentrations range from 1.72-1.82 mg/1 (round off
to 1.8)
If add 2001b/day: instream concentrations range from 2.37-2.44 mg/1.
(round off to 2.4)
(Since above scenarios show little change under different assumptions, the assumptions are
probably not significant).

Page 2
Also, Dave Good rich indicated that Forrest was concerned about adding the effluent flow
back in for dilution (our usual SOP) as these facilities withdraw water upstream of discharge
points. Therefore, we examined predicted instream concentrations without this additional
dilution. The results indicate that at current loading, instream concentration will be about 2.3
mg/l, and 3.3 mg/1 with the additional 200 pounds.
If you want to discuss any of the actual scenarios, please contact Jackie or me.

loc, 5.' o ?Av. Cactl,h1 w,n .
0,0s)(49.64) + (0) (3q c ) + (5.5s cF5)( Co) = (O.oz) ( 1.s
War 01,14
53,51 + Q -1- S51 (Cw) _ 162.1
s,sa(CW) = - 53 51
(..J = 79, YG /Q 7/. C
lq Snob -Y1,3Y * 3•6A46.0 S7f c?7,1,
ra)
UNiAJJ.a Q
4'✓•sviz - 3.G it!(,f
ACT I��a - /.73 AlGe
c71'4 l 6. /73 ,{lam
/2,403 ,4lci = it—3 c{j
}
b' Sc 79. S3k/. ff . /4 — (nsXa•)
!t. s-3
u,t1 7 0. / •41/L
(iog..o3.64 - /d z 2f— I Y.f /7 ? _
l9.f3 /9..(3 �/6 �`�
/9.r 3 O
P3H/l.2.ad3
96.Z,8 @/VW e e Lctia,_y I
?az) - 5-7v /L 3a:
4/4.1) 4//d4417.41

9 W = 3.` r ropos Ut 1441/ = ,2l8 #lot
M,10 s ri,(51
o.77 +u`g,
if, S c is -/- ✓r. S9 c. ti)(4 p c )C6. 77 iuy/
5: f cif
8.3Vt3.537 5-22.'#/q'
a00 c -8-3Y 3.a RIG.) _ 466 n.c/L 6•1,f4
3?
/"$2 7' 1 ..01,4t lc ri
8
11-4 ''44; ( rt.5 " -I- /95 1
lq� 181,L
? /7 itij(�
gr,t7 124. Are = 9(03.(0 Old
%3,62 — 5-7� /�. cf, 44- (4' k
�f
,rfl&t.

Faality:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream:
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number:
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Row Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7010 Low Flow Record Station:
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
s7Q10 per Report Equation:
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
3002 per Report Equation:
Drainage Area Ratio:
[ new DA/Daatgage
l
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
To s, 1-21'
gage number not available
03.4635.0000
HA10
59.90 miles squared
173.71 cfs
26.00 cfs
24.00 cfs
51.00 cfs
must be c 400 sq. miles
84.00 sq. miles
1.8 cfs/miles squared
151 cfs
24.64 cfs
36.24 cfs
52.01 cfs
Continue
1.40:1
Continue
0.87 :1
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
84.00 miles squared
1.8 cfs/miles squared
151 cfs
34.88 cfs
34.00 cfs
68.90 cfs

Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream:
Comment(s):
Low Row Record Station Number.
Hydrologic Area Number.
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7010 Low Row Record Station:
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
s7Q10 per Report Equation:
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
30Q2 per Report Equation:
Drainage Area Ratio:
[ new DA/Daatgage ]
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
NORTH TOE RIVER @ LUNDAY
gage number not available
03.4620.0000
HA10
104.00 miles squared
187.20 cfe
34.00 cfs
43.00 cfs
63.00 cfs
must be < 400 sq. miles
272.00 sq. miles
1.8 cfs/miles squared
490 cfs
80.74 cfs
115.97 cfs
168.42 cfs
Continue
2.62 :1
Continue
0.46:1
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7010 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation:
272.00 miles squared
1.8 cfs/miles squared
490 cfs
84.52 cfs
114.35 cfs
166.74 cfs

.r1 /I , 8 3Y Y dY /tW = 6.99 ,e
y� cj6 7pio
vzo �� Grti
t
7/ e u�� = 7 / Jr4/1
AI (prApric,j-Z.
Fu of/'4
9.8 vAtere v u,.l„v ¢-,.-rz o Y. 32
3. 5-
2.0Z
ir/
7/ .� �,e ,3Y 9, 1Y a?t, ; SYZ,7 t
t. 73
8.0 3 M6dJ
ll % �r�F - /77/8.1 7.7z Af
7.72,E d.3y,4483 B,S��
(49L .,.,,, (%N. Al .A) Ci Y.ri 44.. _ 4I,•✓ : 0. / 73 Al 6,0
.1-ti," I -EIA,,5 9f`f r- 0.173 A&e _ /0, 0 / 3 A/W
.23 /' peri4,,J c.- A.,w 6d d/ si /' 28 000 i‘,44.)/
,.mac 60(421 ea„,....r 107 i6s1
!yAi, xGoa 5
?tali kilt= 7.oz,nr/Q. g3Vf /J.Qt3 7 5eN,2-0-4(..
8,�3+ 6.t73 = 7,003M60

>qu� C4 4f �,x, - /fiedL Ord —
4/ — /0 es- 1
— .3
0,.2 —
o,y- /
, 6 - 1
0, , - 1
3,5100 - 0,175 J/e 44"/ 47 (t
/07d rr,p,,r f d. MezJ
/.9/0 - O_//g!:O.it
..40 !o-Iftr,.we0 A16-41,1
/, Z //z = 0.1 Ag/.e
/ �% %✓i.h.nc7� �vtG§� J t o,
•f r
1
0,d�
v d
0.y
0, L
0,7
A-WoeJ:Alt /12_ 2G1,
0.5
0,1d-
p./J� IWJ4,.4 0.07r
z -.v.;&08 Asa

Flu„,� ��f /V4,K
5-7/-.--TZT----tw I
(.z. o z
1ti/7p/O
1V /L
(1)ti (1.12 /1.(�) 74- 9. d'Y 'yGig
/1/1%
L .. l f� -� / 47(C r, o. o ,Z fit
, s:r = / s. ZS
ieS t ��Z (7 ei) 9,,5— o� (�
(6•25)(ZY)
Vs - z, z.s-- - /tf*. z o 4. 446r / * 5737
57.2. ` /I
dm;f //) of rvfZ � f cam( S ci i.a ' C r _ U � �f-1 ✓ `"
Pc-) 3z_ ,q6,0 - G. 7,6
7? W � ff(d - C/tc_k = D. 3
(7)(/,� " 0,0/5-c fs.AJCF — /2. c, —
_ /2, SAS 6-6 . (.Q eie (S. 3 9/
7.!(1-1
JL,i2 741 4,,i ? c
3.3-M6-6 t- ,2,o Z itfri 2 : s 5 2 , gg01 = f S�
`l77„,/,04(c lu4/,rf c-26•„� ( oS� l
(5-3, COO9 — .7-25' j6y<< a.25,
9 (5.3 V, 1 S 7, 5 7,G
Ira �d ,N. 67,1 4/I .s'azs6a% s-7.5 3 MI-() 7
57q #/d 444 Gt 1,4 91i c41, r'iddVf c 7[77 /rAd tN J

f1 77f ,wo( = i 3Y , q," = y, r `417'Q'
•
�Z{
N
774g �3K �` /o,ot3 = Y, 26 �Jd
77y ei =',3V
7 7 to = Z 31(
_ /o.ou/e
to.fift(^4
a jt.¢//2/.1,,, /
U
MG0
2,3q lo.a l3 = 87 Mg
15.3Y - .8 3 = 7,7, 41 /I
i�1(rb

4 " JUN-13-1995 08:22 FROM Asheville RO DEHNR
TO 969197339919
P.01
*.- Ai LW( li
Frenrif )L1, .-iiii.,4./._,
Z10
Phone*
Phone*
Fax*
Fax*
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMEN LIMITS
FOR THE FELDSPAR CORPORATION, INDUSMIN, INC.,
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION
AND UNIMIN, INC.
Discussion
As a result of the reduction of total available fluoride (F1)
allocation wasteload to the river, the addition of another Fl user,
and changes in production figures since allocations were made previ-
ously, the Asheville Regional Office developed a questionnaire on
process activities to be completed by each company discharging F1 to
the North Toe River to assist in a new allocation effort. The
results of that questionnaire will be used to develop individual
allocations of fluoride for each facility. Confidentiality of the
ore production was requested by each company. This information is on
file in the Central Office.
The objective of this process is simple, but the mechanics are
difficult. The Environmental Management Commission has a policy of
providing equivalent allocations to each discharge affecting the same
water quality limited stream 'segment. For a more clearly defined
equivalent allocation example, let us look at BOI . If two dis-
charges to the sage segment are water quality limited (more restric-
tive than. minimum treatment requirements (i.e. secondary for
domestic -type wastes and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
guideline requirements for industrial process wastes); then
allocations are set by equivalent reductions in minimum treatment
requirements. For illustration, say one is domestic and the other
discharge is composed of process industrial wastewater, then the Bob
in the domestic is reduced equivalently from secondary levels and the
process reduced the same percentage frorn'the applicable EPA guideline
allowance until dissolved oxygen standards are complied with.
Equivalent allocations is a concept related to riparian rights.
Typically, riparian issues revolve around water use, however, in
developing wasteload allocations to a common receiving stream,
assimilative capacity is the resource available. Each allocation
must allow that qualified user a rightful share of the resource.
Since the resource is fixed in size, then the agency responsible for
allocation must find some way to distribute the capacity in a manner
that equivalently maintains each user's right. A qualified user in
this respect is the riparian property owner with legal access to the
resource. It is important to recognize that assimilative capacity as
a riparian commodity is not necessarily related to water use from the
stream where a user needs to discharge waste. In fact, because of
the nature of assimilative capacity, its allocation cannot be based
upon the quantity of water used. It would be extremely unfair and
not reflective of relative treatment burden to give a smaller alloca-
tion to a user that for example recycles wastewater in the production
process. The amount of final product produced would be a much better
indicator. This same reasoning must apply when considering that a
TOTAL P.01

JW-12-1995 15: 57 FROM Ashev i 1 l e RO DEHNR
TO 989197339919 P.02
-2-
user's water supply may be relatively independent of the surface
waters where treated wastewater would be discharged (i.e. well, lake
on a tributary, public water system) . Riparian rights are also
considered to be available to all• qualified users (those with legal
access). As as result, property owners that.have not in the past
exercised their right to a particular aspect of riparian resources
such as fluoride assimilative capacity cannot be refused that right
just because they chose not to use it in the past. However, "new
source" discharges have, within the EPA guideline process, been
treated somewhat differently because of treatment technology avail-
ability and the opportunity with new construction to incorporate
current environmental control systems. This provides some basis for
adjusting the allocation for new users but not for denying one. With
the respect to the issue of riparian rights, the allocation process
Presented here will consider a user's right to the resource under
review, that being assimilative capacity.
In the situation under review on the North Toe River, there are
no approved EPA guidelines;• therefore, the beginning basis must be
developed. With the objective of a fair and equitable reallocation
for each user, the factors used to set the allocations must be stable
•and consistent. The factors must not reward poor operation or
inefficient production but, must reflect the burden of removal
accurately. With these criteria it is possible to eliminate several
factors provided in the questionnaires. First, total raw ore feed
tonnage on site is an inappropriate factor to use. Total feed
tonnage does not necessarily reflect a representative comparison of
how much fluoride wastewater will be produced. In addition and
similar in some respects, the feed tonnage to operations using
fluorides is not an appropriate factor because it may improperly give
differing Fl allocations when comparing several operations just due
to process control activities within feldspar or quartz production.
Specifically, if one company can render higher feldspar per ton of
feed to the process, using feed tonnage would therefore cause that
plant to receive a relatively lower allocation of F1 even through
actual finished product could be equal to or greater than the other
plant.
Without question, the factor most appropriate for projecting
fluoride allocations is finished feldspar and quartz products.
Finished product figures are far and away the favored factor in EPA's
guidelines. The basic concept of using production is attractive in
itself. Across a particular manufacturing category there is typic-
ally variation in production techniques, waste treatment technology,
management, market, and many other factors. The company that can
apply the most effective use of raw materials, develop or locate in
good market situations, and effectively comply with federal, and local
laws is going to prosper. By using finished product figures as the
basis for wastewater controls, regulatory agencies are allowing the
other market factors to function freely. It is not the responsi-

' JU'4-12-1995 15:58 FROM Asheville RO DEI+R
TO 989197339919 P.03
bility of environmental agencies to develop controls which adjust
market factors.
The previous discussion clearly illustrates why exact
s
of chemicals used in a process should not be, an allocation factor,
but it is. important to briefly review the use of hydrofloric (HF)
acid in feldspar and high purity quartz production. The use of this
chemical is a critical factor in determining a relative weighting
factor for feldspar verses quartz production.
There is considerable variability in the amount of HF each
company.uses or projects it will use to process quartz. This is a
reflection of two basic factors: 1) variations of process feeds and
2) a lack of actual operating knowledge about the process. The
second factor is certainly an important issue in developing a F1
waste3.oad credit for quartz production. Only IMC is today producing
high purity quartz. Both•Feldspar and Unimin have fairly solid plans
underway to install quartzproduction. Even .considering variability
in production, it is certain that the reliability of the data pro-
vided from a firm already producing a product is higher than that of
a company not producing the same product. In this same respect, the
confidence placed in projections from a company on the verge of
adding the process will be higher than that placed in figures from a
company in the initial stages of developing a quartz production
program. This might be better.il1ustrated by looking at the quartz
data in the following table:
Quartz Production Information
Quartz Feed
Tonnage
Facility tons/mo.
Feldspar
Indusmin
IMC
Unimin
1910
6424
3319
1955
HF solution
Used % Actual HF
gal/mo. In Solution
24000
327000
30135
47500
70
70
70
70
Final Pro-
duction --
Quartz
tons/ma.
1150
4800
2766
1750
Gals.
HF/tons
Quartz
Produced
20.8
68.1.
10.9
27.1
Clearly, both the level of quartz output and the HF needed as
provided by Indusmi.n is out of proportion to the other facilities.
Therefore, those figures should not be used in making a weighting
factor for quartz production.

'JUN-12-1995 15:58 FROM Asheville RO DEHNR
TO 989197339919 P.04
-4-
In producing a final, allocation factor, it is necessary to
weight quartz production higher than feldspar production. Even
though HP' is used in the quartz process to "polish" or increase
quartz purity, HP used per ton of product is much higher for quartz
production than for feldspar -production. Thus, fluoride waste from
the quartz operation will contain higher quantities of Fl, and
therefore, represent a greater treatment burden. To develop the
weighting factor, the feldspar data must be examined:
Feldspar Production Information
Facility
Feldspar
Indusmin
INC
Unitnin
Feldspar Feed
Tonnage
tons/mo.
34233
. 24372 •
22003
8833
Feldspar
HF Used Finished
gal/mo. tons/mo.
2252 21181
2070 17043
3190 10710
1585 5300
Gal HP (70%)
Per Ton
Feldspar
Produced
0.11
0.12
0.30
0.30
Feed Tonnage
to Feldspar
Produced
Ratio
1.6
1.4
2.1,
1.7
currently, only.Unimin is not producing feldspar. However,
because HF used and the feed tonnage to production tonnage ratio is
close to those shown for the• other three companies, the UNIMIN
information will be considered in developing a weighting factor. HF
used per ton produced for feldspar averages 0.23 gal/ton (0..11 to
0.30 range). For quartz production this same factor averages 19.6
gal/ton (range 10.9 to 27.1 excluding the Indusmin information). On
the basis of this comparison and without respect to water use,
significantly more fluoride waste is created for every ton of high
purity quartz produced than is produced for every ton of finished
feldspar. Thus, when dividing the available fluoride wasteload, a
greater amount of fluoride (mass) should be allowed per ton of high
purity quartz than per ton of finished feldspar. •
To decide upon a weighting factor forquartz production, it will
be necessary to examine several, issues. Simply applying the HF use
ratios would result in what may be an excessive weighting factor---
19.6 divided by 0.23 equals 85.2 using the range of HP to quartz
produced ratios, 10.9 to 27.1, and the HF to feldspar produced
ratios, 0.11 to 0.30, a "calculated" weighting factor ranges from 246
to 36. This shows a variation of almost 7 to 1. It is also clear
that some of the waste handling technologies available for dealing
with fluoride wastewater apply to both the feldspar and quartz waste
streams. Recycle of fluoride contaminated water is an option that is
relatively independent to fluoride concentrations, provided that
wastewater containing fluoride is reused only in conjunction with

'JUN-12-1995 15:59 FROM Asheville RO DEHNR
TO 989197339919 P. 05
'-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 HP 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 appliedwith 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 genera, 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
r
in which existing allocations must be educed. 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 INC producing feldspar and high
purity quartz at current levels.
Confi uratioA II - Unimin Corporation not producing feldspar or
quartz, The Feldspar Corporation operating with
the high purity quartz facility and Industnin,
Inc. and IMC as described in I.
Confirmation II - Unimin Corporation producing feldspar and quartz,
and other three companies as described in I.
Configuration IV - Unimin corporation ..— paration as in III, The Feldspar
Corporation producing high purity quartz and the
other two companies as described in 1.

'JUN-12-1995 15;59 FROM Asheville RO UEHNR
TO 989197339919 P.06
Configuration V -
Cohf iguration VI -
-6-
Unimin Corporation as in III, The Feldspar
Corporation and Indusmin, Inc. producing high
purity quartz and IMC as described in I.
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.
B.
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/me.
Project a percentage share (PS) of available fluoride for
each facility under each configuration.
PS=Afx.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 = PS x AW
100
where:
AW = Available wasteload to North Toe River = 574
lbs/day.

'JU -12-1995 16:00 FROM Asheville RO DEHNR
TO 989197339919 P.07
-7-
For comparison purposes the following information is provided:
Facility Fluoride Information
Fl Dis-
charged
Maximum
Fl Current % Of Monthly % Of Most Current % Of
Facility Permit Limits Total 1985-86 Total F1 Allocation Total
Unimin
Feldspar 279.E 38 256 38 218 38
Indusmin 220.3 30 261 39 172 30
/MC 235.0 32 160 23 184 32
All Figures Monthly Average
lbs/day
*Unimin projects 125 # /day

' JUN-12-1995 16:00 FROM Asheville RO I)EHNR TO 989197339919 P.08
Facility
-8w
Fluoride and Quartz Production Summary
Finished Feldspar Finished Quartz
tons/mo. tons/mo.
Unimin 5300 1750
Feldspar 21181 1150
indusmin 17043 (25443*) 500
IMC 10710 2766
*50% expansion at Indusmin.
Comparison Wasteloads Under Configuration I
Facility
W = 1
Ar
PS tu
Unimin 0 0 0
Feldspar 21181. 41 235
Indusmin 17041 33 189
IMC 1347E 26 150
51700 100 574
Wf = 85
Unimin 0 0 0
Feldspar 21181 . 7 40
Indusmin 17043 6 34
IMC 245820 87 500
284 TT 100 574
Wf = 6
Unimin 0 0 0
Feldspar 21181 32 183
Indusmin 17043 26 149
IMC 27306 42 2
ia
65530 100 574

'JUN-12'-1995 16:00 FROM Asheville RO DEHNR
TO 989197339919 P.09
-9-
Comparison Wasteload Under Configuration' IV
wf = 1
Unimin 7050 "1 2 69
Feldspar 22331 37 212
Indusmin 17043 28 161
IMC 13476 23 132
59900 100 -5171
Wf = 6
Unimin 15800 l8 103
Feldspar 28081 32 183
Indusmin 17043 19 109
IMC 27306 31 179
88230 100 574
These five comparison allocation distributions are presented as
illustration of the effects of different weighting factors (Wf) . In
reviewing this issue, the Division of Environmental Management staff
examined distributions over all four configurations with Wf's of 1,
2, 3, 6, 10, and 85. In comparing all these figures with the
Facility Fluoride information table and considering all the issues
disci~.ssed in this report, it was concluded that a Wf of six (6)
represented a reasonable weighting of quartz production fluoride
waste: burden and produces a fair fluoride allocation distribution
that is achievable with existing technologies. ,It is clear from the
cornperisons presented that the range of possible weighting factors
represents, at the low end, an unfair situation to quartz producers
and et the high end an unrealistic disruption in the previous alloca-
tion pattern. A value of six for Wf is something of a middle ground
position, providing each user a piece.of the allocation pie large
enough to permit compliance.
In applying this approach there are some issues which must be
addressed. permits should not be based on projected production
activities, but revisions to the distribution of Fl allowable should
be adjusted when the new process is added (i.e. configuration
shifts). Initially, no high purity quartz production at Feldspar,
Unimin or Indusmin will exist, and the allocation would not change
until these processes came on line. Because Unimin does not now
produce feldspar, no allocation for F3. would apply until such produc-
tion exists. The following'is a table showing allocation with Wf= 6:

' ' JW-12-1995 16: 00 FROM Ashev i 1 l e RO DEFiNR
TO 989197339919 P.10
Facilk
Canfuration 1,
Unimin 0
Feldspar 2;
Indusmin 17
IMC 27306
665T0
Allocations Proposed
AF
0
32
w' x�
42
100
A S (day )
0
183
149
242
574
Configuration 11
Unimin 0 0 0
Feldspar 28082- 39 224
Indusmin 17043 23 132
IMC 27306 32 218
72 31 100 3771
Configuration III
Unimin 15800 19 109
Feldspar 21181 26 149
Indusmin 17043 21 121
IMC 27306 195
81330 100 574
Configuration IV
Unimin 15800 18 10.3
Feldspar 28081 32 183
Indusmin 17043 19 109
IMC 27306 31 179
88230 100 574
Configuration V
Unimin 15800 17 98
Feldspar 28081 31 178
Indusmin 20043 22 126
INC 27306 30 172
91230 T5 574
Configuration VI
Unimin 15 800 16 92
Feldspar 28081• 28 161
Indusmin 28443 29 166
IMC 27306 27 155
99630 100 574

• • 'JUN-12-1995 16:01 FROM Asheville RO DEHNR TO 989197339919 P.11
-11-
Unimin Corporation's TSS effluent limitations will remain 20
mg/1 daily average, 30 mg/1 daily maximum until the company starts to
produce feldspar. The limits will then change to 707 lbs/day and
1414 lbs/day daily average and daily maximum. These limits were
developed using the EPA draft development document - Mineral. Mining `
and Processing Industry.
589 tons x 0.6 lb x 2000 lbs = _ lbs
day of raw ore 1000 lbs. product ton day of TSS
Effluent limitations for TSS, pH and turbidity and flow f or' 'the
Feldspar Corporation, Indusmin, Inc. and INC are the same as those
limits proposed in the last wasteload allocation dated May 5, 1986.
A copy of the proposed effluent limits for Configurations 1 - VI
for each company is attached.
TOTAL P.11

/a�4 ZL
Ak 6000
73-
Coou, 353
d Foci
(%/ m,) v�vfz 3. 6
(,4dPo,ca EY/STidV
%d,'.2/g /3.3
(/Arc) L
AkAvN/I,G..-T ,.y- {► 1��+-7LG�c
14 93 .4,1 r, ct Ls% 2/ 8 /4s)
K7" 6.14y,„,
(frAil 1s')
3.s
/•73
I4c0a00361 ldrN,N 11lC,# 0.300
-2, /8 Ak,e
// ex�rr�. c,
Z2�
Jiri M.i 4 — 61 I
Fri rnv(r
i z4,
0.9
/ 33
�f3
7P
)h 79/o
°!6 . S 30

y3c
ONeet4,w - pc.01,12 = 3, 6 .4,6-10
/ 734679
/S7fry 3, se,faiv
Moe
J/44 ,„ - S371., / , / 73 M�
9,o03 tii6,0
Q Z13 M67o = /.7. G 9 c• DWI VA/,MrN- ��,��(
/4G/9 = / 3. 9i a
ew/t414 Lfr4A C/3,6 ! cTf q3 cis }(/.1 0
I ( c6a,916)( /.4 — 3 cA 4,j/k
/O2,0_ 1,3 = g7,7Y 4.37
lS.28 /]
a _ 1' cam, S-r(..a' = I. 3Y 113 Roo 2 /r.�
pot ,2 194.4— 4a.
lE oot.t % �.-_.,�J g,�' J/� = o. /mj/t
M.%Xi. ocr`c�f�
�iAN)
513 ')(`'./ J4
rr 17a6,di/o
7.2 ../; d.31- 9,vo3 = F.4/my(
Art, j jL1.-- stfi w, w ry ^, r
ez3�
13, c 5')(7. /S (l,e - GiSG .6 5)
f7 2- Cot
v 9,03,4 0
(13, 9.0(9, 41) " (44.3f />, q))
3c4Y = Cd (CCJC)
.7.37AV = C6t.

U/Vihiinr
a
VC)
L3.cAGO/
rriev—r PE
JAM/
0.113
f1 O: 44r
(/z7?) C,L (i 3, 6, 9
a. (SP , 9)
1, �z Cot_
77Y P, 7' = Y.003 fr1 Gd = /0, 3 wisl
(/3. 95)1i0, 3) = C (r3.
fry, (9)
Cd.
MJ/2

Tti4CY
15.25./t9.Y41/6) = Cci (60. zr ) t7(t#0-.)
l `i13. 3 ,f = c cl (6 0. Z ,fc �r>
�• 31l = Cot
@ 9.8Y
MGv9
f 6.173 koit,
(.Z7)(7/L):
(�((co. Z.5-)
ro6.7s— = CaL(G(3.Er)
1.77 =C�
cot (66.. ) (77w.e)
cot ((,o, C)
cet
Cek_(‘ 507) C7? 41,9
(L(6O.SA)
= Co(

Vn!!,Z1 J 14.11
(1/1114,444v e*'&
2-0v
of i%I 4)4
e5 (9.P9)C?. Y2 = 9Z. f f b
$e.
cs
(15.05 c.-si( qN m f,Q) _ (cd) ((�o.a6 c�)
J
Cc( : m5(9
('5.as h) (7 m i,12) CCCi(610- DSc r5)
1. 7 m5(

c/_ U .e
7Q,0 7✓ = .3p cd
/Jay, zf13( T = 7$V XL
z = 7.5y ?sY Sa •ram
Akee'.3r /)7a,z- so. z3,
e-o
Ulf' "'A Va,v-ri-
36"16''e 2/8#/0t /br
/9' -7r.',
/.F7le / D.os-n /L' G:t it
cid
Mc ivewl U4/:44 '- PAS/fz
i5/I c%i4�a.47 ..
(4'i4rc.J /iCA 0
& 1)1nq„ 2z4
idk'!ds%i ,... ,✓r1v„v /32-
(JnlrA41 -QJ _; 2/g
71
10 3
l83
79

) n1/ivv fi
Vfic
0.72-
7e641ficlYthwl - wlAid 3/162,
D. �Z xyte
6, 69 a_
AtJ/t
a.SS 41,A,
c),i7 Aj/C %32-
o.8 9,va ZZ

Facility: spruce pine -mica
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream: north toe river
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number
Hydrologic Area Number
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7010 Low Flow Record Station:
w7Q10 Low Row Record Station:
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
s7Q10 per Report Equation:
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
30Q2 per Report Equation:
Drainage Area Ratio:
[ new DA/Daatgage i
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
gage number not available
03.4620.0000
HA10
104.00 miles squared
187.20 cfs
34.00 cfs
43.00 cfs
63.00 cfs
must be < 400 sq. miles
96.50 sq. miles
1.9 cfs/miles squared
183 cfs
29.94 cfs
43.86 cfs
63.07 cfs
Continue
0.93 :1
Continue
0.90 :1
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted 37010 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
96.50 miles squared
1.9 cfs/mlles squared
183 cfs
31.39 cfs
40.28 cfs
58.90 cfs

Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream:
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number:
Hydrologic Area Number.
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
87010 Low Row Record Station:
w74010 Low Row Record Station:
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
870310 per Report Equation:
w7010 per Report Equation:
30Q2 per Report Equation:
Drainage Area Ratio:
[ new DA/ Da at gage 1
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride inappropriate Site (y ):
k-t feld/unimin quartz
north toe river
gage number not available
03.4620.0000
HA10
104.00 miles squared
187.20 cfs
34.00 cfs
43.00 cfs
63.00 cfs
must be < 400 sq. mites
133.00 sq. miles
1.9 cfs/miles squared
253 cfs
41.40 cfs
60.25 cfs
86.93 cfs
Continue
1.28 :1
Continue
0.91 :1
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7010 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation:
133.00 miles squared
1.9 cfs/miles squared
253 cfs
43.29 cfs
55.48 cfs
81.16 cfs

Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream:
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number:
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7010 Low Flow Record Station:
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
s7010 per Report Equation:
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
3002 per Report Equation:
Drainage Area Ratio:
[ new DA / Da at gage ]
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride inappropriate Site (y ):
North Toe River
gage number not available
03.4620.0000
HMO
104.00 miles squared
187.20 cfs
34.00 cfs
43.00 cfs
63.00 cfs
must be < 400 sq. miles
145.00 sq. miles
1.9 cfs/miles squared
276 cfs
45.17 cfs
65.63 cfs
94.77 cfs
Continue
1.39:1
Continue
0.87:1
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation:
145.00 miles squared
1.9 cfs/miles squared
276 cfs
47.11 cfs
60.70 cfs
88.75 cfs

b f
6,C73Hfr9
J,uM,N• QJ4i7L. 3.6 M 64
Ic't= 1.73 MG,o
uNiM 1c4r,rfc a 017;,v16i0
1, 6031460
urn' m
/ 1(OW446, L 4&,u5 AJev 7TE R-A4�
CTw: 1,003 MC- = J3.9rc_r3
79 Ir - L/Ccf3
� � 5 / / 3.9 5-) (/, j) — (1`rj 6.6�-
Pis) (1.,) - 2, ZG =
06.11 2. Z S - )
/ 3. fG S. 39) = 559. 8 70(J NS6O 40/r�
cemui,v-tui
L56.0401-- 7 At.c,v r Atij
540, zoo -tt/ct = [7 a6,m 74
7d .o - 3, 3 v ; 9, o0 3 frt _ - (/0. / L JA J
(/3.45)(7,`1(,) s CL C SL.gScrs) cal 5-60Slog
loy,a7 = cd (s8.$)
�.7, =Cck
/ / f. l7 - Cd-(S'Y, 4 S)
�.3= Cck.
1e
Ica

(.43 cfs') (<< S m� i
- (q3 ci) (al my?)
'73.1 x5.39
3 9") /bfdoy
i.215 0°7 i )d o y + zoo ,b1 da y
143 CF_s 1 • Use 9.003 mbo
Cup C7,l m jcli
Zn `J acid ccao '7c u bock
(13.9S c ) (i o.3 m /Q) _ (Cd)(3 C! )
3,3 ()N(LP
Oct 3 34 ocfd 0,(
mCDD (PC:Us) - 15 . CIS
. %ems-l-re cm Co .
w( 000 tb
a,3) - a, 44
3, 3
'!'7q Ib) = )D.3 rr)31Q
13.q5 cis
L �3 .q 5 c (Ai
`7.3
I upit eam )
I SO
(t,010 (c,Lfia) )

(yA h k-1 i/ak, .5
Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream:
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number:
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
s7Q10 per Report Equation:
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
3002 per Report Equation:
Drainage Area Ratio:
[new DA/Daatgage ]
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
north toe river
gage number not available
03.4620.0000
HA10
104.00 miles squared
187.20 cfs
34.00 cfs
43.00 cfs
63.00 cfs
must be < 400 se. miles
133.00 sq. miles
1.8 cfs/miles squared
239 cfs
39.20 cfs
57.11 cfs
82.35 cfs
Continue
1.28:1
Continue
0.91 :1
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7010 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation:
133.00 miles squared
1.8 cfs/miles squared
239 cfs
43.08 cfs
55.19 cfs
80.73 cfs

Ambient Flouride
N. Toe @ Ingalls
Date
Depth
Fluoride
3461976
01/05/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
02/08/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
03/25/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
04/28/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
05/19/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
06/21/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
07/14/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
08/17/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
09/21/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
10/19/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
11/16/82
0
0.1
K
3461976
12/30/82
0
0.1
3461976
01/18/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
02/17/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
03/15/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
04/28/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
05/27/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
06/21/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
07/28/83
0
0.1
3461976
08/23/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
09/29/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
10/31/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
11/28/83
0
0.1
3461976
12/28/83
0
0.1
K
3461976
01/11/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
02/22/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
03/30/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
04/26/84
0
0.4
3461976
05/23/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
06/25/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
07/18/84
0
0.1
3461976
08/22/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
10/29/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
11/08/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
12/14/84
0
0.1
K
3461976
01/24/85
0
0.1
K
3461976
02/26/85
0
0.1
K
3461976
03/29/85
0
0.1
K
3461976
05/30/85
0
0.1
K \
3461976
06/26/85
0
0.1
K \
3461976
07/29/85
0
0.2
3461976
08/15/85
0.327999
0.1
@ I
3461976
09/24/85
0.327999
0.9
© _I
3461976
10/31/85
0.327999
0.6
0._,i
3461976
11/27/85
0.327999
0.2
Page 1

Ambient Flouride
3461976
12/31/85
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
01/22/86
0.327999
0.1
3461976
02/21/86
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
03/27/86
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
04/29/86
0.327999
0.1
3461976
05/23/86
0.327999
0.1
3461976
06/27/86
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
07/31/86
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
08/29/86
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
09/24/86
0.327999
0.4
3461976
11/20/86
0.327999
0.3
3461976
12/18/86
0.327999
0.2
3461976
05/29/87
0.327999
0.2
CP
3461976
08/27/87
0.327999
0.1
3461976
11/04/87
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
02/29/88
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
05/23/88
0.327999
0.2
3461976
08/23/88
0.327999
0.2
CD
3461976
12/29/88
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
02/16/89
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
03/21/89
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
06/29/89
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
09/19/89
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
12/14/89
0.327999
0.5
3461976
03/07/90
0.327999
0.1
0
3461976
06/28/90
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
09/28/90
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
12/31/90
0.327999
0.1
K
3461976
06/27/91
0.327999
0.1
K
N. Toe @ Penlap
Date
Depth
Fluoride
3463021
01/05/82
0
0.2
3463021
02/08/82
0
0.2
3463021
03/25/82
0
0.3
3463021
04/27/82
0
0.4
3463021
05/19/82
0
0.5
3463021
06/21/82
0
0.2
3463021
07/14/82
0
0.6
0
3463021
08/17/82
0
0.6
3463021
09/21/82
0
1.4
0
3463021
10/19/82
0
1
3463021
11/16/82
0
0.5
(
3463021
12/30/82
0
0.2
3463021
01/18/83
0
0.8
CO
3463021
02/17/83
0
0.3
3463021
03/15/83
0
0.4
3463021
04/28/83
0
0.2
0
Page 2

Ambient Flouride
3463021
05/27/83
0
0.3
@
3463021
06/21/83
0
0.5
@
3463021
07/28/83
0
0.9
@
3463021
08/23/83
0
3463021
09/29/�
0
ot
0.4
@
3463021
1071i/83
0
3463021
11/28/83
0
0.4
@
3463021
12/28/83
0
0.2
@
3463021
01/11/84
0
0.9
CO
3463021
02/22/84
0
0.5
@
3463021
03/30/84
0
0.2
@
3463021
04/26/84
0
0.1
K
3463021
05/23/84
0
0.6
@
3463021
06/25/84
0
0.4
@
3463021
07/18/84
0
0.4
@
3463021
08/22/84
0
1.7
@
3463021
10/29/84
0
0.9
@
3463021
11/08/84
0
1.4
@
3463021
__12/14Z
0
1.4
(.66@
@
346302(
01/
0
3463021
02/26/85
0
0.5
@
3463021
03/29185
0
1
@
3463021
, 04/2448-5'
0
1.:
@
346302/30/85
0
@
3463021cI
&' 06/2618"
0
�.8
n_
3463021
07T 9/85
0.327999
0.4
@
3463021
08/15/85
0.327999
1
@
3463021
09/24/85
0.327999
1.6
@
3463021
10/31/85
0.327999
1.4
@
3463021
11/27/85
0.327999
0.8
@
3463021
12/31/85
0.327999
1.3
@
3463021
01/22/86
0.327999
1.1
@
3463021
02/21/86
0.327999
0.3
@
3463021
03/27/86
0.327999
1.4
@
3463021
04/29/86
0.327999
1.2
@
3463021
05/23/86
0.327999
1.4
0
3463021
06/27/86
0.327999
@
3463021
7/31/
0.327999
2.5
3463021
0.327999
1.
@
3463021
/24-
0.327999
(4.9
3463021
'11 86
0.327999
@
1.
3463021
11/20/86
0.327999
1.6
@
3463021
12/18/86
0.327999
1.1
@
3463021
05/29/ 7
0.327999
0.9 @
3463021
08/27/87
0.327999
VO3463021
7
0.327999
Page 3

Ambient Flouride
3463021
02/29/88
0.327999
0.8
3463021
05/23/�
0.327999
0.5
3463021
(8/23/88%
0.327999
2.
�@
3463021
2f297 8
0.327999
.
3463021
02/16/89
0.327999
2
3463021
03/21/89
0.327999
0.3
3463021
06/29/89
0.327999
0.6
3463021
09/27/89
0.327999
1
3463021
12/14/89
0.327999
0.6
3463021
03/07/90
0.327999
0.4
3463021
06/28/90
0.327999
0.8
3463021
09/28/90
0.327999
1.2
3463021
12/31/90
0.327999
0.1
K
Page 4