The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0000361_Wasteload Allocation_19861112NPDES DOCU BENT :SCANNING: COVER :SHEET NPDES Permit: NC0000361 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: November 12, 1986 This docsimezzt is printed on reuse paper - ignore any content on the resrerse side Facility Name: Existing Proposed 0II r/ s U4an Design Capacity (MGD): (�n m ;A nNPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION t �� o-Y-, Engineer /2GG 7/7-//a' Date Rec. Permit No.: 41 c_ D O Do 3 C., I Pipe No.: D0\ County: 3 Date 33 t 7 -2-a-In. Ave-P`J Industrial (% of Flow): (v v Domestic (% of Flow): Receiving Stream: No 1` "` - f" v'e_t Class: -Tr r Sub -Basin: 0 f o 3 b(p Reference USGS Quad: !J I / / / (Please attach) Requestor: L ,Set C_r-eo c� Regional Office A /C 0 (Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.) Design Tamp.: Drainage Area (mil) : ' 4 5- 7Q10 (cfs) 3 0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 3 9 Location of D.O. minimum (miles below outfall): Velocity (fps) : Kl (base e, per day): Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 30Q2 (cfs) Slope (fpm) K2 (base e. per day): 9 Effluent Characteristics Monthly Average Comments 1-5S (*4) 1.07 r ilq N- Lsu 6-1 . III Origin Revised o ation ation epared By: Comments: •S C w Effluent Characteristics - :'Dnthy I .verage Comments `-SS (I1(.2) 2_0 /g0 Q1-1- Li.,) 6 -1 , , PLO D cpaReviewed By: Date: -8Y For Appropriate Dischargers, List Complete Guideline Limitations Below Effluent Characteristics Monthly Average Maximum Daily Average Comments 0PJ s 0.6, «/,,ac6o,-Lsz., 1,-L g/1/oG-a l60 6W0c: 0,13 I'//ovo/6 oi.A._ b.ZG !/i000 / O-)L Pw 6- 254 6-Q5u Type of Product Produced Ws/Day Produced Effluent Reference D //Guideline Si Qf- 5,./,'co, r°Au �-r S 5LQC4 4 .1. 0- 5 ` 6 / -� 1 , d.R • -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 Configuration - 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. 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 Configuration IV - Unimin Corporation producing feldspar and quartz, and other three companies as described in I. - 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 x100 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. ...... .� w.:.'a..:.«;,.ii.•.�aY:.1.i:L:..(:i4ars1..I:�...:.►:..... .........•..: �r-�.�.i • , • • Facility Configuration I Unimin Feldspar Indusmin INC Configuration II Unimin Feldspar Indusmin IMC Configuration III Unimin Feldspar Indusmin IMC Configuration IV Unimin Feldspar Indusmin IMC Configuration V Unimin Feldspar Indusmin IMC Configuration VI Unimin Feldspar Indusmin IMC Allocations Proposed AF 0 21181 17043 27_ 65530 0 28082 17043 27306 72431 15800 21181 17043 27306 81330 15800 28081 17043 27306 88230 15800 28081 20043 27306 91230 15800 2808 2 3 27306 99630 26(64 PS (%) 0 32 26 42 100 0 39 23 38 100 19 26 21 34 100 18 32 19 31 100 17 31 22 30 100 16 28 29 27 100 A (#/day) 0 183 149 242 574 0 224 132 218 574 109 149 121 195 574 103 183 109 179 574 98 178 126 172 574 92 161 166 155 574 Facility Name Type of Waste S tatus Aeceiving Stream S�ream Class Subbasin Coun*y Qeginnal �ffice �equestor of Requesx �uad Was�eflow 5-nay BOD Ammonia N�trogen Dissolved Oxygen TSS Fecal Co��form pH Aequest No�3347 WASTELOAD ALLO[ATION APPAOVAL FOPM � �� /- � � �� ^^.~..___�� UNIMIN COAP FELDSPAA M�NINC PAOPO�ED NORTH TOE RIVER C-TP V'1O306 MIT�HEI L ASHEVILLE LISA SALEH 7/2/86 LINVIL�E <mgd>� (mg/l>� (mg/l}� (mg/l>� (#/D }: 707 141/4 (#/10Oml): (SU): 6-9 Drainage Area 15ummer, 7g10 Winter, 7A10 Average F�ow 3O�r AECOMMENDED EFFLUEHT LTMITS dox Ok 1'.) A AVC DA MAX 0. 130 (sq mi) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs} (cfs> CArOlirW . ........ ........ -...... .... ... ............ .... .... .... ....... ........................................................ ... .... .... COMMENTS ------------------------------ THE DIS�HAACE SHALL NOT CAUSE THE TUPBI�ITY OF TH� PECEIVINC WATEAS TO EXCEED 1O NTUIF THE TUABIDITY 1::*XCI;:,EDS 10 NTU DUE TO CONDITIONS' THE SHALL NOT ANY IN TUABA:DITY FLUOAIDE WASTELOAD Al ATTACHED. THE 7Q10 OF BAUSHY �S 11 CFS� THEAEFOA�, 15 #/D OF FLUOAID� COULD BE ALLOCATED IF A PEAMIT l'S ISSUED FOA TD BRUSHY CREEk. THIS A1 TI:::ANATIVE 1:9) 1'401' CONSIDERED IN THE FUC.)AIDE ALLOCATION. ------------- -- ------------------------------------------------ -------- ^w44 Om*t ~4^� ` I-) /l ~m AecoIII mended by Aeviewed bV� TechSuppor� Supervisor __ Qegional or Permits & ENy�heering c }» '-r-�---