NC0000175_Fluoride Notes_19950621

From:
Date:
Subject:
To:
Cc:
Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
Ruth Swanek
Wed, Jun 21, 1995 12.42 PM
N. Toe fluoride
Steve Tedder
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 520 lb/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 390 lb/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.

r
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 UNRAIN 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 M? I RFAi UE THIS LOOKS MPOSSIBLE 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/l (round off
to 1.8)
If add 2001b /day: instream concentrations range from 2.37 -2.44 mg/l.
(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/l with the additional 200 pounds.
If you want to discuss any of the actual scenarios, please contact Jackie or me.

. 1
t l'lJG S. Toe- ?.ve- " 'v -����� c �.�$�c .6 � + co \3Y.9O > + (5.58 cFs�� Cw� = (gtD.o8) c IS
�Gr
rxL,Do(-4 W'
V, la
53.5? + 6 f- 5.51
16 2,15 — 5r3. S7
/?S^jjk - Y8.3� -t 3.6A(,0= S�li�
�iJ�va,Nf Off -4aULs (twdvdrY -r ra
- ✓/vTZ
4'
- .J.% x(46/
161 dy,,,
- /.73 *Gg
h IJJr ,
3. s MW
v,vlAl/r 6lyt,!-
o, /7.3 W6d
8 ,5-r- 6 -1- l9. ")(/. e T/Z) (9Y..f)o. /�
l9. s3
(IOY.o3,6/,r) -- J•Yr _ //I7. ,2f-- I Y.r /718
/9.r 3 14.r3 19 -17 O
10.6 Ile P 3 112. 6Q 3 = L96z °t /V L
u
5-7 /Z 391.1 A/- ,4L ;Wk,
41� 411 -1 h..t-

1Qro , 7i!. li
Qw = 3,G Ai p2P�s c� ��rr� = .218 Mot
f U 1
fi4'uwd. F = 0.77 oo�1t
s s8 c
17 1/ ,V J. 3 V IZ7 5222 . it A/4
,?p1#/d 8.3Y - 3.L W9c� _ �ki► �fl� �• ��
39 Q.` MSl �
Y, 1 .ollw+llc F/
LIP
q,II *- 9•��* 12-.4 Alo = gC, 3.�.z Al

Facility:
mint be c 400 sq. n"
NPDES,#.
84.00 sq. miles
Receiving Stream:
Sov+4 -Fos, 2i vt,
Comment(s):
151 afs
&7010 per Report Equation:
gage number not available
Low Flow Record Station Number.
03.4635.0000
Hydrologic Area Number.
HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
58.80 miles squared
Oave Low Flow Record Station:
173.71 do
s7O10 Low Flow Record Station:
26.00 cfs
w7O10 Low Flow Record Station:
24.00 aft
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
51.00 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 1.40:1
[ new DA / Da it gage [ Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.87:1
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y):1
Drainage Area New Site: 84.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Weighted Oave per Report Equation: 151 ofs
Weighted &7010 per Report Equation: 34.88 cfs
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation: 34.00 cfs
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 68.80 cfs
mint be c 400 sq. n"
Drainage Area New Site:
84.00 sq. miles
MAR New Site:
1.8 cfe/mlles squared
Oave per Report Equation:
151 afs
&7010 per Report Equation:
24.84 ate
w7010 per Report Equation:
36.24 cfs
3002 per Report Equation:
52.01 ate
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 1.40:1
[ new DA / Da it gage [ Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.87:1
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y):1
Drainage Area New Site: 84.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Weighted Oave per Report Equation: 151 ofs
Weighted &7010 per Report Equation: 34.88 cfs
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation: 34.00 cfs
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 68.80 cfs

Facility:
NPDESt
Receiving Stream: NORTH TOE RIVER 0 LUNDAY
Comment(s):
gage number not available
Low Flow Record Station Number.
03.4620.0000
Hydrologic Area Number:
HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
104.00 miles squared
Gave Low Flow Record Station:
187.20 cfs
97010 Low Flow Record Station:
34.00 cfs
w7010 Low Flow Record Station:
43.00 cfs
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
63.00 cfs
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
s7010 per Report Equation:
w7010 per Report Equation:
30Q2 per Report Equation:
Drainage Area Ratio:
[ new DA / Da at gage j
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y):1
must be < 400 sq. miles
272.00 sq. miles
1.8 cfa/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: 272.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/mlles squared
Weighted Qave per Report Equation: 490 cfs
Weighted s7010 per Report Equation: 84.52 cfs
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation: 114.35 cfs
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 166.74 cfs

lly-' OQ : I33`- RaYW� = G. 99 ,wi/'C
9,d�(
,44-j4A e, 941 .etc -e (pw
y�- C6 7pla
�7/
M,,l q�,z
%•f Y,+�(n0 y UNlw",v 4)0,yrz Cw Y 3Z
3. s-
7 / )Vd
7./ 17/,Z * 6p,31r * 211yA'l�v
I
— 3.6
�.8 3 Mob
/7-718-2- 77
77z * ?,3y .X &83 = '56f.5- 7*4L
SgZ.7 --p�/,C
c,- y.rTAc. 73 Al &0
o.r-73Afc-O — 10,0 ,83f 6.173 = j,003,H(,J
i
C"' o
107 X611
Iswx
7 ►ary ��(.- ?.aZ� /.� � P3��1' /a,or3 = 5��,2�"��.

f
0-2 — y o, a�
0.41 -
o
3.S /io - o. mJ �
mp-Wd
/z n•J /4
10 % '1ii•�n.cZ7 �cr l
Z //z = 0,
1
l�
,v
rvrn '
U da
0, as
0.07,Sr
. y
o, /
6,1
012-
G, L
o,
o. L
o.y
o,
MFO /Ad n/ t / /Z ; 2U.4

U
f/-U", d£ �j 4,7 � /VN�< Yd L
7 A
�ll �
' : ?y 146 A(- ss= s. ZS --7'
z rfl1L �+ w�f2.
hod.
a S cc� �' ` S L J ° U� �L�+/ C.✓L�� -
(G .7t o. 3��l� �-e� --- i °. 3)(0, os�
•.KJ�.�
`(i5r , �'> des ,,. 4 —K 7c-,c 46
3.
�-,iv(7
`I���✓.��c lu��rl s �yS�f! f � �G c�s�Ll• y� -' �`f � as1
7 IS-7S

r� 266 ll�lc-; ,or,9-,r t
UWAt ,d_ C'✓� �
f(N4
JY
�td�f
Old
771/1, // Z 6 A j
r
7 � ��r _ �, }� 9, ao3 la. 3 okr /e
ti cw {Gws U
j sly 3Y ;- g.2Y = 6.5 5 i 7 -kjG2
M� 'J
57� 8.' q [0.013 = 6 87 hlQ
7,79
AGA
P5 �Y -"- J 3V = 4. ),j 3 = %G f- 0� /Z
L M6,

• 1✓JUN -13 -1996 08:22 FROM Asheville RO DENNR TO 969197339919 P.01
Co.
MOM
MOM 0 Ph" N
Fax 0 Fax A
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMEN S FERU41T 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 F1 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 ob$ecti.ve 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 HOD . If two dis-
charges to the same 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 SOD
in the domestic is reduced equivalently from secondary levels and the
process reduced the same percentage from "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

'JUJ -12 -1995 15 :57 FROM Asheville RO DENNR 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 & result, property owners thar,.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 guartr production.
Specifically, if one company can render higher feldspar peer 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 kinished 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-

' 197339919 P.03
JUN-i2-1995 15 58 FROM Asheville RO DEH R TO 989
-3-
bility of environmental agencies to develop controls which adjust
market factors.
The previous discussion clearly illustrates why exact quantities
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 factorss 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
wasteload credit for quartz production. Only IMc is today producing
high purity quartz. Both Feldspar and Unimin have fairly solid plans
underway to install quartz production. 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 mLght be bettsr.illustrated by looking at the quartz
data in the following tables
Quartz Production information
Clearly, both the level of quartz output and the HF needed as
provided by Indusmin is out of proportion to the other facilities.
Therefore, those figures should not be used in making a weighting
factor for quartz production.
Final Pro-
Gals.
Quartz Feed
HF Solution
duction --
HF /tons
Tonnage
Used
$ Actual HF
Quartz
Quartz
Facility
tonslmo.
gal /mo.
In Solution
tons/mo.
Produced
Feldspar
1910
24000
70
1150
20.8
Indusmi.n
6424
327000
70
4800
68.1
IMC
3319
30135
70
2766
10.9
Unimin
1955
47500
70
1750
27.1
Clearly, both the level of quartz output and the HF needed as
provided by Indusmin is out of proportion to the other facilities.
Therefore, those figures should not be used in making a weighting
factor for quartz production.

'JU4- 12-19% 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 HF is used in the quartz process to "polish" or increase
quartz purity, HF used per ton of product is much higher for quartz
production than for feldspar- production. 77WBt fluoride waste from
the quartz operation will contain higher quantities of F1, and
therefore, represent a greater treatment burden. To develop the
weighting factor, the feldspar data must be examined:
Feldspar Production Information
Gal HF (70 %) Feed Tonnage
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 wastteload, 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 for quartz production, it will
be necessary to examine several issues. Simply applying the HP use
ratios would result in what may be an excessive weighting factor
19.5 divided by 0.23 equals 85.2 using the range of H3' 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
Feldspar Feed
Feldspar
Per Ton
to Feldspar
Tonnage
HF Used
Finished
Feldspar
Produced
Facility
tons /mo.
gal /mo.
tons /mo.
Produced
Ratio
Feldspar
34233
2252
21181
0.11
1.6
Indusmin
24372
2070.
17043
0.12
1.4
INC
22003
3190
10710
0.30
2.1
Unimin
8833
1585
5300
0.30
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 wastteload, 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 for quartz production, it will
be necessary to examine several issues. Simply applying the HP use
ratios would result in what may be an excessive weighting factor
19.5 divided by 0.23 equals 85.2 using the range of H3' 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

'JUJ -12 -1995 15:559 FROM Asheville RO DEH R TO 989197339919 P.05
-S-
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 eommon.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,.rndusmin at current feldspar
production, and INC producing feldspar and high
purity quartz at current levels.
conficturation II - Unimin Corporation not producing feldspar or
quartz, The Feldspar Corporation operating with
the high purity quartz facility and indusmin,
Inc. and INC as described in I.
Confiouration III - Unimin Corporation producing feldspar and quartz,
and other three companies as described in 1.
Confiauration IV - Unimin Corporation as in III, The Feldspar
Corporation producing high purity quartz and the
other two companies as described in I.

JUN-12 -1995 15 -.59 FROM Asheville RD DEH R TO 989197339919 P.06
-6-
Conficmration V - Unimin Corporation as in III, The Feldspar
Corporation and Indusmin, Inc. producing high
purity quartz and IMC as described in I.
dnf i uration VI - The Feldspar Corporations 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 MF +Wf x
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 At x.100
SUM Af
where:
SUM Af as sum of all four Af's for a particular
configuration.
C. Calculate the specific fluoride allocation (A -lbs /day) for
each company.
As PSxAW
TO
where:
AW = Available wasteload to North Toe River - 574
lbs /day.

' J- 12-19% 16 FROM 80 FM Asheu i l le RD DEH R M 989197 39919 P.07
W
arm
For comparison purposes the following information is provided:
Facility Fluoride Information
F1 Dis-
charged
Maximum
Fl Current Of Monthly % Of Most Current Of
Facility Permit-Limits Total 1985 -86 Total F1 Allocation Total
Unimin
Feldspar 279.1 38 256 38 218 38
Indusmin 220.3 30 261 39 172 30
IMC 235.0 32 160 23 184 32
All Figures Monthly Average
lbs /day
*Uni,min projects 125# /day

' JUJ -12 -1996 1600 FROM AshevilleRODEHNR TO 989197339919 P.OB
_8_
Fluoride and Quartz Froduction summary
Finished Feldspar Finished Quartz
Facility 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
LacklLity FS $ =# /day)
W£ =1
vnimin
0
0
0
Feldspar
21181.
41
235
Indusmin
17043,
33
189
IMC
13476
26
15
TI-7-07
100
574
Wf = 85
Unimin
0
0
0
Feldspar
21181
7
40
Indusmin
17043
6
34
IMC
245820
87
500
284044
105
�7
Wf 6
Unimin
0
0
0
Feldspar
21181
32
183
Indusmin
17043
26
149
IMC
27�
1 0
5�

'JU+-12 -1995 16 :00 FROM Asheville RO DEHNR
TO 989197339919 P.09
-9-
Comparison
Wasteload Under
Configuration'Iv
Wf = ],
Unimin
7050
12
69
Feldspar
22331
37
212
Indusmin
17043
28
161
IMC
13476
23
3232
59900
100
574
Wf6
Unimin
15800
18
103
Feldspar
28081
32
183
Indusmin
17043
19
109
IMC
174
87`1
10
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 WfIs of 1,
2, 3, 6, 10, and 85. in comparing.all these figures with the
Facility Fluoride Information table and considering all the issues
discv.ssed in this report, it was concluded that a Wf of six ( 6 )
repre:aented 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
compe.risons presented that the range of possible weighting factors
represents, at the low end, an unfair situation to quartz producers
and I.t 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 F1 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 carne on line. Because Unimin does not now
produce feldspar, no allocation for Fl would apply until such produc-
tion exists. The following'is a table showing allocation with Wf= 6:

'JLN -12 -1996 16 00 FROM Asheville RO DEHhR TO 989197339919 P.10
Allocations Proposed
Facilitv AF PS M A if/day)
Confl uration I
Unimin
0
0
0 `
Feldspar
2 1$
'32
'�
183
Indusmin
1 04
2.8
149
INC
276
142
542
Conf ic[uration II
Unimin
0
0
0
Feldspar
28082-
39
224
Induamin
17043
23
132
INC
27306
38
218
72431
100
3l4
Confiaurat II
vnimin
15800
19
109
Feldspar
21181
26
149
Indusmin
17043
21
121
INC
27306
34
195
81330
100
5
Configuration IV
Unimin
15800
1$
10.3
Feldspar
28081
32
183
Indusmin
17043
19
109
INC
27306
�3,
179
88230
10014
Conficruration V
Unimin
15800
17
98
Feldspar
28081
31
178
Indusmin
20043
22
126
INC
27306
30
17-2
91230
TO
574
Configuration vI
Unimin
15800
16
92
Feldspar
28081
28
161
Indusmin
28443
29
166
IMC
27306
27
155
99630
100
574

• • JUN- 12 --19% 16-. 01 FROM Asheu i 11a RD DE}1NR TO 989197339919 P.11
-11-
Unimin Corporation's TSS effluent limitations will remain 20
mg /l daily average, 30 mg /l 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 lb x 2000 lbs m 707 •lbe
day of raw ore 000 lbs. product ton day of TSS
Ef f luent lirnitationsi for TSS, pH and turbidity and f low for' The
Feldspar Corporation, Indusmin, Inc. and IMC are the same as those
limits proposed in the last wmsteload allocation dated May 5, 1986.
A copy of the proposed effluent limits for Configurations I - VI
for each company is attached.
1
TOTAL P.11

in, UN- c v/�� 4
J J
Af ?QIa
/�C 0000 /%f
1
�/I�i,f1iA� �(JrI✓7Z
� �JOOJFOp � EK/S7lN
3. 6 �7/ n , .2/ 8 /.3.j �s
...,t Gam-
�%✓ /M�� - �.fr c,� �,G�.T .,.� -.- _ y�,,,� �► Jffi-t
Afe, o0 0j 3S3
; c�f�,�„ le►�p
70
3, S"
C,
p A
tic,,f dd }4,u
KT rldiyr„,
1.73 3Z
FrrrnvCi rj.} � /o
NLOUo�36I
l
111141'M -XIG/f
J
x.300 / /03 `1L.s 30
1
K6- -1 C. 7, to

S4�
a) � .�LrA �i,.1f ' uN��t+,iJ - �2 = �• 6 �/rro �,ve..PJa �•,�.r,( /� �✓+, Gerc�i'f.►
Id, ,,, = 3,
9,003 Mho
q
OD 3
,rb
�j7,7i� 39
5.��. 8
52( ,8 - 8 M6W
Pte` crl
J
tv
if = Cd (5%" 9�
Q Ge 3AI4d
C13, 9,GO'�
13�OY Cl
;,37,3/ = Cd

v
�fNl,s,rN
3.L MGM
Q� 113
� FtldY�✓
S-1 9.1 yy '/.SM6Q1
l.73 MGO
#1d
1)(7, 72) (i3,G9 -7' LfS,
77 Y P. 3 Y -- Y, o o 3 Gd = /o, 3
(JN /M IN
M fcA
1010✓ 3p

-T4 G0C
014 Qw s
® 9.8f i 15. 2s,�9,y ��) = Cdt ((l 0, z �c��) t7�
M(r9
/113.3 = Cd (60, Z,fc-4)
a. -5 = C-t
,-j �L
Co Mgy (rs. Zr) C Jae) = Cd C �a.
1.77 -
Q S-I� t ( /SSx) (9. 7, 6) :
6.173 Mbd y
10.0(3
C,,t ( 6,5, U) (77HWJ)
C C 0. 5x)
cet
ccC 6 0.5 )
c�
4 6.473 A16v
7, of
= CcC 60.Z��
3.5 H.co
1.73 Hon
0.177 MGa
4 MAN
( /S,zS 76Y.�.��P)
_ (Co,2f�
. Z1r)
A 43 =

2W v
l /7�
VN! M!i✓ dI✓TZ Z l 0
c5
� ��✓� p Yid
gL.�fb
I,P) = ( C� ) ( (po.a6 cFs�
cFs) (7 (�o-as cFs)
5
MJcW

U Z"",�#N
3 P c�3
Vial *jX .tr T - 7YY /,-/j 1-4
t Z 7s� - TSY
13"d
Ufr A+..( 9,A M
G *0r 21S'44 /At
s'7�4 ;Pr4V 79q
od y
6 c..,�y,,.•,► w
(//✓�Arr v Mic.o 0
fv4l)
dAftM,�,Q����,v�
s 7�
I cgs
I
I l�Q
I
/79
57�
SQ "YAO
SO, Z 3
4do

2 y� b 8'
2 �� O '
? ,c ; ���, 48.0
rf-v ss •o
wf,v 8l • D
r4 45,,Q
-V rw 'e5 la
x4l z� • o
y jCw Zz •° h0l
L ' o
A;�6
�Mr
p°1.0
�i6li
•o
�6/�

Faculty: spruce pine -mica
NPDES#:
Recelving Stream: north toe river
Comment(s):
11age number not available
Low Flow Record Station Number.
03A620.0000
Hydrologic Area Number.
HA10
Drainage Ana Low Flow Record Station:
104.00 miles squared
Oave Low Flow Rsoord Station:
187.20 cis
*7010 Low Flow Record Station:
84.00 cts
Y17O10 Low Flow Record Station:
48.00 cis
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
68.00 ofs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 0.93 :1
i new DA / Da nt papa ] Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.90:1
Over -rids Inappropriate Site (y ):j
Drainage Area New Site: 96.50 miles squared
MAR New Sits: 1.9 aft/riles squared
Weighted Oeve per Report Equation: 183 ate
Weighted *7010 per Report Equation: 31.39 ef*
Weighted w7O10 par Report Equation: 40.28 cis
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 58.90 of*
must be < 400 ec . mks
Drainage Area New Site:
96.50 4% muss
MAR New Sue:
1.9 cfs/mlles squared
Gave per Report Equation:
183 ate
*7010 per Report Equation:
29.94 cts
Y/7O10 per Report Equation:
43.86 ob
3002 per Report Equation:
65.07 ate
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 0.93 :1
i new DA / Da nt papa ] Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.90:1
Over -rids Inappropriate Site (y ):j
Drainage Area New Site: 96.50 miles squared
MAR New Sits: 1.9 aft/riles squared
Weighted Oeve per Report Equation: 183 ate
Weighted *7010 per Report Equation: 31.39 ef*
Weighted w7O10 par Report Equation: 40.28 cis
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 58.90 of*

Fadlily: k4 foldfunimin quartz
NPDESt
Reoei ing Stream: north toe river
Comcnent(s):
page number not available
Low Flow Reoord Stallion Number.
03.4620.0000
Hydrologic Area Number:
HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Reoord Station:
104.00 miles squared
Gave Low Flow Reowd Station:
187.20 do
67010 Low Flow Rsoord Station:
54.00 da
w7O10 Low Flow Reoord Station:
45.00 cfs
3002 Low Flow Rsowd Station:
69.00 ds
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Gave per Report Equation:
67010 per Report Equation:
w7O10 per Report Equation:
3002 per Report Equation:
must be < I0o sq. n"
199.00 sq. miles
1.0 dshniles squared
265 cis
41.40 cfa
60.26 ds
86.93 cis
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 1.28:1
1 new DA/ Da at gape 1 Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.81 :1
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ): j
Drainage Area New Site. 153.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.9 dNmlles squared
Weighted Owe per Report Equation: 263 ds
Weighted 67010 per Report Equation: 4329 cfs
Weighted w7O10 per Report Equation: 55.48 cis
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 81.16 cfs

Facility:
NPDES#.
Receiving Stream:
North Toe River
Conwrient(s):
gage number not avallable
Low Flow Record Station Number:
03.4620.0000
Hydrologic Area Number:
NA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
104.00 miles squared
Oave Low Flow Record Station:
187.20 do
s7010 Low Flow Record Station:
34.00 ds
w7010 Low Flow Record Station:
43.00 aft
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
63.00 ale
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Osve per Report Equation:
*7010 per Report Equation:
w7010 per Report Equation:
3002 per Report Equation:
must be < 100 sq. ffAw
145.00 sq. miles
1.8 cfs/milss squared
276 cfs
45.17 ale
65.63 aft
94.77 ab
Continuo
Drainage Area Ratio: 1.39:1
[ new DA/ Dad gape ] Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.87:1
Over -ride Inappropriate site (y ):I
Drainage Area New Site: 145.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.9 ofs/miles squared
Weighted Osve per Report Equation: 276 ate
Weighted 97010 per Report Equation: 47.11 aft
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation: 60.70 ale
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 88.75 ofi

C- �
J#IlMw• QJAVTZ. 3.6 M GO
icr Fl, 14It = 1.73 M6-o
F"Iif4vl 3. t Mrno
WnMAc-4f)tgc p,r7 ;MW
q, GO 3 ,4Cio
RkW44 h LAi.-� A n1 -i4 T L
o0 3 MCN] = 13.9 rc-6
7QiD ; ys"cf3
/a(o,// -- 2.2r=
163-A �S 39) _ /S59. 8 -#-q ( tiJS�0 0�,t a
S6�• f zoa-iP4 79:0,0 -50
C/LyfrAL-
7do•A a
c
TA5fV& *1- (l 3.9 5-) (7, 9 �) = Cd- ( 5-f . 9 S cry.
fi �s
l0Y,67 cd.(s�.5s
( /o,lz) = cal (s8,9r)
/Y/. /7 - C,,C(rl,45>
/e
@ S6 b AVI
L� 76 Q/�

Lq3 Cfs) -
'73. I
3yq
m jlP)
ie 'S use. (5-N lb)co 1 4- 2cx-� ib)da =
y
q3 C(-S u 6.003 mbO =
CAM kribbJ'lw bcct c,101
r `7q 1 jJ kq - )0.3 m3W
i3, ci,5 C(s
13 X15 C C7 (!Ik c�>>
(3.95 c6)(l0•3 m /P) _ (C�)( q3 Cf3) Cd 0.3
Cl :, 3.3 m I� - - -- -- --
Ded . z ✓✓,,-�Yeavy� cooc .
w( aoo lb wlo -20o (h
3.3

Facility:
NPDES#.
Receiving Stream: north toe river
Cormrment(s):
page number not available
Low Flow Record Station Number.
03.4620.0000
Hydrologic Area Nurnbar:
HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
104.00 atlas squared
Oave Low Flow Record Station:
167.20 cis
*7010 Low Flow Record Station:
34.00 do
W7010 Low Flow Record Station:
43.00 cis
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
63.00 cis
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Oave per Report Equation:
s7010 per Report Equation:
W7010 per Report Equation:
3002 per Report Equation:
mud be <400 p Mw
133.00 sq. miles
1.8 cfahniks square!
239 aft
39.20 cis
57.11 cis
82.35 ak
Drainage Area Ratio: 128:1
[ new DA / Da st page ] Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.91:1
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y) :1
Drainage Area New Site: 133.00 alks squared
MAR New Sits: 1.6 ds/aiks squared
Weighted Gave per Report Equation: 239 ate
Weighted *7010 par Report Equation: 43.08 cis
Weighted Y17010 per Report Equation: 55.19 cis
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 80.78 cis

Ambient Flouride
N. Toe 0 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
a
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
0
3461976
09/24/85
0.327999
0.9
a
3461976
10/31/85
0.327999
0.6
@_J'
3461976
11/27/85
0.327999
0.2
Page 1

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

Ambient Flouride
3463021
05/27/83
0
0.30
3463021
06/21/83
0
0.50
3463021
07/28/83
0
0.9
3463021
08/23/83
0
1-11
3463021 09/29/8-
0
1.9�
3463021
- 'fon-i/83
0
0.4
3463021
11/28/83
0
0.4
3463021
12/28/83
0
0.2 0
3463021
01/11/84
0
0.9 0
3463021
02/22/84
0
0.5 0
3463021
03/30/84
0
0.2
3463021
04/26/84
0
0.1 K
3463021
05/23/84
0
0.60
3463021
06/25/84
0
0.4 0
3463021
07/18/84
0
0.4 0
3463021
08/22/84
0
1.7 0
3463021
10/29/84
0
0.9 0
3463021
11/08/84
0
1.4 0
3463021
-J2tUVJ%
0
1.4
3463021'
01124LW
0
r2.GA
3463021
02/26/85
0
0.5
3463021
03 /2W8k
0
1 Q
3463021
,04-1241W
0
1� >a
346302�/W/8�
0
3463021,
6/261.85"`
0
�.8,1
3463021 '-079/85
0.327999
0.4
3463021
08/15/85
0.327999
1 Q
3463021
09/24/85
0.327999
1.6
3463021
10/31/85
0.327999
1.4 Q
3463021
11/27/85
0.327999
0.8 Q
3463021
12/31/85
0.327999
1.3 0
3463021
01/22/86
0.327999
1.1 Q
3463021
02/21/86
0.327999
0.3
3463021
03/27/86
0.327999
1.4 0
3463021
04/29/86
0.327999
1.2
3463021
05/23/86
0.327999
1.4 0
3463021
06/27/86
0.327999
---2 Q
3463021
K0-7/31/W
0.327999
(2.5
3463021
0.327999
1. Q
3463021
0.327999
r4.9
3463021
`tt/2078-6
0.327999
'11- 'o
3463021
11/20/86
0.327999
1.6 0
3463021
12/18/86
0.327999
1.10
3463021
05/29/ 87
0.327999
0.9 Q
3463021
8/27/87
0.327999
2
3463021
7
0.327999
6
Page 3

Ambient Flouride
3463021
02/29/88
0.327999
0.80
3463021
051
0.327999
0,
3463021
08/23/88 ^
0.327999
02.2')0
3463021
12/21 B8
0.327999
X1'3
3463021
02/16/89
0.327999
2
0
3463021
03/21/89
0.327999
0.30
3463021
06/29/89
0.327999
0.60
3463021
09/27/89
0.327999
1
0
3463021
12/14/89
0.327999
0.6
0
3463021
03/07/90
0.327999
0.4
0
3463021
06/28/90
0.327999
0.8
0
3463021
09/28/90
0.327999
1.2
0
3463021
12/31/90
0.327999
0.1
K
Page 4