VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET - Virginia...110-10387 ACID BLUE BRL 200% 108500 TECTILON BLUE M-AR...

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET

This document gives the pertinent information concerning the reissuance of the VPDES permit listed

below. This permit is being processed as a Major, Industrial permit. Effluent limitations contained in

this permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards of §9 VAC 25-260-00 et seq. The industrial

discharge results from the dyeing of yarn and rugs. This permit action consists of reissuing the permit

for a period of five years for process wastewater outfalls and storm water outfalls. Water quality-based

limitations, federal effluent guideline limitations, and BPJ limitations have been applied to the

facility’s discharge. The process consists of establishing effluent limits for, Total Recoverable Copper

and Zinc, Whole Effluent Toxicity, pH, BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, Chemical Oxygen Demand,

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Total Chromium, Total Phenol, Sulfide, and Color.

1. Facility Name and Address: SIC Code: 2269, Textile Mills Products

Ronile, Inc. (Finishers of Textile)

P. O. Box 1059 4961, Steam and Air-Conditioning

Rocky Mount, VA 24151 Supply (suppliers of heat)

Location: 701 Orchard Avenue, Rocky Mount, Virginia

2. Permit No. VA0076015 Expiration Date: September 20, 2018

3. Owner Contact: Name: Wade Thompson

Title: Environmental Manager

Telephone No: (540) 484-4648

4. Application Complete Date: November 29, 2017

Permit Drafted By: Lewis Pillis Date: July 27, 2018

DEQ Regional Office: Blue Ridge Regional Office

Reviewed By: Becky France Date: August 10, 2018

Public Comment Period Dates: From: August 11, 2018 to: September 11, 2018

5. Receiving Stream Name: Pigg River River Mile: 57.24

Basin: Roanoke River Subbasin: Roanoke River Section: 6a Class: III Special Standards: None

A memorandum describing flow frequency determination is found in Appendix A.

7-Day, 10-Year Low Flow: 6.8 MGD 1-Day, 10-Year Low Flow: 6.1 MGD

30-Day, 5-Year Low Flow (30Q5): 12 MGD Harmonic Mean Flow: 27 MGD

30-Day, 10-Year Low Flow (30Q10): 9.5 MGD

Tidal? NO On 303(d) list? NO

6. Operator License Requirements: Class III

7. Reliability Class: N/A

APPENDIX A

FACILITY INFORMATION

NPDES Permit Rating WorksheetUSGS Map

Site/Flow DiagramSite Visit Memo

DMR Data

NPDES PERMIT RATING WORK SHEET Regular Addition DiscretionaryAddition

NPDES NO. VA0076015 Score change, but no status change Deletion

Facility Name: Ronile, Inc.____________________________________________________

City: _Rocky Mount_________________________________________________________________

Receiving Water: Pigg River__________________________________________________________

Reach Number: _____________________________________

Is this facility a steam electric power plant (SIC=4911) with one or more of the following characteristics? 1. Power output 500 MW or greater (not using a cooling pond/lake) 2. A nuclear power plant 3. Cooling water discharge greater than 25% of the receiving stream's 7Q10 flow rate YES; score is 600 (stop here) X NO (continue)

Is this permit for a municipal separate storm sewer serving a population greater than 100,000?

YES; score is 700 (stop here) X NO (continue)

FACTOR 1: Toxic Pollutant Potential PCS SIC Code: Primary SIC Code: 2269 Other SIC Codes: 4961 Industrial Subcategory Code: 002 (Code 000 if no subcategory)

Determine the Toxicity potential from Appendix A. Be sure to use the TOTAL toxicity potential column and check one)

Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points

No process waste streams 0 0 3. 3 15 7. 7 35

1. 1 5 4. 4 20 8. 8 40

2. 2 10 5. 5 25 X 9. 9 45

6. 6 30 10. 10 50

Code Number Checked: _9__

Total Points Factor 1: __45_

FACTOR 2: Flow/Stream Flow Volume (Complete either Section A or Section B; check only one)

Section A Wastewater Flow Only Considered Section B Wastewater and Stream Flow Considered

Wastewater Type Code Points Wastewater Type Percent of instream Wastewater Concentration (See Instructions) (See Instructions) at Receiving Stream Low Flow Type I: Flow < 5 MGD 11 0 Flow 5 to 10 MGD 12 10 Code Points Flow > 10 to 50 MGD 13 20 Flow > 50 MGD 14 30 Type I/III: < 10 % 41 0

Type II: Flow < 1 MGD 21 10 10 % to < 50 % 42 10 Flow 1 to 5 MGD 22 20 Flow > 5 to 10 MGD 23 30 > 50 % 43 20 Flow > 10 MGD 24 50

Type III: Flow < 1 MGD 31 0 Type II: < 10 % X 51 0 Flow 1 to 5 MGD 32 10 Flow > 5 to 10 MGD 33 20 10 % to <50 % 52 20 Flow > 10 MGD 34 30

> 50 % 53 30

Code Checked from Section A or B: _51__ Total Points Factor 2: __0__

FACTOR 3: Conventional Pollutants NPDES NO: VA0076015 (only when limited by the permit)

A. Oxygen Demanding Pollutant: (check one) BOD X COD Other: _______________________________

Code Points Permit Limits: (check one) < 100 lbs/day 1 0

100 to 1000 lbs/day 2 5 X > 1000 to 3000 lbs/day 3 15 > 3000 lbs/day 4 20

Code Checked: __3__

Points Scored: __15_ B. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Code Points Permit Limits: (check one) < 100 lbs/day 1 0

X 100 to 1000 lbs/day 2 5 > 1000 to 5000 lbs/day 3 15 > 5000 lbs/day 4 20

Code Checked: __2_

Points Scored: __5__ C. Nitrogen Pollutant: (check one) Ammonia Other: ______________________________

Nitrogen Equivalent Code Points Permit Limits: (check one) < 300 lbs/day 1 0

300 to 1000 lbs/day 2 5 > 1000 to 3000 lbs/day 3 15 > 3000 lbs/day 4 20

Code Checked: __1___

Points Scored: _0____

Total Points Factor 3: _20__

FACTOR 4: Public Health Impact

Is there a public drinking water supply located within 50 miles downstream of the effluent discharge (this includes any body of water to which the receiving water is a tributary)? A public drinking water supply may include infiltration galleries, or other methods of conveyance that ultimately get water from the above referenced supply.

YES (If yes, check toxicity potential number below)

X NO (If no, go to Factor 5)

Determine the human health toxicity potential from Appendix A. Use the same SIC code and subcategory reference as in Factor 1. (Be sure to use the human health toxicity group column check one below)

Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points

No process waste streams 0 0 3. 3 0 7. 7 15

1. 1 0 4. 4 0 8. 8 20

2. 2 0 5. 5 5 9. 9 25

6. 6 10 10. 10 30

Code Number Checked: __0__NA

Total Points Factor 4:__0__

FACTOR 5: Water Quality Factors NPDES NO VA0076015

A. Is (or will) one or more of the effluent discharge limits based on water quality factors of the receiving stream (rather than technology-based federal effluent guidelines, or technology-based state effluent guidelines), or has a wasteload allocation been assigned to the discharge:

Code Points X Yes 1 10

No 2 0

B. Is the receiving water in compliance with applicable water quality standards for pollutants that are water quality limited in the permit?


No 2 5

C. Does the effluent discharged from this facility exhibit the reasonable potential to violate water quality standards due to whole effluent toxicity?


No 2 0

Code Number Checked: A 1 B 1 C 1

Points Factor 5: A 10 + B 0 + C 10 = 20 TOTAL

FACTOR 6: Proximity to Near Coastal Waters

A. Base Score: Enter flow code here (from Factor 2): ___ Enter the multiplication factor that corresponds to the flow code: _____

Check appropriate facility HPRI Code (from PCS):

HPRI# Code HPRI Score Flow Code Multiplication Factor

1 1 20 11, 31, or 41 0.00 2 2 0 12, 32, or 42 0.05 3 3 30 13, 33, or 43 0.10 X 4 4 0 14 or 34 0.15 5 5 20 21 or 51 0.10

22 or 52 0.30 23 or 53 0.60

HPRI code checked: 4 24 1.00

Base Score: (HPRI Score) 0 X (Multiplication Factor) = 0 (TOTAL POINTS)

B. Additional Points NEP ProgramFor a facility that has an HPRI code of 3, does the facility discharge to one of the estuaries enrolled in the National Estuary Protection (NEP) program (see instructions) or the Chesapeake Bay?

Code Points Yes 1 10 No 2 0

C. Additional Points Great Lakes Area of ConcernFor a facility that has an HPRI code of 5, does the facility discharge any of the pollutants of concern into one of the Great Lakes' 31 areas of concern (see Instructions)

Code Points Yes 1 10 No 2 0

Code Number Checked: A B C __

Points Factor 6: A + B + C = 0 TOTAL

SCORE SUMMARY NPDES NO. VA0076015

Factor Description Total Points

1 Toxic Pollutant Potential __45_

2 Flows/Streamflow Volume _____

3 Conventional Pollutants __20_

4 Public Health Impacts _____

5 Water Quality Factors _ 20

6 Proximity to Near Coastal Waters _____

TOTAL (Factors 1 through 6) __85___

S1. Is the total score equal to or greater than 80? X Yes (Facility is a major) No

S2. If the answer to the above questions is no, would you like this facility to be discretionary major?

No

Yes (Add 500 points to the above score and provide reason below:

Reason:

NEW SCORE: _85____

OLD SCORE: _85____

Lewis J. Pillis___________ Permit Reviewer's Name

( 540 ) _562-6789_____________ Phone Number

_____July 23, 2018____________ Date

bsu12529

Text Box

006

bsu12529

Text Box

007

bsu12529

Text Box

008

bsu12529

Text Box

009

bsu12529

Text Box

010

bsu12529

Text Box

011

bsu12529

Text Box

012

bsu12529

Text Box

013

bsu12529

Text Box

014

bsu12529

Text Box

015

Ronile Inc., MSDSs reviewed:

110-10003 ACID YELLOW 4NGL 200%

Monoazo

109092 ACID YELLOW 4NGL 200%

>50% CAS# 69762-08-9

Color sources, Inc.

10 lb

120-10018 LEVELER PPL 127670 LEVELER PPL Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 10

120-10506 VERSATINT SUPRA GREEN 123900 VERSATINT SUPRA GREEN Milliken & Company 15

110-10069 ACID RED 2G

Monoazo dye

109092 ACID RED 2G

12270-02-9

Color sources, Inc.

30

110-10034 ASTRAZON BRILL RED 4GN 200

(basic red 14, a methine dyestuff)

110085 DORACREL BRIL RED X4GS 200%

CAS# 72208-31-0

M Dohmen USA, Inc

35

120-10028 CARRIER NOC 127670 CARRIER NOC Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 50

120-10503 MUANOX CONC 127490 MUANOX CONC Peachstate Labs Inc 60

110-10386 ACID RED 2B 111840 DYE O NYL RED 2B

CAS# 61931-22-4

Dye-O-Chem, American Inc

65

110-10425

H400, H410*

ACRYLIC YELLOW X8G

Aquatic Acute1 & Chronic 1 Basic dye

110085 Doracryl yellow X8GLS 200%

25-50% CAS# 25717-55-9

M Dohmen USA, Inc 65

110-10026 ACID ORANGE 3G 200%

AKA Acid orange 156

113200

contains

FOURACID ORANGE 3G 200

Sodium tripolyphosphate

Fibro Chem Inc

80

110-10085 TELON BLACK BLD 100% 109092 ACID BLACK 2S-LD ColorSources, Inc. 100

110-10427 DORACRYL FAVINE X10G 600%

a methine dyestuff

110085 DORACRYL FAVINE X10G 600% M Dohmen USA, Inc

110

120-10389 SODIUM HYDROSULFITE WRM 128900 PRES CLEAR WRM Prescott Chemical Inc 125

110-10387 ACID BLUE BRL 200% 108500 TECTILON BLUE M-AR Huntsman International, LLC 160

110-10033 ASTRAZON BLUE BG 200%

Basic dye

110085 DORACRYL BLUEGREEN X5GS 200

CAS#33203-82-6

M Dohmen USA, Inc

175

110-10364 PREMET BORDEAUX R

CI acid red 182

120255 KEMALAN BORDEAUX K-RL

CAS# 5802-43-5

Jaychem LLC

190

110-10366

H412*

ACRYLIC RED GRL

Aquatic Chronic 3 Azo dyestuff

110085 DORACRYL RED XGRLS 200%

>25% CAS# 93804-07-0

M Dohmen USA, Inc

210

110-10035

H410*

ASTRAZON RED VLT 3RNO1

Basic dye

110085 DORACRYL BRILL RED XBG

60-70% CAS# 6359-45-1

M Dohmen USA, Inc

220

110-10363 PREMET YELLOW LNW 250%

Metal complex dye contains cobalt

113200 FOURACID YELLOW NW 250 Fibro Chem Inc

230

110-10032 ACRYLIC BLUE FGGL 300%

Monoazo dyestuff

110085 DORACRYL BLUE X3GLS 300

CAS# 12270-13-2

M Dohmen USA, Inc

Basic blue 41 (zinc free) 425

110-10054 PREMET BLACK BGL 200%

Acid black 1, CI acid black 107

111840 DYE-O-LAN BLACK BGL 200%

CAS# 12218-96-1

Dye-O-Chem, American Inc

450

120-10401 ASTRAGAL PAN-02 104255 ASTRAGAL PAN-02 StarChem LLC X 450

110-10021

H400, H410* ACRYLIC GOLDEN YEL GL 200

Aquatic Acute 1 &Chronic 1 – Basic

110085 DORACRYL GOLD YELLOW XGFLS

200 45-55% CAS# 38936-35-5

M Dohmen USA, Inc

530

120-10016 Buffer 5 Tote 127670 Buffer 5 Tote Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 495

120-10339 PRO GUM 493/Aqualon 49323 GUAR 113200 GALACTASOL 20H5FD GUAR Fibro Chem Inc 750

120-10036 WETTER D-90 127670 WETTER D-90 Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 950

120-10060 BUFFER R 127670 BUFFER R Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 950

120-10493 SYNTHASIL SW 216 127670 SYNTHASIL SW 216 Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 1,025

120-10051 NOVOC A-80 127490 NOVOC A-80 Peachstate Labs Inc 1,100

120-10005 POMOCO 1014T DRUM 127670 POMOCO 1014T Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 1,350

120-10047 FOAM PRESS 50 128900 FOAM PRESS 50 Prescott Chemical Inc 1,700

120-10019 FORMAC 50% BULK N/A #N/A 1,793

120-10080 POLYWET 750 DE N/A #N/A 3,227

120-10502 POMOLUBE TXJ-22 127670 POMOLUBE TXJ-22 Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 4,050

120-10048 ACETIC ACID 56% TOTE 105902 ACETIC ACID 56% Brenntag Southeast 4,780

120-10004 POMOSOFT 540 127670 POMOSOFT 540 Piedmont Chemical Ind Inc 5,250

120-10050 NICCA-RESIST SB-4 124636 NICCARESIST SB-4 Nicca USA Inc X 5,685

Environmental hazards from Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS);

not adopted by all dye manufacturers:

H400: Very toxic to aquatic life

H401: Toxic to aquatic life

H402: Harmful to aquatic life

H410: Very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects (Aquatic Chronic)

H411: Toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects

H412: Harmful to aquatic life with long-lasting effects (Aquatic Chronic)

H413: May cause long-lasting harmful effects to aquatic life

Ronile IncVA0076015 Outfall 001

COD, mg/L Zn, ug/L Cu, ug/L Cr, mg/L Color, ADMI

Mo. Ave An. Ave. Max Min Max ave max ave max ave max ave maxlimit=> 6.0 9.0 NL NL NL NL NL 140 20 NL NL NL 0.97 1.9 499

2015 5 0.09 0.117 7.34 7.98 <QL <QL 80 6.1 8 70 <QL <QL 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 124

6 0.087 0.114 7 8.26 1.7 5 111 7.3 9 62 <QL <QL 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 243

7 0.076 0.107 7.1 7.77 <QL <QL 81 9 16 77 <QL <QL 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 274

8 0.085 0.119 7.14 8.12 1.8 5.5 118 9 15 42 <QL 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 290

9 0.105 0.128 6.72 7.95 <QL <QL 84 9 14 70 <QL <QL 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 248

10 0.105 0.129 7.07 8.58 <QL <QL 55 11 13 45 <QL <QL 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 148

11 0.097 0.133 7.14 7.84 2.9 6.5 55 12 15 56 <QL <QL <QL <QL <QL <QL 222

12 0.097 0.092 0.126 7.11 7.84 1.5 6 55 10 12 110 <QL <QL 0.012 0.014 0.01 0.01 182

2016 1 0.09 0.118 7.27 7.95 3.6 7.7 66 14 20 89 <QL <QL 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.02 138

2 0.148 0.189 7.28 8.26 <QL <QL 77 8 23 110 <QL <QL 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 104

3 0.158 0.2 6.72 7.98 <QL <QL 63 11 20 89 <QL <QL 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.02 136

4 0.15 0.186 6.86 7.42 <QL <QL 62 6 7 81 <QL <QL 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 135

5 0.104 0.137 6.86 7.42 <QL <QL 54 6 8 50 <QL <QL 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 165

6 0.095 0.118 6.69 7.42 <QL <QL 56 10 18 57 <QL <QL 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 248

7 0.083 0.11 6.44 7.7 <QL <QL 73 11 19 44 <QL <QL 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 249

8 0.098 0.127 6.58 7.42 <QL <QL 72 9 13 48 <QL <QL 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 262

9 0.103 0.126 6.71 7.58 1.9 5.7 146 6 7 43 <QL <QL 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.02 189

10 0.105 0.125 6.83 7.33 <QL <QL 58 5 8 73 <QL <QL 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 163

11 0.115 0.132 7.23 7.56 <QL <QL 58 3 4 37 <QL <QL 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 150

12 0.12 0.114 0.153 7.08 7.84 3 6 78 4 5 61 <QL <QL 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.06 111

2017 1 0.106 0.144 7 7.7 1.7 5.2 119 5 7 95 <QL <QL 0.07 0.1 0.03 0.05 123

2 0.1 0.129 7 7.28 <QL <QL 84 5 7 41 <QL <QL 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.04 124

3 0.107 0.133 6.44 7.48 <QL <QL 75 3 8 47 <QL 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 131

4 0.108 0.14 6.77 7.42 <QL <QL 62 3 4 45 <QL <QL 0.025 0.026 0.012 0.013 138

5 0.101 0.135 6.8 7.56 <QL <QL 67 3 3 52 <QL 0.02 <QL <QL <QL <QL 151

6 0.097 0.135 6.86 7.56 <QL <QL 68 4 7 32 <QL <QL 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 175

7 0.102 0.128 6.86 7.32 <QL <QL 70 3 3 45 <QL <QL 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 218

8 0.103 0.14 6.72 7.42 <QL <QL 70 2 2 65 <QL <QL <QL <QL <QL <QL 212

9 0.118 0.14 6.58 7.42 <QL <QL 62 6 13 51 <QL <QL 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 188



12 0.087 0.105 0.134 6.72 7.56 <QL <QL 70 4 8 74 <QL <QL 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 154

2018 1 0.095 0.147 6.78 7.6 5 25.1 131 4 12 47 <QL <QL <QL <QL <QL <QL 160

2 0.115 0.146 6.86 7.44 <QL <QL 113 3 5 42 <QL <QL 0.007 0.022 0.004 0.011 188

3 0.119 0.145 6.86 7.62 <QL <QL 64 2 3 68 <QL 0.01 <QL 0.01 <QL 0.01 134

4 0.111 0.143 6.86 7.47 <QL <QL 70 4 6 21 <QL <QL 0.022 0.032 0.011 0.017 170

0.106 0.2 6.44 8.58 results show toxicity in BOD test 60.4 290 max

LT ave max min max ave 179 ave

Note: O&G and total sulfides were <QL for all months

FLOW, MGD pH, SU BOD5, mg/L TSS, mg/L Phenolics, mg/L Phenolics, Kg/D

Ronile IncVA0076015 Outfall 001

Evaluation to see if tocxicity is evident in BOD tests.

BOD COD, mg/L COD/BODave COD/BODmax Zn, ug/L TUaave max <QL=2 ratio ratio

2015 5 <QL <QL 2 80 40 62

6 1.7 5 5 111 65 22 77 <1.0

7 <QL <QL 2 81 41 42

8 1.8 5.5 5.5 118 66 21 70

9 <QL <QL 2 84 42 45 <1.00

10 <QL <QL 2 55 28 56

11 2.9 6.5 6.5 55 19 8 110

12 1.5 6 6 55 37 9 89 <1.0

2016 1 3.6 7.7 7.7 66 18 9 110

2 <QL <QL 2 77 39 89

3 <QL <QL 2 63 32 81 <1.0

4 <QL <QL 2 62 31 50

5 <QL <QL 2 54 27 57

6 <QL <QL 2 56 28 44 <1.0

7 <QL <QL 2 73 37 48

8 <QL <QL 2 72 36 43

9 1.9 5.7 5.7 146 77 26 73 <1.0

10 <QL <QL 2 58 29 37

11 <QL <QL 2 58 29 61

12 3 6 6 78 26 13 95 <1.0

2017 1 1.7 5.2 5.2 119 70 23 41

2 <QL <QL 2 84 42 47

3 <QL <QL 2 75 38 45 1.23

4 <QL <QL 2 62 31 52

5 <QL <QL 2 67 34 32

6 <QL <QL 2 68 34 45 <1.0

7 <QL <QL 2 70 35 65

8 <QL <QL 2 70 35 51

9 <QL <QL 2 62 31 52 1.41

10 <QL <QL 2 59 30 82

11 <QL <QL 2 45 23 74

12 <QL <QL 2 70 35 47 1.42

2018 1 5 25.1 25.1 131 26 5 42

2 <QL <QL 2 113 57 68

3 <QL <QL 2 64 32 21 3.27

4 <QL <QL 2 70 35 42

26 to 77 5 to 57ave = 45 ave = 30

BOD5, mg/L

Annual Sulfate Trend - Ronile Lagoon Monitoring Wells

CO o> o T- CM CO IO <o h- CO O) o •4— CM CO m (£> r- CO o> O) o o O o o o o O o o 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 i 1 • • i • 1

u u o o o o o o o u u u o o U o o o O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Sampling Date

M E M O R A N D U M

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Blue Ridge Regional Office

3019 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, VA 24019

SUBJECT: Site Visit, Rōnile, Inc., VPDES Permit No. VA0076015

TO: Kip Foster

FROM: Lewis Pillis

DATE: July 3, 2018

COPIES: file

I visited the subject facility on Monday, July 2nd. Wade Thompson, Environmental Manager, accompanied me on a tour of the outside operations. The WWTP (AKA water plant) operates 5 days/week or less even though the manufacturing operates every day. The River at outfall 001 was viewed from the catwalk, but effluent was not visible. The aeration basin was nearly full and the curtain that separates the basin was torn and Wade stated that a quote for a replacement had been obtained and a new curtain would be replaced in future. A small amount of sludge was on a drying bed.

Outfall 004, stormwater from the paved area around the wastewater plant enters the River immediately downstream of outfall 001. Monitoring well 4 is just on the upstream side of the path to 001. The site map shows the relative locations, but not their proximity to each other.

Old equipment was being stored behind the warehouse. This area drains through outfall 003 to the vegetated utility easement.

A concrete unloading ramp for sawdust is under construction. Sawdust is used as fuel in the boiler. Previously, sawdust was used as a ramp to the unloading conveyor. Sawdust washes to a low place in the parking lot, and runs into the easement area via outfall 009. There is screening in place to catch some of the sawdust. Sawdust has passed through or around the screen and accumulated at the fence line, so that there is a spongy layer of sawdust at this point. Sawdust needs to be removed from in front of the screen and fence. It was reported that there is rip rap beyond the fence, but it could not be seen due to vegetation growing on the fence. Once the ramp is built, less sawdust will wash to the outfall.

Stormwater falling just southwest of the sawdust unloading area flows to outfall 007 via a half acre grassy area. A couple of spots could be seen where solids had settled in the grass. Concrete at the fence appeared to be breaking up and was in need of repair. Outfall 005 is in the southern corner of facility at the end of a ditch and is noted incorrectly on the site map at the upper end of the ditch.

Production at the facility was discussed and it was noted that production has gradually changed, in the past 4 to 5 years, from the use of acid dyes, which could be recycled, to acrylic or basic dyes, which cannot be recycled. There had also been an increase in the amount of chemicals used in dyeing. Wool is not being dyed currently and is not being considered. It was stated that the Technical Director researched toxicity of all chemicals prior to use, but that ecological information (i.e. aquatic toxicity) was not always available. The writer shared that some SDSs provided to DEQ contain GHS hazard

codes indicating they are chronically toxic to aquatic organisms, but that many SDSs had no information at all about ecological affects.

It was stated that there had been a large increase (10x) in the use of Pres Clear WRM over the same time period. The SDS indicates that this is stabilized sodium hydrosulfite, CAS #7775-14-6 (AKA sodium dithionite) and no ecological information is provided. It was hypothesized that this chemical along with Nicca Resist may have had the effect on the aeration basin of releasing dye and zinc from sludge.

APPENDIX B

RECEIVING WATERS INFORMATION

Flow Frequency MemoSTOReT Data

M E M O R A N D U M

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

West Central Regional Office

3019 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, VA 24019

SUBJECT: Flow Frequency Determination, Rōnile, Inc. WWTP VPDES Permit No. VA0076015

TO: File

FROM: Lewis Pillis

DATE: April 29, 2013

COPIES:

Critical flows for the gages used in preparing the referenced permit have changed since development ofthe last permit. In 2011, USGS calculated low flows from the gages previously used. These gage flowswere used to find resulting critical flows at the Ronile facility and then averaged. The two gages usedpreviously are:

Blackwater River gage # 02056900 at Rocky MountPigg River gage # 02058400 near Sandy Level

The Surface Water Investigations Office in Charlottesville performed 14 site specific flow measurementson the Pigg River, near Ronile at Latitude 36 59'02", Longitude 79 52'52", NAD 83, between 1993 and2005. Mean daily flows, on the same days, at the gages above were found in the USGS web-interface.The same correlation, using standard Agency regression analysis in 2008 was maintained and newcritical flows determined at Ronile were calculated by inserting each gage’s critical flows into therelationship [regression equation] and then averaged. Regression curves are shown on the followingpages.

Critical flows at the Ronile outfall 001 on the Pigg River are determined to be:cfs in 2008; cfs in 2011 MGD in 2008; MGD in 2011

1Q10 8.96 9.42 5.79 6.17Q10 10.0 10.5 6.49 6.830Q5 18.1 18.4 11.7 11.930Q10 14.2 14.8 9.2 9.5HF 1Q10 25.2 * 16.3 *HF 7Q10 28.1 * 18.1 *Harmonic Mean 41.9 * 27.1 *

High flow months are Jan – May* Flow not recalculated by USGS

Pigg River above Ronile STP, at Rocky Mount, VA #02057650

vs Blackwater River near Rocky Mount, VA #02056900

y = 2.4246x0.7062

1

10

100

1 10 100 1000

Pig

g R

ive

r R

oc

ky M

ou

nt

Blackwater River

Flow Data (cfs) Flow Frequencies (cfs) 2011 USGS flow frequencies (cfs)

Date Blackwatr Pigg RM SUMMARY OUTPUT Blackwatr Pigg RM Blackwatr Pigg RM

9/1/1993 39 39 8.4 1Q10 10.898 8.84 1Q10 11.299

6/22/1994 57 47.2 Regression Statistics 9.8 7Q10 12.152 10.3 7Q10 12.587

11/9/1994 50 42.2 Multiple R 0.985115 22 30Q5 21.511 22.1 30Q5 21.580

11/19/1996 128 86.3 R Square 0.970452 32 HF 1Q10 28.027 32 HF 1Q10 28.027

5/22/1997 94 74.4 Adjusted R Square 0.965527 38 HF 7Q10 31.643 38 HF 7Q10 31.643

6/24/1997 84 58.7 Standard Error 4.66325 61 HM 44.202 61 HM 44.202

9/17/1997 35 29.4 Observations 14 16 30Q10 17.179 17 30Q10 17.930

8/17/1999 5.9 7.06 115 mi2 DA 68.8 mi2 115 mi2 DA 68.8 mi2

7/8/2004 70 41.6 Jan-May Jan-May

7/29/2004 59 43.3

8/26/2004 42 38.8

9/21/2004 128 59.1 85 4/25/2008 55.872

11/1/2004 103 54.6

12/8/2004 182 78.2

Pigg River above Ronile STP, at Rocky Mount, VA #02057650

vs Pigg River near Sandy Level, VA #02058400

2008 FLOWS:

Flow Data (cfs) Flow Frequencies (cfs) Blackwater

Date Pigg SL Pigg RM SUMMARY OUTPUT Pigg SL Pigg RM Pigg RM Ave, cfs Ave, MGD

9/1/1993 143 39 42 1Q10 7.031 10.898 8.964798 5.79

6/22/1994 190 47.2 Regression Statistics 47 7Q10 7.937 12.152 10.04438 6.49

11/9/1994 182 42.2 Multiple R 0.977322 83 30Q5 14.646 21.511 18.07848 11.68

11/19/1996 383 86.3 R Square 0.955159 123 HF 1Q10 22.374 28.027 25.20074 16.29

5/22/1997 352 74.4 Adjusted R Square 0.947686 134 HF 7Q10 24.537 31.643 28.09038 18.15

6/24/1997 272 58.7 Standard Error 5.744595 209 HM 39.609 44.202 41.90528 27.08

9/17/1997 170 29.4 Observations 8 65 30Q10 11.255 17.179 14.21688 9.19

8/17/1999 57 7.06 350 mi2 DA 68.8 mi2

7/8/2004 236 41.6 Jan-May

7/29/2004 337 43.3 353 4/25/2008 69.665

y = 0.1254x1.0773

1

10

100

10 100 1000

Pig

g R

ive

r R

oc

ky M

ou

nt

Pigg River Sandy Level

7/29/2004 337 43.3 353 4/25/2008 69.665

8/26/2004 217 38.8 date cross section was measured

9/21/2004 318 59.1

11/1/2004 280 54.6

12/8/2004 462 78.2

River/Diffuser measurements made on 4/25/8 by Roger McBride of Ronile: 2011 USGS Flow Frequencies (cfs) Blackwater/

Pigg SL Pigg RM Pigg RM Ave, cfs Ave, MGD % change

flow at Pigg River gage was 353 cfs on 4/25/8 44.8 1Q10 7.537 11.2986 9.417981 6.09 5.06%

flow at Blackwater River gage was 85 cfs on 4/25/8 49.9 7Q10 8.466 12.58652 10.5261 6.80 4.80%

86.4 30Q5 15.293 21.57992 18.43666 11.92 1.98%

Average of calculated flows at Ronile = (86.659+64.559)/2 123 HF 1Q10 22.374 28.02703 25.20074 16.29 0.00%

75.609 cfs 134 HF 7Q10 24.537 31.64341 28.09038 18.15 0.00%

48.8661 MGD 209 HM 39.609 44.20181 41.90528 27.08 0.00%

66.7 30Q10 11.573 17.93012 14.75132 9.53 3.76%

350 mi2 DA 68.8 mi2

Jan-May

2011 USGS gage flows shown in italics

Pigg River Data Upstream of RonileStation ID 4APGG057.85

Collection Date Time Temp Celcius Field pH Date Temp C Date Field pH02/27/2007 11:30 6.1 7.4 1 08/14/2007 14:0023.5 04/05/2007 12:007.504/05/2007 12:00 12.5 7.5 2 08/07/2008 13:0022.7 02/27/2007 11:307.406/05/2007 12:00 19.2 5.9 3 06/02/2008 12:3021.6 02/05/2008 12:007.208/14/2007 14:00 23.5 6.1 4 06/05/2007 12:0019.2 10/09/2008 14:007.210/02/2007 12:00 15.2 6.1 5 10/09/2008 14:0016.8 08/07/2008 13:007.112/05/2007 12:00 3.4 6.6 6 10/02/2007 12:0015.2 12/16/2008 11:00702/05/2008 12:00 9.3 7.2 7 04/05/2007 12:0012.5 12/05/2007 12:006.604/07/2008 12:30 10.4 6.6 8 04/07/2008 12:3010.4 04/07/2008 12:306.606/02/2008 12:30 21.6 6.5 9 02/05/2008 12:009.3 06/02/2008 12:306.508/07/2008 13:00 22.7 7.1 10 12/16/2008 11:008.1 08/14/2007 14:006.110/09/2008 14:00 16.8 7.2 11 02/27/2007 11:306.1 10/02/2007 12:006.112/16/2008 11:00 8.1 7 12 12/05/2007 12:003.4 06/05/2007 12:005.9

STORET Stream dataStation 4APGG068.49

Date Time Depth Temp Celsius Field Ph Parm Name Value

7/26/2001 0.3 26.1 7.7 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 30.99/4/2001 0.3 21 8 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 23.411/29/2001 0.3 11.7 8 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 27.71/10/2002 0.3 7 7.4 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 17.53/14/2002 0.3 8.3 7.1 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 23.95/15/2002 0.3 17.5 7.93 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 317/16/2002 0.3 21.6 7.9 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 38.39/19/2002 0.3 20.5 8.03 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 36.711/18/2002 0.3 8.6 7.51 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 34.52/3/2003 0.3 4.7 7.8 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 29.13/11/2003 0.3 5.6 7.8 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 33.25/27/2003 0.3 14.8 7.42 HARDNESS, TOTAL (MG/L AS CACO3) 31.9

APPENDIX C

PERMIT LIMIT DEVELOPMENT

Waste Load Allocation SpreadsheetSTATS printouts

Ronile Inc. VA0076015

Federal Effluent Guidelines - 40 CFR Part 410, Subpart G, NSPS

Parameter

EffluentGuidelines

Average (kg/Kkg)

Effluent Guidelines Maximum (kg/Kkg)

Effluent LimitAverage(kg/day)

Effluent Limit'Maximum(kg/day)

Equivalentconcentrationat max 30 day

ave flow &average

loading limit(mg/L)

Equivalentconcentrationat max 30 day

ave flow &maximum

loading limit(mg/L)

BOD5 1.9 3.6 19.38 36.72

COD 21.9 33.9 223.38 345.78

TSS 4.4 9.8 44.88 99.96

Sulfide 0.12 0.24 1.22 2.45 2.0 4.1

Phenols 0.06 0.12 0.61 1.22 1.0 2.0

Total Chromium 0.06 0.12 0.61 1.22 1.0 2.0

pH

Notes:

Production rate from 2017 form 2C

Average Daily Production (kkg) = 10.2

6.0 - 9.0 at all times

Facility Name: Ronile Inc 001 CORMIX DILUTIONS Permit No.: VA0076015

Receiving Stream: Pigg River Version: OWP Guidance Memo 00-2011 (8/24/00)

3.98E-08 4E-08 1.122E-08

Stream Information 7.94E-07 Stream Flows Mixing Information Effluent Information 1.91E-07 1.905E-07

Mean Hardness (as CaCO3) = 30 mg/L 1Q10 (Annual) = 6 MGD Annual - 1Q10 Mix = 100 % Mean Hardness (as CaCO3) = 152 mg/L

90% Temperature (Annual) = 22.7 deg C 7Q10 (Annual) = 18.5 MGD - 7Q10 Mix = 100 % 90% Temp (Annual) = 29 deg C

90% Temperature (Wet season) = 22.7 deg C 30Q10 (Annual) = 25 MGD - 30Q10 Mix = 100 % 90% Temp (Wet season) = 17 deg C

90% Maximum pH = 7.4 SU 1Q10 (Wet season) = 6 MGD Wet Season - 1Q10 Mix = 100 % 90% Maximum pH = 7.95 SU

10% Maximum pH = 6.1 SU 30Q10 (Wet season) = 25 MGD - 30Q10 Mix = 100 % 10% Maximum pH = 6.72 SU

Tier Designation (1 or 2) = 2 30Q5 = 25 MGD Discharge Flow = 1 MGD

Public Water Supply (PWS) Y/N? = N Harmonic Mean = 25 MGD

Trout Present Y/N? = n

Early Life Stages Present Y/N? = y

Parameter Background Method

(ug/l unless noted) Conc. Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Target Value

Acenapthene 0 -- -- na 9.9E+02 -- -- na 2.6E+04 -- -- na 9.9E+01 -- -- na 2.6E+03 -- -- na 2.6E+03 2.6E+03

Acrolein 0 3.0E+00 3.0E+00 na 9.3E+00 2.1E+01 5.9E+01 na 2.4E+02 7.5E-01 7.5E-01 na 9.3E-01 5.3E+00 1.5E+01 na 2.4E+01 5.3E+00 1.5E+01 na 2.4E+01 2.1E+00

AcrylonitrileC0 -- -- na 2.5E+00 -- -- na 6.5E+01 -- -- na 2.5E-01 -- -- na 6.5E+00 -- -- na 6.5E+00 6.5E+00

Aldrin C 0 3.0E+00 -- na 5.0E-04 2.1E+01 -- na 1.3E-02 7.5E-01 -- na 5.0E-05 5.3E+00 -- na 1.3E-03 5.3E+00 -- na 1.3E-03 1.3E-03

Ammonia-N (mg/l)

(Yearly) 0 2.15E+01 2.72E+00 na -- 1.50E+02 7.08E+01 na -- 5.37E+00 6.81E-01 na -- 3.76E+01 1.77E+01 na -- 3.76E+01 1.77E+01 na -- 1.1E+01Ammonia-N (mg/l)

(High Flow) 0 2.15E+01 2.81E+00 na -- 1.50E+02 7.30E+01 na -- 5.37E+00 7.02E-01 na -- 3.76E+01 1.82E+01 na -- 3.76E+01 1.82E+01 na -- 1.1E+01

Anthracene 0 -- -- na 4.0E+04 -- -- na 1.0E+06 -- -- na 4.0E+03 -- -- na 1.0E+05 -- -- na 1.0E+05 1.0E+05

Antimony 0 -- -- na 6.4E+02 -- -- na 1.7E+04 -- -- na 6.4E+01 -- -- na 1.7E+03 -- -- na 1.7E+03 1.7E+03

Arsenic 0.28 3.4E+02 1.5E+02 na -- 2.4E+03 2.9E+03 na -- 8.5E+01 3.8E+01 na -- 5.9E+02 7.3E+02 na -- 5.9E+02 7.3E+02 na -- 2.4E+02

Barium 19 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Benzene C 0 -- -- na 5.1E+02 -- -- na 1.3E+04 -- -- na 5.1E+01 -- -- na 1.3E+03 -- -- na 1.3E+03 1.3E+03

BenzidineC0 -- -- na 2.0E-03 -- -- na 5.2E-02 -- -- na 2.0E-04 -- -- na 5.2E-03 -- -- na 5.2E-03 5.2E-03

Benzo (a) anthracene C 0 -- -- na 1.8E-01 -- -- na 4.7E+00 -- -- na 1.8E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- na 4.7E-01 4.7E-01

Benzo (b) fluoranthene C 0 -- -- na 1.8E-01 -- -- na 4.7E+00 -- -- na 1.8E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- na 4.7E-01 4.7E-01

Benzo (k) fluoranthene C 0 -- -- na 1.8E-01 -- -- na 4.7E+00 -- -- na 1.8E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- na 4.7E-01 4.7E-01

Benzo (a) pyrene C 0 -- -- na 1.8E-01 -- -- na 4.7E+00 -- -- na 1.8E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- na 4.7E-01 4.7E-01

Bis2-Chloroethyl Ether C0 -- -- na 5.3E+00 -- -- na 1.4E+02 -- -- na 5.3E-01 -- -- na 1.4E+01 -- -- na 1.4E+01 1.4E+01

Bis2-Chloroisopropyl Ether 0 -- -- na 6.5E+04 -- -- na 1.7E+06 -- -- na 6.5E+03 -- -- na 1.7E+05 -- -- na 1.7E+05 1.7E+05

Bis 2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate C0 -- -- na 2.2E+01 -- -- na 5.7E+02 -- -- na 2.2E+00 -- -- na 5.7E+01 -- -- na 5.7E+01 5.7E+01

Bromoform C 0 -- -- na 1.4E+03 -- -- na 3.6E+04 -- -- na 1.4E+02 -- -- na 3.6E+03 -- -- na 3.6E+03 3.6E+03

Butylbenzylphthalate 0 -- -- na 1.9E+03 -- -- na 4.9E+04 -- -- na 1.9E+02 -- -- na 4.9E+03 -- -- na 4.9E+03 4.9E+03

Cadmium 0 1.7E+00 5.1E-01 na -- 1.2E+01 1.0E+01 na -- 4.2E-01 1.3E-01 na -- 3.0E+00 2.5E+00 na -- 3.0E+00 2.5E+00 na -- 1.2E+00

Carbon Tetrachloride C 0 -- -- na 1.6E+01 -- -- na 4.2E+02 -- -- na 1.6E+00 -- -- na 4.2E+01 -- -- na 4.2E+01 4.2E+01

Carbaryl 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 na -- 1.5E+01 4.1E+01 na -- 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 na -- 3.7E+00 1.0E+01 na -- 3.7E+00 1.0E+01 na -- 1.5E+00

Chlordane C 0 2.4E+00 4.3E-03 na 8.1E-03 1.7E+01 8.4E-02 na 2.1E-01 6.0E-01 1.1E-03 na 8.1E-04 4.2E+00 2.1E-02 na 2.1E-02 4.2E+00 2.1E-02 na 2.1E-02 1.3E-02

Chloride 0 8.6E+05 2.3E+05 na -- 6.0E+06 4.5E+06 na -- 2.2E+05 5.8E+04 na -- 1.5E+06 1.1E+06 na -- 1.5E+06 1.1E+06 na -- 6.0E+05

TRC 0 1.9E+01 1.1E+01 na -- 1.3E+02 2.1E+02 na -- 4.8E+00 2.8E+00 na -- 3.3E+01 5.4E+01 na -- 3.3E+01 5.4E+01 na -- 1.3E+01

Chlorobenzene 0 -- -- na 1.6E+03 -- -- na 4.2E+04 -- -- na 1.6E+02 -- -- na 4.2E+03 -- -- na 4.2E+03 4.2E+03

FRESHWATER

Most Limiting Allocations

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA / WASTELOAD ALLOCATION ANALYSIS

Water Quality Criteria Wasteload Allocations Antidegradation Baseline Antidegradation Allocations

page 1 of 12 MSTRANTI (Version 3b) (9-5-17 DRAFT) Ronile - Freshwater WLAs 7/25/2018 - 11:22 AM



Most Limiting AllocationsWater Quality Criteria Wasteload Allocations Antidegradation Baseline Antidegradation Allocations

ChlorodibromomethaneC0 -- -- na 1.3E+02 -- -- na 3.4E+03 -- -- na 1.3E+01 -- -- na 3.4E+02 -- -- na 3.4E+02 3.4E+02

Chloroform 0 -- -- na 1.1E+04 -- -- na 2.9E+05 -- -- na 1.1E+03 -- -- na 2.9E+04 -- -- na 2.9E+04 2.9E+04

2-Chloronaphthalene 0 -- -- na 1.6E+03 -- -- na 4.2E+04 -- -- na 1.6E+02 -- -- na 4.2E+03 -- -- na 4.2E+03 4.2E+03

2-Chlorophenol 0 -- -- na 1.5E+02 -- -- na 3.9E+03 -- -- na 1.5E+01 -- -- na 3.9E+02 -- -- na 3.9E+02 3.9E+02

Chlorpyrifos 0 8.3E-02 4.1E-02 na -- 5.8E-01 8.0E-01 na -- 2.1E-02 1.0E-02 na -- 1.5E-01 2.0E-01 na -- 1.5E-01 2.0E-01 na -- 5.8E-02

Chromium III 0.12 3.1E+02 3.2E+01 na -- 2.2E+03 6.3E+02 na -- 7.7E+01 8.2E+00 na -- 5.4E+02 1.6E+02 na -- 5.4E+02 1.6E+02 na -- 9.4E+01

Chromium VI 0 1.6E+01 1.1E+01 na -- 1.1E+02 2.1E+02 na -- 4.0E+00 2.8E+00 na -- 2.8E+01 5.4E+01 na -- 2.8E+01 5.4E+01 na -- 1.1E+01

Chromium, Total 0.12 -- -- 1.0E+02 -- -- -- na -- -- -- 1.0E+01 -- -- -- 2.6E+02 -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Chrysene C 0 -- -- 3.8E-02 1.8E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- 3.8E-03 1.8E-03 -- -- 9.9E-02 4.7E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-02 4.7E-02

Copper 0.68 6.7E+00 3.8E+00 na -- 4.3E+01 6.1E+01 na -- 2.2E+00 1.5E+00 na -- 1.1E+01 1.6E+01 na -- 1.1E+01 1.6E+01 na -- 4.5E+00

Cyanide, Free 0 2.2E+01 5.2E+00 na 1.6E+04 1.5E+02 1.0E+02 na 4.2E+05 5.5E+00 1.3E+00 na 1.6E+03 3.9E+01 2.5E+01 na 4.2E+04 3.9E+01 2.5E+01 na 4.2E+04 1.5E+01

DDD C 0 -- -- na 3.1E-03 -- -- na 8.1E-02 -- -- na 3.1E-04 -- -- na 8.1E-03 -- -- na 8.1E-03 8.1E-03

DDE C 0 -- -- na 2.2E-03 -- -- na 5.7E-02 -- -- na 2.2E-04 -- -- na 5.7E-03 -- -- na 5.7E-03 5.7E-03

DDT C 0 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 na 2.2E-03 7.7E+00 2.0E-02 na 5.7E-02 2.8E-01 2.5E-04 na 2.2E-04 1.9E+00 4.9E-03 na 5.7E-03 1.9E+00 4.9E-03 na 5.7E-03 2.9E-03

Demeton 0 -- 1.0E-01 na -- -- 2.0E+00 na -- -- 2.5E-02 na -- -- 4.9E-01 na -- -- 4.9E-01 na -- 4.9E-01

Diazinon 0 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 na -- 1.2E+00 3.3E+00 na -- 4.3E-02 4.3E-02 na -- 3.0E-01 8.3E-01 na -- 3.0E-01 8.3E-01 na -- 1.2E-01

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene C 0 -- -- na 1.8E-01 -- -- na 4.7E+00 -- -- na 1.8E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- na 4.7E-01 4.7E-01

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0 -- -- na 1.3E+03 -- -- na 3.4E+04 -- -- na 1.3E+02 -- -- na 3.4E+03 -- -- na 3.4E+03 3.4E+03



3,3-DichlorobenzidineC0 -- -- na 2.8E-01 -- -- na 7.3E+00 -- -- na 2.8E-02 -- -- na 7.3E-01 -- -- na 7.3E-01 7.3E-01

Dichlorobromomethane C 0 -- -- na 1.7E+02 -- -- na 4.4E+03 -- -- na 1.7E+01 -- -- na 4.4E+02 -- -- na 4.4E+02 4.4E+02

1,2-Dichloroethane C 0 -- -- na 3.7E+02 -- -- na 9.6E+03 -- -- na 3.7E+01 -- -- na 9.6E+02 -- -- na 9.6E+02 9.6E+02

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0 -- -- na 7.1E+03 -- -- na 1.8E+05 -- -- na 7.1E+02 -- -- na 1.8E+04 -- -- na 1.8E+04 1.8E+04

1,2-trans-dichloroethylene 0 -- -- na 1.0E+04 -- -- na 2.6E+05 -- -- na 1.0E+03 -- -- na 2.6E+04 -- -- na 2.6E+04 2.6E+04

2,4-Dichlorophenol 0 -- -- na 2.9E+02 -- -- na 7.5E+03 -- -- na 2.9E+01 -- -- na 7.5E+02 -- -- na 7.5E+02 7.5E+02

2,4-Dichlorophenoxy

acetic acid (2,4-D) 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

1,2-DichloropropaneC0 -- -- na 1.5E+02 -- -- na 3.9E+03 -- -- na 1.5E+01 -- -- na 3.9E+02 -- -- na 3.9E+02 3.9E+02

1,3-Dichloropropene C 0 -- -- na 2.1E+02 -- -- na 5.5E+03 -- -- na 2.1E+01 -- -- na 5.5E+02 -- -- na 5.5E+02 5.5E+02

Dieldrin C 0 2.4E-01 5.6E-02 na 5.4E-04 1.7E+00 1.1E+00 na 1.4E-02 6.0E-02 1.4E-02 na 5.4E-05 4.2E-01 2.7E-01 na 1.4E-03 4.2E-01 2.7E-01 na 1.4E-03 1.4E-03

Diethyl Phthalate 0 -- -- na 4.4E+04 -- -- na 1.1E+06 -- -- na 4.4E+03 -- -- na 1.1E+05 -- -- na 1.1E+05 1.1E+05

2,4-Dimethylphenol 0 -- -- na 8.5E+02 -- -- na 2.2E+04 -- -- na 8.5E+01 -- -- na 2.2E+03 -- -- na 2.2E+03 2.2E+03

Dimethyl Phthalate 0 -- -- na 1.1E+06 -- -- na 2.9E+07 -- -- na 1.1E+05 -- -- na 2.9E+06 -- -- na 2.9E+06 2.9E+06

Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 0 -- -- na 4.5E+03 -- -- na 1.2E+05 -- -- na 4.5E+02 -- -- na 1.2E+04 -- -- na 1.2E+04 1.2E+04

2,4 Dinitrophenol 0 -- -- na 5.3E+03 -- -- na 1.4E+05 -- -- na 5.3E+02 -- -- na 1.4E+04 -- -- na 1.4E+04 1.4E+04

2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 0 -- -- na 2.8E+02 -- -- na 7.3E+03 -- -- na 2.8E+01 -- -- na 7.3E+02 -- -- na 7.3E+02 7.3E+02

2,4-Dinitrotoluene C 0 -- -- na 3.4E+01 -- -- na 8.8E+02 -- -- na 3.4E+00 -- -- na 8.8E+01 -- -- na 8.8E+01 8.8E+01

Dioxin 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0 -- -- na 5.1E-08 -- -- na 1.3E-06 -- -- na 5.1E-09 -- -- na 1.3E-07 -- -- na 1.3E-07 1.3E-07

1,2-DiphenylhydrazineC0 -- -- na 2.0E+00 -- -- na 5.2E+01 -- -- na 2.0E-01 -- -- na 5.2E+00 -- -- na 5.2E+00 5.2E+00

Alpha-Endosulfan 0 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 na 8.9E+01 1.5E+00 1.1E+00 na 2.3E+03 5.5E-02 1.4E-02 na 8.9E+00 3.9E-01 2.7E-01 na 2.3E+02 3.9E-01 2.7E-01 na 2.3E+02 1.5E-01

Beta-Endosulfan 0 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 na 8.9E+01 1.5E+00 1.1E+00 na 2.3E+03 5.5E-02 1.4E-02 na 8.9E+00 3.9E-01 2.7E-01 na 2.3E+02 3.9E-01 2.7E-01 na 2.3E+02 1.5E-01

Alpha + Beta Endosulfan 0 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 -- -- 1.5E+00 1.1E+00 -- -- 5.5E-02 1.4E-02 -- -- 3.9E-01 2.7E-01 -- -- 3.9E-01 2.7E-01 -- -- 1.5E-01

Endosulfan Sulfate 0 -- -- na 8.9E+01 -- -- na 2.3E+03 -- -- na 8.9E+00 -- -- na 2.3E+02 -- -- na 2.3E+02 2.3E+02

Endrin 0 8.6E-02 3.6E-02 na 6.0E-02 6.0E-01 7.0E-01 na 1.6E+00 2.2E-02 9.0E-03 na 6.0E-03 1.5E-01 1.8E-01 na 1.6E-01 1.5E-01 1.8E-01 na 1.6E-01 6.0E-02

Endrin Aldehyde 0 -- -- na 3.0E-01 -- -- na 7.8E+00 -- -- na 3.0E-02 -- -- na 7.8E-01 -- -- na 7.8E-01 7.8E-01





Ethylbenzene 0 -- -- na 2.1E+03 -- -- na 5.5E+04 -- -- na 2.1E+02 -- -- na 5.5E+03 -- -- na 5.5E+03 5.5E+03

Fluoranthene 0 -- -- na 1.4E+02 -- -- na 3.6E+03 -- -- na 1.4E+01 -- -- na 3.6E+02 -- -- na 3.6E+02 3.6E+02

Fluorene 0 -- -- na 5.3E+03 -- -- na 1.4E+05 -- -- na 5.3E+02 -- -- na 1.4E+04 -- -- na 1.4E+04 1.4E+04

Foaming Agents 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Guthion 0 -- 1.0E-02 na -- -- 2.0E-01 na -- -- 2.5E-03 na -- -- 4.9E-02 na -- -- 4.9E-02 na -- 4.9E-02

Heptachlor C 0 5.2E-01 3.8E-03 na 7.9E-04 3.6E+00 7.4E-02 na 2.1E-02 1.3E-01 9.5E-04 na 7.9E-05 9.1E-01 1.9E-02 na 2.1E-03 9.1E-01 1.9E-02 na 2.1E-03 2.1E-03

Heptachlor EpoxideC0 5.2E-01 3.8E-03 na 3.9E-04 3.6E+00 7.4E-02 na 1.0E-02 1.3E-01 9.5E-04 na 3.9E-05 9.1E-01 1.9E-02 na 1.0E-03 9.1E-01 1.9E-02 na 1.0E-03 1.0E-03

HexachlorobenzeneC0 -- -- na 2.9E-03 -- -- na 7.5E-02 -- -- na 2.9E-04 -- -- na 7.5E-03 -- -- na 7.5E-03 7.5E-03

HexachlorobutadieneC0 -- -- na 1.8E+02 -- -- na 4.7E+03 -- -- na 1.8E+01 -- -- na 4.7E+02 -- -- na 4.7E+02 4.7E+02

Hexachlorocyclohexane

Alpha-BHCC0 -- -- na 4.9E-02 -- -- na 1.3E+00 -- -- na 4.9E-03 -- -- na 1.3E-01 -- -- na 1.3E-01 1.3E-01


Beta-BHCC0 -- -- na 1.7E-01 -- -- na 4.4E+00 -- -- na 1.7E-02 -- -- na 4.4E-01 -- -- na 4.4E-01 4.4E-01


Gamma-BHCC (Lindane) 0 9.5E-01 na na 1.8E+00 6.7E+00 -- na 4.7E+01 2.4E-01 -- na 1.8E-01 1.7E+00 -- na 4.7E+00 1.7E+00 -- na 4.7E+00 6.7E-01

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0 -- -- na 1.1E+03 -- -- na 2.9E+04 -- -- na 1.1E+02 -- -- na 2.9E+03 -- -- na 2.9E+03 2.9E+03

HexachloroethaneC0 -- -- na 3.3E+01 -- -- na 8.6E+02 -- -- na 3.3E+00 -- -- na 8.6E+01 -- -- na 8.6E+01 8.6E+01

Hydrogen Sulfide 0 -- 2.0E+00 na -- -- 3.9E+01 na -- -- 5.0E-01 na -- -- 9.8E+00 na -- -- 9.8E+00 na -- 9.8E+00

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene C 0 -- -- na 1.8E-01 -- -- na 4.7E+00 -- -- na 1.8E-02 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- na 4.7E-01 4.7E-01

Iron 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

IsophoroneC0 -- -- na 9.6E+03 -- -- na 2.5E+05 -- -- na 9.6E+02 -- -- na 2.5E+04 -- -- na 2.5E+04 2.5E+04

Kepone 0 -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- 0.0E+00

Lead 0 4.1E+01 3.5E+00 na -- 2.9E+02 6.8E+01 na -- 1.0E+01 8.7E-01 na -- 7.2E+01 1.7E+01 na -- 7.2E+01 1.7E+01 na -- 1.0E+01

Malathion 0 -- 1.0E-01 na -- -- 2.0E+00 na -- -- 2.5E-02 na -- -- 4.9E-01 na -- -- 4.9E-01 na -- 4.9E-01

Mercury 0 1.4E+00 7.7E-01 - - - - 9.8E+00 1.5E+01 - - - - 3.5E-01 1.9E-01 - - -- 2.5E+00 3.8E+00 - - -- 2.5E+00 3.8E+00 - - - - 9.8E-01

Methyl Bromide 0 -- -- na 1.5E+03 -- -- na 3.9E+04 -- -- na 1.5E+02 -- -- na 3.9E+03 -- -- na 3.9E+03 3.9E+03

Methylene Chloride C 0 -- -- na 5.9E+03 -- -- na 1.5E+05 -- -- na 5.9E+02 -- -- na 1.5E+04 -- -- na 1.5E+04 1.5E+04

Methoxychlor 0 -- 3.0E-02 na -- -- 5.9E-01 na -- -- 7.5E-03 na -- -- 1.5E-01 na -- -- 1.5E-01 na -- 8.8E-02

Mirex 0 -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- -- 0.0E+00 na -- 0.0E+00

Nickel 0.38 9.7E+01 8.6E+00 na 4.6E+03 6.8E+02 1.6E+02 na 1.2E+05 2.5E+01 2.4E+00 na 4.6E+02 1.7E+02 4.0E+01 na 1.2E+04 1.7E+02 4.0E+01 na 1.2E+04 2.4E+01

Nitrate (as N) 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Nitrobenzene 0 -- -- na 6.9E+02 -- -- na 1.8E+04 -- -- na 6.9E+01 -- -- na 1.8E+03 -- -- na 1.8E+03 1.8E+03

N-NitrosodimethylamineC0 -- -- na 3.0E+01 -- -- na 7.8E+02 -- -- na 3.0E+00 -- -- na 7.8E+01 -- -- na 7.8E+01 7.8E+01

N-NitrosodiphenylamineC0 -- -- na 6.0E+01 -- -- na 1.6E+03 -- -- na 6.0E+00 -- -- na 1.6E+02 -- -- na 1.6E+02 1.6E+02

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamineC0 -- -- na 5.1E+00 -- -- na 1.3E+02 -- -- na 5.1E-01 -- -- na 1.3E+01 -- -- na 1.3E+01 1.3E+01

Nonylphenol 0 2.8E+01 6.6E+00 -- -- 2.0E+02 1.3E+02 na -- 7.0E+00 1.7E+00 -- -- 4.9E+01 3.2E+01 -- -- 4.9E+01 3.2E+01 na -- 1.9E+01

Parathion 0 6.5E-02 1.3E-02 na -- 4.6E-01 2.5E-01 na -- 1.6E-02 3.3E-03 na -- 1.1E-01 6.3E-02 na -- 1.1E-01 6.3E-02 na -- 3.8E-02

PCB TotalC 0 -- 1.4E-02 na 6.4E-04 -- 2.7E-01 na 1.7E-02 -- 3.5E-03 na 6.4E-05 -- 6.8E-02 na 1.7E-03 -- 6.8E-02 na 1.7E-03 1.7E-03

Pentachlorophenol C 0 3.7E+00 2.8E+00 na 3.0E+01 2.6E+01 5.4E+01 na 7.8E+02 9.3E-01 6.9E-01 na 3.0E+00 6.5E+00 1.3E+01 na 7.8E+01 6.5E+00 1.3E+01 na 7.8E+01 2.6E+00

Phenol 0 -- -- na 8.6E+05 -- -- na 2.2E+07 -- -- na 8.6E+04 -- -- na 2.2E+06 -- -- na 2.2E+06 2.2E+06

Pyrene 0 -- -- na 4.0E+03 -- -- na 1.0E+05 -- -- na 4.0E+02 -- -- na 1.0E+04 -- -- na 1.0E+04 1.0E+04

Radionuclides 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- Gross Alpha Activity

(pCi/L) 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00 Beta and Photon Activity

(mrem/yr) 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Radium 226 + 228 (pCi/L) 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Uranium (ug/l) 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00





Selenium, Total Recoverable 0 2.0E+01 5.0E+00 na 4.2E+03 1.4E+02 9.8E+01 na 1.1E+05 5.0E+00 1.3E+00 na 4.2E+02 3.5E+01 2.4E+01 na 1.1E+04 3.5E+01 2.4E+01 na 1.1E+04 1.4E+01

Silver 0 9.6E-01 -- na -- 6.7E+00 -- na -- 2.4E-01 -- na -- 1.7E+00 -- na -- 1.7E+00 -- na -- 6.7E-01

Sulfate 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneC0 -- -- na 4.0E+01 -- -- na 1.0E+03 -- -- na 4.0E+00 -- -- na 1.0E+02 -- -- na 1.0E+02 1.0E+02

TetrachloroethyleneC0 -- -- na 3.3E+01 -- -- na 8.6E+02 -- -- na 3.3E+00 -- -- na 8.6E+01 -- -- na 8.6E+01 8.6E+01

Thallium 0 -- -- na 4.7E-01 -- -- na 1.2E+01 -- -- na 4.7E-02 -- -- na 1.2E+00 -- -- na 1.2E+00 1.2E+00

Toluene 0 -- -- na 6.0E+03 -- -- na 1.6E+05 -- -- na 6.0E+02 -- -- na 1.6E+04 -- -- na 1.6E+04 1.6E+04

Total dissolved solids 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Toxaphene C 0 7.3E-01 2.0E-04 na 2.8E-03 5.1E+00 3.9E-03 na 7.3E-02 1.8E-01 5.0E-05 na 2.8E-04 1.3E+00 9.8E-04 na 7.3E-03 1.3E+00 9.8E-04 na 7.3E-03 5.9E-04

Tributyltin 0 4.6E-01 7.2E-02 na -- 3.2E+00 1.4E+00 na -- 1.2E-01 1.8E-02 na -- 8.1E-01 3.5E-01 na -- 8.1E-01 3.5E-01 na -- 2.1E-01

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0 -- -- na 7.0E+01 -- -- na 1.8E+03 -- -- na 7.0E+00 -- -- na 1.8E+02 -- -- na 1.8E+02 1.8E+02

1,1,2-TrichloroethaneC0 -- -- na 1.6E+02 -- -- na 4.2E+03 -- -- na 1.6E+01 -- -- na 4.2E+02 -- -- na 4.2E+02 4.2E+02

Trichloroethylene C 0 -- -- na 3.0E+02 -- -- na 7.8E+03 -- -- na 3.0E+01 -- -- na 7.8E+02 -- -- na 7.8E+02 7.8E+02

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol C 0 -- -- na 2.4E+01 -- -- na 6.2E+02 -- -- na 2.4E+00 -- -- na 6.2E+01 -- -- na 6.2E+01 6.2E+01

2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy)

propionic acid (Silvex) 0 -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- -- -- na -- 0.0E+00

Vinyl ChlorideC0 -- -- na 2.4E+01 -- -- na 6.2E+02 -- -- na 2.4E+00 -- -- na 6.2E+01 -- -- na 6.2E+01 6.2E+01

Zinc 2.55 6.2E+01 5.0E+01 na 2.6E+04 4.2E+02 9.3E+02 na 6.8E+05 1.7E+01 1.4E+01 na 2.6E+03 1.1E+02 2.3E+02 na 6.8E+04 1.1E+02 2.3E+02 na 6.8E+04 4.3E+01

Notes:

1. All concentrations expressed as micrograms/liter (ug/l), unless noted otherwise

2. Discharge flow is highest monthly average or Form 2C maximum for Industries and design flow for Municipals

3. Metals measured as Dissolved, unless specified otherwise

4. "C" indicates a carcinogenic parameter

5. Regular WLAs are mass balances (minus background concentration) using the % of stream flow entered above under Mixing Information.

Antidegradation WLAs are based upon a complete mix.

6. Antideg. Baseline = (0.25(WQC - background conc.) + background conc.) for acute and chronic

= (0.1(WQC - background conc.) + background conc.) for human health

7. WLAs established at the following stream flows: 1Q10 for Acute, 30Q10 for Chronic Ammonia, 7Q10 for Other Chronic, 30Q5 for Non-carcinogens and

Harmonic Mean for Carcinogens. To apply mixing ratios from a model set the stream flow equal to (mixing ratio - 1), effluent flow equal to 1 and 100% mix.


1.000 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.447 90th Percentile Temp. (deg C) 22.942 (7.204 - pH) -0.243 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.412 (pH - 7.204) 0.243 MIN 1.656

Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season MAX 22.9421Q10 6.000 6.000 7.000 7.000 Trout Present Criterion (mg N/L) 14.357 (7.688 - pH) 0.2767Q10 18.500 N/A 19.500 N/A Trout Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 (pH - 7.688) -0.27630Q10 25.000 25.000 26.000 26.000 Trout Present? n30Q5 25.000 N/A 26.000 N/A Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 Early LS Present Criterion (mg N/L) 2.725Harm. Mean 25.000 N/A 26.000 N/A Early LS Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 2.725Annual Avg. 0.000 N/A 1.000 N/A Early Life Stages Present? y

Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 2.725

Dry Season Wet Season1Q10 90th% Temp. Mix (deg C) 23.600 21.88630Q10 90th% Temp. Mix (deg C) 22.942 22.481 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.447 90th Percentile Temp. (deg C) 22.4811Q10 90th% pH Mix (SU) 7.447 7.447 (7.204 - pH) -0.243 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.41230Q10 90th% pH Mix (SU) 7.412 7.412 (pH - 7.204) 0.243 MIN 1.7061Q10 10th% pH Mix (SU) 6.150 N/A MAX 22.4817Q10 10th% pH Mix (SU) 6.117 N/A Trout Present Criterion (mg N/L) 14.357 (7.688 - pH) 0.276

Trout Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 (pH - 7.688) -0.276Calculated Formula Inputs Trout Present? n

1Q10 Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 47.4 47.4 Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 Early LS Present Criterion (mg N/L) 2.8077Q10 Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 36.3 36.3 Early LS Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 2.807

Early Life Stages Present? y Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 2.807

MGD DISCHARGE FLOW - COMPLETE STREAM MIX

1.000 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.447 90th Percentile Temp. (deg C) 22.942 (7.204 - pH) -0.243 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.412 (pH - 7.204) 0.243 MIN 1.656

Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season MAX 22.9421Q10 6.000 6.000 7.000 7.000 Trout Present Criterion (mg N/L) 14.357 (7.688 - pH) 0.2767Q10 18.500 N/A 19.500 N/A Trout Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 (pH - 7.688) -0.27630Q10 25.000 25.000 26.000 26.000 Trout Present? n30Q5 25.000 N/A 26.000 N/A Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 Early LS Present Criterion (mg N/L) 2.725Harm. Mean 25.000 N/A 26.000 N/A Early LS Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 2.725Annual Avg. 0.000 N/A 1.000 N/A Early Life Stages Present? y

Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 2.725

Dry Season Wet Season1Q10 90th% Temp. Mix (deg C) 23.600 21.88630Q10 90th% Temp. Mix (deg C) 22.942 22.481 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.447 90th Percentile Temp. (deg C) 22.4811Q10 90th% pH Mix (SU) 7.447 7.447 (7.204 - pH) -0.243 90th Percentile pH (SU) 7.41230Q10 90th% pH Mix (SU) 7.412 7.412 (pH - 7.204) 0.243 MIN 1.7061Q10 10th% pH Mix (SU) 6.150 N/A MAX 22.4817Q10 10th% pH Mix (SU) 6.117 N/A Trout Present Criterion (mg N/L) 14.357 (7.688 - pH) 0.276

Trout Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 (pH - 7.688) -0.276Calculated Formula Inputs Trout Present? n

1Q10 Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) = 47.429 47.429 Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 21.499 Early LS Present Criterion (mg N/L) 2.8077Q10 Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) = 36.256 36.256 Early LS Absent Criterion (mg N/L) 2.807

Early Life Stages Present? y Effective Criterion (mg N/L) 2.807

Ammonia - Wet Season - Acute Ammonia - Wet Season - Chronic

Stream/Discharge Mix Values

Allocated to Mix (MGD) Stream + Discharge (MGD)

1.000 MGD DISCHARGE FLOW - STREAM MIX PER "Mix.exe"

Ammonia - Dry Season - Acute Ammonia - Dry Season - ChronicDischarge Flow Used for WQS-WLA Calculations (MGD):

Stream Flows Total Mix Flows

100% Stream Flows

Ammonia - Wet Season - Chronic

Allocated to Mix (MGD) Stream + Discharge (MGD)

Stream/Discharge Mix Values

Ammonia - Wet Season - Acute

Total Mix Flows

1.000

Ammonia - Dry Season - Acute Ammonia - Dry Season - ChronicDischarge Flow Used for WQS-WLA Calculations (MGD):

MSTRANTI (Version 3b) (9-5-17 DRAFT) Ronile - Freshwater Ammonia 7/25/2018 - 11:22 AM

Acute Chronic

Hardness 100.00 100.00 NH3-N NH3-N

Hardness used 100.00 100.00 36.09 42.45

90th % pH 7.00 7.00 3.41 3.41 6.49

10th % pH 0.78 1.16 3.41

90th % Temp (Annual) 23.17 23.07

90th % Temp (Winter) 10.00 10.00

Salinity 14.08 15.72 NH3-N NH3-N

` 36.09 113.04

5.91 5.91 17.16

7.91

Saltwater Ammonia Criteria - Annual

Freshwater Ammonia Criteria - Winter

Duration

Acute

Chronic

Duration

Acute

Saltwater Ammon. Criteria - Winter

Chronic - ELS present

Chronic - ELS absent

Stream/Discharge Mix Values Ammonia Criteria Determinations

Chronic - ELS absent

Freshwater Ammonia Criteria - Annual

Chronic - ELS present

Saltwater Ammon. Criteria - Annual

DurationDuration

Acute

Chronic

Acute

MSTRANTI (Version 3b) (9-5-17 DRAFT) Ronile - Saltwater Ammonia 7/25/2018 - 11:22 AM

FACILITY INFORMATION

FACILITY: Ronile, Inc.

LOCATION: Rocky Mount, Franklin County

VPDES PERMIT NUMBER: VA0076015 Expiration Date: 09/20/18

SIC CODE/DESCRIPTION: 2269/Finishers of textiles, not elsewhere classified

OUTFALLS/FLOWS (MGD): Outfall 001 = 0.158 MGD (Maximum 30-day flow). Wastewater sources are process wastewater from the dyeing and finishing of nylon, polyester and wool yarn and storm water from a fuel oil tank berm. Treatment includes an aerated lagoon, polymer addition, flocculation, sedimentation, and a plate and frame filter press.

RECEIVING STREAM/CRITICAL FLOWS/IWC:

Receiving Stream: Pigg River River Basin: Roanoke River Subbasin: Roanoke River Section: 6a Class: III Special Standards: None

1Q10 = 6.1 MGD IWCa = 2.56% (Dilution calculated by CORMIX = 7) 7Q10 = 6.8 MGD IWCc = 2.29%( Dilution calculated by CORMIX = 19.5) 30Q5 = 12 MGD Harmonic mean = 27 MGD

FACILITY PROCESS AND TREATMENT:

This facility has six main dye lines at this plant and one smaller scale sample dye line. The yarn is creeled and run through a heat setter to bulk-up the yarn and set the width. From the heat setter, yarn is run through the dye machines, which contain a mixture of dye and dye setting chemicals. A steam box sets the dye and finish that was present on the yarn before dyeing is removed by washing, which gives the rinse water a milky appearance. A two-stage counter-current washing method is used. Supposedly, no dye is removed in this step. To dry the yarn, it passes through padded rollers and a dryer. Once dried, the yarn is temporarily stored in J-boxes at the end of the production line, prior to being routed to the mill, where it is spun onto cones and prepared for shipping. Batch dyeing of small cotton blend rugs, that were believed to be the major source of zinc and DDT, was discontinued in April 2013. Small lots of scoured wool dyeing began in August 2013. According to the facility, large amounts of wool were dyed in 2001-2003. The company does not have plans to dye wool in the foreseeable future.

If dyed, finished wool may be treated with Evercide (25% strength of permetherin) and would be applied at 0.014% of dry wool yarn weight, yielding an overall application of permetherin of 1/4th that (or 0.0035%). Ronile has designed and built a special Evercide applicator that would

Ronile, Inc., WET Test Data, Page 2

hold 20 gallons of Evercide and that would only be used when running this wool product. This new applicator does not need to be cleaned out since it is only being used for this wool product. As an added precaution Ronile built a catch basin underneath this new applicator which is sufficient in size to catch the entire contents of the applicator should it leak or spill. The system is engineered so that no permetherin will go to the waste water treatment lagoon/plant.

The wastewater treatment plant receives flow from the production area, as well as on-site storm water and roof drainage from the Therminol boiler room. In 2001, the wastewater treatment plant was upgraded to provide more effective treatment. The 5 MG aerated lagoon was partitioned into two separate areas, 4 MG for aeration and 1 MG for activated sludge. Wastewater flows from the plant into the head of the lagoon, which serves as an equalization (EQ) basin. A baffle curtain in the lagoon separates the EQ basin from the aerator. Daily jar tests are conducted to determine the polymer dose to achieve of a color of 250-350 ADMI.

The supplier of polymers has changed every few years as the facility tries to comply with permit limits for WET and metals. Zetag polymers were used prior to about 2012. Polymer dose varies with the temperature of the aeration basin, which mirrors the seasonal temperature. Floc is settled in a small settling basin.

2012 – 3/17 Southeastern Laboratories polymers used, one failed acute test 3/2015, one failed chronic test 2014 SELfloc 1638 replaced Zetag 7197 a dose of 150 to 350 ppm SELfloc 1840B replaced Zetag 8680, a dry polymer, used at a dose of 3 to 7 ppm Polymer, Zetag 7867, and a debulking agent, perlite, are added to the sludge prior to pressing in a plate and frame filter press. SELfloc 2012, containing sodium dimethyl dithiocarbamate, for zinc precipitation, was discontinued in fall 2012, after its use was shown to result in failed WET tests.

3/17 – 10/17 Bond Water Technologies polymers used, failed chronic tests August and September 2017 BondClear 1330-S, CAS# 25988-97-0, cationic copolymer of epichlorhydrin and dimethyl amine, dose 94.8 ppm, LC50 D magna 10 ppm, LD50 Zebra fish 10 ppm, stopped use 10/10/2017, and resumed use on 4/25/2018 BondClear 400S, CAS# 12042-91-0, 50% Al chlorohydrate, dose 80 ppm, EC50 FHM 804 ppm, EC50 C dubia 33 ppm BondClear 2431-90S, CAS# 124-04-9, cationic polymer, <2% adipic acid, dose 0.4 ppm, LC50 fish 10-100 ppm, EC50 (daphnia) 10-100 ppm. Use stopped on 6/19/18.


10/17 - 4/18 One failed acute test 3/2018.BondClear 1330-B started on 10/10/17 and stopped use on 4/25/18. EC50 D magna >10 ppm (w/10% humic acid) CAS# 42751-79-1 25-50% 1,2-Ethanediamine polymer with (chloromethyl)oxirane and N-methylmethanamine. BondClear 400S, CAS# 12042-91-0, 50% Al chlorohydrate, dose 80 ppm, EC50 FHM 804 ppm, EC50 C dubia 33 ppm BondClear 2431-90S, CAS# 124-04-9, cationic polymer, <2% adipic acid, dose 0.4 ppm, LC50 fish 10-100 ppm, EC50 (daphnia) 10-100 ppm. Use stopped on 6/19/18.

4/18- 6/18 no WET samples BondClear 1330-S, CAS# 25988-97-0, cationic copolymer of epichlorhydrin and dimethyl amine, dose 94.8 ppm, LC50 D magna 10 ppm, LD50 Zebra fish 10 ppm, stopped use 10/10/2017, and resumed use on 4/25/2018 BondClear 400S, CAS# 12042-91-0, 50% Al chlorohydrate, dose 80 ppm, EC50 FHM 804 ppm, EC50 C dubia 33 ppm BondClear 2431-90S, CAS# 124-04-9, cationic polymer, <2% adipic acid, dose 0.4 ppm, LC50 fish 10-100 ppm, EC50 (daphnia) 10-100 ppm. Use stopped on 6/19/18.

6/19/18 6/25 acute sample BondClear 1330-S, CAS# 25988-97-0, cationic copolymer of epichlorhydrin and dimethyl amine, dose 94.8 ppm, LC50 D magna 10 ppm, LD50 Zebra fish 10 ppm, stopped use 10/10/2017, and resumed use on 4/25/2018 BondClear 400S, CAS# 12042-91-0, 50% Al chlorohydrate, dose 80 ppm, EC50 FHM 804 ppm, EC50 C dubia 33 ppm BondClear 3211-50S (anionic polymer emulsion) started on 6/19/18, replaced 2431-90S, no CAS# listed on SDS, 48H EC50 >100 ppm (daphnia), 96h LC50 >100 ppm (fish)

Sludge from the settling basin is either returned to the aerated lagoon as activated sludge or is pumped to the sludge holding tank. Perlite dust, sodium potassium aluminum silicate, is used a filter aid agent in sludge pressing. Sludge cake is disposed of at the local Franklin County Sanitary Landfill. Supernatant decant from the sludge holding tank and filtrate from the plate filter press are returned to the aeration basin.

Outfall 001 is a six-inch single pipe diffuser that has slots cut into the pipe, with a blind flange at the end. Ports of two different sizes. The Pigg River, at the outfall location, has a sandy bottom, is approximately 35-feet in width. It has a riffle and pool character, with a long pool at the discharge area. The next riffle area is about 0.25 miles downstream. Although the discharge enters the river near the end of a sharp bend, the next half a mile of the river has a slight curve. CORMIX estimates dilution of 7:1 for acute mixing (1Q10) and 19.5:1 for chronic mixing (7Q10).

A WET limit of 3.1 TUa was effective on September 30, 2004, and on September 21, 2012, was reduced to 2.1 TUa. An effluent limit for zinc also became effective in 2012. Zinc was present in


the latex backing of cotton rugs that were batch dyed at the facility. A low pH in part of the dyeing process may have leached zinc from the backing. Cotton rug dyeing was stopped around the end of April 2013. Wool has not been dyed at the facility since August 2015.

Effluent from outfall 001 exhibited chronic toxicity from 2001-3, which was the period of time that large amounts of wool was dyed. If there are major changes in the type or level of production, such as if wool dyeing becomes a bigger portion of the total production at the facility, then the effluent should be recharacterized through quarterly testing should begin. Since a timetable of type of material dyed when each chronic WET test was performed, has not been documented, the type and level of production preceding each WET test should be documented and submitted with each WET report. At current flow rates, the WWTP has about 50 days of storage. Based on 5 day work weeks would be about 10 weeks.

WET limit calculation using GM 00-2012, Appendix D:

From CORMIX Acute dilution = 7; chronic dilution = 19.5

WLAs Acute = 0.3 x 7 = 2.1 TUa; Chronic 1 x 19.5 = 19.5 TUc

Acute to chronic ratio (ACR) from data since 12/2013: C. dubia 7/2014 chronic test, ACR = 100/2.5 = 40 C. dubia 9/2017 chronic test, ACR = 47/0.6 = 74.5 Using the geometric mean of 2 actual ACRs = 53.9, WLAa,c = 2.1 x 53.9 = 113.2

WET limit from WETLIM10 spreadsheet is an NOAEC = 100%

WET Requirements:

Outfall 001 – NOAEC WET limit of 100% using C. dubia. The report submittal should include an estimate of type and amount of material dyed during the preceding quarter.

Prior to adding a new process, new fabric or dye or WWTP polymers, acute and chronic WETs test on effluent from jar test of proposed material must pass WET tests using both species.


Table 1 Acute Test Results, Ronile, Inc.; VA0076015, Outfall 001 WET = 2.1 TUa final on 9/21/2012

Test Date Test Organism

LC50

(%) % Survival

in 100% effluent Testing Laboratory

10/29/13 Q1 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

02/12/14 Q2 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

05/14/14 Q3 C. dubia 52 (1.9 TUa) 30 CBI

7/23/149,10 Q4 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

12/12/14 Q5 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

03/19/1511 Q6 C. dubia 25 (4.0 TUa) zero CBI

06/11/15 Q7 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

09/23/15 Q8 C. dubia > 100 90 CBI

10/22/15 Q9 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

01/07/16 Q10 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

06/09/16 Q11 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

09/14/16 Q12 C. dubia > 100 55 CBI

10/27/16 Q13 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

01/06/17 Q14 C. dubia 81 (1.2 TUa) 20 CBI

New polymer use begins

06/08/17 Q15 C. dubia > 100 100 CBI

08/23/17 Q16 C. dubia 71 (1.4 TUa) 10 CBI

12/14/17 Q17 C. dubia 70 (1.4 TUa) 0 CBI

3/23/18 Q18 C. dubia 30 (3.3 TUa) 0 in 100% & 69% CBI

Polymer changed to 3211-50S (6/19/18).

6/29/18 Q19 C. dubia 61.6 (1.6 TUa) 0 CBI


Table 2. Chronic Toxicity Test Results for Ronile, Inc.; VA0076015, Outfall 001 – IWC = 2.1%, Endpoint is an NOEC of 5 % (TUc = 20)

Test Date

Test Organism

%NOEC Surv’l

%NOEC Rpro-Grth

TUc % Survival in 100% Eff

48h LC50 Lab

12/13 Q1 C. dubia 100 10 10 100 >100 CBI 12/13 Q1 P. promelas 100 100 1 90 >100 CBI 02/14 Q2 C. dubia 100 5 20 90 >100 CBI 02/14 Q2 P. promelas 100 100 1 100 >100 CBI

05/14 Q3 C. dubia 20 10 10 0 >100 CBI 05/14 Q3 P. promelas 20 20 5 30 >100 CBI

07/149,10 Q4 C. dubiaACR =

20 100/2.5

2.5 = 40

40 Ln =

3.68887

0 100 CBI

07/14 Q4 P. promelas 20 20 5 72.5 >100 CBI

09/22/15 A1 C. dubia 100 20 5 100 >100 CBI 09/22/15 A1 P. promelas 100 20 5 92.5 >100 CBI

09/22/16 A2 C. dubia 20 20 5 40 >100 CBI 09/22/16 A2 P. promelas 20 20 5 82.5 >100 CBI

08/22/17 A3 C. dubia 20 <2.5 >40 10 >100 CBI 08/22/17 A3 P. promelas 100 20 5 80 >100 CBI 09/26/17 A3 C. dubia

ACR =20 44.7/.6

0.6 =74.5

166 Ln =

5.11199

0 44.7 CBI

1. The TRE plan involved the replacement of the Space Dye Injection Machines with the #7 Dye Line Machines. The Space Dye Injection Machines were removed from the facility in February 2002. Due to the long retention time in the WWTP lagoon (~40 days), the August 2002 test may not be representative of effluent after these machines were removed.

2. Latex-backed [containing zinc] rug dyeing started between February and May of 2005. The 4/2005 passing chronic test may or may not be representative of this operation.

3. Per Ronile fewer latex-backed rugs being dyed in 2010. 4. Time proportional samples, flows varied by 12.5%. 5. Flow composite sampler functional September 13, 2011. 6. Polymer Selfloc XP2012, containing sodium dimethyl dithiocarbamate, for precipitation of zinc, begun August

2012, was believed to be cause of toxicity in September 2012 samples. XP2012 use in the WWTP was stopped around November 2012. Latex-backed rug dyeing was discontinued in April 2013.

7. Wool dyeing, in small quantities, began mid 8/2013, making up about 2.2% of wastewater flow. 8. Feb 2014, wool dyed < 0.01% of total 9. Started flocculation at higher pH in June 2014, after zinc exceeded limit in May 2014. 10. Caustic change to MgOH planned as a result of 7/14 high TUc, per 8/5/14 letter. 11. WET failed 3/2018. Lagoon froze. Sample was brown, which is not typical of effluent (usually pink). COD, ppm;

Feb=339, Mar= 295. Ave over past18 months = 146, 4 highest mos. 12/2014 – 3/2015

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

Spreadsheet for determination of WET test endpoints or WET limits

Excel 97 Acute Endpoint/Permit Limit Use as LC50 in Special Condition, as TUa on DMR

Revision Date: 12/13/13

File: WETLIM10.xls ACUTE 100% = NOAEC LC50 = NA % Use as NA TUa

(MIX.EXE required also)

ACUTE WLAa 2.1 Note: Inform the permittee that if the mean of the data exceedsthis TUa: 1.0 a limit may result using STATS.EXE

Chronic Endpoint/Permit Limit Use as NOEC in Special Condition, as TUc on DMR

CHRONIC 28.52020634 TUc NOEC = 4 % Use as 25.00 TUc

BOTH* 113.2582774 TUc NOEC = 1 % Use as 100.00 TUc

Enter data in the cells with blue type: AML 28.52020634 TUc NOEC = 4 % Use as 25.00 TUc

Entry Date: 07/25/18 ACUTE WLAa,c 113.258275 Note: Inform the permittee that if the mean

Facility Name: RONILE INC CHRONIC WLAc 19.5 of the data exceeds this TUc: 11.7202268

VPDES Number: VA0076015 * Both means acute expressed as chronic a limit may result using STATS.EXE

Outfall Number: 001

% Flow to be used from MIX.EXE Diffuser /modeling study?

Plant Flow: 0.158 MGD Enter Y/N y

Acute 1Q10: 6.1 MGD 100 % Acute 7 :1

Chronic 7Q10: 6.8 MGD 100 % Chronic 19.5 :1

Are data available to calculate CV? (Y/N) N (Minimum of 10 data points, same species, needed) Go to Page 2

Are data available to calculate ACR? (Y/N) y (NOEC<LC50, do not use greater/less than data) Go to Page 3

IWCa 14.28571429 % Plant flow/plant flow + 1Q10 NOTE: If the IWCa is >33%, specify the

IWCc 5.128205128 % Plant flow/plant flow + 7Q10 NOAEC = 100% test/endpoint for use

Dilution, acute 7 100/IWCa

Dilution, chronic 19.5 100/IWCc

WLAa 2.1 Instream criterion (0.3 TUa) X's Dilution, acute

WLAc 19.5 Instream criterion (1.0 TUc) X's Dilution, chronic

WLAa,c 113.2582746 ACR X's WLAa - converts acute WLA to chronic units

ACR -acute/chronic ratio 53.93251173 LC50/NOEC (Default is 10 - if data are available, use tables Page 3)

CV-Coefficient of variation 0.6 Default of 0.6 - if data are available, use tables Page 2)

Constants eA 0.4109447 Default = 0.41

eB 0.6010373 Default = 0.60

eC 2.4334175 Default = 2.43

eD 2.4334175 Default = 2.43 (1 samp) No. of samples = 1 **The Maximum Daily Limit is calculated from the lowest

LTA, X's eC. The LTAa,c and MDL using it are driven by the ACR.

LTAa,c 46.54288769 WLAa,c X's eA

LTAc 11.72022735 WLAc X's eB Rounded NOEC's %

MDL** with LTAa,c 113.2582774 TUc NOEC = 0.882938 (Protects from acute/chronic toxicity) NOEC = 1 %

MDL** with LTAc 28.52020634 TUc NOEC = 3.506286 (Protects from chronic toxicity) NOEC = 4 %

AML with lowest LTA 28.52020634 TUc NOEC = 3.506286 Lowest LTA X's eD NOEC = 4

IF ONLY ACUTE ENDPOINT/LIMIT IS NEEDED, CONVERT MDL FROM TUc to TUa

Rounded LC50's %

MDL with LTAa,c 2.100000051 TUa LC50 = 47.619046 % LC50 = 48 %

MDL with LTAc 0.52881287 TUa LC50 = 189.102810 % Use NOAEC=100% LC50 = NA

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109


Page 2 - Follow the directions to develop a site specific CV (coefficient of variation)

IF YOU HAVE AT LEAST 10 DATA POINTS THAT Vertebrate Invertebrate

ARE QUANTIFIABLE (NOT "<" OR ">") IC25 Data IC25 Data

FOR A SPECIES, ENTER THE DATA IN EITHER or or

COLUMN "G" (VERTEBRATE) OR COLUMN LC50 Data LN of data LC50 Data LN of data

"J" (INVERTEBRATE). THE 'CV' WILL BE *********** ************

PICKED UP FOR THE CALCULATIONS 1 1

BELOW. THE DEFAULT VALUES FOR eA, 2 2

eB, AND eC WILL CHANGE IF THE 'CV' IS 3 3

ANYTHING OTHER THAN 0.6. 4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Coefficient of Variation for effluent tests 8 8

9 9

CV = 0.6 (Default 0.6) 10 10

11 11

ð2 = 0.3074847 12 12

ð = 0.554513029 13 13

14 14

Using the log variance to develop eA 15 15

(P. 100, step 2a of TSD) 16 16

Z = 1.881 (97% probability stat from table 17 17

A = -0.88929666 18 18

eA = 0.410944686 19 19

20 20

Using the log variance to develop eB

(P. 100, step 2b of TSD) St Dev NEED DATA NEED DATA St Dev NEED DATANEED DATA

ð42 = 0.086177696 Mean 0 0 Mean 0 0

ð4 = 0.293560379 Variance 0 0.000000 Variance 0 0.000000

B = -0.50909823 CV 0 CV 0

eB = 0.601037335

Using the log variance to develop eC

(P. 100, step 4a of TSD)

ð2 = 0.3074847

ð = 0.554513029

C = 0.889296658

eC = 2.433417525

Using the log variance to develop eD

(P. 100, step 4b of TSD)

n = 1 This number will most likely stay as "1", for 1 sample/month.

ðn2 = 0.3074847

ðn = 0.554513029

D = 0.889296658

eD = 2.433417525

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172


Page 3 - Follow directions to develop a site specific ACR (Acute to Chronic Ratio)

To determine Acute/Chronic Ratio (ACR), insert usable data below. Usable data is defined as valid paired test results,

acute and chronic, tested at the same temperature, same species. The chronic NOEC must be less than the acute

LC50, since the ACR divides the LC50 by the NOEC. LC50's >100% should not be used.

Table 1. ACR using Vertebrate data Convert LC50's and NOEC's to Chronic TU's

for use in WLA.EXE

Table 3. ACR used: 53.932512

Set # LC50 NOEC Test ACR Logarithm Geomean Antilog ACR to Use

1 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO DATA Enter LC50 TUc Enter NOEC TUc

2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO DATA 1 100 53.932512 NO DATA









10 100 53.932512 NO DATAACR for vertebrate data: 0 11 100 53.932512 NO DATA

12 100 53.932512 NO DATA

Table 1. Result: Vertebrate ACR 0 13 100 53.932512 NO DATA

Table 2. Result: Invertebrate ACR 53.93251173 14 81 66.583348 NO DATA

Lowest ACR 53.93251173 15 100 53.932512 NO DATA

16 71 75.961284 NO DATA

Table 2. ACR using Invertebrate data 17 70 77.046445 NO DATA

18 30 179.775039 NO DATA

19 61.6 87.552779 NO DATA

Set # LC50 NOEC Test ACR Logarithm Geomean Antilog ACR to Use 20 NO DATA NO DATA

1 100 2.5 40 3.6888795 3.688879454 40 0

2 44.7 0.6 74.5 4.3107991 3.987733482 53.9325117 53.93251173 If WLA.EXE determines that an acute limit is needed, you need to

3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO DATA convert the TUc answer you get to TUa and then an LC50,

4 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO DATA enter it here: NO DATA %LC50

5 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO DATA NO DATA TUa6 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO DATA

7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO DATA




ACR for vertebrate data: 53.93251173

DILUTION SERIES TO RECOMMEND

Table 4. Monitoring Limit

% Effluent TUc % Effluent TUcDilution series based on data mean 8.5 11.72023Dilution series to use for limit 4 25Dilution factor to recommend: 0.2921003 0.2

Dilution series to recommend: 100.0 1.00 100.0 1.0029.2 3.42 20.0 5.008.5 11.72 4.0 25.002.5 40.12 0.8 125.000.73 137.36 0.2 625.00

Extra dilutions if needed 0.21 470.26 0.0 3125.000.06 1609.93 0.0 15625.00

APPENDIX D

Documentation from previous permits

stat zinc 2013

7/9/2013 4:10:57 PM

Facility = Ronile incChemical = zincChronic averaging period = 4WLAa = 141WLAc = 544Q.L. = 10# samples/mo. = 1# samples/wk. = 1

Summary of Statistics:

# observations = 7Expected Value = 182.857Variance = 12037.2C.V. = 0.697th percentile daily values = 444.96797th percentile 4 day average = 304.23597th percentile 30 day average= 220.535# < Q.L. = 0Model used = BPJ Assumptions, type 2 data

A limit is needed based on Acute ToxicityMaximum Daily Limit = 141Average Weekly limit = 141Average Monthly LImit = 141

The data are:

110230210150160240180

Page 1

APPENDIX E

TMDL documentation

B. Non-TMDL waste load allocations.

Development

27. Falling River Roanoke River PCB TMDL Development

Appomattox, Campbell

L32R tPCB 0.0 MG/YR

28. Childrey Creek

Roanoke River PCB TMDL Development

Halifax L30R tPCB 0.0 MG/YR

29. Catawba Creek



30. Turnip Creek Roanoke River PCB TMDL Development

Charlotte L36R tPCB 0.0 MG/YR

31. Hunting Creek



32. Cub Creek Roanoke River PCB TMDL Development

Appomattox, Charlotte

L37R tPCB 0.0 MG/YR

33. Black Walnut Creek



34. Roanoke Creek


Charlotte L39R tPCB 0.0 MG/YR

35. Difficult Creek



36. Roanoke River


Appomattox, Campbell, Charlotte, Pittsylvania, Halifax

L19R tPCB 1,931.8 MG/YR

Water Body

Permit No. Facility Name Outfall

No. Receiving

Stream River Mile

Parameter Description

WLA Units WLA

VAW-L04R

VA0072389 Oak Ridge Mobile Home Park

001 Falling Creek UT

0.32 BOD5 0.85 KG/D

VAW-L04R

VA0025020

Roanoke City Regional Water Pollution Control Plant

001 Roanoke River

201.81

BOD5 1173 KG/D

TKN, APR-SEP

318 KG/D

TKN, OCT-MAR

636 KG/D

001 Roanoke River

201.81

BOD5 1173 KG/D

TKN, APR-SEP

416 KG/D

TKN, OCT-MAR

832 KG/D

Page 3 of 6LIS > Administrative Code > 9VAC25-720-80

5/6/2013http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+9VAC25-720-80

001 Roanoke River

201.81

BOD5 1173 KG/D

TKN, APR-SEP

469 KG/D

TKN, OCT-MAR

939 KG/D

VAW-L04R

VA0077895 Roanoke Moose Lodge

001 Mason Creek

7.79

BOD5, JUN-

SEP 0.24 KG/D

TKN, JUN-SEP

0.09 KG/D

VAW-L07R

VA0020842

Bedford County School Board- Stewartsville Elementary School

001 Nat Branch, UT

0.59 BOD5 0.5 KG/D

VAW-L14R

VA0029254

Ferrum Water and Sewage Auth. - Ferrum Sewage Treatment Plant

001 Storey Creek

9.78 BOD5 14.2 KG/D

VAW-L14R

VA0085952

Rocky Mount Town Sewage Treatment Plant

001 Pigg River 52 BOD5 133 KG/D

VAW-L14R

VA0076015 Ronile Incorporated

001 Pigg River 57.24 BOD5 14.8 KG/D

VAW-L21R

VA0063738

Bedford County School Board - Staunton River High School

001 Shoulder Run, UT

0.95 BOD5 1.8 KG/D

VAW-L21R

VA0020869

Bedford County School Board - Thaxton Elementary School

001 Wolf Creek, UT

0.35 BOD5 0.31 KG/D

VAW-L22R

VA0023515

Blue Ridge Regional Jail Auth. - Moneta Adult Detention Facility STP

001 Mattox Creek, UT

3.76 BOD5 1.66 KG/D

VAW-L25R

VA0020851

Bedford County School Board - Otter River

001 Big Otter River, UT

1.15 BOD5 0.4 KG/D

Page 4 of 6LIS > Administrative Code > 9VAC25-720-80

5/6/2013http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+9VAC25-720-80

Ronile, Inc., VA0076015

Fact Sheet Page 2

8. Permit Characterization:

(X) Private ( ) Possible Interstate Effect

( ) Federal ( ) Interim Limits in Other Document

( ) State

( ) POTW

9. Facility Description:

Ronile was founded in 1984 as a yarn spinning company. In 1987, Ronile moved to Rocky Mount

to acquire the warp dyeing operations of Martin Processing and in 1988, acquired Colorstrand

Corp., a supplier of knit-deknit ("KDK") space-dyed yarns. The Company provides a variety of

products, including space-dyed nylon, polyester, acrylic, and other fibers to the carpet, rug, home

furnishing, craft, and automotive markets.

This facility has eight main dye lines at this plant and one smaller scale sample dye line. Yarn to

be dyed is either supplied by the customer or obtained by Ronile. The yarn is creeled and run

through a heat setter to bulk-up the yarn and set the width. From the heat setter, the yarn is run

through the dye machines, which contain a mixture of dye and dye setting chemicals. Yarn is then

run through a steam box to set the dye and washed to ensure the yarn is clean. Finishing chemicals

that were present on the yarn are removed in this step, giving the rinse water a milky color. A two-

stage counter-current washing method is used. Dye is not removed in this step. To dry the yarn, it

is run through padded rollers and a dryer. Once dried, the yarn is temporarily stored in J-boxes at

the end of the production line, prior to being routed to the mill, where it is spun onto cones and

prepared for shipping.

Four different types of dyes are used at this facility: basic dyes, acid dyes, dispersed dyes, and

premet (premetallicized) dyes. Production at the facility has gradually changed, in the past 4 to 5

years, since 2014-5, from the use of acid dyes, which could be recycled, to acrylic or basic dyes,

which cannot be recycled. Wool is not being dyed currently and is not being considered. There has

also been an increase in the amount of chemicals used in dyeing, including the use of sodium

hydrosulfite for equipment cleaning.

Wastewater from the production area, compressor room, on-site storm water and roof drainage

from the boiler room, are discharged to the wastewater treatment plant. The lagoon is unlined and

about 150 feet from the Pigg River. A baffle curtain partitions it into two separate areas.

Wastewater flows from the plant into the head of the lagoon, which serves as an equalization (EQ)

basin. The curtain in the lagoon separates the EQ basin from the aerator. From the lagoon,

wastewater is pumped into a rapid mix tank, where polymer is added. Daily jar tests are conducted

to determine the polymer dose to achieve an effluent color of 250-350 ADMI. For the period of

about 2014-18 Zetag 7197 was used at a dose of 150 to 350 ppm. A second polymer is added to

the flocculators to coagulate pin floc. Zetag 8680, a dry polymer, is used at a dose of 3 to 7 ppm.

Currently, three polymers manufactured by Bond Water Technologies are used in the WWTP.

Bondclear 1330s, a cationic polymer, Bondpoly 2431-90S, a cationic polymer, and Bondclear

400S, an aluminum chlorohydrate formulation, is used to precipitate metals. Polymer dose varies

with the temperature of the aeration basin, which mirrors seasonal temperature change.


Fact Sheet Page 3

Wastewater then flows into the settling basin and the overflow is discharged into the Pigg River.

Sludge from the settling basin is either returned to the aerated lagoon as activated sludge or is

pumped to the sludge holding tank. Polymer, Southeastern 1051, and a debulking agent, perlite,

are added to the sludge prior to pressing in a plate and frame filter press. Sludge cake is disposed

of at the Franklin County Sanitary Landfill. Supernatant from the sludge holding tank and filtrate

from the plate filter press are returned to the EQ basin. A flow diagram for Outfall 001 is included

in Appendix A.

Outfall 001 is an eight-inch single pipe diffuser with 5 slots cut into the pipe and a blind flange at

the end. A drawing of the diffuser is in Appendix A. At the outfall location, the Pigg River has a

silty bottom, is approximately 40 feet in width (35 feet during drought conditions) and meanders

slightly. Discharge from the outfall is relatively clear, but usually is a pink color.

Areas around the building are asphalt. Finished product loading and chemical unloading areas are

located around the outside of the production building. A trough drain will catch spills and storm

water from pipe stems in the chemical tanker unloading area and route to the wastewater treatment

plant. Leaks or spills at the tanker would run to the employee parking lot.

Former Outfall 002, a storm water outfall from the diked tank storage area, was routed to outfall

001 prior to 2013. The diked tank storage area has a clay liner and a 12-inch crushed stone

protective layer and the tank that once held fuel oil has been emptied. Storm water within this area

flows to a grated inlet, which is located in the sump housing the sewer pump.

Outfall 003 is a storm water outfall that receives runoff from the area of the loading ramp and

paved surfaces in the area hold used equipment and empty drums. Storm water is discharged

through a concrete channel over a bank into the grassy sewer easement. This area is in a flood

plain. Since stormwater flows overland to the Pigg River, periodic erosion control is needed.

Storm water from the northeast portion of the site flows to outfall 004. This is the area around the

WWTP and the adjacent vegetated hillside. Storm water from the main plant access road and the

northwestern part of the site flows to outfall 005.

Nonpoint source stormwater from the boiler area and roof drains also flow onto the fairly flat

sewer easement. BMPs are needed at outfall 009 to prevent sawdust used as boiler fuel from being

carried into the River. Runoff from roof drains, yard drains and concrete channels flow to the

easement. Several of these have created small eroded areas. These areas have not been previously

monitored as storm water outfalls. The easement is not mowed frequently, but storm water has

created point sources to the River.

The permit was modified on May 27, 1999, due to the addition of Space Dye Injection Machines

(new cotton and polyester lines) with a subsequent increase in production from 22.4 kkg (1998 2C

data) to 27 kkg. Due to toxicity issues, a TRE plan was submitted on February 4, 2002. The TRE

plan involved the replacement of the Space Dye Injection Machines with the #7 Dye Line

Machines. Subsequently, the Space Dye Injection Machines were removed from the facility in

February 2002. In 2008, the permit application listed 22.8 kkg/d of fiber dyeing, and 4.6 kkg/d of


Fact Sheet Page 4

rug dyeing. Production dropped to 16.3 kkg/d in the 2013 permit application. Batch dying of latex

backed rugs was believed to have been linked to zinc in the treatment plant effluent. On April 29,

2013, Ronile reported that this rug dying had been discontinued. The permit application currently

lists 10.2 kkg/d of fiber dyeing as the actual level of production.

A closure plan for the small lagoon, between the WWTP and the River, was approved August 22,

1994. The facility has stated that this lagoon has never been used and may be used as in case of an

emergency. Rainwater that enters this lagoon is pumped to the WWTP for treatment. The

groundwater assessment for the land applications sites was deemed acceptable by letter dated

November 28, 1994. Land application activity ceased prior to 1988, when the VPDES permit was

issued.


Fact Sheet Page 5

Table I

NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION OF OUTFALLS

Outfall

Source of Discharge

(List operations

contributing flow)

Treatment

Description

Unit by Unit

Flow, MGD

Long

term

ave

Max 30

day ave

001 Dyeing and

finishing of fibers

Stormwater from tank

farm (0.7 acres)

Roof from therminol

boiler

4 MG equalization

1 MG activated

sludge, coagulation

flocculation

sedimentation basin

J filter press

multimedia filtration

(optional)

drying beds

solids landfilling

0.106 0.158

003 storm water (0.6

acres)

tracked sawdust

None

004 storm water WWTP

area

None

005 storm water

west side of plant,

main entrance road

loading bays

Pine needles in ditch

006 roof drains warehouse Grass in easement

007 roof drains

manufacturing area

Grass in easement

008 roof drains

manufacturing area

and southern half of

dye house

Grass in easement

009 Sawdust unloading

area

Rip rap and grass in

easement

010 roof drains biomass

steam boiler and N

half of dye house

Grass in easement

011 Yard drain adjacent to

dye house

Grass in easement

012 Yard drain adjacent to

Eastern part of

warehouse

Grass in easement


Fact Sheet Page 6

013 SW E of warehouse Grass in easement

014 SW yard drain E of

warehouse

Grass in easement

015 Equipment stored in

employee parking lot

Grass in easement

10. Sewage Sludge Use or Disposal: NA

11. Discharge(s) Location Description:

Name of Topo: Rocky Mount, Virginia (See Appendix A)

Topo Number: 049B

Outfall 001: Latitude = 36.98723 degrees; Longitude = -79.88306 degrees




12. Material Storage:

Therminol 55 heat transfer fluid, C14-30-alkylaromatic derivatives - 12,500 gal overflow tank

No. 2 fuel oil - 40,000 gallons (4 tanks), berm drains to WWTP

Used oil - 30,000 gallons (3 tanks)

Sawdust, several cu. ft. in unloading area, biomass fuel, storm water drains to SW outfall 009

Salt, 100 - 40 pound bags

Perlite dust, Crystal Flow, in 40 lb. bags, in shed near WWTP

13. Ambient Water Quality Information:

This facility is within the Pigg River and Staunton River Bacteria TMDLs, but it does not have

a WLA because it does not discharge the pollutant of concern.

Roanoke logperch, Percina rex, a Federal and State endangered species, may be present in the

Pigg River in the vicinity of the discharge. The VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

(DGIF) database shows it to be present within 2 miles of the discharge. Based on the

description of the logperch habitat on the DGIF web site, the cloudy pool at the outfall would

not be desirable habitat for the logperch. The database also identifies two State Threatened

species within the same area, although their existence does not appear to be confirmed. These

are the Orangefin Madtom, Noturus gilberti and the Atlantic pigtoe, Fusonaia masoni.

The regression curves developed for the previous permit, used to calculate site specific critical

flows at the facility, are still valid. Updated gage flow statistics have not been published by the

USGS since 2011 when a small increase in flow at the outfall was projected. The flow

frequency determination memo is included in Appendix A.

In August 2016, partial demolition of the power dam in Rocky Mount began. Work was

completed by the end of 2016. This is not expected to affect the low flow frequency at Ronile.

Another dam on the Pigg River located next to Rocky Mount’s Veterans’ Memorial Park, just


Fact Sheet Page 7

upstream of Ronile, was removed in 2013.

DEQ Monitoring Stations on the Pigg River are shown below. The station name indicates the

location, in river miles, on the River.

Downstream of Ronile:

The Town of Altavista surface water intake is over 20 miles downstream from the Pigg River

Staunton River confluence.

4APGG052.01 Pigg River Above Rocky Mt. New STP, no data

4APGG052.73 Pigg River Rt. 713 Bridge Upstream of Rocky Mt STP, 6 data sets/yr from

2008-2013, ninetieth percentile pH and T is 7.8 SU and 23C

River mile 52.80, Power dam (partially demolished in 2016)

4APGG055.72 Pigg River Route 220 Bypass Below Rocky Mount, 8 data sets in 2008,

River mile 57.24 Rōnile discharge

Upstream of Ronile:

4APGG057.84 Pigg River Below Bus. Rt. 220 Bridge Above Ronile data from 2002-06-25 to

2002-06-25. One River sample was collected for dissolved metals on

6/25/2002. Dissolved aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, copper,

iron, manganese, magnesium, nickel and zinc were present

4APGG057.85 Pigg River Rt 220 Bridge At Rocky Mount Above STP data from 1970-03-16

to 2008-12-16. Most of the data from this station is from the 1970s and no data

was collected after 2008. Using only data after 2007, the ninetieth percentile

temperature is 22.7C and pH is 7.4 SU.

River mile old dam at Veterans Memorial Park (demolished in 2013) is adjacent to Bus. Rt 220.

4APGG068.49 Pigg River Rt. 756 Bridge data from 2001-07-26 to 2005-06-28, 67 sets of

data, 13 data points for hardness that average 30 mg/L.

4APGG073.68 Pigg River Upstream of ford on Sloan Road (Rt. 602) no data

4APGG074.87 Pigg River Sta #18 Rt. 908 Ford (Franklin County) data from 1992-08-18 to

2007-11-13

4APGG076.93 Pigg River near Five Mile Mountain Road (Rt. 748). Aquatic Life Use is

impaired for 4.4 miles downstream to the confluence of Turners Creek.

14. Antidegradation Review & Comments:

Tier: 1. 2 X 3

The State Water Control Board’s Water Quality Standards regulations include an

Antidegradation Policy (9 VAC 25-260-30). All state surface waters are provided one of three

levels of antidegradation protection. For Tier I, existing use protection, existing uses of the

water body and the water quality to protect these uses must be maintained. Tier II water bodies


Fact Sheet Page 8

have water quality that is better than the water quality standards. Significant lowering of the

water quality of Tier II waters is not allowed without an evaluation of the economic and social

impacts. Tier III water bodies are exceptional waters and are so designated by regulatory

amendment. The Antidegradation Policy prohibits new or expanded discharges into exceptional

waters.

The antidegradation review begins with Tier determination. This segment of the Pigg River

(VAW-L14) is listed on Part I of the 303(d) list for non-attainment of fecal coliform. This does

impact aquatic life and the wastewater plant does not receive sanitary wastewater. There are no

aquatic life TMDLs, and as such, the receiving stream is determined to be Tier II.

For purposes of aquatic life protection, “significant degradation (or significant lowering of the

water quality)” means that no more than 25% of the difference between the acute and chronic

aquatic criteria values and the existing quality (unused assimilative capacity) may be allocated.

For purposes of human health protection, “significant degradation” means that no more than

10% of the difference between the human health criteria and the existing quality (unused

assimilative capacity) may be allocated. The significant degradation baseline (antidegradation

baseline) for aquatic life protection is calculated for each pollutant as follows:

0.25 (WQS - existing quality) + existing quality = Antidegradation baseline

The antidegradation baseline for human health protection is calculated for each pollutant as

follows:

0.10 (WQS - existing quality) + existing quality = Antidegradation baseline

The “antidegradation baselines” become the new water quality criteria in Tier II waters and

effluent limits for future expansions or new facilities must be written to maintain the

antidegradation baselines for each pollutant. Antidegradation baselines (baselines) were

developed with the May 27, 1999, modification to address the facility expansion of new cotton

and polyester dye lines. Antidegradation baselines calculated previously are included in

Appendix D.

New wasteload allocations are calculated using 90th percentile pH and temperature for the

receiving stream from Station 4APGG057.85, which is located on the Pigg River at the Route

220 bridge in Rocky Mount. This station did not have total hardness data. The upstream

average hardness value of 30 mg/L was from Station 4APGG068.49. When setting permit

limits, the 1999 baselines and new WLAs are compared. The lower is used to establish permit

limits.

As the facility is not proposing any increase in the loading of any pollutants over historical

levels, permit limits are in compliance with antidegradation requirements set forth in the Water

Quality Standards Regulation, §9 VAC 25-260-30. The antidegradation review and associated

effluent limits analyses were conducted as described in Guidance Memorandum 00-2011, dated

August 24, 2000, and comply with the antidegradation policy contained in Virginia’s Water

Quality Standards. In accordance with Guidance Memorandum 00-2011 and 9 VAC 25-260-30,

the Agency’s antidegradation requirements have been complied with, and no further review is


Fact Sheet Page 9

necessary.

15. Site Visit: Date: July 2, 2018 Performed by: Lewis Pillis

(See Appendix A for a copy of the site visit memorandum.)

16. Effluent Screening & Limitation Development:

The permit application lists the maximum temperature as 29C in the summer and 17C in the

winter. A review of DMR data from the past three years reveals a pH range of 6.44 to 8.58,

with ninety percent of daily maximum pHs reported below 7.95 SU. Effluent hardness, from

whole effluent toxicity testing, has averaged 152 mg/L. Effluent hardness appears to have

increased after 2008.

There have been changes in the treatment process over the years, so only data since the

beginning of 2017, is used in the WQS WLA spreadsheet.

The following have been reported in detectable amounts in the discharge from outfall 001:

Chemical Analyte concentration, ug/L

Aluminum < 100

Bromide 670

Chlorides 5,800

Chromium total 100, 36 on application

Cobalt 146

Color, ADMI, max 290 max, 179 LT ave.

Hardness, average from WET tests 152,000

Magnesium 30,100

Manganese 112

Molybdenum 30

Nitrate-nitrite 1200

Nitrogen, Total Organic 7000

Phenol 62

Phosphorus, total 3100

Sulfate 114,000

Zinc 110 max, 60.4 LT ave.

Dyes and chemicals with potential affects, based on MSDS sheets:

MSDSs for most dyes do not report chemical formula, ingredients or ecological information.

Doracryl yellow X8GLS 200, basic dye, reported acute toxicity to fish 0.1 – 1 mg/l

Doracryl golden yellow XGFLS 200%, acute toxicity to fish 10 – 100 mg/l


Fact Sheet Page 10

(biodegradable)

Doracryl Bluegreen X5GS 200, acute toxicity to fish 1 – 10 mg/l

Doracryl Brilliant Red XBG, acute toxicity to fish 10 – 100 mg/l

Doracryl Red XGRLS 200%, toxicity to fish LC50 >10 mg/l (biodegradable)

Niccaresist SB-4, anionic condensation polymer containing 0.07% phenol and 0.37%

methanol, no ecological information reported

DEQ Guidance Memorandum 00-2011 was used in developing all water quality based limits

pursuant to water quality standards (9 VAC 25-260-5 et seq). Appendix B contains data from

STORET Station 4APGG057.85, water quality standards monitoring data, TMP data,

temperature and pH data, and data from submitted Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).

Recent data were used to calculate the 90th percentile values for pH and temperature.

Since a diffuser is present at Outfall 001, the CORMIX model was run to determine dilution to

be used when developing wasteload allocations. The 1993 CORMIX run was at a River flow of

3.88 MGD or 1Q10, lower than the current 1Q10. The 2008 fact sheet assumed complete mix

with the receiving stream at 7Q10 and a dilution of 10.4:1under acute conditions. The diffuser

was broken off during a flood in 2006. The replacement diffuser has a different port

arrangement. In 1993, dilution, under chronic conditions was performed at 1Q10 and not at

7Q10. Since several inputs had changed, the CORMIX model was rerun in 2013, at 7Q10 flow,

to determine the chronic dilution. Endpoints detailed in the Technical Support Document for

Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA/505/2-90-001, March 1991, [TSD] should be used to

determine dilutions.

Decision criteria from page 72 of the TSD was used to determine dilution in the zone of initial

dilution [ZID], or acute mixing zone. The TSD states that the ZID should not exceed the most

restrictive of the following:

1. Horizontal distance of the ZID must be less than 5x local water depth. The local water

depth given as 4 feet x 5 = 20 feet (6.1 meters).

2. In any direction, the ZID must be less than 10% of the regulatory mixing zone [RMZ].

Pursuant to 9 VAC 25-260-20 the RMZ, cannot exceed a) half the river width, b) one third

of the cross sectional area or c) extend downstream more than five times the river width.

a). width = 10% x (35 feet / 2) = 1.75 ft. (0.53 m)

b). area is not addressed by the TSD, so it is not applicable in this situation

c). length = 10% x (35 ft x 5) = 17.5 ft. (5.3 m)

3. In any direction, the ZID must be less than 50x the discharge length scale – The TSD

defines discharge length scale as the square root of the cross sectional area of the outlet.

Ports are two different sizes:

There are two 1” x 6” rectangular ports and three 2” x 9” rectangular ports

50 x discharge length scale of 1 outlet:


Fact Sheet Page 11

1” x 6” = 122.5 inches = 10.2 ft. (3.1m)

2” x 9” = 212.1 inches = 17.7 ft (5.4m)

total discharge length scale = 2 x 3.1m + 3 x 5.4m = 22.4m [or 22.4/5 = 4.5m for one port]

Under chronic conditions, the critical factor is the maximum width of the plume which should

not exceed half of the River’s width. Dilution was evaluated when the plume “half-width” is

equal to 35/2 or 17.5 feet (5.33 meters).

Ronile personnel measured diffuser and river depth on April 25, 2008, to enable a CORMIX

model. Starting about 15 feet from the River bank, there are 5 slots in a 6 foot span of the 8”

pipe. Gage flows on this date were obtained and the corresponding flow of the Pigg River at the

outfall was determined to be 75.61 cfs [48.9 MGD]. According to the USGS web site this is

about average flow for April. The permittee should measure the river dimensions during low

flow in August or September. CORMIX modeling should be repeated if River dimensions are

different from that used in the model. Using critical flows and dimensions, and at a discharge

flow of 0.15 MGD, CORMIX estimated dilution ratios of 7:1 for acute mixing (1Q10) and 19.5:1

for chronic mixing (7Q10). These dilution ratios were used to determine new wasteload

allocations (WLAs). A copy of the CORMIX model results is included in Appendix D.

OUTFALL 001

Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR Part 410 Subpart G, Stock and Yarn Finishing

Subcategory) apply to this facility. See Table II for a summary of outfall limitations

BOD5

The monthly average BOD5 limit (14.8 kg/d) in the current permit was established in the Water

Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Roanoke River Basin. This is now included as a

non-TMDL Waste Load Allocation in 9VAC25-720-80 B. Copies of relative pages from the

planning document are included in Appendix E.

Federal Effluent Guideline (FEG) for BOD5 also apply to the process water from Outfall 001.

Based on the level of production listed in the permit application (10.2 kkg/day), the monthly

average BOD5 limit would be 19.4 kg/d (See Appendix D for applicable guidelines and

calculations). The more stringent BOD5 limit (14.8 kg/d) allocated by 9VAC25-720-80 B the

will be maintained for the monthly average limit in this reissued permit to protect water quality

in this segment of the Pigg River. The maximum limit is an operational limit, which, according

to Federal and State policy is two times the monthly average limit. By applying this

methodology, the appropriate maximum limit will become 29.6 kg/d.

COD, TSS, Sulfide, Phenols, Total Chromium, and pH

Federal Effluent Guidelines for COD, TSS, Sulfide, Phenols, Total Chromium, and pH apply to

the process wastewater for Outfall 001. The NSPS limits were applied to this facility when the

permit was initially issued in 1988. As previously stated, the applicable guidelines and

calculations are included in Appendix C. Based on the average daily production provided in the

Form 2C application (10.2 kkg/day), the monthly average and daily maximum limits, as


Fact Sheet Page 12

calculated, are listed in Table II.

The current permit contains BPJ/BPT-based TSS limitations based on the requirements for

other discharges and the assertion that the limitations are reasonably achievable with the

treatment system. The current loading limitations were derived from secondary treatment

guidelines, 30 mg/L monthly average and 45 mg/L daily maximum and a design flow of 0.3

MGD. These are more stringent than the FEGs and are retained in the permit.

For a Class III receiving stream, the Water Quality Standards, 9VAC25-260-50, limitations for

pH are equivalent to the Federal Effluent Guidelines.

OIL & GREASE

The effluent limit in the current permit is a maximum daily limit of 15 mg/L and is based on

BPJ. The maximum daily limit in the reissued permit will remain 15 mg/L.

COLOR

The color limit in the current permit (499 ADMI) was based on color limits in similar permits.

A desirable maximum instream color has been established previously as 24 ADMI, assuming

that the background color value is zero. With this reissuance, the color limit will remain the

same.

COPPER

The current permit contains a total recoverable copper limitation of 22 g/l (monthly average

and maximum) which was the result of a previous reasonable potential analysis. This limit was

added in 1999, when the permit was modified for a facility change to add cotton and polyester

dyeing. The antidegradation baseline for copper was used to establish this limit. Documentation

from the 1999 permit modification is found in Appendix D.

ZINC

Zinc was believed to leach from the latex backing on rugs that are batch dyed. Latex-backed

cotton rug dyeing started between February and May of 2005, and was discontinued around the

end of April 2013. Zinc remains to be present in the 5 million gallon WWTP.

Background data from a clean metals sample collected 6/25/2002, showed 2.55 ug/L of

dissolved zinc in the water column upstream of Ronile. Antidegradation baselines calculated in

1999 are 140.97 ug/L, acute, and 544 ug/L, chronic. The current permit limit of 140 ug/L was

based on these antidegradation baselines. Current WLAs, based on upstream and effluent

hardness, are 1100 ug/L, acute, and 2300 ug/L, chronic. Output from the STATS program is

included in Appendix C.


Fact Sheet Page 13

Other Toxics:

4, 4’-DDT

It is believed that DDT was on overseas cotton fibers that were previously dyed by Ronile and

DDT was previously detected in effluent from the WWTP. Latex backed rugs were the only

cotton fibers that were dyed at the facility and this has been discontinued. Wool is the only

other natural fiber used at the facility and wool is not expected to be exposed to DDT. In the

2017 permit application, DDT, DDE and DDD were reported as less than 0.05 ug/L.

Since antidegradation baselines were determined in 1999, the lower of this baseline and new

WLAs are input into the agency STATS program together with analytical results. A limit

would be needed for aquatic life WLAs if the STATS program shows that a reasonable

potential to exceed the WLA exists.

Phenol has an antidegradation WLA, for the protection of human health, of 2,200,000 ug/L.

Phenol was reported at 62 ug/L, as total phenols. DMR data has a maximum total phenols of

120 ug/L. Assuming that all total phenols is phenol, a phenol limit not a needed to protect the

WQS.

Chromium (Cr) has been reported only as total chromium, at a maximum of 100 ug/L; whereas

there are WQSs for hexavalent and trivalent chromium. In the past 36 months of sampling, only

4 samples contained Cr concentrations over 10 ug/L. Using actual data and the antidegradation

WLAs for trivalent and hexavalent Cr, a limit was not needed to protect the WQS.

Chloride was reported at a concentration of 5.8 mg/L. Since the lowest WLA is 1100 mg/L, this

is not high enough to trigger a permit limit. Chemicals that contained chloride were mainly

used in cotton rug dyeing, which was stopped in April 2013.

Cobalt is a component of dyestuffs used at the facility. There is not a Virginia WQS for cobalt

and EPA has not published a criteria. The concentration reported in the effluent (146 ug/L) is

higher than a tentative cobalt acute criteria of 120 ug/L, in a 2001 publication from Indiana, and

higher than that proposed in a 2004 publication from British Columbia, Canada of 110 μg/L.

Tentative chronic criteria in these publications was 19 and 4 ug/L respectively. This publication

states that cobalt is not thought to be a function of hardness. Assuming no cobalt in the River

upstream, if the diffuser dilutions of 7 and 18.5 are used with acute criteria of 110 ug/L and

chronic criteria of 4 ug/L respectively, the resulting acute and chronic WLAs would be 770 and

74, and antidegradation WLAs would be 190 and 20 ug/L. Stats predicts that a chronic

antidegradation based permit limit, of 29 ug/L, would be needed if these were actual criteria.

Since an actual criteria has not been established, a limit is not added to the permit, but this does

imply that there may be chronic affects from cobalt.

Permethrin, a moth pesticide, will be used on finished wool fibers in the facility. Procedures

have been established to make sure that cleaning water from rollers, baths and other equipment

that has contacted with permethrin are not disposed of in the WWTP.


Fact Sheet Page 14

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)

In accordance with Agency guidance, WET data from the current permit term are used in the

WETLIM 10 spreadsheet, to re-evaluate the WET limit. The CORMIX dilution ratios are used,

with the default coefficient of variation. Three of eight chronic tests, using C. dubia, had a TUc

that was higher than the endpoint in the permit. A 48h LC50 was able to be calculated from two

of the chronic tests, and were used to develop a site specific Acute to Chronic ratio (ACR).

The spreadsheet calculates that an NOAEC of 100% is needed to protect the narrative WQS.

This is more stringent than the 2.1 TUa limit currently in the permit and will replace it.

Toxicity and specific polymers used has been sporadic. A preserved sample for metals testing

should be held and tested for metals (zinc, cobalt and aluminum) if a WET test fails. Prior to

adding a new process, new fabric or dye or WWTP polymers, acute and chronic WETs test on

effluent from jar test of proposed material must pass WET tests using both species.

Appendix C contains a compilation of the toxicity testing data and the WETLIM10 output.

OUTFALL 003

This outfall receives drainage from the rear parking lot area, which contains used equipment

and drums. Trucks delivering sawdust use this area for ingress and egress, so that sawdust

could be tracked into the area. Sector V of the VPDES General Permit (GP) covers textile

mills.

Concentrations of COD and nitrogen reported in the application are higher than the benchmarks

in General Permit Regulation. Grab sample concentrations were reported as 176 mg/L COD,

and 4.1 mg/L of total nitrogen. The GP benchmark for COD is 120 mg/L and for total nitrogen

the benchmark is 2.2 mg/L.

The facility Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan should be reevaluated to determine and

remove activities in this area that contribute to COD and total nitrogen. If activities cannot be

modified, then treatment should be provided to remove the pollutants. The quality of storm

water will be evaluated quarterly via visual examination and by other storm water special

conditions of the permit. Since the same controls, i.e. housekeeping, should reduce both COD

and TN, only COD will be routinely monitored to determine the effectiveness of the SWPPP.

OUTFALL 004

This outfall drains some of the WWTP roads and runoff from an adjacent hillside north of the

plant. There are no limitations on this outfall, but the areas draining to this outfall need to be

included in the facility Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

OUTFALL 005

This outfall receives stormwater runoff from the facility main entrance road and the south

western portion of the facility. There are no limitations on this outfall, but the areas draining to


Fact Sheet Page 15

this outfall need to be included in the facility Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

OUTFALLS 006, 007, 008

These pipes discharge roof storm water runoff that is not believed to be areas of industrial

activity.

OUTFALLS 009 - 015

These pipes should be visually monitored as it leaves the plant area before entering the sewer

easement. Discharge of floating materials, such as sawdust, is prohibited. Measures should be

taken to prevent these discharges from forming a point source discharge from the easement

area.

REDUCED MONITORING

All permit applications received after May 4, 1998, are to be considered for reduction in the

frequency of effluent monitoring. Only facilities having exemplary operations that consistently

meet permit requirements should be considered for reduced monitoring. To qualify for

consideration, the facility should not have been issued any letter of noncompliance (LON),

notice of violation (NOV), or unsatisfactory laboratory determinations, or be under any

Consent Orders, Consent decrees, Executive Compliance Agreements, or related enforcement

documents during the past three years. This facility has received warning letters within the past

three years, listed below. As such, the facility does not meet the criteria discussed above and

therefore is not eligible for reduced monitoring.

Warning Letter W2018-05-W-1007, WET limit excursion, Jan – Mar Quarter 2018


Fact Sheet Page 16 Table II BASIS FOR LIMITATIONS

Table II BASIS FOR LIMITATIONS

( ) Interim Limitations OUTFALL 001 Effective Dates - From: Effective Date

(x) Final Limitations SIC CODE: 2269 To: Expiration Date

PARAMETER

Basis for

Limits

DISCHARGE LIMITS

MONITORING

REQUIREMENTS

Monthly

Average

Weekly

Average

Minimum

Maximum

Frequency

Sample

Type

Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL Continuous TIRE

pH (Standard Units) 1, 2 NA NA 6.0 9.0 Continuous Recorded

pH excursion time, indiv (S.U.) 1 NA NA NA 60 minutes Continuous Recorded

pH excursion time, total (S.U.) 1 NA NA NA 446 minutes Continuous Recorded

BOD5 2 NL mg/L 14.8 kg/d NA NA NL mg/L 29.6 kg/d 1/week 24 HC

Total Suspended Solids 3 NL mg/L 34 kg/d NA NA NL mg/L 51 kg/d 1/week 24 HC

Chemical Oxygen Demand 1

NL mg/L 223 kg/d NA NA NL mg/L 345

kg/d 1/month 24 HC

Sulfide 1 NL mg/L 1.2 kg/d NA NA NL mg/L 2.4 kg/d 1/month Grab

Phenols 1 NL mg/L 0.61

kg/d NA NA NL mg/L 1.2 kg/d 1/month 1/8H

Total Chromium 1 NL mg/L 0.61

kg/d NA NA NL mg/L 1.2 kg/d 1/month 24 HC

Total Recoverable Copper 2 22 g/L NA NA 22 g/L 1/month 24 HC

Total Recoverable Zinc 2 140 g/L NA NA 140 g/L 1/month 24 HC

Oil & Grease 3 NA NA NA 15 mg/L 1/month Grab

Color 3 NA NA NA 499 ADMI 1/week 24 HC

Whole Effluent Toxicity interim

2 NA NA NA 2.1 TUa 1/quarter 24 HC

Whole Effluent Toxicity final 2 NA NA NA 26 TUc 1/quarter 24 HC

NA = Not Applicable; NL = No Limitations; monitoring only

1/8H = one sample taken every 8 hours over a 24-hour period. The samples may be composited in the lab with one result reported.

The basis for the limitations codes are:

1. Technology –based limits (40 CFR 410, Textile Mills Point Source Category; Subpart G, Stock and Yard Finishing Subcategory)

(40 CFR, Part 401.17 for pH excursion times)

2. Water Quality-based limits

3. Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)-based limits – see discussion in section 16, p 12


Fact Sheet Page 17

TABLE IIb

(x) Final Limitations

() Interim Limitations

OUTFALL 003 STORMWATER MONITORING

Dates: From eff date

To exp date

SIC CODES 2269, 4961

BASIS FOR LIMITS EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Monthly Sample

Parameter Average Minimum Maximum Frequency Type

Flow, precipitation event, MG 3 NA NA NL 1/ 6M Estimate

Chemical Oxygen Demand, COD mg/L 3 NA NA NL 1/ 6M Grab

Codes for “Basis for Limits” are:

1. Federal Effluent Guidelines, 40 CFR 423

2. Water Quality Standards

3. Best Professional Judgment, ISWGP 9VAC25-151. Benchmarks are COD = 120 mg/L, TN = 2.2 mg/L

Fact Sheet

Permit No. VA0076015

Page 18

17. Antibacksliding Statement:

All limits are at least as stringent as in the previous permit.

18. Compliance Schedules: A two year compliance schedule is added to meet the more restrictive

100% NOAEC limit, as Part I.B.

19. Special Conditions:

a. Quantification Levels and Compliance Reporting under Part I.A (Part I.C.1)

Rationale: In accordance with VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-190 J4 and 220 I,

DEQ is authorized to establish monitoring methods and procedures to compile and analyze data

on water quality, as per 40 CFR Part 130, Water Quality Planning and Management, Subpart

130.4. This condition is necessary when pollutants are monitored by the permittee and a

maximum level of quantification and/or specific analytical method is required in order to assess

compliance with a permit limit or to compare effluent quality with a numeric criterion. This

condition also establishes protocols for calculation of reported values.

b. Notification Levels (Special Condition I.C.2)

Rationale: Required by VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-200.A. for all

manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural discharges.

c. Materials Handling/Storage (Special Condition I.C.3)

Rationale: 9 VAC 25-31-50.A.1. prohibits the discharge of any wastes into the State waters

unless authorized by the permit. Code of Virginia §62.1-44.16 and §62.1-44.17 authorizes the

Board to regulate the discharge of industrial waste or other waste.

d. O&M Manual Requirement (Special Condition I.C.4)

Rationale: Required by Code of Virginia §62.1-44.16; VPDES Permit Regulation

9 VAC 25-31-190.E, and §40 CFR 122.41(e). These require proper operation and maintenance

of the permitted facility. Compliance with an approved O & M Manual ensures this. In

addition to the basic requirements, the following should be addressed in the manual:

Inspection and maintenance of the diffuser to make sure that all ports are open.

Increased COD monitoring on the WWTP in winter months as an operational check on

biological activity.

e. Licensed Operator Requirement (Special Condition I.C.5)

Rationale: Required by VPDES Permit Regulation 9 VAC 25-31-200.C and The Code of

Virginia §54.1-2300 et seq., Rules and Regulations for Waterworks and Wastewater Works

Operators (§18 VAC 160-20-10 et seq.), requires licensure of operators. The Wastewater

Works Operators Regulation would require a Class II operator, if the hydraulic design capacity

Fact Sheet


Page 19

is over 0.1 MGD, since the facility uses a combination of biological and coagulation systems to

meet permit limits. Operator classifications are related to the hydraulic design capacity of the

treatment system. The Ronile WWTP has a stated hydraulic design capacity of 0.3 MGD;

however; the long term average flow reported to DEQ has been just over 0.1 MGD over the

past few years. Typical of textile wastewater, the organic load to the WWTP is low, so that

most of the pollutants are removed via a coagulation/filtration system. Due to this, the WWTP

is classified as a Class III wastewater works and a Class III operator is required.

f. Water Quality Reopener (Special Condition I.C.6)

Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9VAC25-31-220 D requires effluent limitations to be

established which will contribute to the attainment or maintenance of the water quality

standards. New effluent monitoring results may become available during the permit term.

g. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Reopener (Special Condition I.C.7)

Rationale: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that Total Maximum Daily Loads

(TMDLs) be developed for streams listed as impaired. This special condition is to allow the

permit to be reopened if necessary to bring it into compliance with any applicable TMDL

approved for the receiving stream. The re-opener recognizes that, according to Section

402(o)(1) of the Clean Water Act, limits and/or conditions may be either more or less stringent

than those contained in this permit. Specifically, they can be relaxed if they are the result of a

TMDL, basin plan, or other wasteload allocation prepared under section 303 of the Act.

i. pH Excursions (Special Condition I.C.8)

Rationale: For continuous discharges, excursion times can be allowed for continuous

monitoring of technology based pH limitations, pursuant to 40 CFR 401.17(b). Limitations for

pH is based on federal effluent guidelines to account for those times when continuous pH

monitoring equipment may malfunction.

j. Cooling Water and Boiler Additives (Special Condition I.C.9)

Rationale: Chemical additives may be toxic or otherwise violate the receiving stream water

quality standards. Upon notification, the Regional Office can determine if this activity will

warrant a modification to the permit.

k. Groundwater Monitoring Requirements (Special Condition I.C.10)

Rationale: A groundwater assessment plan for the active industrial wastewater treatment

(IWT) lagoon, was approved November 28, 1994. The permittee has been required to monitor

groundwater for the active lagoon at MWs 3, 4, and 5 on an annual basis during the month of

September or October since 1998. Static water level, pH, and sulfate shall be monitored at each

well during each sampling event.

Until 2012, data indicated that sulfate concentrations in monitoring wells 3 and 4 was

declining, but above the groundwater criteria. Well 5 is topographically upgradient of the IWT

Fact Sheet


Page 20

lagoon and wells 3 and 4 are about at the same ground surface elevation. Well 3 is about 300

feet from the lagoon and well 4 is about 170 feet away.

A survey of the well elevations and the past few years of monitoring, shows that ground water

flow direction is almost perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the lagoon. It appears that

ground water from only the North and NW corners of the lagoon flows toward MW4. Sulfate

concentration in MW4 continues to be about 20 mg/L higher than the other wells, indicating

that leakage from the lagoon is impacting ground water.

Blasting for road construction, in 2012, at the nearby intersection of Orchard and Business 220

may have also temporarily affected ground water quality at Ronile. Annual monitoring will be

carried forward with this permit. The well heads should be surveyed and ground water

potentiometric contours developed with each sampling. Since wastewater is highly colored,

color should also be added as a monitored parameter. A graph of ground water data is included

in Appendix A.

l. Closure Plan (Part I.C.11) Rationale: This condition establishes the requirement to submit a closure plan for the

treatment works if the treatment facility is being replaced or is expected to close. This is

necessary to ensure treatment works are properly closed so that the risk of untreated waste

water discharge, spills, leaks and exposure to raw materials is eliminated and water quality

maintained. Section 62.1-44.21 requires every owner to furnish when requested plans,

specification, and other pertinent information as may be necessary to determine the effect of the

wastes from his discharge on the quality of state waters, or such other information as may be

necessary to accomplish the purpose of the State Water Control Law.

m. Whole Effluent Toxicity (Special Condition I.D.)

Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-210 and 220 I, requires monitoring in the

permit to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable requirements of the State Water

Control Law and the Clean Water Act. Should there be significant changes in products or

chemicals used, the Agency may require the effluent to be recharacterized for chronic toxicity.

Please see Appendix C for the TMP justification memo.

n. Whole Effluent Toxicity Limitation (Special Condition I.E.)

Rationale: Required by 9 VAC 25-31-220 D 1 d. The Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) limit

for Outfall 001 has been revised using the results of testing from the current permit cycle. The

memo, included in Appendix C, provides the specific rationale. The chronic limit of 26 TUc is

more stringent than the WET limit of 2.1 TUa in the current permit.

o. Storm Water Management (Special Conditions I.F, G and H.)

Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-10 defines discharges of storm water from

industrial activity in 9 industrial categories. 9 VAC 25-31-120 requires a permit for these

discharges. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan requirements of the permit are derived

from the VPDES general permit for discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity,

Fact Sheet


Page 21

9 VAC 25-151-10 et seq. VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-220 K, requires use of best

management practices where applicable to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when

numeric effluent limits are infeasible or the practices are necessary to achieve effluent limit or to

carry out the purpose and intent of the Clean Water Act and State Water Control Law.

Sector specific requirements from Sector V – Textile Mills have been incorporated into the

special condition. Wording specific to sawdust use is added to I.H., since the facility uses

sawdust as boiler fuel.

p. Part II, Condition Applicable to All Permits

Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, §9 VAC 25-31-190 requires all VPDES permit to

contain or specifically cite the conditions listed.

20. NPDES Permit Rating Worksheet: Total Score 85

See Appendix A for a copy of the Rating Worksheet.

21. Changes to Permit:

NC= not changed

Changes to special conditions:

1. Special Condition I.C.7, Water Quality Criteria Monitoring removed

2. Special Condition I.C.11, Closure Plan added

3. Special Condition I.D. (Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring) was updated. Upon DEQ

notification, quarterly chronic WET testing.

4. Special Condition I.E., Whole Effluent Toxicity Limit revised

5. Special Conditions I.F, I.G. and I.H. (Storm Water Management) was updated.

6. Part II.I wording is added, to note that emergency reporting is to be sent to an email

address.

Outfall

No.

Parameter

Changed

Monitoring

Requirement

Changed

Effluent Limits

Changed Reason for Change

Date

From To From To

001 COD mg/kg NC 355/549 223/346 Production decrease 7/24/18

001 Phenols

mg/kg NC 0.97/1.9 0.6/1.2

Production decrease 7/24/18

001 Total Cr

mg/kg NC 0.97/1.9 0.6/1.2


001 Sulfide

mg/kg NC 1.9/3.9 1.2/2.5


001 WET NC 2.1 TUa 26 TUc WETLIM10 & STATS using

actual ACR

8/20/18

Fact Sheet


Page 22

22. Variances/Alternate Limits or Conditions:

This permit varies from Agency guidance in that load limits are decimal fractions (not

restricted to whole numbers). There are no other variances/alternate limits in this permit.

23. Public Notice Information:

All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected, and arrangements made for copying

by contacting Lewis Pillis at:

Virginia DEQ

Blue Ridge Regional Office

3019 Peters Creek Road

Roanoke, VA 24019

540-562-6789

[email protected]

Persons may comment in writing or by email to the DEQ on the proposed permit action, and

may request a public hearing, during the comment period. Comments shall include the name,

address, and telephone number of the writer and of all persons represented by the

commenter/requester, and shall contain a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for

comments. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. The DEQ may

decide to hold a public hearing, including another comment period, if public response is

significant and there are substantial, disputed issues relevant to the permit. Requests for public

hearings shall state 1) the reason why a hearing is requested; 2) a brief, informal statement

regarding the nature and extent of the interest of the requester or of those represented by the

requester, including how and to what extent such interest would be directly and adversely

affected by the permit; and 3) specific references, where possible, to terms and conditions of

the permit with suggested revisions. Following the comment period, the Board will make a

determination regarding the proposed permit action. This determination will become effective,

unless the DEQ grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given. The

public may review the draft permit and application at the DEQ Blue Ridge Regional Office, in

Roanoke, by appointment.

24. 303(d) Listed Segments (TMDL):

According to the WCRO 2010 Water Quality Assessment 305(b) and Impaired Waters 303(d)

Reports, this segment of the Pigg River (VAW-L14) is listed for non-attainment of the

Recreational Use due to monitoring data exceeding the WQS value of fecal coliform, originally

and presently Escherichia coli. The EPA approved (9/11/2006) Pigg River Bacteria TMDL

prepared for this segment does not have a wasteload allocation for this discharge for fecal

coliform.

No limit for fecal coliform is included in this permit. This permit does not authorize the

discharge of sanitary wastewater. All sources of sanitary wastewater are believed to be

connected to the sanitary sewer.

Special Permit considerations:

TMDL re-opener special condition included.

Fact Sheet


Page 23

25. Additional Comments:

Previous Board Action: none

Staff Comments: The discharge is not controversial. The discharge is in conformance with the

existing TMDL documents for the area.

Other Agency Comments: The VDH commented that there are no public water supply intakes

in Virginia downstream of this facility and asked for a copy of the final permit. DGIF

commented that “Provided the applicant adheres to the effluent characteristics identified in the

permit application, we do not anticipate the issuance of this permit to result in adverse impact

to T&E species waters or their associated species”.

The US FWS provided comments in a letter dated December 20, 2017. They requested

quarterly chronic WET testing, further evaluation of the new polymer, reporting of specific dye

compounds used, and archiving samples for analysis of metals concentrations, to allow the

facility to account for variability in WET testing results and address the potential causes of

intermittent toxicity.

Safety data sheets on all dyes used by Ronile have been evaluated, and discussed with the

Company. Ronile reviews each new chemical for toxicity before it is used and is investigating

whether the yellow dye containing cobalt can be replaced. A detailed evaluation of existing

WET data has led to a more stringent limit being placed in the permit with a portion of each

WET sample to be retained for possible metals testing. Both C. dubia and P. promelas will be

used for the first year to confirm the most sensitive species. WET testing will be required prior

to new products being dyed or new treatment chemicals being used.

DCR did not provide comments on this permit action.

Public Comment: The discharge is not controversial. Ronile submitted two comments; 1) that

noted a pair of acute and chronic WET test results that were not used to calculate the acute to

chronic ratio (ACR) and 2) a request to use only the historic most sensitive species in the

chronic WET tests.

Use of the revised ACR resulted in a change in the WET limit from 100% NOAEC to 26 TUc.

DEQ declined the request to use only one species at the onset of chronic testing, since in the

past year there have been significant changes in the facility’s effluent WET test results. Ronile

is in agreement with this change.

Appendix A – NPDES Permit Rating worksheet, USGS Map, SWPPP site map, Flow Diagram, Site

Visit Memo, DMR data

Appendix B – Receiving Stream Data, Flow Frequency Memorandum

Appendix C – Effluent Limit Development

Appendix D – Antidegradation waste load allocations and permit limit development from previous

permits

Appendix E – VAC25-720-80. B. Roanoke River Basin, Non-TMDL waste load allocations, Water

Quality Assessment

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET - Virginia...110-10387 ACID BLUE BRL 200% 108500 TECTILON BLUE M-AR...

Documents

Transcript of VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET - Virginia...110-10387 ACID BLUE BRL 200% 108500 TECTILON BLUE M-AR...