United States Office of Water EPA-821-R-96-014
Environmental Protection 4303 July 1996
Agency
^ EPA Preliminary Study of the Textile Mills Category
-------
PRELIMINARY STUDY
OF THE
TEXTILE MILLS CATEGORY
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division
401 M Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20460
May, 1996
-------
PREFACE
This study was conceived and documented by the staff of the Engineering and Analysis
Division and fulfills an obligation of EPA under the Consent Decree in Natural Resources
Defense Council v Reilly (D.D.C. Civ. No. 89-2980, January 31, 1992).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author. Hugh Wise, would like to acknowledge the contribution of Ronald Jordan, who
initially organized the study. Besides reviewing the existing regulation, he assisted the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) with the development of the POTW
survey questionnaire and personally retrieved hardcopies of data from the Annual Pollutant
Analysis Monitoring (APAM) files of the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Managagement (DEM). In addition to AMSA, the author would like to thank members of the
American Textile Manufacturing Institute (AT.MI) for their cooperation and technical advice.
The constructive suggestions and review of the document by Marvin Rubin are also gratefully
acknowledged.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary 1
11. Introduction 3
111. Existing Effluent Guidelines 4
IV. Industry Profile 7
V. Water Use 14
VI. Characterization and Pretreatment of Process Wastewaters 18
VII. Characterization of Final (treated) Effluents 34
VIII. Cost of Wastewater Control and Treatment 43
IX Environmental Assessment 44
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I 1
APPENDIX 11-1 2
APPENDIX 11-2 9
APPENDIX 11-3 16
APPENDIX 11-4 26
APPENDIX ffl-1 37
APPENDIX ffl-2 38
APPENDIX 111-3 50
APPENDIX ffl-4 53
APPENDIX IV-1 57
APPENDIX IV-2 61
APPENDIX IV-3 66
II
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this special study is to provide information for determining whether the
current effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the textile mills industry, contained
within Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal regulations at Part 410 (cited as 40 CFR 410),
should be revised or updated. This study was conducted to meet EPA’ s obligations under
Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act, in accordance with the settlement agreement with the
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. and Public Citizen, Inc., entered on January 31, 1992.
This study is a compilation of data collected during 1993 and 1994, and includes comparisons
with data collected in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that support the existing limitations.
The study presents a current profile of the industry, in which the numbers of establishments
engaged in the manufacture of textile products were estimated at nearly 6000. Approximately
35-50 percent are engaged in wet processing (dyeing, finishing, printing and coating), and at
least 90 percent of these sources discharge their process wastewater to publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs). Water conservation programs developed by textile facilities have reduced the
total volume of wastewater discharged through more efficient use of process water. Compared
with 1980, the industry in 1993 averaged 22 percent less water per pound of fiber processed.
A survey of POTWs afforded a review of the pretreatment technologies and innovative
“pollution prevention” techniques that are currently being employed by textile users of POTWs.
Pollutant parameters in textile process wastewater were characterized before and after
treatment. Available data indicated:(l) Few organic priority pollutants were identified
consistently and, when detected, were quantified at very low concentrations (less than 100 ppb);
and (2) Metal parameters consistently detected at low levels include: copper, chromium, and
zinc. At textile operations using metallized dyes, copper, chromium or nickel are often chelated
by organic ligands to form water-soluble metal complexes. While their solubiity limits the
removal of such metal complexes during biological treatment, complexation also suppresses the
immediate and subsequent toxicity (bioavailability) of metal species in the treated wastewater.
A joint EPA/Industry research effort is currently being conducted to evaluate a more
discriminating analytical technique for measuring potentially bioavailable metal species.
With respect to direct dischargers, the imposition of NPDES permit limits derived from
water quality standards for metals, where the new limits are at or below detectable levels, has
presented a number of site-specific compliance problems. The main problem is demonstrating
compliance where existing analytical methods are unable to measure metals at the level
prescribed by the permit limits. A small number of site-specific problems were identified at
small POTWs receiving a majority of their flow from textile users, but these problems were
found to be unique to these communities.
Although most textile facilities engaged in wet processing discharge their wastewater to
POTWs, a survey of POTWs with textile users did not identify any general operational problems
that could be related to the lack of categorical pretreatment standards for this industry. Instead
of categorical pretreatment standards, each POTW has developed local limits for those
parameters it has determined are necessary to assure compliance with its own National Pollutant
1
-------
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions and sludge standards. POTWs
serving textile users generally find the application of local limits, coupled with enough
monitoring of selected parameters, adequately controls wastewater discharges from this industry.
2
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act [ 33 U.S.C. 1314(m)], added by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for (I) reviewing and revising existing effluent
limitations guidelines and standards (“effluent guidelines”), and (ii) promulgating new effluent
guidelines. On September 8. 1992, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (57 FR 41000)
in which schedules were established for reviewing existing effluent guidelines and developing
new and/or revised effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries
selected for review of existing effluent guidelines was the Textile Mills Point Source Category
(40 CFR Part 410).
Issuance of the Effluent Guidelines Plan is also consistent with a Consent Decree entered
on January 31, 1992. In a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ( NRDC
v. Reilly . D.D.C. No. 89-2980), the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and
Public Citizen, Inc., challenged an earlier Effluent Guidelines Plan charging that EPA’s plan did
not meet the requirements of section 304(m). The Consent Decree subsequently entered into
resolved this litigation by establishing, among other things, a schedule for EPA to conduct
industry studies and develop new or revised effluent guidelines. The most recent revision df the
Effluent Guidelines Plan and its time line was published in the Federal Register on August 26,
1994 (59 FR at 44234)
This study of the textile industry, conducted pursuant to the requirements of Section 304(m)
of the 1987 Clean Water Act, was undertaken to indicate whether the wet processing (dyeing,
finishing, printing and coating) of textile products currently results in wastewater discharges
bearing significant loadings of “toxic’ and non-conventional pollutant parameters, and whether
these parameters are being adequately controlled. Since 40 CFR Part 410 is without categorical
pretreatment standards, another objective of this study was to ascertain whether such standards
are needed for adequate control of textile user discharges to POTWs. It is not EPA’s intention
to use the information and data in this study directly for near-term rulemaking, but to compare
the textile mills category to other industry categories being considered for new or revised
effluent guidelines.
EPA collected data and information from a variety of sources. The U.S. Department of
Commerce. state agencies, and POTW pretreatment programs supplied information for use in
the study. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) coordinated a survey
of POTW pretreatment programs. Trade associations, such as American Textile Manufacturers
Institute (ATMI), arranged for site visits to textile facilities. ATM! also provided industry
contacts, who were sources of technical information that were helpful in interpreting the
analytical data.
3
-------
III. EXISTING EFFLUENT GUIDEL1NES
Regulatory and Litigation Background
Effluent limitations for existing sources based on the use of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) and best available control technology economically
achievable (BAT), as well as performance standards for new sources (NSPS) and pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) for the Textile Mills Point Source Category were first
proposed by EPA in February 1974 (39 FR 4628; February 5, 1974). Final BPT and BAT
effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources, NSPS and PSNS were subsequently
promulgated in July 1974 (39 FR 24736; July 5, 1974). These regulations imposed effluent
limits on discharges of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
total suspended solids (TSS), total chromium, total phenols, sulfide, pH, oil and grease, fecal
coliform, and color. In addition, pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) were
proposed (39 FR 24750; July 5, 1974).
On October 1, 1974, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) filed a petition
for review of the promulgated effluent guidelines and standards with the Fourth Circuit of the
U.S. Court of Appeals. ATMI was joined in this action by the Northern Textile Association
(NTA) and the Carpet and Rug Institute (CR1). The parties involved subsequently filed a joint
motion requesting a stay of the petition to allow for a joint EPA/industry study to further
evaluate the technical and economic achievability and impact of the regulations. In the joint
motion, petitioners withdrew their challenge to the BPT limitations. In response to the joint
motion, the Court remanded all the regulations except BPT to EPA for reconsideration.
PSES were promulgated itt 1977 (42 FR 26979, May 26, 1977). These pretreatment
standards replaced the limits proposed for specific pollutants with general prohibitions (40 CFR
Sec 403.5: hydraulic loading, corrosivity, obstructive, and fire/explosion hazards) intended to
protect POTW operation and performance.
In 1982, EPA promulgated regulations superseding all existing regulations for the textile
mills point source category, except the BPT effluent limitations (47 FR 38810; September 2,
1982) The final rule imposed BPT limits on two new industry subcategories, and revised BAT
and NSPS for all subcategories The general prohibitions of PSES and PSNS were reserved,
leaving POTW pretreatment programs with the prerogative of applying local limits as necessary
to control the wastewater discharges of textile users.
The current effluent limitations and standards for the Textile Mills Point Source Category
are codified at 40 CFR Part 410. Textile products and processes that were allocated to the
subcategories of Part 410, together with their applicable SIC codes are summarized in
Table 111-1.
4
-------
Table rn-i
Summary of Subcategories and Applicable SIC Codes
Subcategory and Title 40 CFR Section Applicable SIC Code(s)
A
Wool Scouring
410.10
2299
B.
Wool Finishing
410.20
2231
C
Low Water Use Processing
410.30
2211,2221,2231,2241,2253,2254,2259,
2273,2281,2282,2284,2295,2296,2298
D.
Woven Fabrics Finishing
410.40
2261,2262
E
Knit Fabric Finishing
410.50
2251,2252,2257,2258
F.
Carpet Finishing
410.60
2273
G
Stock & Yarn Finishing
410.70
2269
H.
Nonwoven Manufacturing
410.80
2297
1.
Felted Fabric Processing
410.90
2299
Effluent Limits and Standards
Effluent limitations for discharges to surface waters were established to control the
conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS) and pH;
the non-conventional pollutants: chemical oxygen demand (COD), sulfide, and total phenols; and
the priority pollutant total chromium. The limitations are production-based mass limits and are
presented in tenns of pounds of pollutant per 1,000 pounds of product (lbIl000 ib) or,
alternatively, kilograms of pollutant per 1,000 kilograms of product (kg/l000 kg).
Definition of Textile Products and Applicability of Limitations
Limitations are applicable to textile products, defined as the final material produced or
processed at a textile mill. Applicable products are defined differently in the wool scouring and
wool finishing subcategories. For wool scouring, the limitations are based on the dry raw wool
as it is received by the woo] scouring mill. For wool finishing, the limitations are based on the
mass of dry wool and other fibers as received at the mill for processing into wool and blended
fibers.
Commissioned P oduction
Integrated mills finish their own textile goods, while others may contract (for a commission)
to finish textile goods owned by others. For textile mills qualifying as a commission finisher, the
regulation allows a 100 percent (%) increase in the categorical effluent limitations. In order to
qualify production as “commission finishing”:
1. The mill must be independent (no more than 49% ownership by other companies
with greige or integrated operations);
2. The mill owns less than 50% of the textile goods being finished on commission;
3. At least 20% of the commissioned textile goods must be fmished by batch (non-continuous)
operations; and
4. At least 50% of the commissioned production must be in lots of 5000 yards or less.
5
-------
Textile mills that qualify as commission finishers are almost exclusively small independent
facilities, located mostly in northeastern states. They were allowed exceptional categorical
effluent limitations, because they are batch operations (frequent equipment washings) that are
engaged in finishing textile goods from a variety of sources. This causes the wasteload to
fluctuate, even though the wastewater characteristics are similar to the rest of the textile
industry.
The commissioned scouring of wool is also allowed a 100% increase in effluent limitations.
In order to qualify production as “commission scouring,” the mill must satisfy the first three
criteria above. The fourth qualification is not applicable to wool scouring.
6
-------
l v. INDUSTRY PROFILE
Estimates of Manufacturing Establishments in the Textile Industry
Count from 1993 Davison’s Textile Blue Book (TBB).
All textile establishments listed in the 1993 Davison’s Textile Blue Book (TBB) were
counted, with the exception of corporate offices and establishments engaged in the manufacture
of synthetic fibers (correctly classified in SIC 28). This count gave a total of 3990
establishments, which are tabulated by state in Table IV-2. To distinguish likely sources of
textile process wastewater, a count was made of those listings indicated to be engaged in wet
processing (scouring, dyeing, finishing, printing, coating) of textile products. This count gave
1404 establishments, which is approximately 35% of the total (3990) number of establishments
listed.
Count from the Census of Manufactures.
Counts of textile establishments for each of the wet processing subcategories of 40 CFR Part
410 were tablulated from the 1992 Census of Manufactures, published every five years by the
Department of Commerce. These are summarized in Table IV-l. The regional geographic
distribution of all textile establishments reporting production under SIC 22 are illustrated in
Charts 2 and 3)
Table IV-l
Count of Establishments by Wet Processing Subcategory
Subpart and Title SIC Code 1987’ 19921
A Wool Scouring 2299 55J2 572
I. Felled Fabric Processing 2299
B Wool Finishing 2231 118 98
D Woven Fabric Finishing 2261 268 168
2262 182 178
E Knit Fabric Finishing 2251 161 151
2252 426 448
2257 334 388
2258 240 279
F Carpet Finishing 2273 657 446
G Stock & Yarn Finishing 2269 j. 137
3119 2865
Total establishments reporting under SIC 22 6065 5887
I From 1992 Census of Manufactures, U.S. Department of Commerce,
October 1994
2. Count from Subparts A and I were combined to avoid redundant counting.
1. From 1990 County Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau (DRI/McGraw-Hill report, p.5).
7
-------
Regional Distribution of Textile Facilities
button of SIC 22: 1986
8
-------
Table IV-2
Count of Establishments Listed in the Textile Blue Book
Textile Wet Direct Indirect
State Estab’s Process 2 Dischargers’ Dischargers
Alabama 176 50 3 47
Arizona 8 2 1 1
Arkansas 7 2 2 0
California 123 43 0 43
Colorado 4 2 0 2
Connecticut 44 19 0 19
Delaware 7 3 0 3
Florida 41 15 0 15
Georgia 49 132 15 117
Hawaii 1 0 0 0
Idaho 2 0 0 0
Illinois 31 13 0 13
Indiana i2 3 0 3
Iowa 9 3 0 3
Kansas 2 2 0 2
Kentuck 22 9 1 8
Louisiana 5 I 0 I
Maine 30 II 3 8
Maryland 14 3 0 3
Massachu ett 157 51 5 46
Michigan IS 2 0 2
Minnesota 14 4 0 4
Mississippi 25 7 4 3
Missouri 18 5 0 5
Nebraska 2 1 0 1
Nevada I 0 0 0
New Hampshire 30 8 0 8
New Jersey 245 73 2 71
New Mexico 2 I 0 1
New York 282 67 0 67
North Carolina I 13b 423 35 388
North Dakota I 0 0 0
Ohio 32 10 0 10
Oklahoma 2 0 0 0
Oregon 7 4 0 4
Penns)lvania 255 71 3 68
Rhode Island 83 37 1 36
South Carolina 368 236 35 201
Tennessee 87 41 0 41
Tesas 42 10 2 8
Utah 4 2 0 2
Vermont 5 3 0 3
Virginia 76 26 12 14
Washington 10 1 1 0
West Virginia 5 2 1 1
Wisconsin .J2 .....± _Q
3990 1404 126 1278
1. Listed in 1993 Davisons Textile Blue Book (TBB).
2. Establishments in TBB indicated to be engaged in dyeing, printing, coating, or finishing.
3. From the PCS (see Table IV-4). SIC 22 NPDES permits discharging treated process wastewater
9
-------
Of a total of 5887 establishments reporting in 1992 (Table IV- !), 2865 (49%) reported
production under SIC codes that suggest wet processing is a significant component of their
manufacturing operations. Using the 1987 count, about 51 percent of the textile establishments
were similarly engaged. In the count taken from the TBB (Table IV-2), about 35 percent of the
textile establishments listed appeared to be engaged in wet processing. These evaluations suggest
that fewer than half (35-50%) of all establishments manufacturing textile products are likely to
be sources of process wastewater. The remaining establishments entail essentially dry
manufacturing operations (e.g., yarn, weaving, knitting, etc.) that generate little, if any, process
wastewater.
Of the thousands of textile facilities engaged in wet processing, there are only 260 mills that
are recognized by the industry as major finishers of textile goods. 2 These include integrated
mills that finish their own textile goods exclusively, as well as other mills that are able to
accomodate some commission finishing of textile goods owned by others. In general for a major
finishing mill to operate profitably, it must have sufficient capacity to finish the greige goods
manufactured by at least five textile facilities. None of the major finishers would qualify as
“commission finishers” (see page 5) that are eligible for double the categorical effluent
limitations.
The counts (by state) of textile establishments listed in the TBB were compared to counts
(by geographic region) of SIC 22 establishments reporting annually to the U.S. Department of
Commerce’s Census of Manufactures. This comparison is represented in Table IV-3, wherein
the state counts in TBB were aggregated into roughly the same geographic regions as in the
Census data.
Generally, the regional TBB counts were found to be lower than regional counts in the
Census data, with the exception of the East S. Central region. 3 This suggests that many textile
establishments are not listed in the TBB. The exceptionally low count in the Census data from
the East S. Central region may have resulted from facilities mistakenly reporting production
under SIC 23 (apparel). instead of correctly under SIC 22.
In explaining why the total number of establishments listed in TBB is lower than the 1992
total in Commerce’s Census of Manufactures, TBB’s publisher conceded its listing is incomplete.
A free listing is offered to any textile facility that can be identified. But those not on the mailing
list, or that failed to respond. were not listed. California textile facilities, in particular, appear
to be undercounted. These omissions are illustrated by the fact that the TBB gave a total count
of only 123 textile establishments in California. But the AMSA survey confirmed a count of
135 textile users of POTWs in three California metropolitan areas (Los Angeles 131; San Diego
2; San Francisco 2).
2 Phone communication. Edward Barnhardt, RMT Hydroscience, Inc., Hilton Head, SC
3. Phone communication with Bruce Nealy - Publisher of Davison’s TBB.
10
-------
Table IV-3
Count of Establishments in the Textile industry
Textile Blue Book vs. Department of Commerce Census Regions
Total Total
Region Mills’ Mills 2 States
New England 349 500-1000 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Rhode Island.
Middle Atlantic 7R2 1000-1500 New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.
South Atlantic 2139 2500-3000 Delaware, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, W. Virginia.
East N. Central 132 0-250 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin.
West N. Central 46 0-250 Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, N. Dakota,
S. Dakota.
East S Central 310 0-250 Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee.
West S Central 56 0-250 Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma. Texas.
Mountain One II 0-250 Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming.
Mountain Two 10 0-250 Arizona, New Mexico.
Pacific One 17 0-250 Alaska, Oregon, Washington.
Pacific Two 124 250-500 California, Hawaii.
3976
I From count of listings by State in the 1993 Davison’s Textile Blue Book
2 From count of establishments v. ith textile SIC codes in 1990 County Business Patterns,
U.S. Census Bureau (DRI/McGraw-Hill report, p. 5)
Count from EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) Database
As a means of estimating the number of direct dischargers in the textile mill category, the
PCS computerized database was searched for records of NPDES permits issued under SIC 22.
A total of 423 records were found. A review of these records revealed three permits that were
incorrectly designated as SIC 22, and two permits were confirmed as no longer active (now
discharge to POTWs). Deletion of these permits brought the total number of textile mill NPDES
permits to 418. These record ire summarized in Table IV-4.
The PCS was searched again to identify parameters that were limited by each of the 418
textile NPDES permits initially retrieved. No specific parameters were found to be associated
with many of these permits, perhaps because they were considered “minor” permits. Under
EPA policy, monitoring data or parameters for “minor” permits are not required to be reported
to the PCS. Other textile NPDES permits retrieved from PCS listed only a few conventional
parameters (BOD, TSS, pH, etc.), along with a description of the discharge that indicated it was
not process wastewater. Phone contact with some of these permitees revealed these non-process
wastewater discharges included storm water, non-contact cooling water, filter backwash, boiler
blowdown, etc.
11
-------
Table IV-4
Summary of Textile Mill Records Extracted from PCS
Permits
Reporting
SIC 22 SIC 22 Discharge SIC 22
NPDES NPDES of Process NPDES
State Permjts’ Permits Wastewater’ Permits ’
Alabama 26 26 3 3
Arizona 1 1 1 0
Arkansas 2 2 2 0
California 2 2 0 0
Connecticut 13 13 0 0
Georgia 43 43 15 5
Illinois 2 2 0 0
Kansas 1 1 0 0
Kentucky 2 2 I I
Louisiana I 1 0 0
Maine 9 9 3 1
Man’land 2 2 0 0
Massachusetts 17 17 5 3
Mississippi 6 6 4 2
New Hampshire 3 3 0 0
New Jersey 6 5 2
NewYork 3 3 0 0
North Carolina 102 101 35 06
Ohio 4 4 0 0
Pennsylvania 8 8 3 2
Rhode Island 6 6 1
South Carolina 133 132’ 35 25
Tennessee 5 4’ 0 0’
Texas 2 2 2
Virginia 22 21 12 7 9
Washington I I I I
West Virginia
423 418 126 54
I. Records extracted from PCS by EPA (EAD/OST/OW, C. White), 6/1/93. Search variable: SIC 22.
Printout listed. NPDES permit number, name of permitee, location of permit by state, county and city.
2. Records extracted from PCS by EPA (EAD/OST/OW, C. White), 7/8/93. Search variables: SIC 22, pollutant
parameters Printout listed- pollutant parameters for each NPDES permit. Used to distinguish permits that
control the discharge of treated process wastewater.
3. Records extracted from PCS by Versar for EPA (SASD/OST/OW), 10/12/94.
Search variables: SIC 22. wastewater flow and pollutant parameters with concentration data.
4. Permit NJ00054330 is no longer active.
5. Permit NC0004685 should have been encoded in PCS under SIC 32 (glass/glass fibers).
6 Failure to extract any records may be caused by monitoring data from North Carolina being reported on a
mass basis. Consequently. there is no concentration data encoded in PCS from these permits.
7. Permit SC0040061 is no longer active.
8 Permit TN0002810 should have been encoded in PCS under SIC 28 (synthetic fibers).
9. Permit VA000I6OI should have been encoded in PCS under SIC 28 (synthetic fibers).
When a PCS permit listed parameters specified by categorical effluent limits, or other
parameters derived from water quality criteria, the permit was judged as being associated with
process wastewater. By analyzing the parameters listed for each of these permits, a
determination was made that only 122 of the 418 NPDES permits were likely to be sources of
treated process wastewater (from dyeing, finishing, printing or coating).
12
-------
Summary and Implications of the Textile Industry Profile.
Although admittedly undercounted, the total number of textile establishments listed in the
1993 Textile Blue Book was 3990. It was estimated that 1404 (35%) of these were sources of
process wastewater. Perhaps overcounted, the 1992 Census of Manufactures indicated a total
number ?of textile establishments at 5887, with 2865 (49%) estimated as being sources of
wastewater. A search of the PCS found only 418 NPDES permits issued under SIC 22.
Comparing this number of NPDES permits to the respective counts of textile establishments that
are sources of wet processing wastewater, it is estimated that 15 (418/2865) to 30 (418/1404)
percent have NPDES permits. This would indicate that 70 to 85 percent discharge to POTWs.
A review of the 418 NPDES permits issued under SIC 22 found only 122 that appeared to
be valid sources of treated process wastewater. This suggests that 9 percent (122/1404) of the
Textile Blue Book wet processors and 4 percent (122/2865) of those estimated from the Census
of Manufacturs have NPDES permits, and indicates that 91 to 96 percent of the wet processors
in the textile industry discharge to POTWs.
As noted previously, there are 260 mills that are recognized by the industry as major
commission finishers for textile goods owned by others. These major sources of process
wastewater would be expected to be among the 418 NPDES permits found for the textile
industry in the PCS. Since only 122 of the NPDES permits were validated for the entire
industry, more than half of the significant finishers must be discharging to POTWs.
Regardless of the accuracy of these counts, one may reasonably conclude that at least 90
percent of the textile facilities that are sources of wet processing wastewater discharge to
POTWs. Since the textile mills category (40 CFR Part 410) is without categorical pretreatment
standards, it was of interest to investigate whether POTWs fmd the absence of such standards
a problem in adequately controlling discharges from textile users. This question is addressed
in Section VI.
13
-------
V. WATER USE
In 1982 the total water used for wet processing in the textile mills category was estimated
at 500 to 600 million gallons/day (mgd).’ Assuming textile mills operate 345 days/year, this
translates to an annual water use by the industry ranging from 172 to 207 billion gallons.
Previous Estimate of Water Use by the Industry
During the previous rulemaking (1982), total water used by the industry was estimated on
the basis of wastewater reportedly discharged.’ An estimate of process wastewater from each
of the textile mills subcategories was derived from data collected by EPA industry surveys in
1977 and 1980 (see Table V-I). Although uncorrected for evaporative losses (both in-process
and during wastewater treatment), the estimate included wastewater that was not discharged to
POTWs or directly to surface waters. Disposition of this wastewater was by several “zero
discharge” options. Examples include: spray irrigation (land application), contract hauling and
recycle within the facility. The total from all subcategories was estimated at 490 mgd, which
is at the lower end of the range noted above. Assuming most textile mills are in operation 345
days/year, this translates to approximately 169 billion gallons/year (bgy).
With the exception of raw wool scouring, water use efficiencies (gal./lb.) presented in Table
V-I are per pound of textile product, rather than per pound of fiber consumed. But since the
water used for scouring of raw wool is a very small fraction of the overall wool processing
requirements. it was included in the median value of 37.9 gal./lb. of finished wool fabrics.
Felted fabrics use a median value of 25.5 gal./lb. of product. Two subcategories that annually
consume a large measure of cotton and synthetic fibers are woven fabrics, using up to 24.4
gal./lb. of product: and knit fabrics, using up to 28.8 gal./lb. of product. 2
Estimate of Current Water Use by the Industry
Lacking data for a direct comparison with the prior estimate of water use per unit of product
(fabric), current water use for wet processing in the textile industry was estimated on the basis
of fiber consumed. Data in Table V-2 shows the quantities of wool, cotton and synthetic fibers
that were annually converted into textile products. While the relative amount of each fiber
varied from year-to-year, the total quantity of all fibers annually consumed in the manufacture
of textile products increased 36% during the period 1980 to 1993.
To convert a pound of fiber into a finished textile product, current wet processing practices
use the following volumes of water: wool fibers 20 gallons; cotton fibers 13 gallons; synthetic
fibers 11 gallons. 3 Based on 1993 consumption of each fiber type and its respective
water requirement, the annual water use in the textile industry was calculated to be 179 billion
gallons (see Table V-3).
1 1982 Development Document for the Textile Mills Category, p. 96.
2. Calculated by adding water requirements for desizing and complex processing of woven fabrics, and adding
both simple and complex processing requirements for knit fabncs (from Table V-I).
3 Source’ Edward Barnhart. ELBA. Inc.. Fripp Island. S C
14
-------
Table V-I
Estimate of Wastewater Discharged from Textile MIII Category in 1980
Estimated Wastewater Discharge&
Water (million gallonslday)
Used Directs Indirects Subcat.
Subcategory Gal.flb. 2 (NPDES) 3 (to POTW) Total
Wool scouring 1.4 1.0 2.3 3.3
Wool finishing 36.5 10.9 8.2 19.0
Low water use
General processing 0.8 4.4 16.4 20.8
Water jet weaving 10.4 1.196 1.196 2.392
Woven fabric finishing
Simple processing 9.2 17.4 34.8 52.2
Complex processing 11.7 25.5 38.6 64.1
Desizing 12.7 59.4 40.0 99.5
Knit Fabric Finishing
Simple processing 14.1 17.6 62.9 80.6
Complex processing 14.7 11.9 27.9 39.9
Hosiery products 9.0 0.2 6.0 6.2
Carpet finishing 5.6 5.4 23.1 28.5
Stock & Yarn finishing 11.6 21.8 44.8 66.5
Nonwoven 4.8 0.7 3.8 4.5
Felted Fabric processing 25.5
178 312 490
Daily total for the industry = 490 million gallons
Annual total for the industry (345 daysfyr.) = 169 billion gallons.
I From 1982 Development Document for Textile Mills Category, Table V-3, p. 100. The data
was collected by EPA industry surveys in 1977 and 1980. “The estimates were developed by
adding the known average discharge values for the mills in each subcategory reporting flow data
plus estimates of the average discharge for the mills not reporting flow. The estimates for
mills not reporting values were based on the mills’s assignment to a specific model. Model
assignments were made on the basis of survey information and information about products and
production equipment published in the 1978 edition of Davison’s Textile Blue Book. ”
2 Wastewater generated was taken to represent water use, even though it was admittedly uncorrected
for evaporative losses
3 Includes wastewater that is not discharged to surface waters. “Zero discharge” options include:
Wastewater is recycled, sent to a holding pond or septic tank, disposed on land (by spray
irrigation), or hauled from site to a landfill by private contractor (1982 Dev. Doc., Table 111-8,
p 28)
15
-------
Table V-2
Fiber Consumption by U.S. Textile Mills’
(Million Pounds)
Total Mill
Period Cotton Synthetic 2 Wool Consumption
1980 3038.4 8089.5 123.4 11223.3
1981 2715.5 7862.0 138.3 10715.8
1982 2487.9 67752 115.7 9378.8
1983 2807.9 8173.9 140.6 11122.4
1984 27145 7968.1 142.1 10822.7
1985 2810.5 8225.5 1166 11152.8
1986 3259.0 8921.7 136.7 12317.4
1987 3753.2 9085.7 142.8 12961.7
1988 3520 3 9217.9 132 7 12848.6
1989 4048.0 9217.6 134.7 13398.4
1990 4115.3 90470 132.7 13295.0
1991 43475 9102.3 151.5 13601.3
1992 4761 6 9742.7 150 7 14655.0
1993 4937 7 10169 4 156.8 15263.9
I Source: U S Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
2 Same as “man-made’ fibers
Table V-3
Current Estimate of Textile Process Wastewater
Water to Process Wastewater Discharged 2
Annual Use Annual Annual
Year Fiber Production’ gal./lb million gal. million gal.
1980
Wool
123 4
37.9
4677
4279
Cotton
3038.4
24.6
74745
67271
Synthetics
8083 5
11245 3
20.8
22.0 6
168137
247560
156367
227917
1993
Wool
156.6
2O.0
3132
2866
Cotton
4937 7
13.0
64190
57771
Synthetics
101694
15263.7
l1.0
11.76
111863
179200
104033
164670
I Million pounds of fiber type converted into finished textile products.
2 Corrected for evaporative losses of process water in dryers and in wastewater treatment.
Evaporative loss assumed to be 10% for cotton fiber, 7% for synthetic fibers and 8.5% for wool.
3 From 1982 Development Document for Textile Mills Category, Table V-I, page 97 Average value,
uncorrected for evaporative losses
4. Calculated from the ratio 13/20 X 37.9.
5. Calculated from the ratio 11/20 X 37.9
6 Calculated from total fiber consumption and total water used or discharged.
7 Average value, uncorrected for evaporative losses.
SourceS Ed Barrihart, ELBA. Inc., Fripp Island. S.C.
16
-------
Coinparing total water used in 1980 based on survey data (169 billion gallons), with total
water used in 1993 calculated from fiber consumption and current water use efficiencies (179
billion gallons), it would appear that the industry is currently using about 6% more water.
While there was little increase in water use, consumption of all fiber types increased 36% during
this period (see Table V-2). This indicates a substantial improvement in the efficient use of
water.
Using total fibers consumed (11223.3 million lbs.) as a measure of textile production in 1980
and total water used (169,100 million gal.) previously estimated for that year, 1980 water use
efficiency was calculated at 15.1 gal/lb. of product. At the same water use efficiency, 1993
fiber consumption would project a total use of 230,000 million gallons by the industry. The
estimated use of only 179,200 million gallons by the industry at the higher fiber consumption
level of 1993 can be explained by a more efficient use of water for wet processing. The
industry’s water use efficiency for all types of fibers in 1993 was calculated at 11.7 gal./lb.,
which is 22% less water per pound of fiber processed than was used in 1980. This recognizes
the achievement of water conservation programs developed at textile mills throughout the
industry.
17
-------
VI. CHARACTERIZATION and PRETREATMENT of PROCESS WASTEWATER
In order to characterize an industry’s process wastewater, it must be sampled hefore treatment
or mixing with non-process wastewater. The data available for characterization is almost
exclusively from monitoring reports for NPDES permits. But this data characterizes tre. terl
process wastewater. Textile facilities discharging process wastewater to POTWs (referred to as
“textile users”) are a better source of data for characterizing textile process wastewater, provided
the wastewater is sampled before it is discharged to the POTW sewer connection.
Data to support the characterization of untrented (raw) process wastewater in the textile mills
category was drawn from a POTW that was part of a survey conducted cooperatively with the
Association of Metropoliltan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), and from two POTWs that were
involved in North Carolina’s Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (APAM) program.
All industrial users (lUs) discharging process wastewater to a POTW are regulated under 40
CFR Part 403, where Appendix C lists textile mills as an industrial category that is subject to
national categorical pretreatinent standards.’ POTWs in the AMSA survey had developed specific
local limits for pollutant parameters listed in the national pretreatment standards, 2 and local limits
for parameters that are mandated by the categorical pretreatment standards of its industrial users.
Since the textile mills category (40 CFR Part 410) has no specific categorical pretreatment
standards, the POT’ ATs applied local limits for selected parameters to the IU permits of textile
users only to the extent necessary to ensure renewed and continued compliance with the POTW’s
NPDES permit. and with standards for the use or disposal of the POTW’s waste sludge. 3
The AMSA Survey
As noted previously (Section V), most textile manufacturing facilities engaged in wet
processing of textile products discharge their process wastewater to POTWs. Many of the larger
metropolitan POTWs are members of AMSA, who agreed to assist EPA in this study by sending
their POTW members an information request developed jointly by EPA and AMSA. Out of 153
AMSA members receiving an information request, 99 POTWs responded. Only 25 of the
respondents reported receiving wastewater discharges from industhal users that manufacture textile
products classified under SIC 22. These respondents conveyed information about 33 POTWs with
a total of 251 textile users.
1. The word CategoricaF is used in the title of Appendix C to include a number of listed industrial categones
that do not have categorical pretreatment standards with specific limitations (other than pH, or reference
to prohibitions embodied in the general pretreatment regulations).
2. Section 403.5(a) and 403.5(b).
3. Section 403.5(c)(l).
18
-------
The North Carolina APAM Database
Beginning in 1988, selected new and renewed NPDES permits carried a requirement for an
annual priority pollutant scan and whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. This database was to be
used to define any “pollutants of concern” that might characterize discharges of “complex”
wastewater, defined as wastewater from industrial sources discharged at a flow rate greater than
0.5 million gallons per day (mgd). These annual monitoring requirements continued to be added
to selected new and renewed NPDES permits until late 1993, when the practice was halted until
the collected data could be encoded and analyzed.
The APAM database contains data collected by the Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) from 158 NPDES permits issued by North Carolina. Hard copies of priority pollutant
analyses reported by thirty (30) textile mills with NPDES permits were obtained from this
uncoded data collection, which fortuitously included data from a POTW’s textile user. The
POTW (at Valdese, NC) was requested to send additional priority pollutant data that its eight(8)
other textile users had been required to submit as part of the POTW’s pretreatment program.
Through the assistance of the North Carolina DEM, another POTW (at Star, NC) was identified
with data characterizing wastewater discharged from its four(4) textile users.
Textile User Component of POTW Wastewater
Since most textile manufacturing establishments discharge their wastewater to POTWs, it was
of interest to characterize the textile user component of wastewater received by POTWs. Provided
a POTW has adequate capacity and is being operated so as to consistently achieve nominal levels
of treatment (not always the case), the impact of textile user discharges will depend on whether
this wasteload component is a significant portion of the POTW’s total daily wasteload. When the
textile user component is relatively small, the impact is likely to be minimal regardless of
variations in the loading and treatability of the textile wastewater. As the textile user component
becomes proportionately larger, the POTW’s operations are more likely to be affected.
Although wastewater loading is a product of parameter concentrations and flow, the textile
user flow component of a POTW’ s total flow may portend the potential impact of the associated
wasteload on POTW operations. The AMSA survey form requested the POTW to give the
average daily wastewater discharge (gallons/day) of each of its textile users. POTWs were also
asked for each textile user’s flow as a percentage of the POTW’s average daily flow, but did not
request the POTW ‘s average daily flow. A number of the POTWs failed to respond to this
question, or had textile user flows that were insignificant relative to the POTW’s flow. For this
reason, the POTW’ S average daily flow and that of each of its textile users was requested from
a number of the POTWs in the survey. The flow of each of the POTWs in the AMSA survey
relative to the combined flow from its textile users is summarized in Table V1-1. Flow data for
individual textile users of each POTW are listed in Appendix 11-3.
Wastewater flow to POTWs in the AMSA survey, with the exception of two small suburban
POTWs in Greenville, SC, ranged from 3.3 to 332 mgd. On average, the textile user component
at these POTWs amounted to only 1 % of the wastewater being treated daily by the POTW.
19
-------
Table VI-1
Textile User (TU) Component of POTW Flows - AMSA Data
Mean TU Total TU POTW TU/POTW
City/POTW Flow, mgd Flow, mgd Flow, mgd Percent
Boston. MA
Deer Island 0.028 300 0.009
Nut Island 0.095 150 0.06
Cleveland, OH
Cuyahoga (Southerly) 0.181 135 0.13
Chicago. IL (MWRDGC) 0.417 19 2.2
Columbus, GA 0.53 5.837 28 20.8
Denver, CO (MWRD) 0.032 160 0.02
Elizabeth. NJ (JMEUC) 0.04 67 0.06
Greenville. SC
Mauldin 0.283 3.396 20 17.0
Lakeside 0.031 0.35 8.8
Pelham 0.012 5.2 0.2
Taylor 0.474 3.3 14.3
Slater-Marietta 0.055 0.35 15.7
Knoxville. TN 0.425 21 0.02
Little Ferry. NJ 0.937 76 1.2
Los Angeles. CA (LA Co.)
Carson 0 135 6 066 328 1.85
Long Beach 0 098 16 0.6
Los Coyotes 0 779 33 2 4
Los Angeles. CA (LA City)
Hyperion 2.43 332 0.73
Glendale 0.248 20.3 0.01
Orange County. CA 0,223 2.015 232 0.87
Nashville. TN 0.2015 32.9 0.76
Newark. NJ 0.292 9.11 290 3.14
Philadelphia. PA 0.331 227 0.15
Phoenix. AZ 0.0096 150 <0.001
Portland. OR 0.0502 57 0.09
Providence. RI 1.544 21.8 7.0
Rockford. IL 0.04 29 0.14
Sayreville. NJ 0.015 75 0.02
San Diego, CA 0.0145 180 <0.0001
San Francisco. CA 0.012 67 <0.02
St Louis, MO 0.0185 120 0.015
St. Paul. MN 0.0335 235 0.01
Tacoma. WA 0.000518 23 0.002
Totals 35 345,4 1 % Avg.
The 33 POTWs listed had a total of 251 textile users.
Average discharge of textile users: 0.139 mgd
20
-------
For POTWs receiving less than 100 mgd, the flow component from the POTW’s textile users
averaged slightly more than 2 percent. As noted previously, such a small flow component from
textile users is not likely to have a significant impact on P011W operations.
A POTW’s textile user flow component is likely to be higher in a community that abounds in
textile manufacturing. Two POTWs in the AMSA survey (Columbus, GA and Greenville, SC),
with total wastewater flows less than 30 mgd and textile user flow components ranging from 17
to 21 percent, experienced temporary operational problems that were attributed to wastewater from
textile users (see pages 30 and 31 for details). But beyond these two examples, POTW responses
to the AMSA survey gave no indication that textile user wastewater typically cause serious
problems for POTW operations, or jeopardize compliance with its NPDES permit.
The textile user component of wastewater flow at two additional POTWs (Valdese, NC and
Star, NC) were identified through the North Carolina APAM database. The textile user
components of wastewater being treated at these two P01’Ws are summarized in Table
VI-2. Flows from individual textile users of these two POTWs are listed in Appendix 11-3.
Table VI-2
Textile User (TU) Component of P01W Flows - APAM Data
Mean TU Total TU Avg. POTW TU/POTW
City/POTW Flow. mgd Flow. mgd Flow, mgd Percent
Valdese. NC
0
3
3.66
6.2
59
Star.
NC
0
1
0.415
0.576
72
While both of these POTWs had a high wastewater flow component from textile users, neither
had operational problems in treating the wastewater. In complying with water quality criteria,
however, the experiences of the two POTWs were quite different. The Valdese POTW had few
compliance problems that could not be resolved with the cooperation of its textile users. The
situation at the Star POTW was unique, in effect portraying a worst case senario.
Even with the cooperation of it textile users, the Star POTW found compliance with the water
quality standards in its NPDES permit virtually precluded by the exceedingly low flow of its
receiving stream. Initially not allowed to dilute its treated effluent more than 1 percent for the
testing of whole effluent toxicity (WE1’), the Star POTW’s saline effluent had difficulty passing
the test. After textile users altered bleaching and dyeing processes to reduce the salinity to a
minimum, and the POTW was authorized an increase in the allowed dilution of effluent to 10
percent, WET results were improved but remained marginal.
Subsequently, a technical effort was initiated and largely underwritten by Fruit of the Loom
(FOL) to further reduce the toxicity of treated effluent at the Star POTW. After correcting
operational problems at the POTW. FOL began adding appropriate doses of cationic flocculants
to the influent in order to flocculate soluble organics (dyes, surfactants, etc.) via anionic functional
groups. This was followed by the addition of coagulants to insolubilize the resulting floc. After
21
-------
several months of this treatment, the POTW’s effluent more consistently passed the WET test and
the biological integrity of the receiving stream exhibited substantial improvement.
Identification of Pollutant Parameters in Textile User Wastewater
One section of the AMSA survey form requested a listing of those pollutant parameters for
which the POTW has effluent monitoring data. The intent was to identify parameters that are
monitored at textile user sources, and POTWs that are potential reservoirs of numerical data. The
parameters identified are those for which there are local limits, and indicate the parameters that
POTWs have some reason to believe may be present in textile users’ process wastewater. The
parameters that POTWs reported monitoring at textile users are summarized in Table VI-3. The
local limits and responses of individual POTWs are presented in Appendix 11-2.
The parameter most frequently identified was pH, which is easy to measure and can be
monitored concomitantly with other parameters. After pH (monitored at 85% of the textile users),
the pa ameter most often monitored at textile users by POTWs was BOD (80%). Other
parameters often monitored included TSS (57%). COD (35%). O&G (31%) and sulfide (25%).
Metals routinely monitored were: copper (51%), chromium (46%), zinc (45%), lead, cadmium,
nickel (43%). and silver (38%). Less frequently monitored were: Arsenic (21%) and Mercury
(17%): and monitored at less than 1 % of the textile users were: Antimony, Selenium, Boron and
Molybdenum
The reason many POTWs monitor BOD in textile users’ wastewater is because the loading of
this parameter commonly serves as a basis for the fee schedule that is charged to a POTW’s
industrial users (lUs): The local limit for BOD loading in industrial wastewater usually derives
from the POTW’s design capacity remaining after the demand for treating domestic wastewater
has been satisfied. The remaining design capacity is allocated among its lUs. When an lU’s
discharge exceeds its allocated BOD loading limit, the JU must pay a surcharge calculated by a
rate formula. An lU’s discharge of excessive BOD to the sewer in slug amounts will interfere
with POTV ’ operations by temporarily exceeding the PO1’W’s capacity to accomodate shock loads
of high strength wastewater.
How POTWs Select Parameters and Set Monitoring Schedules
Textile user permits issued by a POTW pretreatment program typically require certain
parameters to be monitored initially. The initial menu may include parameters selected from the
baseline monitoring report (BMR), which identifies chemicals that were analyzed in the lU’s
wastewater. Parameters may also be selected from the textile user’s permit application, which
lists chemicals (raw materials, solvents, etc.) purchased for use in the facility’s manufacturing
processes. Purchased chemicals must be accompanied by Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS),
which list other chemicals that may be present. Any of this information in the permit application
nlay be used to select the pollutant parameters to be limited in the 111 permit, as well as identifying
the textile users that are potential sources of specific organic chemicals.
22
-------
Table VI-3
Summary of Parameters Monitored by POTWs at Textile Users (TUs)
Parameter TUs’ Per cent 2
BOD 201 80
TSS 142 57
COD 88 35
pH 213 85
O&G total 48 19
O&G petroleum 31 12
TPH 13 5
Conductivity 12 5
temperature 17 7
1. I -Trichloroethylene 1 <1
Tetrach loroethylene 2 1
VOCs 8 3
Acids/BN 2 1
PCBs 3 1
Acids (Method 625) 1 <1
iTO 15 6
Pesticides 1 <1
Phenols 5 2
CTAS (surfaccant) 2
MBAS (surfactant) 1 <1
Ammonia-N 12 5
TKN 5 2
Phosphorus 13 5
Sulfide 63 25
Sulfate 2
Cyanide 39 15
Antimon 1 <1
Arsenic 53 21
Cadmium 108 43
Chromium 116 46
Chromium +6 12 5
Copper 129 51
Iron 3 1
Lea t 109 43
Mercur 43 17
Molybdenum 2 1
Nickel 108 43
Selenium 1 <1
Silver 98 39
Zinc 112 45
I Number of textile users at the 25 POTWs in the AMSA survey that
monitor this parameter.
2 Per centage of the 251 textile industry users in the AMSA survey
that monitor this parameter.
23
-------
Initially, these parameters are monitored to verify the menu of chemicals suggested by the
textile user’s application. Subsequent monitoring serves to check the continuing validity of the
initial parameter assessment, as well as documenting continuing compliance with local limits for
the parameters in the textile user’s permit. This information could also prove useful in mediating
violations of the POTW’s NPDES permit, or in assuring compliance with waste sludge standards.
Once a monitoring record of a textile user’s discharge is established, and it becomes apparent
that certain of the parameters initially selected are not found at significant levels (relative to local
limits), these parameters are often deleted from the user’s monitoring menu. The record may also
convince the POTW that the user’s discharge can be monitored less frequently, thereby avoiding
unnecessary monitoring costs for both POTW and user.
This pattern of selecting parameters and setting monitoring schedules for textile users became
evident from a review of the responses of individual POTWs (see Appendix 11-2). The parameters
limited in textile user permits were found to vary among POTWs, and reflect differences in the
parameters that were regulated in the respective NPDES permits of the POTWs. While all of a
POTWs textile users were subject to the same local limits, the same parameters were not always
monitored with the same frequency at every textile user. POTW pretreatment programs selected
parameters and monitoring schedules that were appropriate for individual textile users.
Quantitation of Characteristic Metal Parameters
Quantitative data to characterize metals iii both pretreated and untreated wastewater being
discharged to POTWs by textile users was obtained from a POTW in the AMSA survey
(Providence. RI) and two POTWs (Valdese, NC and Star, NC) in the APAM database. Average
concentrations and local limits for metal parameters at each of the POTWs are summarized in
Tables VI-4. VI-5 and VI-6. A detailed listing of the textile user data from each of these three
POTWs are shown in Appendix 11-4.
A review of the data for metal parameters in textile user wastewater shows that, with few
exceptions. average metal concentrations were well below the local limits of the respective
POTWs Local limits were exceeded by the average concentrations of antimony, copper and zinc
in the Burke Mills’ discharge in Table V1-5, but this was the result of the high concentrations
measured in 1990. During the period 1990 to 1993, the concentrations of these metals were
progressively reduced below local limits (see Appendix 11-4). For example, antimony was
reduced from 16.9 to 0.6 mgIL; copper from 4.1 to 0.4 mgIL; and zinc from 5.2 to 0.08 mg/L.
Burke attributed reductions in concentrations of these metals to improvements in the efficiency
of their dyeing process at lower dyebath loadings of the metallized dyes (pollution prevention).
The reduction in zinc was explained by a change to higher priced process chemicals with less zinc
üiipurity. Although prominent in the Burke analyses, antimony is generally not detected in textile
user wastewater. Only a limited number of textile users are engaged in applying antimony-
containing formulations to fabrics to impart flame retardant properties.
24
-------
Table VI-4
Data from Textile Users Discharging to POTW (Bucklin Point) at East Providence, RI
Parameters LL’
Textile Users of Bucklin Point POTW
1 2 3
4 5
Cadmium
110
1 4 0.7
--
0.8
Chromium
2770
55 44 - -
--
138
Copper
1200
977 307 80
315
79
Lead
690
27 -- --
--
13
Nickel
1620
77 46 --
--
38
Silver
400
14 18 --
43
11
Zinc
1670
408 309 34
68
148
Textile Users of Bucklin Point POTW
Parameters
LL’
6 7 8
9
10
Cadmium
110
-- 685 4
2
5
Chromium
2770
446 25 33
51
163
Copper
1200
264 3670 60
73
77
Lead
690
6 550 --
31
38
Nickel
1620
2 340 137
37
18
Silver
400
25 100 --
15
--
Zinc
1670
432 2938 408
336
118
Averaged concentrations are ug/L (ppb) Not detected averaged as zero.
Codes Blank = No data reported. (--) = Analyzed. but not detected.
Textile Users
1. Slater Screen Print Corp
2 Crown Yarn Dye Co
3 Rochambeau Worsted
4. Slater Dye Works
5 Microfibres. Inc
6 Murdock Webbing
7 R.I. Textile Co.
8 Elizabeth Webbing Mills, Health-Tex facility
9. Elizabeth Webbing Mills, dyehouse facility
10. Worcester Textile Co. (discharges to Field’s Point POTW in
Providence, RI, and is subject to different local limits)
I Local limit, maximum concentration. ug/L (ppb)
2 Averaged from 53 observations.
25
-------
Table VI-5
Data from Textile Users Discharging to POTW at Valdese, NC
Textile Users of Valdese POTW
Parameter LL’ 1 2 3 4 5
Antimony 4845 204 6 20
Arsenic 100 9 4 12
Beryllium 25
Cadmium 200 1.5 13 6 4
Chromium 500 135 40 -- 8 4
Copper 500 1325 10 31 52 276
Lead 100 75 40 -- 43 10
Mercury 100 0.6 -- 0.05 0.2
Nickel 250 100 47 12 7
Selenium 2 6
Silver 30 -- 6.6 -- 5 --
Zinc 500 2015 33 109 104 293
Parameters
LL 1
Textile U
6
sers of Valdese
7
P01W
8
9
Antimony
--
--
--
2.5
Arsenic
100
12
--
2
--
Cadmium
200
--
--
6
--
Chromium
500
31
135
9
74
Copper
500
328
212
319
138
Lead
100
100
--
40
4
Mercur)
100
--
--
--
--
Nickel
250
238
--
20
71
Silver
30
--
--
--
--
Zinc
500
367
60
120
106
I Local limit, maximum concentration. ug/L (ppb).
Averaged concentration unit. ug/L (ppb). Not detected averaged as zero.
Codes: Blank = No data reported. (--) = Analyzed, but not detected.
Textile Users:
I. Burke Mills 6. AIba-Waldensian
2. Neuville Industries 7. Adams Millis-Drexel
3 Valdese Textiles 8. Carolina Mills
4 OMS Textiles 9. Valdese Manufacturing
5. Valdese Weavers.
26
-------
Table VI-6
Data from Textile Users Discharging to POTW at Star, NC
Textile Users of Star POTW
Parameters L U 1 2 3 4
Arsenic 3 8
Cadmium 0 .15 1.1 --
Chromium 100 4 22 . 22
Copper 200 120.2 437•3 82 168
Lead 8 3 10 L3
Mercury 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.05
Molybdenum 13
Nickel 0.8
Zinc 500 232.2 54O. 183 150
Chloride. mg/I 929 359 1032 876
Conductance, umho 4474 3326 4908 3725
1. Local limit, maximum concentration. ugtL (ppb)
2 Average of 31 observations
3. Average of 47 observations
4 Average of 43 observations
Averaged concentration unir ug/L (ppb) Not detected averaged as zero.
Codes. Blank = No data reported. (--) = Analyzed. but not detected.
Textile Users
1 Clayson Knitting Co 3. Montgomery Hosiery Mills
2 Fruit of the Loom Co 4. Pine Hosiery Mills
Quantitation of Characteristic Organic Parameters
Organic priority pollutants are generally not characteristic of textile user wastewater.
Analyses of wastewater samples taken at textile users’ regularly detected very few specific
organic parameters. other than chloroform, and concentrations typically approached the lowest
level detectable by the test method. , Chloroform was the organic parameter most frequently
observed, probably because of its potential for being generated in the hypochlorite (chlorine +
caustic) bleaching process. Another source is the potable water supply typically used for wet
processing. which avenges about 80 ppb chloroform as a consequence of disinfection with
chlorine.
Although the POTW at East Providence, RI, monitored textile users’ wastewater for the
organic parameter nO (total “toxic” organics), ‘ ITO volatiles were observed only twice near
the detection limit of the analytical method, The POTW at Star, NC, did not require textile
users to monitor for specific organic parameters. Avenge concentrations for specific organic
parameters in wastewater being discharged to the POTW at Valdese, NC, are summarized in
Table Vl-7. Detailed listings of specific organic parameters that were quantified in analyses of
the wastewater of textile users discharging to each of these three POTWs is shown in Appendix
11-4.
27
-------
Table VI-7
Data from Textile Users Discharging to P01W at Valdese, NC.
Textile Users of’ Valdese POTW
Parameters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Acrolein
--
132
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Chloroform
--
535
9
15
•-
4
--
23
5
Di-n-butyl phthalate
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
*
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
*
*
*
Ethylbenzene
--
- -
• -
13
--
--
--
--
--
Naphthalene
--
--
--
156
--
--
7
•-
--
Xylenes
--
--
--
110
--
--
--
--
--
Concentration unit: ugfL (,ppb)
There ate no local limits for specific organic parameters.
Codes = detected, but attributable to sample contamination: (--) = not detected
Textile Users
I Burke Mills 6. Alba-Waldensian
2. Neuville Industries 7 Adams Millis-Drexel
3. Valdese Textiles 8. Carolina Mills
4 OMS Textiles 9 Valdese Manufacturing
5 Valdese Weavers
Pretreatment Technologies and Practices Employed by Textile Users
In responding to another section of the AMSA survey. 96 textile users (out of a total of 251)
indicated that their process wastewater was pretreated by one or more technologies before being
discharged to the POTW. The pretreatment technologies employed by textile users and reported
in the AMSA survey may be summarized as follows.
Equalization - Storage basins above and below ground, as well as ponds, were reportedly used
for retention and mixing (equalizing) of wastewater from various in-plant processes. In one case,
a sluice gate was installed for the control of peak flow. Provisions for wastewater equalization
afford a more consistent wastewater and avoid surges of more concentrated wastewater (so-called
“slugs”) froin being discharged to the POTW.
Oil-Water Separation - Centrifugation was employed for the separation of lanolin from wool
processing wastewater, before it was discharged to the POTW.
Neutralization - Among textile users, control of pH is the pretreatment most widely practiced.
Many have installed systems that control pH automatically. In order to neutralize (pH 6-9) the
wastewater prior to discharge to the POTW, soda ash (sodium carbonate), caustic (sodium
hydroxide) and acetic acid were all reportedly in use for adjusting pH.
28
-------
Temperature Control - The National Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR Section 403.5) prohibit
the discharge of hot wastewater in amounts that will cause the temperature of wastewater received
at the POTW to be raised above 40°C (104°F). In accordance with this requirement, some textile
users have installed heat exchangers to cool wastewater prior to discharge to the POTW. The heat
recovered has also been used to pre-heat water being supplied to dyeing machines, thereby
reducing energy costs.
Filtration - Various types of filters are utilized by textile users to control suspended solids
(TSS). Chemical flocculents are used to enhance the effectiveness of filtration. Textile users
reported removal of floc and solids by: filter media in columns, “Hydrosieve” filter, rotating drum
filter and cotton fiber drum filter.
Screening - Lint can present a problem in wastewater, when it becomes woven in combination
with hair and other fibrous detritus into stringy rope-like mats. Various types of screens are
utilized to control lint in wastewater discharged to POTWs. The metal screens average 40 mesh,
with finer screens ranging from 120 to 200 mesh. Textile users reported removing lint with: static
screens. shaker screens, trench screens, double basket strainers, Sweco screen and screen filters.
A pre-screen filter (3/8” mesh) was utilized by one textile user to protect lint screens from
blockage by small pieces of fabric.
Sedimentation - Textile users reported the use of gravity separation to satisfy pretreatment
requirements for control of solids. Most employed some type of clarifier, or sedimentation
chamber. One textile user referred to this as a “settling pit.”
Color Removal - Generally. textile users remove color by oxidative destruction of the dyes. The
most widely used pretreatment is bleaching with sodium hypochlorite solution, where chlorine is
the oxidant. Another oxidant that was used was potassium permanganate solution. One textile
user reduced the color intensity of a portion of its process wastewater by equalizing it with other
colorless (perhaps reactive) wastewater in a holding pond prior to discharge.
Sulfide Oxidation - Some textile users reported pretreating wastewater to diminish sulfide
concentration by oxidation witS hydrogen peroxide.
Biological - Whiie biological treatment is exclusively used by direct dischargers to meet NPDES
permit limits, few textile users in the AMSA survey reported biological pretreatment. Examples
of biological pretreatment reported by textile users included: an extended aeration system (package
plant); a bio-tower, with solids recovery by dissolved air floatation (DAF).
POTW user fees are typically based on the BOD load of industrial users’ wastewater. When
an industrial user’s discharge exceeds the BOD load allocated by the POTW, the user usually pays
a surcharge calculated by a formula published with the local limits. Although the BOD load of
textile user wastewater is usually well below the maximum permitted, increased production
coupled with process changes can sometimes result in a textile user’s BOD load exceeding the
maximum permitted. If the POTW is already operating near its design capacity for BOD load,
and an additional allocation is unavailable from other users, the POTW may require pretreatment.
29
-------
An example of this was reported by one POTW in the AMSA survey. In order to comply with
pretreatment requirements in a court-ordered upgrade, one textile user had to install a complete
activated sludge process, which included: primary clarifier, aeration, secondary clarifier, aerobic
digester, and thickener (for sludge dewatering).
Impact of Textile Process Wastewater on POTWs
Generally, textile user discharges were not problematic at the POTWs surveyed in this study.
This conclusion was reached after reviewing responses to Section A of the AMSA survey, and
after phone conversations with staff responsible for pretreatment programs at most of the POTWs
involved. In those cases where monitoring data has confirmed a textile user’s discharge is out of
compliance with its IU permit, or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that textile user
discharges are causing problems at the POTW, textile users and the POTW pretreatment program
enter into a cooperative effort to resolve the difficulty. A remedy is often achieved by textile
users modifying one or more manufacturing processes to the extent practicable, or by installing
pretreatment technology so as to comply with local limits.
The AMSA survey asks three questions about the impact of textile process wastewaters being
discharged to POTWs.
I. (A-4) Does it “pass through” the POTW, or cause “interference”?
Survey responses: Yes = 4; No = 21
2. (A-5) Does it cause a nuisance, or otherwise impair POTW operations?
Survey responses: Yes = 5; No = 20
3. (A-6) Were additional capital or O&M costs incurred by the POTW that could be
attributed specifically to textile wastewater?
Survey responses: Yes = 2: No = 23
The following synopses of the “yes” responses serve as examples of problems that textile user
discharges sometimes present to POTWs, as well as the technical remedies that were employed
in these cases to resolve the problems.
POTW at Columbus. GA
Response to A-4: The pretreatment system at a textile user’s plant (0.6 MGD) was taken off-line
for approximately 8 weeks to repair the aeration basin. During this time, the POTW exceeded
its permit limnits for BOD and TSS. The POTW could not specifically attribute these exceedances
to excessive BOD loading from the textile user. But since the wastewater lacked pretreatment,
unidentified constituents in the textile user’s discharge were alleged to have been responsible for
an inhibitory effect on the POTW’s treatment efficiency (interference).
Response to A-5: (a) A textile user’s (2 MGD) discharge was suspected of having caused
excessive foaming problems in the POTW grit chamber for about 2 weeks during the initial
operation of a new dyeing process; (b) A textile user’s discharge with excessive conductivity and
dissolved solids was suspected of causing corrosion problems in a collection system pump station.
30
-------
POTW at Columbus, GA (continued)
Response to A-6: To meet their NPDES permit limits for BUD and TSS during episodes such as
those described in the A-4 response, the POTW uses polymeric flocculants. These “chemical
costs” are recovered by surcharging its industrial users (lUs) an additional fee. Simply because
of their potential as a source of wastewaler with high BOD and TSS concentrations, textile
facilities are among the POTW’s users that are surcharged during these excursions. Surcharges
allocated to textile users of the POTW were not given.
POTW at Greenville, SC
Response to A-4: In the Fall of 1986, the POTW (Travelers Rest East) began to consistently
violate its TSS limits. This continued for 6-8 months, until polymer addition became necessary
to bring TSS within limits. These violations began close to the time a textile user (Kreiger)
installed a bleach line, which raised the pH and substantially increased the BUD of its discharge
to the POTW. This discharge affected the POTW’s operation by raising its influent pH by 1.2
units and doubling its BOD loading rate. Consequently, the PUTV ”s design load for BOD was
reached at only 60% of its design flow.
The textile user’s new bleach line also changed the treatability of its wastewater. Contributing
to the problem was a variation in the types of sizes (e.g. CMC vs. starch) being removed from
the textile goods being processed, which resulted in a microbial food source of varying
biodegradability. It was suggested that the type of surfactants being used with the bleach line
might have also contributed to the problem.
Remedies: Two textile users (Kreiger and M-TEX) were required to install automatic pH control
systems. In addition, the two users were required to install equalization tanks to intercept
wastewater from static scour and finishing boxes, as well as finish mix tanks. The equalized
wastestream was to be incrementally mixed (“bled in”) with other plant wastewaters before being
discharged to the PO1’W. Kreiger was also required to halve its BUD/COD load by pretreatment
to come into compliance with the limits of its industrial user permit. Unless this user’s BOD load
was reduced, the POTW would have continued to have trouble maintaining acceptable dissolved
oxygen levels and MLSS in the aeration basin. It was anticipated that these measures would allow
the POTW to control TSS in its effluent without the addition of polymer flocculant.
Response to A-6: The sewer authority obtained an Administrative Consent Order against the textile
user (Krieger) to recover the cost of the polymer needed to control TSS during the period of the
POTW operational problems.
POTW at Chicago, IL .
Response to A-5: Investigating complaints of noxious odors, POTW personnel repeatedly detected
ammonia concentrations in excess of short- term limits in the vicinity of a textile user’s facility
from 1981 to 1992. This nuisance prompted the POTW to issue several violations during this time
period. To eliminate the odors in the vicinity of its facility, the textile user eventually
31
-------
POTVs’ at Chicago. IL (continued)
upgraded an existing ammonia scrubber and rerouted in-plant sewer lines. This nuisance did not
affect wastewater treatment operations at the POTW.
PO1’W at Philadelphia, PA .
Response to A-5: Nuisances prohibited by general pretreatment regulations occurred, but these
incidents did not significantly affect wastewater treatment operations at the POTW. Description
of incidents: (a) Sewer outside textile user’s facility became choked by felt and jute; and (b) Hot
wastewater from a wool scouring textile user caused fogging at the POTW.
! 0 ’ (Bucklin Point) at East Providence. RI .
Response to A-5: Red dye passed through the POTW (Bucklin Pomt) on several occasions. While
the dye did not adversely affect wastewater treatment operations, it did present the POTW with
a compliance problem (see below). The textile user responsible for the discharge was identified
and agreed to install a pretreatment system to remove color. The textile user has experienced
operational difficulties in fully implementing the new system.
The POTVs’ recognizes color as a largely aesthetic parameter. But in 1993 a specific clause
prohibiting the discharge of wastewater with “objectionable” color was added to its NPDES
pennit.
P01W at Nashville . TN
Reponse to A-5: Foaming and poor settling of solids in primary clarifier attributed to a textile
user. This was a transient occurrence and did not significantly affect wastewater treatment
operations at the POTW.
Pollution Pre ention at Textile Users
The AMSA survey also asked respondents to indicate the “types of pollution prevention
techniques (defined by several examples) that are being utilized,” or are under consideration, at
their textile IU facilities. Respondents reported a number of these techniques had been
implemented in order to reduce regulatory liability and improve operating efficiency. These
changes may be summarized as follows.
Alternative Process Chemicals - When technically feasible, process chemicals were changed to
use more biodegradable/water-soluble chemicals and dyes; use pigment solutions with lower
volatiles content: eliminate ammonia (alternative unreported); discontinue use of mineral
petroleutu products as solvents (alternative unreported).
32
-------
Pollution Prevention (continued)
Process Changes - Dyeing process was altered to use less dyestuff. Dyeing cycles were
shortened. More precise calculation of the amount needed resulted in less pigment per run.
Dye systems were converted to others that are less water-intensive. Conversion of batch to
continuous bleach ranges. Began recovery of sizing for reuse. Inventory control was improved
by “production labelling,’ which also lowered levels of contaminants in wastewater. Overall
chemical usage was reduced by limiting services to clients.
Equipment Changes - Installation of more efficient dye machinery. Batch replaced with
continuous dyeing machines, which decreased water use. Conversion to liquor and ratio dyeing
equipment. Evaluation of a dye machine that will use recycled dye. Replaced conventional
atmospheric rotaries with pressure equipment, which offers better containment of volatiles and
improved workplace environment. Upgraded efficiency of boiler. Existing lint screens replaced
with revolving lint screens (continuously self-cleaning). Grates were installed to retain wastewater
detritus (rags. trash, etc.).
Water Reuse - Rinses from latex pump cleaning were reused in process. Print screen rinse water
was reused for rinsing. The last rinse of a scouring machine was reused in the first and second
scours. On a washing line, water from the last rinse bath was reused in the first bath. Rinse
water from later stages (3rd or 4th rinse) being considered for reuse in earlier stages. Sizing was
reused after being removed from fabric by counterflow washing.
Water Recycle - Roller dryer was equipped with a water recycle bath. A system was installed
to recycle pump seal cooling water. Condensers were installed to capture water exhausted from
dryer for recycle to process.
Water Conservation - Volume of process wastewater was reduced by changing from regular batch
(“piece”) dyeing to a dyebath schedule known as “color sequencing,” or dyeing in a sequence of
batches that progress from light to dark colors. The dye beck is merely drained (no rinse) after
each batch, and only rinsed with water upon completion of the sequence.
Process water was conserved by keeping the number of dyeing cycles to a minimum. Non-contact
cooling water was reclaimed for process use. Condensate from steam lines was recycled. Boiler
was modified to give more concentration cycles between blowdowns. Less frequent boiler
blowdown reduced the total volume of wastewater discharged. Water conservation training was
provided for employees.
Heat Recovery - Heat exchangers are used to recover heat that would otherwise be wasted.
Heat exchangers were installed for individual dye becks. Heat exchanger (“economizer”) in boiler
stack was used to preheat water. Steam was more efficiently cogenerated by preheating boiler
feed with water returned from in-plant heat exchangers. This also reduced the volume of boiler
blowdown.
33
-------
VII. CHARACTERIZATION of FINAL EFFLUENTS
The Permit Compliance System (PCS)
The PCS is a computerized information management system that serves as a repository for
monitoring, compliance and enforcement data, as well as conditions for NPDES permits.
Compliance with NPDES permits is verified via Monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs). DMR data is entered into the PCS by EPA Regional Offices or States, and may
include concentration or quantity data (as specified in the permit) for each parameter that is
measured at each permitted outfall.
Parameters Limited in Textile Mills NPDES Permits
The PCS database was searched for NPDES permits issued under SIC 22. While 413
NPDES permits were identified, only 122 of these permits were validated (see Appendix VII)
as being applicable to the discharge of treated process wastewater. The others were apparently
for non-contact cooling water, filter backwash, storm water, etc. Still others were for expired
NPDES permits, where the textile facilities now discharge to a POTW. There were also at least
three NPDES permits that had presumably been issued and encoded in the PCS under an
incorrect SIC code (i.e.. the permitted facility should not have been assigned to the textile mills
category).
The 122 validated permits for textile facilities were reviewed to identify the parameters that
had been limited. This would give an indication of the parameters, beyond those in the
categorical standards, that had been added to permits in order to assure compliance with
limitations based on water quality standards or other site-specific conditions. Parameters
regulated by categorical standards are listed in Table Vu-i, while additional parameters are
listed in Table VII-2.
Regulated by categorical standards, BOD, COD, TSS, chromium, sulfide, phenols (total)
and pH were the parameters most frequently limited in the NPDES permits of textile facilities.
Although “phenols (total)” is the parameter regulated in NPDES permits and monitored by
permitees, for some permits the parameter had been incorrectly encoded in the PCS as “phenol
single compound.” This confusion apparently stems from the listing of the regulated parameter
in some subcategories (40 CFR Part 410) as “phenols,” while in other subcategories it is shown
as “phenol.” Oil & Grease was limited less frequently, mostly in permits issued to textile mills
processing wool.
Among the other pollutant parameters, ammonia, phosphorus, chlorine (residual) and fecal
coliform were the most common. Ammonia and phosphorus are generated by the biodegradation
of sanitary wastewater (human waste) and nitrogen-containing dyes. Fecal coliform and chlorine
(residual) are a consequence of the wide-spread practice of mixing sanitary wastewater with
process wastewater in order to obtain nutrients to support biological treatment systems.
Chromium is the metal most frequently found on textile N1 DES permits, because it is regulated
by categorical standards. Zinc and copper are the next most frequently limited metals on the
permits of textile facilities, as reported in Table VII-2.
34
-------
Table VU-i
NPDES Permit Parameters Regulated by Categorical Standards
Facilities Percentage of
Parameter Reporting Total (122)
BOD’ 117 96
BOD 1 <1
COD’ 99 81
COD 4 14 11
TSS’ 116 95
Chromium ’ 106 87
Chromium’ 5 4
Sulfide 101 83
Phenols 4 105 86
Oil & Grease 22 18
Oil & Grease’ 1 <1
Oil & Grease I < I
pH 120 98
PCS Parameter Descriptors
1 BOD. 5-Day (20 deg C) 7. Chromium. hexavalent (as Cr)
2. BOD. Carbonaceous 05 Day 20C 8 Sulfide, total (as S)
3. Oxygen demand. chern. (high le’•el) 9. Phenols, total
4 Oxygen demand chem (low level 10. Oil & Grease Freon extract-gray method
5. Solids, total suspended II Oil & Grease (soxhiet extract), total
6. Chromium total (as Cr) 12 Oil & Grease (Freon extr.-IR method) total recov.
Specific organic chemicals were found to be limited on very few permits. In such cases, it
is likely that an organic chemical was initially identified in the analysis of treated effluent for the
pennit application, and this prompted the permitting authority to require additional monitoring of
the chemical by limiting it iii the permit. Also, an organic chemical (e.g., formaldehyde) may
have been limited in the permit because it was known to be in process use at the facility. Organic
priority pollutants were collectively limited on some permits under the parameter T1’O (total
“toxic” organics)
The North Carolina Annual ollutant Analysis Monitoring (APAM Database
Beginning in 1988, new and renewed NPDES permits selected by the state permitting authority
carried a requirement for an annual priority pollutant scan and whole effluent toxicity IWET)
testing. The stated intention was to use this database to define any “pollutants of concern” that
might characterize discharges of “complex wastewater,” which was defined as wastewater being
discharged from industrial sources at a flow rate greater than 0.5 million gallons per day (mgd).
These annual monitoring requirements continued to be added to selected new and renewed NPDES
permits through late 1993, when the practice was halted until the collected data could be encoded
and analyzed.
The APAM database contains data collected from 158 industrial NPDES permits, but only 29
were NPDES permits of textile mills. One was fortunately the permit of a POTW (Valdese)
35
-------
Table Vil-2
Additional NPDES Permit Parameters
Parameter
Coliform’
Coliform
Turbidity, NTU
Solids. settleable
Solids, total dissolved
Surfactants (MBAS)
Color (ADMI units)
Color (Pt-Co units)
Specific conductance
Facilities
Reporting
50
24
6
3
4
13
15
2
Percentage of
Total (122 )
41
20
<1
5
2.4
3
11
12
1.6
Inorganics
Oxygen. dissolved
Cyanide, total (as CN)
Ammonia 7
Nitrogen 4 . ammonia
Nitrogen . total
Nitrogen . Kjeldahl
Nitrogen 7 . nitrate
NitrogenS. NO. + NO
Phosphorus. total
Chlorine total resid
Chloride. (as Cl)
Fluoride, total (as F)
Sulfate, total
Hydrogen sulfide
Hardness, total (as CaCO 7 )
Organics
TOC
.rrOlo
Chiorodibromomethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
I. I -Dichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Formaldehyde
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Chloro-m-cresol
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Dieldrin
4.4’-DDD
73
7
2
48
29
6
40
50
11
17
2
3
2
60
6
1.6
39
24
5
<1
<1
33
41
9
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
14
<1
<1
1.6
<1
<1
<1
2.4
1.6
<1
<1
-------
Table Vll-2 (continued)
Additional NPDES Permit Parameters
Facilities Percentage of
Parameter Reporting Total (122)
Metals
Aluminum, total 1 <1
Antimony. total 2 1.6
Arsenic, total (as As) 2 1.6
Beryllium, total 1 <1
Cadmium, total (as Cd) 3 2.4
Cobalt, total 1 <1
Copper, total (as Cu) 37 30
Lead, total (as Pb) 12 10
Mercury, total (as Hg) 7 6
Nickel, total (as Ni) 7 6
Selenium total I
-------
Table V1I-3
Summary of North Carolina APAM Data
Textile Mills
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bromomethane (10)
--
21
--
--
-•
--
--
- -
--
--
Trichloroethylene (5)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
8
--
- -
Antimony (50)
83
--
--
--
472
--
--
--
57
97
Arsenic (10)
- -
--
--
--
--
71
113
--
19
33
Chromium (5)
--
35
--
--
175
--
--
--
19
--
Copper (2)
82
6
91
13
107
20
30
273
230
75
Lead(l0)
--
--
--
--
34
12
--
--
13
--
Mercury (0.2)
--
--
--
0.2
--
--
1.3
0.2
--
0.2
Nickel (10)
--
-•
--
--
18
11
--
--
28
--
Silver(5)
--
--
--
- -
--
--
19
--
35
--
Zinc (IC)
40
60
59
58
85
61
181
106
441
31
Parameters
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Bromodichloromethane(5)
- -
6
--
--
--
--
5
--
--
5
Chloroform (5)
--
9
--
--
--
--
26
243
--
13
Dibromochloromethane(5 )
--
5
--
--
- -
--
--
- -
- -
- -
Nlethylene chloride (5)
--
--
--
--
12
•-
- -
- -
-•
--
l,I.l-Trichloroethane (5)
--
--
--
208
--
--
--
--
--
--
I .2.4-Trichlorobenzene(5)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
190
--
--
Antimony (50)
--
123
150
--
--
580
--
-•
--
Arsenic(l0)
--
13
--
--
--
--
49
13
--
--
Cadmium(2)
--
3
25
--
6
--
--
3
--
3
Chromium (5)
--
--
5
--
--
96
7
35
508
16
Copper (2)
47
57
25
250
70
290
53
117
15
36
Lead (10)
--
53
45
10
90
--
--
26
--
13
Mercury (0 2)
- -
- -
--
0.2
--
--
0.5
--
0.5
--
Nickel (10)
- -
--
--
--
--
--
--
34
--
14
Zinc (10)
167
76
35
413
128
90
680
76
95
147
Concentration unit: ugIL (ppb) Code: (--) = Not deiected.
Averaging criteria Not detected averaged as zero If the concentration average was less than the “quantitation limit
target” (indicated parenthetically) specified by the APAM reporting form, the average is represented in this table
as not detected.
Textile Mills:
1 American Thread - Charlotte
2. Burlington Industries - Forest City
3. Burlington lndustnes- Wake Forest
4. Burlington industries - Cordova
5. Chatham Manufacturing - Ellun
6. Cone Mills - Greensboro
7. Cone Mills - Cliffside
8. Cleveland Mills - L.awnda le
9. Cranston Print Works - Fletcher
10. Delta Mills - Maiden
I I. Fieldcrest Cannon - Eden
12. Fieldcrest Cannon - Salisbury
13. Fieldcrest Cannon - Laurel Hill
14. Glen Raven Mills - Altamahaw
15. Grover Industries - Grover
16. Guilford Mills - Kenansville
17. Huffinan Finishing - Granite Falls
IS. Minnette Textiles - Grover
19. Monarch Hosiery Mills - Burlington
20. National Spinning - Washington
Parameters
38
-------
Table Vll-3 (cant.)
Summary of North Carolina APAM Data
Parameters
Bromodichloromethane(5)
Chloroform (5)
Ethylbenzene (8)
Methylene chloride (5)
Tetrachloroethylene (5)
Antimony (50)
Arsenic (10)
Cadmium (2)
Chromium (5)
Copper (2)
Lead (10)
Mercury (0 2)
Nickel (10)
Zinc (10)
Textile Mills
21 22 23 24
-- 14 --
-- 21 5
-- -- 22
-- -- -- -- -- 16
-- 64
-- 11 -- 29
-. -- -- 6
-- -- 118 19
41 143 26 10
— -- -- 0.2 0.4
-- 10 13 -- 12
36 79 43 24 109
= Not detected
-- -- -- 95
-- 2.5
21 17
476 278
23 28
-- -- 1.6
-- 50 -- --
36 40 57 382
Textile Mills
21 Schneider Mills - TaylorsvtHe
22 StevcoKnit Fabrics - Wallace
23 Stowe-Pharr Mills - McAdenville
24 Swifi Textiles - Erwin
25 Tuscarora Yarns - China Grove
26 United Piece Dye Works - Edenton
27. WestPoint Pepperell - E lizabethtown
28. WestPoint Pepperell - Wagram
29 WestPoint Pepperell - Lumberton
30 WestPoint Pepperell - Hamilton
Like untreated or pretreated textile user process wastewater discharged to POTWs (see Section
VI), metal priority pollutant parameters predominantly characterize treated effluent. Copper and
zinc were found at every textile mill, while chromium, lead, antimony and arsenic were reported
less frequently. The summaries in Table VI1-4 show average concentrations of these metals in
treated textile wastewater are lower than their respective BAT effluent limitations in the MF and
OCPSF categories. This suggests that, at least at these 30 textile mills, these metal parameters
aie being effectively controlled well below technology-based standards by the existing treatment
systems. While concentrations of copper and chromium in treated effluent sometimes exceeds
water quality standards, the metals are often present bound in an organic complex that manifests
low toxicity for aquatic organisms (WET testing).
Textile wastewater is characterized by low levels of a limited number of volatile organics from
the list of priority pollutants. Chloroform is most frequently observed, sometimes in association
with bromodichloromethane. Often used for wet processing, potable water supplies in the U.S.
average 83 ppb chloroform as a consequence of disinfection with chlorine. Bromomethane,
dibromochloromethane, methylene chloride and tetrachloroethylene were each found at only one
textile facility, and maximum concentrations were 20 ug/L (ppb) or less. This level approximates
the lower limits of quantitation for the analytical methods that were used. In fact, methylene
chloride may well be a contaminant introduced by the lab performing the analysis. Hypochiorite
25 26 27 28 29 30
- - 9
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7
-- 76
-- 13
-- 3.6
13 152
-- 20
50 6
140 45
45
219
Concentration unit ug/L (ppb). Code’ (--)
Averagmg criteria Not detected averaged as zero If the concentration average was less than the “quantitation limit
target” (indicated parentheticalls) specified by the APAM reporting form, the average is represented in this table as not
detected
39
-------
bleaching (chlorine + caustic) is the most likely source of chioromethanes. Bromoniethanes result
from low levels of bromine in commercially available chlorine.
Semi-volatile organic parameters were absent, except for I ,2,4-trichlorobenzene. Phthalates
were reported, but their detection was attributable to contamination of the wastewater sample by:
a) use of plasticized tubing in the sampler; or b) use of phthalate-tainted anhydrous sodium sulfate
in the analytical procedure. The acid fraction (i.e.. substituted phenols) are apparently not
characteristic of textile wastewater, since these organics were not detected in any of the APAM
analyses reviewed for this study.
Possible Process Sources of the Parameters
Copper is an integral part of metallized dyes that are widely used within the industry. While
zinc salts are used as a dyeing auxillary. they are also used for color destruction in discharge
printing. There are also complexed metal dyes based on chromium and nickel. Lead is associated
with pigments that may be used in printing on fabrics. Oxides of antimony are used to impart
flame retardant properties to fabrics. Arsenic in process wastewater often results from the
commission finishing of foreign cotton (e.g., from Egypt), where arsenical pesticides were used
in its cultivation.
As noted previously, the most likely source of chloroform is hypochlorite bleaching, which
uses chlorine and caustic These chemicals form chloroform by reaction with alcohol, aldehyde
or ketone groups that may be appended to soluble hurnic substances (e.g., fulvic acids) found in
the potable water supply used for wet processing of textile products. Likewise, chloroform may
also result from the chlorination of treated wastewater to meet permit limits for fecal coliform.
Chloroform from this source is expected to diminish, as textile facilities increasingly disinfect only
segregated sanitary wastewater.
Two organic parameters (1 .2,4-trichlorobenzene and 1,1 ,1-trichloroethane) that are used as
carrier solvents for the application of disperse dyes to polyester were found only once in the
treated wastewater of different textile mills (14 and 18 in Table Vll-3). The textile mills may have
used these solvents at one time, but have eliminated these parameters from the process wastewater
by changing to alternative carrier solvents that are not on the priority pollutant list (e.g.,
biphenyl). Although naphthalene did not appear in this data, it is also used as a solvent (carrier)
for the application of disperse dyes to polyester.
Qualitative Data From The PCS
As a basis for estimating the environmental impact of wastewater discharges from textile
facilities (see Section IX), EPA used a computer routine called the Effluent Data Statistics (EDS)
to generate annual loading values (quantities) from the PCS. The EDS selects concentration and
flow data from the PCS for computation of loadings, but the routine does not retain the selected
values in readily accessible memory. Thus, despite its utility in retrieving data from the PCS for
estimating parameter loadings, the EDS routine precludes ready assessment of the input data
(concentration and/or flow).
40
-------
Table VII-4
Evaluation of APAM Data Summaries
No. of Max. Avg. 3 BAT Eff Limit
Parameters QLC’ Tex Fac 2 Conc. Conc. MF’ OCPSF 5
Bromomethane 5 1 21
Bromodich loromethane 5 14 14 8
Chloroform 5 5 243 63 21
Dibromochloromethane 5 1 5
Ethy lbenzene 8 1 22 32
Methylene chloride 5 2 12 10 40
Tetrachloroethylene 5 1 16 22
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5 I 208 21
1 ,2 ,4-Tnchlorobenzene 5 1 190 68
Antimony 50 10 580 180
Arsenic 10 10 113 36
Cadmium 2 8 6 3.7 260
Chromium 5 15 508 75 1710 1110
Copper 2 30 476 107 2070 1450
Lead 10 12 90 31 430 320
Mercury 0.2 10 1.6 0.5
Nickel 10 10 50 24 2380 1690
Silver 5 2 35 27 240
Zinc 10 30 680 135 1480 1050
I ‘Quantitation limit” concentration. Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
2. Number of textile facilities (from 30 with APAM data) where the parameter was found at an average
concentration at or above the “quantitation limit’ concentration specified by the APAM reporting form.
3. Average includes only concentration values above the quantitation limit. The average does not include a
value of zero where a parameter was not found above this concentration criteria.
4. Metal Finishing Category (40 CFR Part 433). Maximum for monthly average.
5. Organic Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 414). Maximum for monthly average.
Although denying recovery of concentration data, the EDS routine did identify the priority
pollutant parameters that are mited in NPDES permits of textile facilities nationwide. The
concentrations of some of these same parameters were quantified in the North Carolina APAM
database. Since data from both PCS and APAM characterize treated wastewater from textile
processing, a parameter’s concentration range in PCS data is likely to be similar to its
concentration in the APAM data.
Out of 122 NPDES permits in the PCS that were found to be valid outfalls for discharges of
treated process wastewater from textile facilities, the EDS routine identified only 59 with usable
data for calculation of parameter loadings. Parameters for which loadings were calculated by the
EDS routine are tabulated in Appendix ifi and summarized in Table Vfl-5.
41
-------
Table \Tfl..5
Priority Pollutant Parameters Retrieved from PCS by EDS Routine
Textile Percent
Parameters Facilities’ of Total 2
Bromodich lorome thane 1 <2
Chloroform 3 5
Dibromochloromethane 1 <2
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 2 3
Cyanide 1 <2
Antimony 2 3
Arsenic 4 7
Cadmium 2 3
Chromium 40 68
Copper 16 27
Lead 6 10
Thallium 1 <2
Zinc 25 42
I Number of textile facilities (out of 59 total) that reported this parameter.
2 Percentage of the 59 textile facilities reporting this parameter.
As in Table Vfl-4, ch]orofonn is the organic priority pollutant most frequently detected at low
levels in textile process wastewater. With the exception of chromium, there are no technology-
based effluent limitations for other priority pollutant parameters in the textile mills category.
Copper and zinc often characterize process wastewater from dye baths (or becks), so it is not
surprising to find these two metal parameters limited in textile NPDES permits through the
application of water quality standards.
While some textile permits have initial monitoring requirements for priority pollutants and
other unregulated parameters, data from both the PCS and the North Carolina APAM indicate
only a few organic priority pollutant parameters characterize treated textile wastewater, and
concentrations are nominally low.
42
-------
VIII. COST of WASTE WATER TREATMENT
Cost of Wastewater Treatment
Since the promulgation of effluent limitations and standards in 1983, most of the textile
industry has continued investing in water pollution control systems needed to comply with both
categorical discharge standards and POTW local limits. NPDES permits based upon more
stringent water quality standards have spurred investment in additional capital improvements for
systems that pretreat wastewater before discharge to POTWs.
In 1991, total pollution abatement costs for the industry amounted to 0.4% of the value of
shipments. Pollution abatement equipment accounted for 2.7% of the industry’s total capital
expenditures. Of the capital expenditures for pollution abatement equipment, 84% went towards
the purchase of equipment for water pollution control. It is likely that equipment for wastewater
treatment was given priority in order to meet the requirements of new or revised NPDES
permits. The operating expenses for water pollution control systems were 2.3% of profits.’
Industry Investment Cycle
Although the U.S. had been a net importer of textiles since 1982, the trade deficit decreased
steadily after 1987. The movement of the domestic industry away from commodity products has
left the bulk textiles market to producers with lower labor costs. All categories of broadwoven
fabrics have been particularly hard hit. The ability of foreign competition to capture this part
of the market became evident in the early 1 980s. The U.S. textile industry became competitive
by investing in capital equipment that is capable of producing high quality products that
consumers can readily distinguish from lower-priced products. In order to remain competitive
with foreign producers, the domestic industry has continued to invest in capital equipment. This
is expected to become increasingly important, if global trade restrictions are loosened by the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade and
Tariffs (GATT). 2
Since 1983, the industry has continued investing in more efficient production equipment,
computer controlled in many cases. Batch dyeing machinery has been replaced by continuous
dyeing machines that transfer dyes more efficiently and use less water. Conventional
atmospheric rotary dryers have been replaced by reduced pressure equipment, which offer better
containment of volatiles.
Purchase of new equipment usually follows from interest created by exhibits at trade shows.
Domestic manufacturers of production equipment particpate in a U.S. exhibit every two years,
while foreign manufactures exhibit every four years in Europe. This gradual upgrade of
production equipment alters the usual long-term investment cycle that characterizes other
industries.
I Original source 1991 Survey of Manufacture, compiled annually by the Bureau of the Census and
published by the U.S Department of Commerce. Exerpted from a report by DRI/McGraw-H ,lI, ‘Status
of the US Te xtiIe Manufacturing Industry,” December, 1993.
2 Ibid, DRI/McGraw-HiIl report, page 35
43
-------
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to the selection of two industries for development of new or revised categorical
regulations (see Section II). EPA ranked six industrial categories according to their respective
estimated annual loadings (pounds per year) of an inventory of pollutant parameters and selected
chemicals that were reportedly discharged to both surface waters and POTWs in 1992. Aside
from ranking, the loading estimates are useful as a weighted menu of chemicals that are
characteristic of textile process wastewater.
Parameter loadings were estimated from NPDES monitoring data in EPA’s Pennit
Compliance System (PCS). and from estimated “releases” to wastewater that industries reported
on Form R to EPA’s 1992 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The PCS database derives from
monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) required by NPDES permits (direct dischargers).
In contrast, the TRI embodies estimated amounts of chemicals reported by sources that discharge
both to POTWs (indirect dischargers) and directly to surface waters.
Loading Estimates from the PCS Database
As a comprehensive source of NPDES monitoring data, the PCS has a number of limitations
(see Appendix IV-l). Monitoring data has not been encoded for many NPDES permits in the
PCS, because only pennits considered “major” are required to submit monthly discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs) to the PCS. Even if encoded, it is also not always possible to
directly retrieve data in the units of choice from all NPDES permits in the PCS. For example,
out of 122 NPDES permis in the PCS that were validated as discharging treated process
wastewater from textile facilities, the EDS computer routine identified only 59 with usable data
for estimating the annual loadings of pollutant parameters that were monitored in textile
wastewater discharges.
Depending on monitoring requirements imposed by the permits, concentrations may be
reported in different units. The EDS routine estimates loadings only for records with both
concentration and corresponding flow data, and assumes each facility operates thirty days per
month. After adjusting the PCSs different measures of concentration and flow to compatible
units, the EDS routine multiplies concentration and flow values to estimate loadings for each
parameter.
The total annual loadings of individual parameters estimated from textile facilities’ PCS data
are summarized in Table IX-!. The estimated annual loadings of parameters for individual
NPDES permits are tabulated in Appendix IV-!. This Appendix also presents summaries of:
limitations of the PCS database; assumptions that were made in data selection; and criteria that
were used to edit parameter loading estimates and data outliers.
44
-------
Table IX-l
Total Estimated Annual Parameter Loadings - PCS Database
Permits
Parameters Monitored LBYO’ LBYE ’
Ammonia 10 48784 48784
Chlorine 10 86598 86598
Sulfide 10 32254 71118
Bromodichloromethane 1 2 2
Chloroform 3 25 25
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 3 17 19
Formaldehyde 2 986 986
Cyanide 1 4 4
Antimony 2 72 72
Arsenic 4 85 111
Cadmium 2 191 191
Chromium 8 1639 1825
Chromium +6 2 5142 5142
Copper 10 25218 25228
Lead 6 28 29
Silver 4 1132 1133
Zinc 10 233856 233856
1. Calculated minimum amount discharged annually (pounds per year). Calculation assumed a
concentration value of ZERO, when reported concentration was below detection limit.
2 Calculated maximum amouni discharged annually (pounds per year). Calculation assumed a
concentration value of HALF DETECTION UMIT, when reported concentration was below
detection limit.
3 Calculated maximum amount of chlorine at HALF DETECTION UMIT is inappropriate,
because most textile facilities with NPDES permits dechlorinate treated effluent prior
to discharge For this reason, the amount was estimated using an assumed concentration
value of ZERO
Ammonia, chlorine and sulfide are among the inorganic chemical parameters that were most
frequently monitored. It follows that suffide, a parameter with BPT and BAT limitations in
every wet-processing subcategory of the regulation (40 CFR Part 410), would be frequently
limited in NPDES permits of textile facilities. This would also explain the monitoring of
chromium, which is limited in several subcategories. Even though categorical limits for copper
and zinc are unspecified, these are the metal parameters most frequently limited in textile
NPDES permits. The greater availability of monitoring data for copper and zinc probably
accounts for the higher loadings estimated by the EDS routine for these metals, in comparison
with loadings estimated for the other metals.
As noted in Section VII of this report, metals characteristic of textile wastewater are being
effectively controlled well below concentration levels of technology-based standards in other
industrial categories by technologies currently employed within the textile industry’s existing
treatment systems. The loadings of organic chemicals in wastewaters discharged by textile
facilities are effectively controlled by limitations on BOD 5 , COD and TSS in the NPDES
permits. This is evidenced by the low concentrations of the few organics from the priority
pollutant list that are routinely measured in treated textile wastewaters (see Table VII-4).
45
-------
Loading Estimates from the TRI Database
The TRI database has a number of limitations as a comprehensive source of chemical release
data (see Appendix IV-3). It does not include all textile facilities or TRI-listed chemicals in use
at those facilities. Only textile facilities using minimum threshold amounts of TRI-listed
chemicals on site are required to report estimated releases on Form R. Reporting thresholds: TRI-
listed chemicals that are “manufactured or processed” on-site in excess of a 25,000 Ibs/yr, or
“otherwise used” on-site in excess of 10,000 lbs/yr. While the TRI database is useful for
identifying chemicals that might be expected to be found in an industry’s wastewater, the reporting
thresholds compromise the accuracy of wastewater loading estimates for these chemicals.
The 1992 TRI records of 228 textile facilities were accessed to obtain the amounts of TRI-
listed chemicals that each of these facilities reported as annual releases to POTWs, or from on-site
treatment systems to surface waters. Estimated releases to surface waters may include process
outfalls (e.g., pipes, open trenches) and stormwater runoff, if applicable. This industry’s
experience with the 1990 stormwater permitting requirements indicated that few, if any, textile
facilities have discharges other than those to POTWs, or from on-site treatment systems. The
amounts of TRI-listed chemicals that textile facilities reported in 1992 as being released to surface
waters and POTWs are summarized in Table IX-2. Releases of these chemicals that were reported
by individual textile facilities are tabulated in Appendix IV-3.
Releases are typically estimated from the quantities of TRI-listed chemicals that a textile
facility annually purchases for its manufacturing processes. It follows that chemicals used in the
largest quantities will be the chemicals with the highest estimated releases. Table IX-2 indicates
that, of the total number of textile facilities (228) that submitted Form R to the TRI database,
relatively few facilities reported the release of any given chemical. This suggests that only a
limited number of textile facilities use that chemical, or the amount used annually by many
facilities was below the reporting threshold.
Only five organic chemicals in Table IX-2 are from the priority pollutant list:
dichloromethane, di(2-ethyLhexyl) phthalate, naphthalene, toluene, and tetrachioroethylene. These
chemicals are shown to be among those ranking lower in total amount discharged annually. This
is consistent with the concentration-based effluent monitoring data in Section V I I, which indicates
that these five chemicals are not found at significant levels in treated textile wastewater discharged
to surface waters, or in either untreated or pretreated wastewater discharged to POTWs.
Several chemicals in Table IX-2 have recently been removed from the TRI list and Form R
reporting requirements. These include acetone (FR 60 at 31643); ammonium sulfate, ammonium
nitrate and water-dissociable ammonium salts (FR 60 at 34172); and sulfuric acid (FR 60 at
34182). Non-ionic surfactants (ethoxylates of alkyiphenol and long-chain alcohols) no longer have
to be reported as “glycol ethers.” Eliminating the estimated releases of these chemicals will
significantly reduce the total annual wastewater loading reported to the TRI database by the textile
industry.
46
-------
Table IX-2
Total 1992 Chemical Loadings Reported - TRI Database
Facilities Surface Annual
Chemical Reporting(%)’ Waters 2 POTW 3 Total
Acetone 11(5) 37750 17493 55243
Acrylic acid 1 0 2463 2463
Benzyl chloride 1 0 12000 12000
Biphenyl 23 (10) 3890 664638 668528
n-Butanol 1 1566 0 1566
Butylbenzyl phthalate 2 250 500 750
Cresol (mixed isomers) 1 0 2 2
Cumene 1 245 0 245
Decabromodiphenyl oxide 16 (7) 3300 112656 115956
Dichloromethane 2 0 14 14
Diethanolamine 3 26700 47800 74500
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 3 250 3553 3803
Dyes: CI Basic Green 4 1 0 2900 2900
Cl Disperse Yellow 3 1 0 755 755
Ethylene glycol 19 (8) 18295 621162 639457
Formaldehyde 11(5) 683 88542 89225
Glycol ethers 27 (12) 43504 329849 373353
Methanol 20 (9) 2877 219727 222604
Methylethyl ketone (MEK) 3 252 2354 2606
Methylisobutyl ketone (MIBK) 2 0 255 255
Naphthalene 2 6410 0 6410
Toluene 3 250 260 510
Tetrachloroethylene 10 (4) 770 66681 67451
1.2,4-Trich lorobenzene 12 (5) 952 73344 74296
1.1.l-Trichloroethane 1 250 0 250
Trichloroethylene 1 250 0 250
1 .2,4-Trimethvlbenzene 8 (4) 2234 67589 69823
Xylene (mixed isomers) 14 (6) 2296 220021 222317
Ammonia 62 (27) 34851 943583 978434
Ammonium nitrate (solution) 3 9866 0 9866
Ammonium sulfate (solution) 38 (17) 965 2571414 2572379
Chlorine 21(9) 39696 219905 259601
Hydrochloric acid 9 (4) 0 45124 45124
Phosphoric acid 4 0 115 115
Sulfuric acid 19 (8) 6000 1278439 1284439
1 Out of 228 records retrieved from the 1992 TRI database, this number of textile facilities reported an
estimated release of the chemical Shown in parenthesis as a percentage of 228.
2. Reported amount (pounds) released annually to surface waters. Includes releases from on-site
treatment systems. process outfalls (e.g., pipes, open trenches) and stormwater runoff.
3. Reported amount (pounds) released annually to POTWs.
47
-------
Table IX-2 (cont.)
Total 1992 Chemical Loadings Reported - TRI Database
Facilities Surface Annual
Chemical Reporting(%) Waters’ POTW Total
Antimony 1 0 250 250
Antimony compounds 12 (5) 1521 51013 52534
Barium compounds 2 24 5 29
Cadmium compounds 2 3 8 I I
Chromium 1 512 0 512
Chromium compounds 20 (9) 3210 122262 125472
Cobalt compounds 3 250 411 661
Copper I 0 278 278
Copper compounds 18 (8) 2479 86349 88828
Lead compounds 4 17 41 58
Nickel 1 0 131 131
Nickel compounds 2 0 2673 2673
Zinc compounds 13 103 32334 32437
I. Reported amount (pounds) released annually to surface waters.
2. Reported amount (pounds) released annually to POTWs.
Comparison of Loading Estimates from PCS vs. TRI
The estimated releases reported to the TRI database do not include TRI-listed chemicals that
are used or produced in quantities below reporting thresholds. Even so, the total annual load
for any given chemical reported to the TRI database far exceeds the chemical’s total annual load
calculated from the PCS (NPDES permits). The obvious explanation for this difference is that
at least 90% of the textile facilities engaged in wet processing discharge to POTWs (Section IV)
and, therefore, do not report data to the PCS. Thus, the PCS database reflects the loadings of
no more than about 10% of the of the total number of textile facilities that discharge wet
processing wastewater.
When the two databases are compared on a basis of average annual load per facility, and
when the loads of a chemical calculated from the PCS are compared to TRI loads reported as
being discharged to surface waters (i.e., associated with NPDES permits), there is less
difference between a chemical’s loading estimate derived from the two databases. The data for
such a comparison are summarized in Table IX-3.
Widely used in textile wet processing, ammonia and copper (from copper-based
premetallized dyes) are two chemicals for which data are frequently reported to both the PCS
and the TRI database by textile facilities. The availability of data for ammonia and copper in
both databases made these two chemicals logical choices for comparing annual loadings derived
from the two databases.
While the PCS listed 418 NPDES permits issued under SIC 22, only 122 could be validated
as sources of treated process wastewater (pages 12, 34). Of the 122 NPDES permits, a
computer routine (EDS, Appendix TV-i) identified only 10 permits with usable data for
48
-------
Table IX-3
Annual Loadings From Textile Wet Processors Discharging to Surface Waters
PCS TRI
Variable
Ammonia
Copper
Ammonia
Copper
Number of SIC 22 facilities in database
122
122
228
228
Facilities with usable or reported data
10
10
62
8
Facilities discharging to surface waters
10
10
6.2
1.8
Total annual loading, lbs/yr
48,784’
25,218’
34,8512
2,4792
Average annual loading per facility. lbs/yr
4.878
2,522
5,621
1,377
1. Total annual loading estimated by computer routine (EDS) from the PCS database.
2. Total annual loading released to surface waters from facilities that reported these two parameters to the
TRI database.
estimating the textile industry’s total annual loading for ammonia and copper (Table IX- I, p. 45).
From these totals, an average annual loading per facility was calculated for each of the two
parameters.
Under SIC 22. the 1992 TRI showed 228 facilities that use or produce TRI-listed chemicals
in quantities that exceeded mandatory reporting thresholds (p. 46). While 62 of these facilities
reported the release of an estimated annual loading of ammonia, only 18 facilities reported an
estimated release of “copper compounds” (Table IX-2, p. 48). Assuming 10% of these facilities
discharge to surface waters (i.e., have NPDES permits), an annual loading per facility would be
averaged on a basis of 6.2 facilities for ammonia and 1.8 facilities for copper.
Applications of TRI Chemicals in Textile Processing
It is obvious from Table IX-2 that some TRI-listed chemicals are more widely used in larger
quantities than others. Some applications of these chemicals at textile facilities are listed in Table
IX-4.
Disperse dyes are the only practical means of coloration for polyester and cellulose acetate
fibers. Applied as an aqueous dispersion, these water-insoluble dyes will not readily penetrate the
fibers interstices. Dye carriers, such as biphenyl, act as a solvent that expands the fibers,
enabling disperse dyes to penetrate the fiber interstices at lower temperatures and ambient
pressure. The carrier assists in the uniformity of dye distribution in the fabric and also increases
the rate of dyeing. After dyeing is completed, the carrier solvent is removed from the fabric in
a heated drying chamber. This contracts the fibers, leaving the dye trapped (heat set) in the fiber
interstices.
Formaldehyde is used to impart shape-retaining properties (“permanent press”) to fabrics by
cmsslinking the fibers through chemical bonding. Commercially available as an aqueous solution,
the 37% formaldehyde typically contains 11 % methanol.
49
-------
Table IX-4
Applications of irn Chemicals in Textile Processing
TRI Chemical Textile Process Application
Acetone’ Solvent for acetate fiber manufacture
Biphenyl Dye carrier in polyester dyebaths
Decabromodiphenyl oxide Flame retardant
Ethylene glycol Wetting agent
Formaldehyde Finishing cotton fabrics (perm. press)
Glycol ethers (surfactants) Textile scouring (washing)
Methanol Finishing cotton fabrics (,perm. press)
Naphthalene Dye carrier in polyester dyebaths
Tetrachloroethylene Dry cleaning
1.2 .4-Trich]orobenzene Dye carrier in polyester dyebaths
I .2.4-Trirnethylbenzene Dye carrier in polyester dyebaths
Xylene (mixed isomers) Solvent
Ammonia pH control
Ammonium sulfate pH control in nylon dyebaths
Chlorine Bleaching
Sulfuric acid Neutralization
Antimony compounds Flame retardant
Copper compounds Metallized dyes
Chromium compounds Metalhzed dyes
Zinc compounds Dyeing and printing auxiliar>,
Finishing catalyst
I. Manufacturers of cellulose acetate fibers purchased by textile mills specif ’ the acetone
content present in the fiber as a contaminant Because acetone is both volatile and water
soluble, it accrues in water from the HVAC (heating. ventilation, and air conditioning)
system. and in wastewater from slashing operations (application of sizing)
Nonylphenol ethoxylates and long-chain ethoxylates are nonionic surfactants that are
commonly used to scour (wash) textile products. In 1992, the EPA required these surfactants to
be reported in the Tffl chemical category. “glycol ethers.” EPA has subsequently discontinued
this requirement. and these surfactants are no longer reported on Form R.
Ammonia finds some use in controlling pH and viscosity of polymer emulsions in fabric
coating operations The main use of ammonia is dyeing nylon, where control of pH is critical to
the unifonn application of the dye. Ammonia is used to establish the initial pH at 7. The pH is
lowered by the evolution of ammonia, during the programmed heating of the dyebath.
Ammonium sulfate (recently delisted from the TR1) buffers the dyebath at pH 5, where it is held
for the duration of the dyeing cycle. In commerce, ammonium sulfate is used almost exclusively
as a fertilizer material and is an important source of nutrient sulfur and nitrogen. Absorbed on
suspended solids (sludge), that are routinely wasted from biological treatment systems and spread
on agricultural lands, this textile process chemical would be expected to benefit soils and enhance
productivity.
Chlorine is used mainly for bleaching, especially white socks. Minor uses are for disinfection
of treated wastewater and occasionally color removal from wastewater.
50
-------
Sulfuric acid is used mainly for pH adjustment, but is also used for “carbonizing” (oxidation
of organic matter) raw wool. When used to neutralize high pH wastewater, sulfuric acid is
chemically changed to a sulfate salt. Thus, reporting the release of sulfuric acid in wastewater
is misleading. The same criticism could be leveled at estimated releases for the other mineral
acids (hydrochloric and phosphoric), which are converted respectively to chlorides and
phosphates.
Antimony compounds are used in combination with decabromodiphenyl oxide to give fabrics
flame-retardant properties.
51
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX I
Additional Notes on Water Use
11-04-94 Ed Bamhart, ELBA, Inc.
1. 1993 textile production data from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
2. Estimates of water use per pound of fiber processed.
a. Wool fiber (scoured): finishing into textile product uses an average of 20 gal./lb.
b. Cotton fiber: conversion into finished textile products uses an average of 13 gal./lb.
c. Synthetic fiber: conversion into finished textile products, uses an average of 11 gal./lb.
11-09-94 Ed Bamhart, ELBA, Inc.
There are less than 50 woolen mills currently operating in U.S. They are located mostly in MA
and lower ME, with a few in NH. Only 5 of these mills still scour wool, compared to 11 mills
reportedly scouring in 1980 (Dev. Doc., Sept. 1982. Tables V-i, V-2, pp 97,98). On average
these mills use about 200.000 gal/day. Virtually all imported wool has been scoured in the
country of origin, so wet processing of wool in U.S. is now limited almost entirely to finishing.
Water use is variable for wool processing. but ranges from 15-25 gal./lb. A good average is
20 gal/lb.
11-10-94 Jeff Silliman, Milliken Corp.
Question: How many days a year does a textile mill operate?
Depends on business conditions Because the days of operation are pegged to sales more than
holidays, the days of operation are reduced when sales fall off. The larger textile mills would
like to operate 7 days/week, but do not want to accumulate excess inventories. Can operate
fewer days, but prefer to use fewer machines and operate 7 days/week. Suggested using 355
operating days/year as a reasonable assumption.
11-25-94 Ed Bamhart. ELBA. Inc
Question: How many days a year does a textile mill operate?
Suggested using 345 operating days/year as a reasonable assumption.
I
-------
APPENDIX 11-1
AMSA POTWs and Their Textile Users
Boston, MA - Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Deer Island P01W
Emtex, Inc.
Synthon Industries, Inc.
TYCA Corp.
Nut Island P01W
Draper Properties, Inc.
International Paper, Vertec Div.
Tamfelt. Inc
Cuyahoga Heights, OH - Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Phoenix Dye Works
Ohio Knitting Mills. Inc
Chicago, IL - Metropolitan Water Reclamation Districts of
Greater Chicago
Industrial Coatings Group, Inc.
Rubens & Marble. Inc.
Western Piece Dyers & Finishers. Inc
Columbus, GA - Columbus Water Works
Bibb Co
Fieldcrest Mills. Inc . &oadway Div. (Permit 91-026-01)
Fieldcrest Mills. Inc , E&P Div (Permit 91-025-01)
Swift Textiles. inc . 6th Ave (Permit 91-009-01)
Swift Textiles, Inc . Flatrock (Permit 91-008-01 ’ )
Swift Spinning Mills (Permit 91-006-01)
Meritas Yams. Inc
Omi Georgia, Inc.
Wellington Sears Co.. 1st Ave (Permit 91-002-02)
Wellington Sears Co.. Cusseta (Permit 91-007-02)
Columbus Mills, Inc.
Denver, CO - Metro Denver
Rocky Mountain Dye & Finishing
Elizabeth, NJ - Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Fablok Mills, Eric.
Greenville, SC - Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority
Mauldin Road POTW (Travelers Rest)
Carisbrook Yams
JPS Industrial Fabrics - Duncan Front (Permit 1 154C)
JPS Industrial Fabrics - Dunean Back (Permit II 64C)
JPS Automotive Fabrics - Parker (Permit 0364C)--- > Low water
Judson Plant - Div. of Milliken & Co.
KM Fabrics
Krieger Textile Corp.
M-TEX Corp. (formerly EMB-TEX)
Palmetto State Finishing
2
-------
AMSA POTWs and Textile Users (cont.)
Mauldin Road POTW (corn)
Specialty Shearing & Dyeing, Inc.
U.S Finishing
Woven Electronics (formerly Southern Weaving)
Wunda Weve Carpets, Inc
Lakeside POTW
Bibb Towels (JPS White Horse)
Peiham POTW
Cardinal Garment Dye Corp.
Slater-Marietta POTW
JPS Industrial Fabrics - Slater (Permit 0424C)
Taylors POTW
Greenville Finishing
JPS Automotive Fabrics - Bleachery (Permit 0675C)
JPS Automotive Fabrics - Kuster (Permit 0665C)
Orion Finishing (formerly BES)
Knoxville, TN - Knoxville Utilities Board
Appalachian Finishing Werks
Little Ferry, NJ - Bergen Count} Utilities Authority
Advanced Fiber Technologies
Beacon Looms
H & W Shoe Supplies Co
Marijon Dyeing & Finishing Co
Spinnerin Yarn Co.. Inc
Los Angeles, CA - L A Sanitation District
American International Textiles
Artesia Dyeing & Printing, Inc (Permit 13066)
Artesia Dyeing & Printing, Inc (Permit 12330)
Artistic Dyers, Inc.
Atlas Carpet Mills
Bentley Mills
Cal-Pacific Dyeing & Finishing Corp.
California Webbing Industries
Care-Tex Industries, Inc
Chemiex Print USA, Inc
Coloramerica Textile Processing, Inc.
Colortex Dyeing & Finishing, Inc.
Cotton Club
Delta Dyeing & Finishing, Inc.
Downtown Dyers
Dynamic Dye & Laundry
E & J Dye House
EKPG
E T.C. Carpet Mills, Ltd.
F & J Metro Dyeing, Inc
Factory, Inc.
Flamingo Textile Mills, Inc
Formosa Dyeing & Finishing, Inc.
Giant Merchandising
3
-------
AMSA POTWs and Textile Users (cont.)
L.A. Sanitation District (cent.)
Grace Kinirny Designs
L.A. Airline, Inc
L.A. Dye & Print Works, Inc. (Permit 12817)
L.A Dye & Print Works, Inc. (Permit 12818)
L.A. Dye & Print Works, Inc (Permit for by-pass only)
L A. Dye & Print Works, Inc (Permit 11216)
L.A. Dye & Wash Co., Inc. (Permit 12943)
L.A. Dye & Vash Co., Inc. (Permit 13074)
Long Beach Dyeing & Fimshing
Lorber Industries
Louie Bernard, Inc
Pacific Combing
Pacific Continernal Textile, Inc
Pacific Fabric Printers
Pan Pacific Yarn
Polytex Thread Mills
Pomona Textile Co., Inc
Rainbow Textile Co
S.S Dyeing & Finishing
Santa Fe Dye & Finish Co. (not SIC 22 -.> SIC 23)
Shirig Jye Supplies, Inc.
Somitex Prints of California
Southern California D eing & Finishing (not SIC 22 --> SIC 23)
Spectrum Dyeing & Finishing
Sun Dyeing & Finishing Corp.
Sung Do International. Inc
Texiori Corp
Texollini, Inc
Tissurama Industries, Inc
Toyoshima America. Inc (not SIC 22 --> SIC 23)
Triple A Garment Care (not SIC 22 --> SIC 23)
Tuftex Carpet Mills, Inc.
U S. Boys. Inc
U S Garment Processing (not SIC 22 -.> SIC 23)
U S Namesung Textile, Inc. ( )t SIC 22 --> SIC 23)
Uni Hosiery C , Inc.
Untied Thread ivianufacturing Corp
Western Dyeing & Finishing Co
Western Tex Industries, Inc
Los Angeles, CA - City of Los Angeles
Hyperion POTW
ABC Dye House, inc
Bruck Braid Co
California Dye House
City Dyeing & Finishing Co. (Permit 488879)
City Dyeing & Finishing Co. (Permit 488887)
Coast Arrow, Inc.
Colorrna.x industries, Inc
Coloring Button Dyers
Color Master Garmer Dyeing & Finishing
4
-------
AMSA POTWs and Textile Users (cont.)
Hyperion POTW (cont)
Dara, Inc
David S. Gibson, Inc
Dixie Trimming Co.
Double ‘A’ Wash & Dye
Dyetech Corp.
Dye to Match
Fashion Art International
Foid Garment Dyeing - Div. of Fashion Out
In California, Inc.
J & J Tee Shirts & Fashions, Inc
Kesbaf Krnttng, Inc (Permit 449694)
Kesbaf Knitting, Inc. (Permit 449702)
Koo’s Manufacturing Co.
L.A. Dye Works, Inc (Permit 473088)
L.A Dye Works, Inc. - Rainbow Div (Permit 484357)
L.A Dye & Print Works. Inc
M & D Buttons & Lace Dyers
Maria Kipp, Inc
Matchmaster, Inc. (Permit 478475)
Matchmaster Dyeing & Finishing, Inc. (Permit 465176)
Matchmaster Dyeing & Finishing. Inc. (Permit 404107)
Matchmaster Dyeing & Finishing, Inc. (Permit 404115)
MW Graphics/Melvin Wyner
Modern Button Co of California. Inc
Only in USA
Pico Dyeing & Finishing Co
Pour le Bebe. Inc (Bab) Guess)
Rainbow Button Dyers
S & A Button Dyers
Sealmaster W.T Co . Inc (dba Elite Dyers)
Sharon & Joyces Clothing. Inc
SNS Brothers, Inc.
S & S Dye House
Super Yarn Mart
Uni Hosiery Co., Inc
Washington Garment Dyeing & Finishing, Inc
Western Dye House (Permit 12417) Account serviced by LA Co.
Western Dye House (Permit 12418)
Western Synthetic Felt Co
Glendale POTW
A & H California, Inc
Almore Dye House
Avi Levy
Caravan Fashion Enterprises
Color Fabric Processing, Inc
New Hero
5
-------
AMSA POTWs and Textile Users (cont.)
Orange County, CA - O.C. Sanitation Districts
American Continental Cherokee (Error: not SIC 22 --> 2335 or 2339)
Anaheim Mills Corp.
Chroma Systems Partners
Crazy Shirts, Inc. (Error: not SIC 22 --> 2396)
Dye Technique
Margaretis Textile Service
Pharr-Palomar, Inc.
Primatex Industries (Error not SIC 22 --> 2396)
Royal Carpet Mills
Saba Textiles
Saliba Center USA (Error not SIC 22 --> 2396)
Sees Color Textile
U S Dyeing & Finishing
Vans. Inc.
Nash ille, TN - Nashville & Davidson Co Dept of Water & Sewerage Services
Springs Industries, Inc
Newark, NJ - Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
A & S Dyers
Apollo Dyeing & Finishing Co
Baltic Dyeing & Finishing Co
Champion Dyeing & Finishing Co
Columbia Textile Services, Inc
Como Textile Prints. Inc.
Coral Dyeing & Finishing Corp
Craft Textile Printing Co.
Crestanv Textile Processors
Dye-Tex Corp
E & W Textile Processors, Inc
Fairfield Textiles
International Veeling Corp.
Interstate Dyeing & Finishing
Leader Dyeing & Finishing
Manner Textile Processing
Messbrenner Prints, Inc
North Jersey Skein Dye Co
Paragon Dyeing & Finishing
Paterson Bleachery & Chemicals
Pauls Dyeing
Perennial Print Corp.
Poughkeepsie Finishing
Rainbow Dye & Finishing
Renco Finishing Corp.
Safer Textile Processing Corp
Signature Cloth Co.
Sunbrite Dye Co.
Superior Dyeing Corp.
Thomas Henshall Silk Finishing
Thorn, Inc
Trio Dyeing & Finishing
6
-------
AMSA POTWs and Textile Users (cont.)
Newark, NJ (cont.)
Uni Trade Co
United Veil Dyeing & Finishing
Zenith Dyeing & Finishing
Philadelphia, PA - Philadelphia Water Dept
Anchor Dyeing & Finishing Co
Delaware Valley Wool Scouring Co.
General Felt Industries
Globe Dye Works
Phoenix, AZ - City of Phoenix
Arizona Garment Finishers
Portland, OR - City of Portland
Columbia Wool Scouring Mills
East Providence, RI (Bucklin Point) - The Narragansett Bay Commission
Conrad-Jarvis Corp
Crown Yarn Dye Co . Inc
Elizabeth Webbing Mills - D’ehouse
Elizabeth Webbing Mills - Healthtex Facility
Glencairn Manufacturing Co
Greenhalgh Mills, Inc
Hope Webbing
Microfibres, Inc
Murdock Webbing
Providence Braid Co
R I Textile Co.
Rochambeau Worsted
Slater Finishing Co
Slater Dye Works, Inc
Slater Screen Print Corp
Tastex Corp.
Union Wadding Co.
Providence, RI (Field’s Point)
Worcester Co
Rockford, IL - Rock River Water Reclamation District
Cellusuede Products, Inc.
Sayreville, NJ - Middlesex County Utilities Authority
J & J Worldwide Absorbant Products & Materials Research
San Diego, CA - S D Metropolitan Wastewater Dept
Webb Designs
California Dept of Corrections
San Francisco, CA - City & County Dept. of Public Works
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant
Color Me, Inc (Simply Cotton)
Hueline, Inc
7
-------
AMSA POTWs and Textile Users (cont.)
St. Louis, MO - Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Marchem Coated Fabrics
Sr. Louis Dyeing & Processing Co
St. Paul, MN - Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Minnesota Knitting Mills
Bro-Tex Corp
Tacoma, WA - City of Tacoma Public Works & Sewer Utility
Post Industrial Press
Otto Screen Printing
Sportswear Services, Inc.
Total POTWs = 31 Total Textile Users: 255 - 4 = 251
8
-------
APPENDIX 11-2
Parameters With POTW Local Limits and Monitored in 1993 at Textile Users
BOD
Tss
COD
Conductivity
O&G total
pH
Temp.
Chlorine (resid
Sulfide
Perch loroethyl ene
Cyanide
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
POTW at.
1. San Francisco, CA Monitors parameters at.
a. 3 textile SIUs
2 Phoenix, AZ Monitors parameters at
a. 1 textile lU
3. San Diego, CA 3 Monitors parameters at:
a. Webb Designs
b. California Dept. of Corrections
4. Denver, CO Monitors parameters at
a. Rocky Mountain Dye & Finishing
5. St. Paul, MN Monitors parameters at:
a. Minnesota Knitting Mills. Inc.
b. Bro-Tex Corp.
- - ni-
- - nx
- - n x
- - nx
- - n x
- - n x
- - n x
- - l ix
- - n x
- - n x
- - n x
- x n x
- - n x
Parameter
Ia 2a 3ab 4a 5ab
- S S
- S S
- —
—
- S $
x -
- - -
- x
- -
nx -
xx
nx
nxx
xx
p-
p- -
- -
- S
- S
- S
- S
- S
-
- -
- —
S
px
p-
n
n x
n x
n
p-
p-
p
- -
n -
-
- -
- -
n
n x
n -
n
n x
- -
-
- -
n -
-
n x
n-
-
n )
n -
n
n x
n -
n
n x
n -
n
n x
n -
-
n x
n -
- -
n -
n x
n -
n
n x
n -
n
n
n - x
n - x
n - x
n- x
n - -
n - x
n - x
p = prohibition adopted from Section 403 5(b).
n = numeric limit
s = monitored as a basis for calculating P01W IU surcharge.
x = monitored at textile user.
- = local limit unspecified/not monitored at textile user.
I. Beyond the numeric limitation, the discharge of dry-cleaning waste, including new and used perchloroethylene,
is prohibited entirely by local limits of the Denver P01W.
2. Now reclassified as an lU, which cancels former SLU monitoring requirements (2XIyr).
3 Textile users have been monitored for metals in the past, but such low levels were found that monitoring
at textile users was discontinued. Silver is monitored at the prison only because of the photo lab.
9
-------
Parameters With POTW Local Limits and Monitored in 1993 at Textile Users (cont.)
Parameter
BOD
TSS
COD
O&G total
TPH
pH
Temp.
Phenols
Ammonia-N
TKN
TTO
VOCs
VOCs (601)
PCBs
Acids (625)
Pesticides
Cyanide
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium +6
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Mol bdenum
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
- - - - nxx
- - -- pxx
x - - pxx
x - - P XX
x - - x p xx
- - - x nxx
- x pxx
- - - - pxx
- - - x - - -
- - - x pxx
- - -- pxx
x - - x pxx
lab cdef 2ab
- S S
- - -
x- - -
- ss
Pxx
- - x-
nxx
px-
x- - -
nxX
nxx
xxxx
nxX
p
- - -
px-
nx
x
X
pxx
x
nxx
x
-
-
ni x -
n- -
n-
n - -
n - -
n- -
n - -
nxx
n- x
p- -
p- -
n
n - -
n xx
p = prohibition adopted from Section 403 5(b)
n = numeric limit
s = monitored as a basis for calculating P01W IU surcharge.
x = monitored at textile user
- = local limit unspecified/not mona bred at textile user
P01W at
1. Boston, MA (Metropolitan) Monitors parameters at.
a. International Paper (Vertac Dlv)
b. Draper Properties
c. Synthon Industries
d. TYCA Corp.
e. TamFelt, Inc.
f. EmTex, Inc.
2. Little Ferry, NJ Monitors parameters at
a. 3 textile SIUs
b. 2 textile SIUs
I Pesticides, as well as acrolein, Demeon, Lindane, Methoxychlor, etc., analyzed by EPA Method 608.
10
-------
Parameters With POTW Local Limits and Monitored in 1993 at Textile Users (cont.)
Parameter I a 2 a 3 a 4 a 5 a
BOD -s -s -- -s -s
TSS - s - s - s - s
COD •s -s -- -- -s
O&G total n - - - - - - - - -
O&G/TPH n - n - - - n x n x
pH nx fix - - nx fix
Temperature - - - n x
Phenols - - - - - n - - -
Ammonia-N n - - - p x - -
Sulfide n x - - - - - -
Sulfate n x - - - -
ITO - - - - - nix - -
VOCs - - -- -- px
Acids/BN - - - - p x
Acids (Method 625) n x - - - - - - -
Solvents - - - - n 2 - - - - -
Cyanide n - p - n - - - n x
Arsenic n - p - - - - - n x
Cadmium n ‘ p - n - n x n x
Chromium VI - - - - i i - - - n x
Chromium n x p - n - n x n x
Copper n x p x n - n x n x
Lead n x p - n - n x n x
Mercury n - p - - - n - n x
Nickel n x p - n - n x n x
Silver n - p - - - n x n x
Zinc n x p x n - n x n x
p = prohibition adopted from Section 403 5(b)
n = numeric limit
s = monitored as a basis for calculating POTW LU surcharge.
x = monitored at textile user
- = local limit unspecified/not monitored at textile user.
POTW at
I Portland, OR Monitors parameters at.
a Columbia Wool Scouring Mills
2 Say re ille, NJ 3 Monitors parameters at
a Johnson & Johnson
3. Cuyahoga Heights, OH Monitors paramaters at:
a 2 textile SIUs
4. Knoxville, TN Monitors parameters at.
a 2 textile SIUs.
5 Tacoma, WA Monitors parameters at
a. Sportswear Services, Inc.
1 other textile LU not monitored
1. TTO = Volatiles as defined by the Electroplating Categorical Pretreatment Standards.
2. Solvents = carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, o-chlorobenzene, cresols, cresylic
acid, nitrobenzene, toluene, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, spent CFCs, MEK
3 The surrounding towns monitor BOD, TSS, and COD at the confluence of their sewers with the POTW’s
trunk line These measurements are used by the POTW to assess the towns’ respective user charges.
11
-------
Parameters With POTW Local Limits and Monitored in 1993 at Textile Users (cont.)
Parameter 1 a 2 a b c 3 a b 4 a
BOD - s - s s s - s s - s
TSS - s - s s s • s s - s
COD - - ---- -ss --
pH n x n x x x n x x n x
Temp. - - - - - - p x x - -
O&Gtotal n x - - - - n x x
Sulfide n x - - - - - - -
Phenols - - - - - - p 1 x x
TTO - - n 2 x - - -
TICH p 3 - - - - - -
Cyanide n x n - - - n - -
Antimony - - - - - - n - x - -
Arsenic n x n - - - n - - n -
Cadmium n n x x x n - - n -
Chromium n x n x x x n - - n
Copper n x n x x x n - - n -
Lead n x n x x x n - - - -
Molybdenum - - - - - - - - -
Mercury p - n - - - n - - n -
Nickel n x n x x x n - - n
Silver n x n x x x n - - - -
Zinc n x n x x x n - - n -
p = prohibition adopted from Section 403 5(b).
n = numeric limit
s = monitored as a basis for calculating POTW IU surcharge
x = monitored at textile user
- = local limit unspecified/not monitored at textile user
POTW at
1 City of Los Angeles, CA Monitors parameters at
a 15 textile SIUs
38 textile lUs not monitored
2 textile users not monitored at present (not expected to violate local limits)
2. Orange County, CA Monitors parameters at:
a. 3 textile SIUs.
b 6 textile SIUs
c. 2 textile SIUs
1 textile IU not monitored.
3 St. Louis, MO Monitors parameters at.
a. St. Louis Dyeing & Processing Co
b. Marchem Coated Fabrics Div
4. Newark, NJ 4 Monitors parameters at
a. 35 textile users
I. Phenols (total) monitored for screening If response is significant, then analyze for phenol by 625.
2 TTO = Purgeable halocarbons (EPA Method 601) and Purgeable aromatics (EPA Method 602)
3. TICH = Total Identifiable Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
4. Numeric limits for metals (indicated by ‘n’) await approval by NJDEP When approved, numeric limits for these
metals will be added to the local limits and, at least initially, monitored at textile users
12
-------
Parameters With POTW Local Limits and Monitored in 1993 at Textile Users (cont.)
Parameter
BOD
TSS
TS
COD
pH
Temperature
O&G petrol
Conductivity
Phenols (total)
Sulfide
Phosphorus
TCE
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
pxxx xxxx
pxxx xxxxxxxx
x
x - -
x- - x- - xx- x
xx - - x- xxxx
xx xx-.xxxxx
xx xxxxxxxx
xx x- - - xxxx
x - - x - xxx - x
xx x- xxxxxx
xx - - - xxxxx
xx - x- xxxx
n
n
n
n
p
n
p
n
p
p
n
n
xxxxx n
xxxxx n
xxxx x n
xxxxx n
- x- - - n
xx- xx n
xx- - x n
xx- xx n
P01W ar
1 County of Los Angeles, CA Monitors parameters at 54 textile users.
a 5 textile SIUs e I textile SIU i 7 textile SIUs m. 1 textile SIU
b 6 textile SIUs f 1 textile SIU j 5 textile SIUs n. 1 textile SIU
c. 10 textile SIUs g 1 textile SIU k. 1 textile SIU o. 2 textile SIUs
d I textile SIU h 7 textile SIUs 1 1 textile SIU p. 4 textile SlUs
11 textile users not monitored
2. Columbus, GA Monitors parameters at 10 textile users:
a 7 textile SIUs
b. 2 textile SIUs
c 1 textile SIU
I textile user nor monitored
I TCE = tetrachloroethylene. This POTW does not routinely monitor organic priority pollutants at
textile users The ICE was detected in only one sample from several textile users selected to be
checked for VOCs.
lab c d e f g hi j k I mn op
2abc
- S S S S S S S SS S 5 S S S S S
— S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
n xxx xxx xxx x x’x xxx x
- - - - xx
S S
S S
xx
xx
xx
xx
- x
xx
S
x
x
x
x
x
p 1 -
nx
nx
nx
n x
nx
nx
nx
n x
nx
nx
p = prohibition adopted from Section 403 5(b).
n = numeric limit (maximum concentration)
s = monitored as a basis for calculating P01W IU surcharge
x = monitored at textile user
- = local limit unspecified/not monitored at textile user.
13
-------
Parameters With POTW Local Limits and Monitored in 1993 at Textile Users (cont.)
Parameter
BOD
TSS
COD
P ’ 1
O&G total
TPH
Ammonia-N
Phosphorus
Sulfide
CTAS’
MBAS 2
TCE 3
PCE 4
VOCs
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
p
p
p
p
p
n
55
xx
- x
xx
55
xx
xx
xx
- x
- - x
- - x
- - x
P01W at
1 Greenville , SC Monitors parameters at 20 textile users.
a 2 textile SlUs d I textile S IU g. 3 textile SIUs
b I textile S IU e 2 textile Sills Ii. 4 textile SlUs
c I textile SIU 1. 1 textile SIU i. 1 textile Sill
2 Chicago, IL Monitors parameters at
a. 1 textile SW (Western Piece Dyeing & Finishing)
1 ,. I textile S IU (Industrial coatings)
c 1 textile SIU (Rubens & Marble)
3. Philadelphia, PA Monitors parameters at:
a 2 textile Sills (Anchor, Globe)
b. 2 textile Sills (DV Wool Scour, General Felt)
j. I textile Sill
k. 1 textile Sill
m I textile SLU
n. I textile SIll
I CTAS = Cobalt Thiocyanate Active Substances (nonionic surfactants).
2. MBAS = Metbylene Blue Active Substances (anionic surfactants)
3 TCE = 1,1,1 -Trich loroethane (methylchioroform).
4. PCE = Perchioroethylene (Tetrachioroethylene).
lab cdefghijkmn
n
n
n
n
p
p
p
p
2abc 3ab
S -5
x - s
x nx
- nx
ss -55
ss -5 5
xx nx x
- x nx x
ssssssss
xxxxxxxx
x- - xx- xx
xxxxxxxx
- - - x- - - -
- - - x - - - -
x xx
x
x - -
x
n
- - - -
x - - - - - -
- - - nx- - n -
n - - - - n
n nxxx n-
n x - x nxxx nx
n xx x - x n xxx n -
n nxxx n
n n xxx n -
n n xxx n -
n - - . -
n nxxx n- -
p = prohibition adopted from Section 403.5(b)
n = numetic limit
s = monitored as a basis for calculating P01W ill surcharge
x = monitored at textile user
- = local Itmit unspecified/not monitored at textile user
14
-------
Parameters With POTW Local Limits and Monitored in 1993 at Textile Users (cont.)
lab cdefghij 2a 3a 4a
p = prohibition adopted from Section 403 5(b)
n = numeric limit
- S fl
- S fl
- S fl
nx n
-- p
n- n
n - -
- - n
s = monitored as a basis for calculating P01W IU surcharge
x = monitored at textile user
- = local limit unspecified/not monitored ai textile user
P01W at:
1 East Providence, RI (Bucklin Point) Monitors parameters at 18 textile users
a I textile SIU d I textile SIU g. 2 textile SIUs j 2 textile SW
b 2 textile SIUs e I textile SIUs h. 1 textile STU
c 5 textile SIIJs 12 textile SIUs i I textile SIU
2 Elizabeth, NJ Monitors parameters at
a Fablok Mills, Inc
3. Rockford, IL Monitors parameters ar
a Cellusuede Products, Inc.
4 Nashville, TN Monitors parameters at.
a 1 textile SIU (Springs)
I. TTO = total ‘toxic” organics. A collective parameter for the organic priority pollutants, i.e , VOCs
(volatiles) arid Acids/Base Neutrals (extractables) measured by EPA Methods 624 and 625.
2. TROPs = “Toxic-reactive’ organic pollutants Specific chemicals defined in Appendix A of local limits.
3 TOPPOCs = Total organic priority pollutants of concern. Specific chemicals defined in Appendix B of
local limits.
Parameter
n S S 5 S S S S S S
n S S S S S S S 5 S
x
x
nxx xx
n- x - x
p- x -x
S -
S -
xx n
- x n
-- P
xxx
- xx
- - x
S
S
x
x
S
S
x
x
BOD
TSS
COD
pH
Temperature
O&G total
TPH
Phenols (total)
Sulfate
Ammonia-N
VOCs
Acids/BN
ITO’
TR OPs 2
TOPPOCs 3
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium +6
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercu
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
x - - - -
- - - nx
p-- -x - - n-
- - n-
fl- - X xx - - - -
- - n -
- - n-
n n- n-
n- n-
nxx xxx n- nx
- - n-
flX X XXX fl- nx
nxx xxx n- nx
nxX Xxx n- nx
n n - n -
- - n-
n x x x x x n - n x
n - - - -
n x x x x x n - n -
nXx Xxx n- nx
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
15
-------
APPENDIX 11-3
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POTW 300
Synthon Industries 0.0085
TYCA Corp. 0.0085
Erntex 0.011
Total from textile users 0.0280 0.009% POTW
POTW’ ’ 150
International Paper 0.0095
Draper Properties 0.085
Tarn felt 0.0005
Total from textile users 0.0950 0.06% POTW
POTW 2 135
Phoenix Dye Works 0.17605
Ohio Knitting 0.005
Total from textile users 0.181 0.13% POTW
POTW 3 19
Western Piece Dyers & Finishers 0. 189
Industrial Coatings Group 0.224
Rubens & Marble 0.004
Total from textile users 0.417 2.2% POTW
POTW 3 28
Bibb Co. 0.030
Fieldcrest Mills - Broad. 0.614
Fieldcrest Mills - E&P 3.045
Swift Textiles - 6th Ave. 0.342
Swift Textiles - Flatrock 0.700
Meritas Yams 0.0036
Omi Georgia 0.00063
Swift Spinning Mills 0.0728
Wellington Sears - 1st Ave 0.0042
Wellington Sears - Cusseta 0.015
Columbus Mills 1.010
Total from textile users 5.837 20.8% POTW
I Boston. MA - Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
Ia. Deer Island POTW
lb. Nut Island POTW
2 Cuyahoga. OH - Southerly Water Pollution Control Facility
3. Chicago, IL - Metro. Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
4. Columbus, GA - Columbus Water Works.
16
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POTW 5 160
Rocky Mountain Dye & Finishing 0.032 0.02% POTW
POTW 6 67
Fablok Mills 0.040 0.06% POTW
POT W 7 a 20
Carisbrook Yarns 0.993
JPS Industrial Fabrics-Dunean Front 0.041
JPS Industrial Fabrics-Dunean Back 0.205
JPS Automotive Fabrics-Parker 0.020
Judson 0.021
K1\4 Fabrics 0.072
Krieger Textile 0.073
M-Tex 0.073
Specialty Shearing & Dyeing 0.545
U.S. Finishing 0.849
Woven Electronics 0.182
Wunda Weve 0.322
Total from textile users 3.396 17.0% POTW
POTW 7 b 0.35
Bibb Towels 0.031 8.8% P01W
POTW 7 C 5.2
Cardinal Garmet Dye 0.012 0.2% POTW
POT W 7 d 33
Greenville Finishing 0.160
JPS Automotive Fabrics-Bleachery 0.077
JPS Automotive Fabrics-Kuster 0.207
Orion Finishing 0.030
Total from textile users 0.474 14.3% POTW
5 Denver, CO - Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
6 Elizabeth, NJ - Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
7 Greenville, SC - Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority
7a Mauldin POTW
7b. Lakeside POTW
7c Pelham POTW
7d Taylor POTW
17
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POT W 0.35
JPS Industrial Fabrics-Slater 0.055 15.7% POTW
POTW 8 21
Appalachian Finishing Werk (Mag.) 0.225
Appalachian Finishing Work (Gill) 0.200
Total from textile users 0.425 0.02% P01W
POTW 9 76
Advanced Fibers 0. 0052
Beacon Looms 0.0018
H&W Shoe Supplies 0.00025
Marijon Dyeing & Finishing 0.680
Spinnerin Yarn 0.250
Total from textile users 0.937 1.2% POTW
POTW 16
Long Beach Dyeing & Finishing 0.098 0.6% P01W
POTWIOb 33
Formosa Dyeing & Finishing 0.060
SS Dyeing & Finishing 0.019
Tuftex Carpet Mills 0.700
Total from textile users 0.779 2.4% POTW
POTW 1 OC 13
Pomona Textile Co. 0.0405 0.3% POTW
POTWIOd 85
Bentley Mills 0.650
United Thread Manufacturing 0.003
Total from textile users 0.653 0.8% P01W
7e Slater-Marietta POTW
8 Knoxville, TN - Knoxville Utilities Board.
9. Little Ferry, NJ - Bergen Coi nty Utilities Authority
10. Los Angeles, CA - L A Sanitation District
lOa Long Beach - Wastewater Reclamation Plant
lOb Los Coyotes - Wastewater Reclamation Plant
lOc Pomona - Wasrewater Reclamation Plant
lOd. San Jose Creek - Wastewater Reclamation Plant
18
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
PoTwboe 11
Artistic Dyers 0.0087
Rainbow Textile Co. 0.0095
Shing Jye Supplies 0.0005
Total from textile users 0.0187 0.2% POTW
POTW’° (Carson Joint WPCP, LA San. Dist.) 328
American International 0.100
Artesia Dyeing & Printing (13066) 0.017
Artesia Dyeing & Printing (12330) 0.0895
Atlas Carpet 0.00005
Cal-Pacific Dyeing & Finishing 0.211
California Webbing Industries 0.016
Care-Tex Industries 0.017
ChemTex Print USA 0.00967
Coloramerica Textile Processing 0.260
Colortex Dyeing & Finishing 0.720
Cotton Club 0.020
Delta Dyeing & Finishing 0.145
Downtown Dyers 0.010
E&J Dye HQuse 0.060
EKPG 0.004
E.T.C. Carpet Mills 0.180
F&J Metro Dyeing 0.006
Factory Inc. 0.0185
Flamingo Textile Mills 0.0198
Giant Merchandising 0.001
Grace Kimmy Designs 0.0002
LA Dye & Print (12817) 0.010
LA Dye & Print (12818) 0.200
LA Airline Inc. 0.00015
LA Print Works 0.020
LA Dye & Wash Co. (12943) 0.037
LA Dye & Wash Co. (13074) 0.0001
Lorber Industries 0.600
Louie Bernard 0.0035
Pacific Combining 0.0025
Pacific Continental 0.450
Pacific Fabrics 0.090
lOe Whinier Narrows - Wastewater Reclamation Plant
lOf Los Angeles Sanitation Dist - Carson Joint Water Pollution Control Plant.
19
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POTW’° (continued)
Pan Pacific Yarn 0.0015
PolyTex Thread Mills 0.011
Sumitex Prints of California 0.350
Spectrum Dyeing & Finishing 0.012
Sun Dyeing & Finishing 0.0038
Sung Do International 0.195
Texion Corp. 0.017
Texollini Inc. 0.050
Tissurama Industries 0.970
Uni Hosiery Co 0.015
US Boys Inc. 0.046
Western Dyeing & Finishing 0.778
WesternTex Industries 0.300
Total from textile users 6.066 1.85% POTW
POTW” 232
Anaheim Mills 0.357
Chroma Systems Partners 0.350
Crazy Shirts 0.007
Dye Technique 0.029
Pharr-Palomar 0.001
Royal Carpet 0.370
Saba Textiles 0.200
Sees Color Textile 0.300
US Dyeing & Finishing 0.400
Vans. Inc. 0.0006
Total from textile users 2.015 0.87% POTW
POTW’ 2 32.9
Springs Industries 0.250 0.76% POTW
POTW’ 3 227
Anchor Dyeing & Finishing 0.225
Delaware Valley Wool Scouring 0.011
General Felt Industries 0.001
Globe Dye Works 0.094
Total from textile users 0.33 1 0.15% POTW
10!. Los Angeles Sanitation Dist - Carson Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
11. Orange County, CA - 0 C Sanitation Districts
12 Nashville, TN - Metropolitan Water Services
13 Philadelphia, PA - Northeast Water Pollution Control Facility
20
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POTW’ 4 150
Arizona Garment Finishers 0.0096 <0.001 % POTW
POTW’ 5 57
Columbia Wool Scouring 0.0502 0.09% POTW
P0TW 16 ’ 332
ABC Dye House 0.0549
Bruck Braid 0.010
California Dye House 0.0352
City Dyeing & Finishing 0.4257
Coast Arrow 0.0002
Colormax Industries 0.132
Coloring Button Dyers 0.0002
Color Master Garment Dyeing & Fin. 0.0016
Dara Inc. 0.0005
David S. Gibson 0.0017
Dixie Trimming Co. 0.0024
Double “A” Wash & Dye 0.170
DyeTech Corp. 0.0065
Dye to Match 0.0191
Fashion Art International 0.0005
Foid Garment Dyeing 0.0425
In LA California 0.0209
J&J Tee Shirts & Fashions 0.0021
Kesbaf Knitting Co. 0.0504
Koo’s Manufacturing Co 0.020
LA Dye Works 0.0002
LA Dye Works (Rainbow) 0.2868
LA Dye & Print Works 0.2945
M&D Buttons & Lace Dyers 0.0002
Maria Kipp 0.0011
Matchmaster Inc. 0.0005
Matchmaster Dyeing & Finishing 0.697
MW Graphics 0.0001
Modern Button Co. of California 0.001
Only in USA 0.0012
Pico Dyeing & Finishing 0.0059
Pour le Bebe . 0.0069
14 Phoenix, AZ
15 Portland, OR
16a. Hyperion Treatment Plant, City of Los Angeles, CA.
21
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POTW 1 ba (continued)
Rainbow Button 0.0001
S&A Button Dyers 0.0004
Sealmaster \V.T. 0.0048
Sharon & Joyces Clothing 0.0012
SNS Brothers 0.0003
S&S Dyehouse 0.001
Super Yarn Mart 0.0072
Uni Hosiery 0.0057
Washington Garment Dyeing & Finish. 0.1068
Western Dye House 0.181
2.43 0.73% POTW
POTWI 6 b 20.3
A&H California 0.004
Almore Dye House 0. 1389
Avi Levy 0.004
Caravan Fashion Enterprises 0.0008
Color Fabric Processing 0.094
New Hero 0. 0067
0.2484 0.01% POTW
POTW’ 7 290
A&L Dyers 0.01
Apollo Dyeing & Finishing 0.078
Baltic Dyeing & Finishing 0.078
Champion Dyeing & Finishing 0.107
Columbia Textile Service 3.099
Como Textile Prints 0.274
Coral Dyeing & Finishing 0.26
Craft Textile Printing 0.242
Crestany Textile Processors 0.019
Dye-Tex Corp. 0.499
E&W Textile Processors 0.06
Fairfield Textiles 0.046
International Veeling Corp. 0.092
Interstate Dyeing & Finishing 0.117
Leader Dyeing & Finishing 0.714
Manner Textile Processing 0.102
i6a. Hyperion Treatment Plant, City of Los Angeles, CA
i6b Glendale Treatment Plant, Cic of Los Angeles, CA
i7 Newark, NJ, Passaic ValIe Sewerage Commissioners
22
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POTW’ 7 (continued)
Messbrenner Prints 0.528
North Jersey Skein Dye 0.034
Paragon Dyeing & Finishing 0.055
Paterson Bleachery & Chemicals 0.051
Pauls Dyeing 0.043
Perennial Print 0.249
Poughkeepsie Finishing 0.706
Rainbow Dye & Finishing 0.116
Renco Finishing 0.07
Safer Textile Processing 0.338
Signature Cloth 0.249
Sunbrite Dye 0.111
Superior Dyeing Corp. 0.114
Thomas Henshall Silk Finishing 0.002
Thorn Inc. 0.139
Tico Dyeing & Finishing 0.27
Uni Trade Co. 0.015
United Veil Dyeing & Finishing 0.09
Zenith Dyeing & Finishing 0.133
Total from textile users 9.11 3.14% POTW
POTW’ 8 29
Cellusuede 0.040 0.14% P01W
POTW’ 9 75
Johnson & Johnson 0.015 0.02% POTW
POT W 2 ° 180
Webb Designs <0.0005
California Dept of Corrections 0.014
Total from textile users 0.0145 <0.0001% POTW
POTW 2 ’ 21.8
Crown Yarn Dye 0.110
Elizabeth Webbing. Health-Tex 0.00001
Elizabeth Webbing Mills 0.240
Glencairn Mfg. 0.00001
17. Newark, NJ - Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
18 Rockford, IL - Rock River Water Reclamation District.
19 Sayreville, NJ - Middlesex County Utilities Authority
20 San Diego, CA - Point Loma Plant
21 East Providence, RI - Bucklin Point Facility
23
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to AMSA POTWs (cont.)
Average
POTW/Textile Users Flow, mgd
POTW 2 ’ (cont.)
Conrad-Jarvis Corp. 0.0000211
Greenhaigh Mills 0.105
Hope Webbing 0.017
Microfibres 0.167
Murdock Webbing 0.020
Providence Braid Co. 0.00003
RI. Textile Co. 0.0012
Rochambeau Worsted 0.116
Slater Finishing 0.0226
Slater Dye Works 0.2805
Slater Screen Print 0.264
Tastex Corp. 0.0003
Union Wadding Co. 0.040
Worcester Textile Co. 0. 150
Total from textile users 1.544 7.0% POTW
POTW 2 67
Color Me (Simply Cotton) 0.003
Hueline 0.009
Total from textile users 0.012 <0.02% POTW
POT W 3 120
Marchem - Coated Fabrics Div. 0.0055
St. Louis Dyeing & Processing 0.013
Total from textile users 0.0185 0 015% P01W
POTW 24 235
Minnesota Knitting 0.0235
Bro-Tex 0.010
Total from textile users 0.0335 0.01 % POTW
POT W 25 23
Post Industrial Press 0.000276
Otto Screen Printing 0.000242
Total from textile users 0.000518 0.002% POTW
21 Providence, RI - Bucklin Point Facility
22 San Francisco, CA - Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant.
23 St Louis, MO - Metropolitan St Louis Sewer District
24. St. Paul, MN - Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
25 Tacoma, WA - Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
24
-------
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to POTW at Valdese, NC
Average
Textile Users Flow, mgd
Valdese POTW 6.0 - 6.25
Alba Waldensian 0.16
Burke Mills 0.476
Carolina Mills 0.84
Dolly Hosiery 0.01
Kathy Hosiery 0.021
OMS Textiles 0.613
Valdese Manuf. (Meridian) 0.846
Robinson Hosiery 0.034
Valdese Textiles 0.234
Valdese Weavers 0.312
Neuville Industries 0.116
Total from textile users 3.662 58.6% POTW
Notes
Flow Daily average 6 - 6 5 mgd (5 5 mgd, or 88%. is industrial wastewater).
Valdese has a population of 3000 Number employed by textile users was not investigated
Flow Data for Textile Users Discharging to POTW at Star, NC
1993 - 1994
Average Average
TextIle Users Flow, mgd Flow, mgd
POTW
0.594
0.558
Clayson Knitting
0.0922
0.0881
Fruit of the Loom
0.2936
0.27035
Montgomery Hosiery
Mills
0.0266
0.0278
Pine Hosiery Mills
Total from textile users
0.0155
0.4279
(assumed)
72% POTW
0.0155
0.4018 72% POTW
Notes
Flow Design 0 6 mgd, Daily average 0 55 - 0 6 mgd (72% is industrial wastewater) Star, NC, has a population of
only 200, but 2000 are employed at the four textile users Thus, the community and surrounding area are heavily
dependent on the textile users for employment.
Special problem Textile user discharges are saline (> 6000 mg/L chloride). POTW discharges to a small stream with
7 q10 approximating 0 cfs For this reason, it has been required to use 99% treated effluent (only 1% dilution allowed)
in the WET, and has had trouble meeting this water quality standard in its NPDES permit
25
-------
APPENDIX 11-4
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW (Bucklin Point) at East Providence, RI
POTW Flow Capacity: 46 mgd; Current Average Daily Flow: 23 mgd
Sampling Episode
Parameter LU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cadmium 110 -- -- -- - - -- -- 3 -- 7
Chromium 2770 -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - 494
Copper 1200 40 32 770 1070 1610 1230 422 884 2640
Lead 690 -- - - -- - - -- -- - - 28 215
Nickel 1620 -- -- -- - - -- 20 12 16 648
Silver 400 -- -- -- -- 70 40 -- 16 --
Zinc 1670 230 150 480 460 370 220 334 315 1110
Sampling Episode
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Copper 1160 69 880 680 530 850 300 530 380 800 280
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Copper 220 900 730 390 530 500 840 530 460 950 560
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Copper 1190 900 600 840 460 380 650 1110 1170 2260 1590
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Copper 3820 560 3750 1180 2720 320 890 610 530 460 300
Sampling Episode
Parameter 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Cadmium -- 13 -- I -- 2 -- •- -- - -
Chromium 68 14 -- 93 -- - - - - -- --
Copper 361 500 175 190 8 79 152 -- 33 1160 69
Lead -- -- -- -- - - - - - - -- - -
Nickel 45 138 -- -- - - - - -- -- --
Silver 67 4 -- -- - - -- -- 40 46
Zinc 788 262 102 85 3 34 66 30 105
Code: -- = not detected: Blank = metal not analyzed in episode. Concentration unit = ug/L (ppb)
* Local limit, max conc. (24-hr composite sample).
Sampling Episodes:
1-53: Slater Screen Print Corp. (020-030-0697)
54-57. Crown Yam Dye Co., Inc.
58-60: Rochambeau Worsted
6 1-64: Slater Dye Works (020-029-0697)
26
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at East Providence, RI (cont.)
Sampling Episode
Parameter LL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cadmium 110 -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- -- 1370 12 --
Chromium 2770 164 19 27 61 446 197 694 -- 49 18 42
Copper 1200 90 22 40 30 247 232 296 220 7120 43 71
Lead 690 22 -- -- -- 42 -- 11 -- 1100 -- --
Nickel 1620 -- -- 80 140 40 -- 4 -- 680 379 22
Silver 400 51 2 -- -- -- 7 42 -- 200 -- --
Zinc 1670 56 5 600 620 502 456 407 65 5810 363 241
Sampling Episode
Parameter LU 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Cadmium 110 -- 7 -- 1 -- 7 -- -- --
Chromium 2770 40 15 56 -- -- 236 -- 50 88
Copper 1200 20 60 106 15 54 129 156 54 76 30 87
Lead 690 -- 123 -- 7 -- 90 -- -- 25
Nickel 1620 10 175 25 -- 17 40 -- -- --
Si1 er 400 -- -- -- 4 93 11 -- -- --
Zinc 1670 620 373 232 190 246 250 229 830 145
Sampling Episode
Parameter LU 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Cadmium
110
--
--
20
20
Chromium
2770
100
100
180
130
100
110
120
310
390
170
Copper
1200
70
70
80
Lead
690
50
Nickel
1620
--
70
--
Silver
400
--
--
--
Zinc
1670
130
80
60
70
90
140
280
110
30
160
Code: - - = not detected, Blank = metal not analyzed that episode Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
* Local limit, maximum concentration (24-hr composite sample)
Sampling Episodes
1-5. Microfibres, Inc
6,7 Murdock Webbing
8,9: Ri. Textile Co.
10-14. Elizabeth Webbing Mills, I-lealth-Tex facility
15-21 Elizabeth Webbing Mills, dyehouse facility
22-32: Worcester Textile Co (discharges to Field’s Point POTW in Providence, RI and is subject to different local
limits)
27
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Valdese, NC
Sampling Episode
Parameters LL’ la lb lc ld
Chloroform x -- 14
Di(2-e thvlhexvl) phthalate x *
Antimony x 16890 940 1000 550
Arsenic 100 2 -- -- --
Cadmium 200 -- 4 2 --
Chromium 500 170 160 8 203
Copper 500 4080 602 220 397
Lead 100 200 80 20 --
Mercury 100 1 1 -- 0.4
Nickel 250 320 20 20 40
Silver 30 -- -- -- --
Zinc 500 5200 2160 620 80
Code x = unspecified. * = detected 2 . (--) = not detected. Concentration = ug/L (ppb)
Textile User
1. Burke Mills 2
la. 1990 - Lab Burlington Research Labs. Blue Ridge Labs (metals)
lb 1991 - Lab Blue Ridge Labs
Ic 1992 - Lab Blue Ridge Labs
Id 1993 -Lab Blue Ridge Labs
I. Local limit, maximum concentration allowed.
2 The textile user s process was not the source of phthalates detected in these wastewater samples The
phthalates detected are attributable to contamination of sample (by use of plasticized tubing in sampling
device), and/or laboratory procedures (leaching from anhydrous sodium sulfate used to dry extract).
Phihalate concentrations reported by the lab are not given here, so that statistical summaries will not
inadvertently include data that would inaccurately characterize the textile user’s process wastewater.
3 Reduction in metal concentrations over time are attributable to a more judicious use of progressively
higher quality process chemicals. and switch to non-metallized dyes.
Source of metals:
Zinc salts were Lsed as a dyeing auxiliary chemical. Lower concentration of zinc reflects a
switch to other metal salts. Also, zinc (up to 1 ppm) is often added to potable water supplies
to inhibit corrosion in Ulfl S and the distribution system.
Antimony is applied to fabric as a flame retardant. Only those textile facilities that so treat
fabrics are a source of this metal. This is the reason the metal is seldom detected in textile user
wastewater
28
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Valdese, NC. (cont.)
Sampling Episode
Parameters LL’ la lb ic Id 2a
Acrolein x -- 527 -- -- --
Chloroform x 1100 -- 203 838 9
Naphtha lene x -- --
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate x * *
Antimony x -- -- -- 204
Arsenic 100 -- -- 27 --
Beryllium x -- -- 100
Cadmium 200 -- -- 40
Chromium 500 -- -- 120 --
Copper 500 -- -- 30 31
Lead 100 -- -- 160 --
Mercury 100 -- -- --
Nickel 250 -- -- 140
Selenium x -- -- 8
Silver 30 -- -- 20 --
Zinc 500 -- -- 100 109
Code x = unspecified. = detected . (--) = not detected. Concentration = ug/L (ppb)
Textile Users
1 Neuville Industries 3
la 1990 - Lab PACE
lb 1991 - Lab Bold Research Labs
Ic 1992 - Lab
id 1993 - Lab
2 Valdese Textiles
2a 1991 - Lab. PACE
1. Local limit, maximum concentration allowed
2. The textile user’s process was not the source of phthalates detected in these wastewater samples The
phihalates detected are attributable to contamination of sample (by use of plasticized tubing in sampling
device), and/or laboratory procedures (leaching from anhydrous sodium sulfate used to dry extract).
Phthalaie concentrations reported by the lab are not given here, so that statistical summaries will not
inadvertently include data that would inaccurately characterize the textile user’s process wastewater.
3. Two different labs failed to detect metals in ‘90 and ‘91, but metals were detected in ‘92 by an unidentified
lab Since the ‘92 concentrations were below local limits, the POTW did not require analysis of metals in
1993
29
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Valdese, NC (cont.)
Sampling Episode
Parameters LL’ la lb lc Id 2a 2b 2c
Chloroform x 24 7 29
Ethylbenzene x 33 18 --
Xylenes x 438 --
Naphthalene x 45 255 253 69
Di-n-butyl phthalate x -- * -- --
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phihalate x -- -- -- *
Antimony x -- -- 22 -- 40 20
Arsenic 100 10 5 -- -- -- 16 20
Cadmium 200 12 -- 10 2 5 2 5
Chromium 500 14 - - 10 10 3 --
Copper 500 53 33 85 37 220 74 536
Lead 100 152 -- 20 -- 20 10 --
Mercury 100 -- -- -- 0 2 0.4 0.2
Nickel 250 40 -- 8 -- 20 --
Silver 30 15 -- 5 -- -- -- --
Zinc 500 166 136 75 40 100 180 600
Concentrauon = ug/L (ppb)
Code. x = unspecified. = detected 2 . (--) = not detected
Textile Users:
I OMS Textiles 3
Ia 1990 - Lab Water Technology and Controls
lb 1991 - LabS WT&C (metals). Burlington Research (organics)
Ic 1992 - Lab: AAES Labs
Id. 1993 - Lab Blue Ridge Labs
2 Valdese Weavers
2a 1990 - Lab Dexter Corp
2b 1991 - Lab. Blue Ridge Labs
2c 1992 - Lab. Blue Ridge Labs
I. Local limit, maximum concentration allowed
2 The textile user s process was not the source of phthalates detected in these wastewater samples. The
phthalates detected are attributable to contamination of sample (by use of plasticized tubing in sampling
device), and/or laboratory procedures (leaching from anhydrous sodium sulfate used to dry extract).
Phthalate concentrations reported by the lab are not given here, so that statistical summaries will not
inadvertently include data that would inaccurately characterize the textile user’s process wastewater.
3 In 1993, OMS Textiles was in bankruptcy. For this reason, the facility could not legally function under
that name Consequentl ), the) submitted samples of wastewater for analysis under the name Quality
Textile Finishers of America
30
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Valdese, NC. (cont.)
Sampling Episode
Parameters LL’ la 2a 3a 4a 4b
Chloroform x 4 -- 23 5
Toluene x -- 7 -- --
Di-n-butyl phthalate x -- -- -- -- *
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate x * -- -- *
Antimony x -- -- -- -- 5
Arsenic 100 12 -- 2 -- --
Cadmium 200 -- -- 6 -- --
Chromium 500 31 135 9 143 4
Copper 500 328 212 319 143 132
Lead 100 100 -- 40 -- 8
Mercury 100 -- -- -- -- --
Nickel 250 238 -- 20 81 61
Silver 30 -- -- -- -- --
Zinc 500 367 60 120 66 145
Code x = unspecified, k = detected 2 . (--) = not detected. Concentration = ug/L (ppb)
Textile Users
1. Alba-Waldensian
la 1990 - Lab Gen Eng Labs (organics). PACE (metals)
2. Adams Millis-Drexel
2a. 1991 - Lab Research & Analytical Labs
3. Carolina Mills
3a 1992 - Lab Blue Ridge Labs
4 Valdese Manufacturing
4a. 1991 - Lab:
4b 1992 - Lab. PACE
1 Local limit, maximum concentrat n allowed.
2 The textile user’s nrocess was not the source of phthalates detected in these wastewater samples. The
phthalates detected are attributable to contamination of sample (by use of plasticized tubing in sampling
device), and/or laboratory procedures (leaching from anhydrous sodium sulfate used to dry extract).
Phthalate concentrations reported by the lab are not given here, so that statistical summaries will not
inadvertently include data that would inaccurately characterize the textile user’s process wastewater.
31
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Star, NC
Clayson Knitting Co.
Average Flow: 0.0881 mgd = 15% of POTW’s average flow.
1993 Sampling Episodes
Parameter July AUgust Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
BOD, mg/L 167 90 179 153 324 195
67
COD, mg/L 561
TSS, mg/L 16 13 34 25 22
Total Solids, mg!L 34
pH 9 4 8.4 9.2 9.0
O&G, mg/L 15 41 28 37 44
Chloride, mg/L 606 731 1040 822 1320
Conductance. umho 3660 3920 4760 4700 5880
Arsenic -- 6 6
Cadmium 0.6 -- --
Chromium 15 -- -- -- 11 --
Copper 18 30 103 272 135 270
760 40 12 190 176
28 23 140 117 230
22 46 135
21 100
28
13
20
10
Lead 2 10 9 20
Mercury 0 2 -- --
Molybdenum 38 15 14 10 --
Zinc 443 180 447 186 277 240
467 195 17 177 188
274 17 242 128 248
204 162 277
320 215
277
249
257
126
Code: -- = not detected, metal concentration = ug/L (ppb)
32
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Star, NC
Clayson Knitting Co. (cont.)
1994 Sampling Episodes
Parameter January February March April May June
BOD, mgfL 187 367 187 246 165 248
TSS, mg/L 29 20 34 11 20 32
pH 9.7 9.2 10 10.6 9.4 8.4
O&G, mgfL 16 12 25 11 28
Chloride, mg/L 1030 849 829 749 768 722
Conductance, umlio 5500 4230 4270 4240 4260 3800
Copper 110 40 280 310 80 50
Lead 10 5 6 9 -- 19
Molybdenum 70
Nickel 5 -- --
Zinc 180 191 276 214 160 370
Code -- = not detected
Concen
tration of metals = ug/L (ppb)
Fruit of the Loom
Average Flow: 0.27035
mgd = 45% of POTW’s average
flow.
Parameters
July
1993 Sampling Episodes
August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
BOD, mg/L 190 184 292 352 353 271
COD, mg/L 711
TSS, mg/L 20 64 56 48 59
Total Solids, mg/L 22
pH 7 8 7 8 7.8 9.0 7.4 5 6
O&G, mg/L 42 106 54 59 23
Chloride, mg/L 783 474 363 353 264
Conductance, umho 4230 3520 2900 3410 3280
Cadmium I -- 0.6 - -
Chromium 8 9 17 12 13 70
Copper 335 278 354 517 317 560
360 520 773 270 378
178 882 334 38
767 376 598
630 315 521
622 649 300
546 396 460
455 410 470
498 910 545
683 664 333
249 354 432
560
332
Lead -- 5 14
Mercury 0.3 -- - -
Code: -- = not detected Concentration of metals = ug/L (ppb)
33
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to P01W at Star, NC
Fruit of the Loom (cont.)
1993 Sampling Episodes
Parameters July August Sept. Oct Nov. Dec.
Zinc 790 480 505 506 514 333
818 561 605 415 394
495 805 161 290
586 1760’ 338
440 514 360
520 806 377
549 507 464
752 562 526
568 586 370
789 743 367
393 505 607
804
469
1994
Sampling Episodes
Parameters Jan Feb.
March
April May June
BOD, mg/L 235 586 314 268 214 421
TSS, mg/L 71 80 75 64 38 102
pH 79 72 7.7 7.3 7.4
O&G. mg/L 25 27 13 27
Chloride, mgIL 259 258 220 284 360 334
Conductance, umho 31 10 2830 2910 3190 3410 3800
Chromium -- -- 140
Copper 290 280 350 250 520 560
Lead 4 -- -- -- -- 8
Zinc 380 1420’ 1620’ 934 750 3700’
Code -- = not detected Concentration of metals = ug/L (ppb)
1. Zinc concentration spikes resulted from the use of zinc-contaminated sample bottles by Burlington
Research (lab that performed the analyses) Upon resampling with bottles that were pre-washed with
acid, zinc analyzed at nominal levels.
34
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Star, NC
Montogmery Hosiery Mills
Average Flow: 0.0278 mgd = 4.6% of POTW’s average flow.
1993 Sampling Episodes
Parameter July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
BOD, mg/L 102 85 100 90 188 134
COD mg/L 409
TSS, mg/L 8 26 16 7 6
Total Solids, mg/L 2
pH 8.3 6.9 9.0 8.5 6.0
O&G, mg/L 9 11 18 7 17
Chloride, mg/L 1280 1530 988 1680 1500
Conductance, umho 4660 5810 4040 6390 5780
Arsenic -- 21 10
Cadmium
Chromium 22 7 11 25 69 --
Copper 150 50 20 160 120 70
Lead 8 33 7 -- --
Mercury 0 3
Zinc 181 181 162 65 93 448
1994 Sampling Episodes
Parameters Jan Feb. March April May June
BOD, mg/L 146 396 131 107 114 91
TSS, mg/L 13 18 10 24 24 22
pH 9 5 7.0 7.4 8.0 7 7 7.3
O&G, mg/L 24 30 21 3 10
Chloride, mg/L 1870 1280 109 218 297 607
Conductance, umho 7210 4610 3840 3900 4550 3200
Copper 50 90 70 40 80 40
Zinc 250 133 409 70 80 120
Code: -- = not detected Concentration of metals = ug/L (ppb)
35
-------
Analyses of Textile User Discharges to POTW at Star, NC (cont.)
Pine Hosiery Mills
Average Flow: 0.0155 mgd = 2.6% of POTW’s average flow
1993 Sampling Episodes
Parameter July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
SOD, mg/L 13 58 12 104 33 72
COD, mg/L 249
TSS, mg/L 2 14 12 5
Total Solids. mg/L 14 5
pH 7 4 7.4 8.2 7.6 7.4
O&G, mg/L 4 40 39 23 13
Chloride, mg/L 1300 1160 567 574 400
Conductance. umho 5030 4400 2440 2600 1700
Copper 40 70 70 90
Lead 3 9
Mercur 0 2 -- -- --
Zinc 78 190 257 165 116 88
1994
Parameter Jan Feb
Sampling
March
Episodes
April May June
BOD, mg/L 107 72 146 156 118 141
TSS. mg/L 13 9 33 18 10 16
pH 8 2 7 6 9 4 9.5 6.0 8.7
O&G 9 6 5 1 29
Chloride. mg/L 1360 95 995 2160 32 992
Conductance. umho 7400 568 4220 8090 553 3970
Copper 430 -- 1280 -- 30
Lead 2 -- -- -- -- --
Zinc 490 1690’ 34 65 120 50
I. Zinc spike resulted from the use of zinc-contaminated sample bottle by Burlington Research (lab that
performed the analyses) Upon resampling with bottles that were pre-washed with acid, zinc was
analyzed at nominal levels
Code: -- = not detected. Concentration of metals = ugmlL (ppb)
36
-------
APPENDIX rn-I
Textile Mill NPDES Permits in the North Carolina APAM Database
NC0000094 Cranston Print Works - Fletcher
NC0000876 Cone Mills - Greensboro
NC000 1210 Monarch Hosiery Mills - Burlington
NC0001376 Burlington Industries - Wake Forest
NC0001406 Swift Textiles - Erwin
NC000I 627 National Spinning - Washington
NC000I 643 Fieldcrest Cannon - Eden
NC0001961 WestPoint Pepperell - Hamilton
NC0002305 Guilford Mills - Kenansville
NC0003450 StevcoKnit Fabrics - Wallace
NC0003522 WestPoint Pepperell - E lizabethtown
NC0003867 United Piece Dye Works - Edenton
NC0003913 Glen Raven Mills - Altamahaw
NC0004120 Cleveland Mills - Lawnda le
NC0004235 Minnette Textiles - Grover
NC0004243 American Thread - Charlotte
NC0004286 Tuscarora Yarns - China Grove
NC0004391 Grover Industries - Grover
NC0004405 Cone Mills - Cliffside
NC000461 8 WestPoint Pepperell - Lumberton
NC00048 12 Stowe-Pharr Mills - McAdenville
NC0005312 Chatham Manufacturing - Elkin
NC0005479 Fieldcrest Cannon - Laurel Hill
NC0005487 Fieldcrest Cannon - Salisbury
NC0005762 WestPoint Pepperell - Wagram
NC0006025 Burlington Industries - Forest City
NC0006190 Delta Mills - Maiden
NC0025 135 Huffnian Finishing - Granite Falls
NC0034860 Schneider Mills - Taylorsville
NC0043320 Burlington Indusi ies - Cordova
37
-------
APPENDIX ffl-2
North Carolina Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (APAM) Data
Sampling Episodes
Parameters Ia lb Ic Id 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e
Chloroform - - -- -- -- -- 17 16 12
Dibromochioromethane -- -- -- -- -- 5
Methylene chloride -- -- -- 9
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -- x x x x x x x x
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- -- -- -- -- -- x x --
Antimony -- 330
Cadmium -- -- -- -- -- 7
Chromium 17
Copper 116 94 69 47 40 20 -- -- 4
Mercury -- 0.2 -- -- -- 0.2 -- 0.6
Nickel -- -- -- -- 40 --
Zinc 27 72 22 37 100 21
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0004243 Plant: American Thread - Charlotte
Ia. 1989 - Lab: Environmental Testing
lb. 1991 - Lab: Commonwealth Labs of SC, Greenville, SC.
Ic. 1992 - Lab: Pace Labs. Asheville, NC.
Id. 1993 - Lab: Pace Labs
2. NC 0004286 Plant: Tuscarora Yarns - China Grove
(Fieldcrest Cannon, Kannapolis. NC)
2a. 1988 - Lab: EMS Labs, Charlotte, NC.
2b. 1989 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
2c. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research
2d. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
2e. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
Notes: Anhydrous sodium sulfate used to dry the solvent extract. Received in plastic jars, anhydrous sodium sulfate often
has plasticizer adhering to its surface Unless precautions are taken to remove the phthalates by prewashing with solvent
and/or by baking, phthalates will leach into the concentrated extract. Other sources of phthalate contamination are: use
of plasticized tubing in the automatic sampler; and heavily plasticized rubber gloves that may be worn by sampling
personnel. The plant admitted having used Tygon (plasticized) tubing in the automatic sampler in 1992 (2e), which could
account for phthalates found in samples previous to 1992. In 1988 (2a), 32 ppb di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was reported
in the sample, but 66 ppb was found in the blank! The blank was obtained by drawing reagent water through the
sampling pump prior to the commencement of sampling. In I a, the detection hnnt for the base/neutral analytes was 100
ug/L (sample diluted because of interference), which may be the reason phthalates were not detected in this sample. In
Ic, di(2-ethylhexyl) phtbalate was footnoted as a “possible laboratory contaminant.”
38
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Parameters
Bromodichioromethane
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichioroethylene
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium -- -- --
Chromium 260 320 980
Copper -- 10 30
Lead 11 -- 14
Mercury -- -- -- 1.1 0.7
Nickel 50 -- 52 19 -- --
Zinc -- 88 139 36 31 172
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0004235 Plant: Minnetce Textiles - Grover
la. 1988 - Lab: Burlington Research
lb. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research
Ic. 1992 - Lab: HydroLogic. Asheville, NC/Morrisville, NC
2. NC 0001210 Plant: Monarch Hosiery Mills - Burlington
2a. 1989 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
2b. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research
2c. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
2d. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
3. NC 0004120 Plant: Cleveland Mills - Lawndale
3a. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC.
3b. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
3c. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
Notes. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (TCB) is used as a carrier solvent for disperse dyes. Although it was not identified in ic
(1992) when analyzed by a different lab, it is also possible that the plant discontinued the use of the product that was
the source of TCB The source of chloroform and bromodichioromethane is likely to be the potable water supply
Sampling Episodes
la lb lc 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c
-- 9
54 660 16 -- -- 5
-- 7-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24
- - x - - - - -- - - - - - - - - x
- - x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
30 540 - - - - - - -- - - - - -- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51
-- 20 20
10
- - 100 5
-- 160 190
70 -- 8
470 -- -- --
20 240 220 360
-- 0.3 -- 0.4
142 219 46 53
39
-------
North Carolina APA1 ’I Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb ic id 2a 2b 2c 2d
Chloroform 20
Ethylbenzene -- -- -- 88
Methylene chloride 26
Toluene -- -- -- 12 -- -- -- 17
1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane -- -- -- 13
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -- -- x
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- -- x --
Arsenic 17
Cadmium -- 6 2.5 -- --
Chromium -- 5 80 -- 100 -- 210 160
Copper 1100 170 200 240 24 -- 30 50
Lead -- 90 -- -- 5 -- -- 20
Mercury 0.6 5.4 -- 0.3 -- -- 0.6
Nickel -- -- -- -- 19 -- -- 20
Zinc 62 71 59 36 70 -- 103 144
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form
1. NC 0004618 Plant. WestPoint Pepperell - Lumberton
la. 1987 - Lab: Oxford Labs. Wilmington, NC
lb. 1989 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
ic. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research
id. 1992 - Lab: Southern Testing & Research Labs, Wilson, NC
2. NC 0004812 Plant: Stowe-Pharr Mills - McAdenville
2a. 1989 - Lab: EMS Labs, Charlotte, NC
2b. 1990 - Lab: Par Labs, Charlotte, NC
2c. 1991 - Lab: Par Labs
2d. 1992 - Lab: Par Labs
40
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la 2a 2b 2c 3a
Methylene chloride 12
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -- -- x x
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony * * 580
Arsenic * *
Cadmium 6 * *
Chromium * * 6 96
Copper 70 * * 45 290
Lead 90 * *
Nickel * * 50 --
Zinc 128 * * 40 90
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
* = no data reported
1. NC 0004391 Plant: Grover Industries - Grover
la. 1987 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
2. NC 0005762 Plant: WestPoint Stevens (‘94) - Wagram
(J.P. Stevens ---> WestPoint Pepperell in ‘89)
2a. 1989 - Lab: Microbac Environmental Lab, Fayetteville, NC
2b. 1991 - Lab: Microbac Environmental Lab
2c. 1993 - Lab: Microbac Environmental Lab
3. NC 0002305 Plant: Guilford Mills - Kenansville
3a. 1993 - Lab: Heritage Labs
41
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling
Parameters la lb ic
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
Methylene chloride 15
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Episodes
id le 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c
-- -- -- -- 16
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
830 380 520
—— —— 11
-- 3 --
194 220 120
117 88 180
-- -- 170
-- 22 70
76 150 100
330 321
-- 26
-- 3.5
149 192
79 72
24 46
26
1. NC 0005312 Plant: Chatham Manufacturing - Elkin
la. 1988, - Lab: CompuChem Labs (sent data to Radian R&A)
lb. 1989 - Lafr Radian Research & Analytical Labs, Kernersville, NC
ic. 1990 - Lab: Radian R&A Labs
id. 1991 - Lab: Radian R&A Labs
le. 1992 - Lab: Radian R&A Labs
2. NC 0005479 Plant: Fieldcrest Cannon - Laurel Hill
2a. 1990 - Lab: EnviroTech Mid-Atlantic, Blacksburg, VA
(Virginia Tech Research Center)
2b 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
3. NC 0005487 Plant: Fieldcrest Cannon - Salisbury
(North Carolina Finishing)
3a. 1990 - Lab: EnviroTech Mid-Atlantic, Blacksburg, VA
3b. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
3c. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - 18
- - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- 18 9
—— — — —— — — —— —— 11
x x x x x x -- x
-- x -- -- -- -- x -- x x
300
5
20
90
-- 300
-- 13
8
10 7
30 -- 80
-- 160 --
-- -- -- -- 0.5 -- 0.2 --
90
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes x = detected, but attributable to sample
(--) = not detected above the “quantitation
the APAM reporting form.
39 58 51 20 141 15 73
contamination.
limit target” concentration specified in
42
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb lc id 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e
Bromomethane -- -- 85
Dibromochioromethane -- 7
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -- x -- -- x x --
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- -- -- -- -- -- x -- --
Antimony -- -- -- -- 300 187 -- --
Arsenic -- -- -- -- 18 40 31 74
Chromium 22 38 30 50 -- -- 5 -- --
Copper 7 17 -- -- 15 110 -- 160 90
Mercury -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Nickel 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Zinc 50 54 57 79 21 71 24 28 13
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above the “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0006025 Plant: Burlington Industries - Forest City
(J.C. Cowan plant)
la 1989 - Lab EMS Labs. Charlotte, NC
lb. 1990 - Lab: Pace Labs, Tampa. FL
Ic 1991 - Lab: Pace Labs, Asheville, NC
id. 1992 - Lab: Pace Labs
2. NC 0006190 Plant: Delta Mills - Maiden
2a. 1989 - Lab EMS Labs. Charlotte, NC
2b. 1990 - Lab: Burlington R earch, Burlington, NC
2c 1991 - Lab Furlington Research
2d. 1992 - Lab Burlington Research
2e. 1993 - Lab: Burlington Research
Note
Phthalates absent in 2d (1992) and 2e (1993) After studying the phthalate contamination problem in 1991, this lab began
routinely prewashing (hexane/meihylene chloride) the anhydrous sodium sulfate before using it to dry the solvent extract
of the wastewater sample
43
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb ic ld le 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e
Methylene chloride -- 13
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate x -- x x
Di-n-octyl phthalate x
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- x
Antimony -- -- -- -- 320 -- --
Arsenic -- -- -- -- -- 20 47 14 27 36
Cadmium -- -- -- -- -- 16 14 -- --
Chromium -- -- -- -- -- 74 23 -- --
Copper -- 100 20 196 137 27 12 -- 9
Lead -- - - -- -- -- 40
Mercury -- -- -- -- - - -- 0.3
Nickel -- -- -- 25 -- 22 42
Silver -- -- -- -- -- 10 -- -- --
Zinc -- 160 -- 41 92 70 41 39 49 18
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Code: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above the “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0001376 Plant: Burlington Industries - Wake Forest
la. 1987 - Lab’ Industrial & Environmental Analysts (lEA), RTP, NC
lb. 1989 - Lab: lEA
ic. 1990 - Lab: lEA
Id. 1991 - Lab: Research & Analytical Labs
le. 1992 - Lab: Research & Analytical Labs
2. NC 0001406 Plant: Swift Textiles - Erwin
2a 1989 - Lab’ “37724” “
2b. 1990- Lab: “37724” ?
2c. 1991 - Lab: Chemical & Environmental Technology, RTP, NC
2d. 1992 - Lab: C & E Technology
2e. 1993 - Lab: C & E Technology
44
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c
Bromodichioromethane -- -- -- 10
Chloroform 6 -- -- -- 25 -- -- 11
1,1, 1-Trichioroethane 106 310 -- -- -- -- - - --
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -- -- x -- x -- x x
Di-n-octyl phthalate -- -- - - -- x -- -- --
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- -- X
Arsenic -- -- -- -- -- -- 190 44 106
Cadmium -- -- 6 -- 4
Chromium -- -- 100 -- 33 -- 5 -- --
Copper 230 40 110 170 65 7 -- 50 40
Lead 20 -- -- -- 26
Mercury 0.4 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- 0.6 3.4
Nickel -- -- -- -- 27 -- -- 11 --
Silver -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 50
Zinc 665 161 43 29 275 18 427 89 26
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above the ‘quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0003913 Plant: Glen Raven Mills - Altamahaw
la. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
lb. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
2. NC 0003522 Plant. WestPoint Pepperell - Elizabethtown
2a. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
2b. 1991 - Lab: Southern Testing & Research Labs, Wilson, NC
3. NC 0001627 Plant: National Spinning - Washington
3a. 1987 - Lab: Environment 1, Greenville, NC
3b. 1992 - Lab: James R. Reed, Newport News, VA
4. NC 0004405 Plant: Cone Mills - Cliffside
4a. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
4b. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
4c. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
Notes: In Plant 1, the methyichioroform may have been used as a solvent, or may have had some other use, such as a
dye carrier In Plant 3, phthalates were detected in 1987 (3a), but not in 1992 (3b) by a different lab. In the interim,
the source of phthalate contamination (sodium sulfate) had become widely recognized.
45
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb ic 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c
Bromodichloromethane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 27 14
Bromoform -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8
Chloroform -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 19 37
Dibromochioromethane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 5
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate x x x -- -- x x -- -- --
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- -- -- -- -- x -- x x x
Antimony -- -- -- -- 380 - - -- 52
Arsenic -- -- -- 10 -- 10 -- 22
Cadmium -- -- -- -- 8 2 -- --
Chromium 5 -- -- 60 8 -- -- 9 -- --
Copper 40 20 80 162 340 280 330 140 170 120
Lead -- -- -- -- 110 -- -- -- -- --
Nickel -- -- -- -- -- 10 -- -- -- 9
Selenium -- -- -- -- 15 -- -- -- -- --
Zinc 293 99 108 952 502 42 30 42 -- 67
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above the “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0001643 Plant: Fieldcrest Cannon - Eden
la. 1989 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
lb. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
ic. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
2. NC 0001961 Plant: WestPoint Pepperell - Hamilton
2a. 1988 - Lab: Oxford Labs, Wilmington, NC
2b. 1989 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
2c. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research
2d. 1992 - Lab: Southern Testing & Research Labs, Wilson, NC
3. NC 0003450 Plant: Stevcoknit Fabrics - Wallace
3a. 1990, - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
3b. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
3c. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
46
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb ic id le 2a 2b 2c 2d
Methylene chloride -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *
Toluene -- 6
Tetrachioroethylene -- 81
Trichiorofluoromethane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate - - -- -- -- -- -- -- x x
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- -- -- x x -- -- --
Antimony 380
Arsenic 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Cadmium 15 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5
Chromium -- 13 -- 7 -- -- -- --
Copper 150 170 250 79 110 60 -- 105
Lead 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- 31 --
Mercury -- 0.3 0.7 0.9 -- -- -- -- 0.4
Nickel 50 11 -- - - -- -- 76 73 31
Selenium 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Silver -- 7 10 -- -- -- -- -- 7
Zinc 167 89 113 94 84 190 -- 268 416
Concentration unit: ugfL (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above the “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
* = detected in method blank.
1. NC 0003867 Plant: United Piece Dye Works - Edenton
la. 1988 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlington, NC
lb. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research
ic. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
id. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
le. 1993 - Lab: Burlington Research
2. NC 0034860 Plant: Schneider Mills - Tay lorsville
2a. 1989 - Lab: General Engineering Lab (Environmental Testing)
2b. 1990 - Lab: Pace
2c. 1991 - Lab: Hydro Analytical Labs
2d. 1992 - Lab: Industrial & Environmental Analysts (lEA), RTP, NC
47
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb ic 2a 2b 2c
Bromodichioromethane -- -- 14
Chloroform 9 20 48
Di-n-butyl phthalate -- -- x
Antimony -- -- -- -- 170 --
Arsenic 60 78 10 15 -- 42
Cadmium -- -- -- 4 --
Chromium 16 -- 6 17 40 --
Copper 90 50 20 69 480 140
Lead -- 40
Mercury 1.4 0.2 --
Nickel 20 35 50
Silver 6 100 --
Zinc 119 1240 680 112 890 320
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above the “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0025135 Plant. Huffman Finishing - Granite Falls
la. 1990 - Lab: Burlington Research, Burlingtonl, NC
lb. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
ic. 1992 - Lab. Burlington Research
2 NC 0000094 Plant: Cranston Priniworks - Fletcher
2a. 1989 - Lab: CompuChem
2b. 1992 - Lab. Pace
2c. 1993 - Lab: Pace
48
-------
North Carolina APAM Data (cont.)
Sampling Episodes
Parameters la lb ic id 2a 2b 2c 2d
Methylene chloride -- 14
1,1,1 -Trichioroethane 11
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate x x -- x x -- -- x
Di-n-butyl phthalate x -- -- -- x -- x x
Butylbenzyl phthalate -- x -- -- -- -- -- --
Antimony -- -- -- 49 -- -- -- --
Arsenic -- -- -- -- -- 180 88 17
Chromium 7 -- -- -- 8 5 -- --
Copper 20 10 10 10 51 10 10 10
Lead -- -- -- -- 38 10
Mercury -- -- -- 0.7 -- --
Nickel -- -- -- -- 44
Silver 9 -- -- -- 5 -- -- --
Zinc 50 72 56 54 70 70 44 61
Concentration unit: ug/L (ppb)
Codes: x = detected, but attributable to sample contamination.
(--) = not detected above the “quantitation limit target” concentration specified in
the APAM reporting form.
1. NC 0043320 Plant: Burlington Industries - Cordova
la. 1989 - Lab. Burlington Research
lb. 1990 - Lab Burlington Research
ic. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
id. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
2. NC 0000876 Plant: Cone lills - Greensboro
2a. 1989 - LabS Cone Mills Technical Center
2b. 1990 - Lab. AquaTech Environmental Consultants
2c. 1991 - Lab: Burlington Research
2d. 1992 - Lab: Burlington Research
Notes.
Phthalates were generally not detected after labs began pre-washing or baking the anhydrous sodium sulfate used to dry
the so!vent (methylene chloride) extract However, some plants were still using Tygon tubing with their compositing
samplers
49
-------
APPENDIX 111-3
Validated’ NPDES Permits from PCS
Alabama
AL0001627 Avondale Mills - Sylacauga
AL0002968 WestPoint Stevens (Pepperell) - Opelika
AL0021997 Masland Carpets - Atmore
Arkansas
AR0000892 Burlington Industries - Monticello
AROO45IOI Fruit of the Loom- Mississippi Co.
Arizona
AZ0022659 Bisbee-Douglas int’l Airport - Douglas
Georgia
GA000006O Rabun Apparel - Rabun Gap
GA00002I3 Thomaston Mills - Thomaston
GA0000345 Lindale Manuf - Lindale
GA0000850 Galey & Lord - Shannon
GA0001791 Chicopee - Hall Co.
GA0002038 Coats America - Stephens Co.
GA0002224 Bibb Co. - Monroe Co.
GA0002712 Jefferson Mills - Jackson Co.
GA0003 115 William Carter - Barnesville
GA0003280 King Finishing - Screven Co.
GA0003409 Dundee Mills - Spaulding Co.
GA0003697 Mohawk Commercial Carpets - Laurens Co.
GA0003760 Forstmann - Laurens Co.
GA0003778 Forstmann - Louisville
GA0024104 Fieldcrest Cannon - Lyerly
Kentucky
KY0002445 Jockey Int l - Carlisle
Maine
ME0000II6 Cascade Woolen Mill - Oakland
ME000 1902 Guilford of Maine - Guilford
ME0002526 Robinson Manuf - Oxford
Massachusetts
MA000 1538 Guilford Industries - Douglas
MA0003697 Veratec - Griswoldville
MA0004l7l Worcester Spinning & Finishing - Leicester
MA0005355 Theave Inc. - Norton
Mississippi
MS0000876 Denton Mills - New Albany
MS000 1848 Burlington Denim - Stonewall
MS0035882 Kimberly Clark - Corinth
MS0047759 Greenville Manuf. - Greenville
New Jersey
NJ0004324 Fiber Technology Group - Buena (Landisville)
NJ0004901 Oxford Textile - Oxford
1 Selected from 413 textile (SIC 22) NPDES permits extracted from PCS, 7/8/93. Validation means these
permits were issued for control of pollutant parameters in textile process wastewater.
50
-------
Validated NPDES Permits from PCS (cont.)
North Carolina
NC0000094 Cranston Print Works - Fletcher
NC00008 17 Wilmington Corp. - Wilmington
NC0000876 Cone Mills - Greensboro
NC000I2IO Monarch Hosiery - Altamahaw
NC000 1376 Burlington Industries - Wake Forest
NC000 1406 Swift Textiles - Erwin
NC000 1627 National Spinning - Washington
NC000 1643 Fieldcrest Cannon - Eden (Source APAM data, not in PCS under SIC 22_)
NC000165I Cuip Inc. - Guilford Co.
NC000 1961 WestPoini Pepperell - Hamilton
NC0002305 Guilford Mills - Kenansville
NC0003450 Stevcoknit Fabrics - Wallace
NC0003522 WestPoint Stevens (Pepperell) - Elizabethtown
NC0003867 U.S. Piece Dye Works - Edenton
NC0003913 Glen Raven Mills - Altamahaw
NC000412O Cleveland Mills - Lawndale
NC0004235 New Minette Textiles - Grover
NC0004243 Coats American - Charlotte
NC0004286 Fieldcrest Cannon - China Grove
NC0004391 Grover Industries - Tiyon
NC0004405 Cone Mills - Cliffside (Source APAM data, not in PCS under SIC 22_)
NC0004618 WestPoint Pepperell - Lumberton
NC0004812 Stowe-Pharr Mills - McAdenville
NC0005312 Chatham Manuf Acquisition Corp - Elkin
NC0005355 Surratt Hosiery Mill - Demon
NC0005479 Fieldcrest Cannon - Laurel Hill
NC0005487 Fieldcrest Mills - Spencer
NC0005762 J.P. Stevens - Wagram
NC0006025 Burlington Industries - Forest City
NC0006033 JPS Autoproducts - Cramerton (Gaston Co.)
NC0006190 Delta Mills - Maiden
NC0007927 Arlene Hosiery Mill - Hickory
NC0025 135 Huffman Finishing - Granite Falls
NC0034860 Schneider Mills - Taylorsville
NC0043320 Burlington Industries - Cordova
NC0080993 Spartan Mills - Cliffside
Pennsylvania
PA0008231 Gold Mills Dyehouse - Pine Grove
PA0009 172 Chloe Textiles - Middletown
PA0013765 Industrial Parks, Ltd. - Bangor
Rhode Island
Rl0000191 Kenyon Industries - Charlestown
South Carolina
SC0000213 Mohawk Commercial Carpet - Liberty
SC0000264 Greenwood Mills - Liberty
SC0000299 Fieldcrest Cannon - Abbevilic
SC0000353 Milliken - Abbeville
SC0000426 Blair Mills - Belton
SC0000477 Milliken - Pendleton
SC0000485 La France Industry - La France
51
-------
Validated NPDES Permits from PCS (cont.)
South Carolina (cont.)
SC000059I J.P Stevens - Clemson
SC0000990 Plusa - Jamestown
SC0001 163 Greenwood Mills - Orangeburg Co.
SC000134 I Veratec - Bethune
SC0001368 Cone Mills - Carlisle
SC000 1490 Reeves Bros. - Bishopville
SC00016O1 Woodside Mills - Fountain Inn
SC000I8O5 Mohasco Industries - Dillon
SC0002 135 CCX Fiberglass Products - Walterboro
SC0002151 Delta Mills - Wallace
SC0002453 Spartan Mills - Startex
5C0002500 Dixie Yarns - Chesterfield Co.
SC0002569 Albany International - St Stephens
SC0002704 Gale)’ & Lord - Society Hill
SC0002747 Milliken - Valle Falls (Spartanburg Co.)
SC0003093 Milliken - Barnwell
SC0003051 Milliken - Union Co
SC0003 182 Milliken - Blacksburg
SC0003 191 Milliken - Marietta
SC0003255 Springs Industries - Lancaster Co
SC0023264 Wateree Textiles - Camden
SC0035 157 Oneita Industries - Fingerville
SC0035947 Spring Cit) Knitting Co - Gaffney
SC0040363 National Dye Works - Lynchburg
SC0043419 Fashion Fabrics of America - Orangeburg
Texas
TX0000698
TX00007O 1
Virginia
VA000I 295
VA000I 376
VA000 1538
VA000I 554
VA000 1643
VA000I 651
VA000 1678
VA0001 864
VA000305 1
VA0003069
VA0004677
VA0050822
Washington
WA0000230 Pendleton Woolen Mills - Washougal
West Virginia
WV0001261 Kellwood Co - Spencer
WesiPoint Pepperell (Mission Valley) - New Braunfels
WestPoint Pepperell - Ne Braunfels
WesiPoint Pepperell - Keysville
Halifax Damask Mills - South Boston
Bibb Co - Brookneal
Liberty Fabrics - Patrick Co.
Burlington Industries - Halifax Co
Burlington Industries - Mecklenburg Co.
Burlington Industries - Pitisylvania Co
Aileen Inc. - Edinburg
Virginia Dyeing Corp - Emporia
Boykins Narrow Fabrics - Boykins
Burlington Industries - Glasgow
J.P. Stevens - Drakes Branch
52
-------
APPENDIX ffl-4
Summary of Parameters With Data Reported to the PCS by Textile Mills
Textile Mills
Parameters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ammonia * * * *
Chlorine * *
Sulfide * * * * * ‘I ’ *
Bromodichloromethane *
Chloroform * *
Dibromochloromethane *
Antimony * *
Arsenic *
Cadmium *
Chromium * * * * * *
Copper * * * * * * * *
Lead * * *
Thallium *
Zinc * * * * * *
* = indicates data was available for the parameter
Textile Mills:
1. Avondale Mills - Sylacauga, AL
2. WestPoint Pepperell - Opelika. AL
3. Masland Carpets Inc. - Atmore. AL
4. Rabun Apparel Inc - Rabun Gap. GA
5. Thomaston Mills - Thomaston. GA
6. Chicopee - Gainesville, GA
7 Coats American Inc. - Toccoa. GA
8. Jefferson Mills - Jefferson, GA
9. William Carter Co. - Barnesville, GA
10. King Finishing Co - Augusta. GA
53
-------
Summary of Parameters With Data Reported to the PCS by Textile Mills (cont.)
Parameters
Ammonia
Chlorine
Sulfide
Chloroform
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Textile Mills
11 12 13 14
* = indicates data was available for the parameter
Textile Mills:
11 Dundee Mills Griffin. GA
12. Forstman & Co.- Dublin, GA
13 Forsrman & Co - Louisville, GA
14 Jockey Intrn’I - Carlisle, KY
15 Guilford of Maine - E Douglas, MA
16. Veratec Inc. - Griswoldville, MA
17 Tweave Inc - Norton, MA
18 Robinson Manuf - Oxford, ME
19. Burlington Denim - Stonewall, MS
20. Kimberly-Clark Corp. - Cornith, MS
*
21 Oxford Textile Inc - Oxford, NJ
22. Gold Mills Dyehouse - Pine Grove, PA
23 Chloe Textiles - Middletown, PA
24 Kenyon Industries - Kenyon, RI
25. Greenwood Mills - Greenwood, SC
26 Mohawk Industries - Bennettsville, SC
27 Milliken & Co - Abbeville, SC
28. Milliken & Co. - Pendleton, SC
29 LaFrance Industries - Mt. Vernon, SC
30 WestPoint Stevens - Clemson,SC
15 16 17 18 19 20
*
*
*
*
*
* * *
* *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* *
*
*
*
Parameters
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ammonia
*
*
*
Chlorine
*
*
*
*
Cyanide
Sulfide
‘
*
‘I ’
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Formaldehyde
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
*
*
*
Cadmium
*
Chromium
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Copper
Lead
“
*
*
Silver
*
Zinc
*
*
*
*
54
-------
Summary of Parameters With Data Reported to the PCS by Textile Mills (cont.)
Textile Mills
31 32 33 34
* = indicates data was available for the parameter
Textile Mills
31 Plusa Inc - Jamestown, SC
32 Veratec - Bethune, SC
33 Cone Mills - Carlisle. SC
34 Reeves Bros. - Bishopville. SC
35 Mohawk Industries - Dillon. SC
36 CCX Fiberglass - Walterboro, sc
37 Delta Mills - Wallace, SC
38. Spartan Mills - Siartex. SC
39. Dixie Yarns - Chesterfield, SC
40. Gale & Lord - Society Hill, SC
41 Milliken & Co. - Union, SC
42 Milliken & Co. - Bamwell, SC
43 Milliken & Co. - Blacksburg, SC
44 Milliken & Co. - Marietta, SC
45 Springs Industries - Grace, SC
46 Wateree Textiles Co. - Camden, SC
47 Milliken & Co. - Campobello, SC
48 Spring City Knitting - Gaffney, SC
49. Fash Fabrics of America - Orangeburg, SC
50 Mission Valley Textiles - New Braunfels, TX
Parameters
35 36 37 38 39 40
Ammonia
*
*
*
Chlorine
*
*
‘ I ’
*
Sulfide
*
*
* *
*
*
*
Chromium
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
Copper
*
*
Zinc
*
‘I ’
Textile Mills
Parameters
41
42
43 44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Ammonia
*
*
*
4
Chlorine
*
*
*
4
4
Sulfide
‘
*
* *
4
4
*
Arsenic
4
*
Chromium
4
* *
*
4
55
-------
Summary of Parameters With Data Reported to the PCS by Textile Mills (conL)
Textile Mills
Parameters
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Ammonia
*
*
Chlorine
*
*
*
Sulfide
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chromium
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chromium
+6
4 ’
4’
Copper
*
4’
Lead
4’
Zinc
4’
4’
4’
* = indicates data was available for the parameter
Textile Mills:
51. The Bibb Co. - Brookneal. VA
52. Liberty Fabrics - New York, VA
53 Burlington Industries - Halifax, VA
54. Burlington Industries - Clarksville, \‘A
55. Burlington Industries - Aliavista. VA
56 Aileen Inc - Edinburg. VA
57, Virginia Dyeing Corp - Emporia. VA
58. Pendleton Woolen Manuf - Washougal. WA
59. Kellwood Co - Spencer W\’
56
-------
APPENDIX IV-!
Estimated Loadings of Parameters From The PCS Database
Methodology
Limitations of the PCS Database
I. Industry classification of some NPDES permits is inaccurate.
(a) Some NPDES permits were originally encoded under an incorrect primary SIC code, and the permit’s PCS
record remains unrevised. Example: the NPDES permits of two OCPSF plants (SIC 28) were retrieved as
textile facilities (SIC 22). Can cause the number of permits in an industry to be overstated or understated.
(b) Some NPDES permits are archaic, or currently invalid. Can cause the number of permits in an industry to be
overstated.
2. The list of an industry’s NPDES permits may be incomplete.
(a) Only facilities considered “major’ (defined as those with discharges posing “the greatest threat to human health
or the environment”) are required to submit monthly DMRs to the PCS.
(b) Both outfalls and pollutant parameters may be missing from the record of individual facilities, because they are
only required to report data for those parameters that are specified in the NPDES permit conditions
3 Data entry errors
(a) Manual transcription errors
(b) Unit of measure in the monthly discharge reports (DMRs) encoded incorrectly.
4. Several loading estimates based on the use of maximum concentration and flow were extremly large. Parameter
loadings estimated from the PCS database are subject to these and other possible errors.
Assumptions in Data Selection
1. Loadings can only be estimated when records are available with valid concentration and corresponding flow
Depending on the monitoring requirements imposed by the permit, concentration may be reported in many
different units in the PCS. EDS adjusts 26 different measures (units) of concentration and three of flow to obtain
units that are compatible for estimating parameter loadings. Gaps of incompatible data in the record
of some parameters may cause loadings to be underestimated.
2. When both quantity and concentration are available, EDS first uses the reported parameter loading value. EDS
then estimates parameter loading from discharge flow and concentration. The EDS routine selects concentration
measurements from the PCS in the following order of preference:
Avg daily conc.> Max. daily conc.> Mm. daily conc.
3 In many cases, both a net (excludes parameter loading of raw process water) and gross concentration for a single
parameter and discharge outfall were reported to the PCS When both net and gross values were reported, net
concentrations were used Gross values were used only when net concentrations were unavailable.
4 Multiple monitoring locations at a facility were assumed to represent independent outfalls. If two monitoring
locations are actually on the same outfall, double counting can occur Such estimates would overstate the actual
loading of some parameters.
5. Thirty operating days per month were assumed in the calculations.
57
-------
Editing Criteria for Estimated Loadings
The parameter loading data obtained from the PCS by the EDS computer routine were edited according to the
following criteria.
1. Exclude loadings for conventional and non-conventional parameters (e.g., BOD, TSS,
Oil & Grease, COD, total phenols) that represent groups of chemicals.
2. Exclude loadings for “relatively non-toxic’ anion and cation parameters (e.g.,
phosphorus, phosphate, chloride, sulfate, sulfite, nitrogen, nitrite, sodium chloride, and
sodium).
3. When concentration and quantity of a chemical parameter are reported as Thelow the
detection limit,” process the data as half the detection limit, if the parameter was
detected at anytime; and as zero, if the parameter was never detected.
4. If multiple parameters are reported for the same chemical at the same discharge pipe,
use the parameter with the maximum loading reported.
5. Calculate a facility’s total loading of a chemical parameter by summing the
parameter’s loadings across all discharge pipes.
Editing Criteria for Outliers
Loading values were identified as outliers and eliminated, if they met the following criteria.
I. Were at least 3X as large as the next highest PCS value and the highest TRI (1992)
value for that chemical
2 Failed Roxner’s outlier test statistic, assuming a log-normal distribution of values for a
chemical across all of the industries
3 Accounted for more than 30% of the total load for the chemical across all industries
The contractor’s memo, in summarizing outlier editing criteria, noted that loading values for some chemicals
(e.g , chlorine, copper and zinc) estimated from PCS data far exceeded the largest annual loading estimated from
TRI data The contractor further explains that “high” loading estimates from PCS data were retained, even though
qualifying as an outlier because the estimate was at least 3X as large as the highest TRI loading estimate for that
chemical. But this criterion is based on a faulty premise, namely that a chemical loading calculated from PCS data
bears some consistency with loadings of the chemical that were reported to the TRI.
There is no reason to expect loading values estimated from PCS data would be similar to loading values from
TRI data, because the two databases are founded upon dissimilar data. The TRI loadings derive from estimated
losses of process chemicals o wastewater, where the amount that was released to surface waters (includes treated
effluent and storniwater runoff) or to POTWs was estimated by assuming the loss of a percentage of the total
amount of the chemical used annually by the facility. In contrast, the PCS data derive from measured
concentrations and flows (treated effluent only) that were reported by NPDES permits.
58
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - PCS Database
Parameter NPDES LBYO’ LBYE 2
Ammonia AL0001627 2119 2119
AL0002968 3382 3382
AL0021997 826 826
GA000006O 4112 4112
IvLA0003697 894 894
SC0000299 2993 2993
SC000059 1 3771 3771
SC0002500 617 617
SC0003255 24120 24120
SC0043419 5950 5950
Chionne GA0003 I IS 1511 1511
GA0003409 1751 1751
SC0000264 73836 4045303
SC0000990 639 647
SC0001490 398 470
SC0001805 979 979
SC0002135 2902 2902
SC0002453 1099 1099
SC0035947 1036 1036
VA 000 1678 2447 2447
Sullide AL0001627 4595 4595
GA00002 13 6387 6387
PA0008231 4585 4585
SC0000477 3380 3380
SC0001341 291 28-173
SC0002704 8121 8121
SC0003093 1526 1526
SC0003182 4910 4910
SC0003I9I 1872 1872
SC0003255 7569 7569
Bromodichioromethane GA0003 115 2 2
Chloroform GA00002 13 003 003
GA0003I I5 2 2
GA0003409 21 21
Dibromochioromethane GA00002 13 001 001
Di(2-eth [ hexy1) phthalate GA0003409 3 3
R10000191 11 13
SC0002135 3 3
Formaldehyde PA0009I 72 74 74
SC000059 1 912 912
Cyanide SC0000485 4 5
Antimony GA0002038 44 44
GA0003115 28 72
Arsenic GA00002 13 68 88
GA0003409 8 8
I Amount discharged annual1 (pounds per year) Calculation assumed a concentration value of ZERO,
when reported concentration was below detection limit
2 Amount discharged annually (pounds per year) Calculation assumed a concentration value of HALF
DETECTION LIMIT, when reported concentration was below detection limit
59
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - PCS (corn.)
Parameter NPDES LBYO LBYE
Arsenic SC0003 191 6 12
TX0000698 33 III
Cadmium GA0003 1 15 191 191
R10000 19 1 02 04
Chromium AL0002968 188 188
GA0003280 149 149
GA0003778 125 138
GA0003760 446 446
R10000191 174 174
SC000I368 277 277
SC0003 182 136 136
SC0003255 144 317
Chromium+6 VA000I6SI 5135 5135
WV000126 1 7 7
Coppci GA000006O 46 46
GA0000213 170 180
GA0002038 206 206
GA0003 1 15 8767 8767
GA0003280 14 14
GA0003409 610 610
NJ0004901 71 71
RI0000 191 178 178
SC0001490 777 777
VA000165I l4379 14379
Lead AL000 1627 3 3
AL0002968 2 2
GA000006O 13 13
MA0003697 5 6
Rlc)000 191 5 5
VA0001538 01 01
Si1 ci MA0003697 2 2
R10000 19 1 05 1
VA000 165 1 943 943
VA0001678 187 187
Zinc GA0000213 677 677
GA0002038 332 332
GA0003 1 15 46168 46168
GA0003409 576 576
NJ000490 1 277 277
R1000019 1 124 124
SC0000477 576 576
SC0001490 1138 1138
SC0002500 146 146
VA000 165 1 183842 183842
60
-------
APPENDIX IV-2
Textile Facilities in TRI Database
Almore Dye House N. Hollywood, CA
Anchor Dyeing & Finishing Philadelphia, PA
Andrex Industries Asheville, NC
Amerbelle Corp Vernon, CT
American & Efird Inc Mount Holly, NC
American & Efird Inc Salisbury, NC
Amoco Fabrics Co Hazelhurst, GA
Anglo Fabrics Co Webster, MA
Anvil Knitwear Kings Mountain, NC
Atlas Carpet Mills Los Angeles, CA
Avon Mills Sylacauga, AL
Baltic Dyeing & Finishing Passaic, NJ
BASF Corp Sylvania, GA
Bassett-Walker Inc Martinsville, VA
Bekaert Corp Rogers, AR
Belding Corticelli Thread Hendersonville, NC
BGF Industries Altavista, VA
Bibb Co Rockingham, NC
Bibb Co (Whitehorse plant) Greenville, SC
Bibb Co Columbus, GA
Bloomsburg Mills Monroe, NC
Burke Mills Valdese, NC
Burlington House Finishing Burlington, NC
Burlington House Monticello, AR
Burlington Industries Rabun Gap, GA
Burlington Industries Statesville, NC
Burlington Menswear Raeford, NC
Cascade Woolen Mill Oakland, ME
Carisbrook Industries Glens Falls, NY
Carleton Woolen Winthrop, ME
Caron International Rochelle, IL
Champion Dye & Finishing Paterson, NJ
Chatham Mfg Elkin, NC
Chem-Tech Finishers Dalton, GA
Cheraw Dyeing & Finishing Cheraw, SC
Cinderella Knitting Gastonja, NC
Clarksville Finishing Clarksville, VA
Coats American Inc Toccoa, GA
Collins & Aikman Roxboro, NC
Collins & Aikman Dalton, GA
Collins & Aikman Albemarle, NC
Columbus Coated Fabrics Columbus, OH
Concord Fabrics Washington, GA
Copeland Inc Burlington, NC
JC Cowan Finishing Forest City, NC
Cramerton Automotive Fabrics Cramerton, NC
Cranston Print Works Webster. MA
Cranston Pnnt Works Fletcher, NC
Cross Creek Apparel Mount Airy, NC
Dan River Inc Danville, VA
61
-------
Textile Facilities in TRI (cont.)
Delta Mills Marketing Wallace, SC
Dixie Yarns Inc Tryon, NC
Dixie Yarns Inc Chattanooga, TN
Dorado Processing Woonsocket, RI
Dumaine Towel Mill Fieldale, VA
Duro Finishing Fall River, MA
Duro Textile Printers Fall River, MA
Dyersburg Fabrics Dyersburg, TN
Dyersburg Steel Cord Dyersburg, TN
Eastland Woolen Corinna, ME
Facemate Corp Chicopee, MA
Fashion Fabrics of America Orangeburg, SC
Freudenberg-Nonwoven Hopkinsville, KY
Freudenberg-Nonwoven Lowell, MA
Fiberweb NA Inc Washougal, WA
Fieldcrest Cannon Kannapolis, NC
Fieldcrest Cannon Eden, NC
Fieldcrest Cannon Calhoun Falls, NC
Firestone Fiber & Textile Gastonia, NC
Forstmann & Co E. Dublin, GA
Forstmann & Co Milledgeville, GA
Forstmann & Co Louisville, GA
Galey & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC
Gehring Tricot Dolgeville, NY
GenCorp Polymer Columbus, MS
General Tire Inc Barnesville, GA
Glamourette Fashion Quebradillas, PR
Glenoit Mills Inc Tarboro, NC
Glen Raven Mills Anderson, SC
Glen Raven Mills Altamahaw, NC
Gold Mills Dyeing Pine Grove, PA
Golding Industries Marion, SC
Goldiex Inc Goldboro, NC
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC
Graniteville Co (Greg plant’) Graniteville, SC
GS Roofing Products N Charleston, SC
Guilford Mills Greensboro, NC
Guilford Mills Kenansville, NC
L. Hanirick Inc Gaffney, SC
Hanes Dye & Finishing Winston-Salem, NC
Harriss & Covington High Point, NC
Holliston Mills Inc Church Hill, TN
Homestead Industries Claremont, NH
Hope Valley Dyeing W. Warwick, RI
Hornwood Inc Lilesville, NC
Hurt Finishing Hurt, VA
International Paper Lewisburg, PA
International Woolen Sanford, ME
Interstate Dye & Finishing Paterson, NJ
Ithaca Industries Robbins, NC
Ithaca Industries Wilkesboro, NC
Ithaca Industries Clinton, SC
62
-------
Textile Facilities in TRI (cont.)
WG Humphrey Toccoa, GA
Joan Fabrics Corp Lowell, MA
Joan Fabrics Corp Fall River, MA
Joan Fabrics Corp Newton, NC
JP Stevens Wagram, NC
Kayser-Roth Corp Arecibo, PR
Kayser-Roth Corp Ashboro, NC
Kayser-Roth Corp Graham, NC
Kayser-Roth Corp Lumberion, NC
Kayser-Roth Corp Prosperity, SC
Kimberly-Clark La Grange, GA
King Finishing Dover, GA
Kingstree Kingstree, SC
Lees Commercial Carpet Glasgow, VA
Liberty Fabrics Jamesville, NC
Liberty Fabrics Gordonsville, VA
Liberty Fabrics Woolwine, VA
LA Dye & Print Works (I & 2) Los Angeles, CA
Lowell Bleacher , Griffin, GA
Lverlv Rug Mill Lyerly, GA
3M Corp Freehold, NJ
Magee Carpet Co Bloomsburg, PA
Magnolia Finishing Blacksburg, SC
Maiden Mills Industries Lawrence, MA
Manner Textile Haledon, NJ
Marijon Dyeing & Finishing E Rutherford, NJ
JB Martin Co Leesville, SC
Masland Industries Carlisle, PA
Mayo Knitting Mill Tarboro, NC
Microfibres South Winston-Salem, NC
Milliken & Co Belton, SC
Milliken & Co Abbeville, SC
Milliken & Co Marietta, SC
Milliken & Co La Grange, GA
Milliken & Co (Elm plant) La Grange, GA
Milliken & Co (VaIw plant) La Grange, GA
Mohawk Carpet Corp Dillon, SC
Mohican Mills Lincolnton, NC
Moretz Mills Inc Newton, NC
Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Morganton, NC
Mount Vernon Mills Tnon, GA
Multitex Corp of America Calhoun, GA
National Felt Co Easthampton, MA
National Spinning Co Washington, NC
North Bergen Piece Dye N Bergen, NJ
North Carolina Finishing Salisbury, NC
Oxford Textile Oxford, NJ
Park Avenue Finishing Burlington, NC
Pennaco Hosiery Grenada, MS
Perennial Print Corp Paterson, NJ
Phoenix Mfg London, KY
Pioneer Finishing Fall River, MA
63
-------
Textile Facilities in TRI (corn.)
Plusa Inc Jamestown, Sc
Poughkeepsie Finishers Paterson, NJ
Precision Fabrics Greensboro, NC
Renco Finishing Fair Lawn, NJ
Rice Hosiery High Point, NC
Robinson Mfg Oxford, ME
Rochambeau Worsted Manville, RI
Rock Hill Printing Rock Hill, SC
Rockland Bainberg inc Bamberg, SC
Rockland Bleach & Dye Baltimore, MD
Rogers Corp Rogers, CT
Royalty Carpet Mills Irvine, CA
Russell Corp Alexander City, AL
Santee Print Works Sumter, SC
Sara Lee Hosiery Winston-Salem, NC
Sara Lee Hosiery Lumberton, NC
Sara Lee Hosiery Rockingham, NC
Sara Lee Hosiery Florence, SC
Sara Lee Hosiery Bennettsville, SC
Sara Lee Hosiery Hartsville, SC
Sara Lee Hosiery Marion, SC
Scotisboro Rug Co Scottsboro, AL
Schuylkill Haven Bleacherv Schuylkill, PA
Seville Dyeing Woonsocket, RI
Shaw Industries (Plants 1.24.81 Dalton, GA
Shaw Industries Cartersville, GA
Shaw Industries Andalusia, AL
Slane Hosiery Mill High Point, NC
South Carolina Elastic Co Landrum, SC
Southern Phenix Textiles Phenix City, AL
Spartan Mills Startex, SC
Springs Bath Fashion Nashville, TN
Springs industries Calhoun, GA
Springs Industries Lyman, SC
Sianly Knitting Mills Oakboro, NC
Sunbrite Dye Co Passaic, NJ
Superba Print Works Mooresville, NC
Swift Textiles mc Columbus, GA
Swift Textiles Inc Erwin, NC
Synthetics Finishing Long View, NC
Synthetics Finishing Hickory, NC
Talon Inc Lake City, SC
Tee Jays Mfg Co Florence, AL
TexiLeather Toledo, OH
TexPrint Inc Macon, GA
Thomaston Mills Thomaston, GA
Threads USA Gastonia, NC
Tietex Corp Spartanburg, SC
Travis Knits Inc Cherryville, NC
Unifi Inc Madison, NC
Unifi Inc Mayodan, NC
Unifi Inc Reidsville, NC
64
-------
Textile Facilities in TRI (cont.)
United Piece Dye Works Eclenton, NC
US Finishing Greenville, SC
US Textiles Corp Charlotte, NC
Vanity Fair Mills Monroeville, AL
Wansona Mfg Wadesboro, NC
Warwick Dyeing W. Warwick, RI
Wehadkee Yam Mills Talladega, AL
Wellman Inc Johnsonville, SC
Western Piece Dyers Chicago, IL
WestPoint Pepperell Columbus, GA
WestPoint Pepperell Lumberton, NC
WestPoint Pepperell La Grange, GA
WestPoini Pepperell Opelika, AL
WestPoint Pepperell Valley, AL
WesiPoini Pepperell Lanen, AL
WesiPoini Pepperell Hamilton, NC
WesiPoini Pepperell Biddeford, ME
Winston Mills lnc Swannanoa, NC
65
-------
APPENDIX IV-3
Estimated Loadings of Parameters from the TRI Database
Description of TRI Database
The TRI database of chemical “releases” from textile facilities was compiled from their 1992
submittals of the reporting form (Form R), an annual requirement in order to comply with Section
313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, or Title ifi of the
1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act). Section 313 contains a list of chemicals
that are required to be reported on Form R. A completed Form R must be submitted for each
chemical on the Section 313 list that is “manufactured or processed” at a facility in excess of
25,000 pounds per year. Chemicals that are “otherwise used” in excess of 10,000 pounds per
year at a facility must also be reported.
Facilities must report estimated quantities of both “routine and accidental releases” of
chemicals listed in Section 313, as well as the maximum amount of the listed chemicals on-site
during the calendar year. With the total amount of a chemical used each year as a maximum
value, the so-called “releases” are merely individual facility estimates of the amount that is
annually lost to wastewater or other media. The estimates may be based on monitoring data (e.g.,
of treated effluent) or measurements of the amount of a chemical that was transferred off-site
(e.g., to a POTV’). Estimates may also be based on mass balance calculations, such as the
amount of a chemical in “wastes” entering and leaving process equipment. The accuracy of these
estimates is likely to be marginal and the computation is not necessarily consistent from one
facility to another.
Assumptions and Limitations of the Estimated Loadings
1. 1’RI does not include all process chemicals in use at all textile facilities. Only facilities
reporting releases of chemicals listed in Section 313 and meeting minimum threshold
requirements are required to report to TRI.
2. Includes only facilities identified by primary SIC codes for textile products.
3. Textile facilities releasing under 1000 pounds of a chemical may submit a range of the
“release/transfer” amount for the chemical. In this study, the OPPT criteria were
followed by assuming:
5 pounds for loads reported as 0 to 10;
250 pounds for loads reported as 10 to 499;
750 pounds for loads reported as 500 to 999.
4. The accuracy and comparability of TRI loading estimates are unknown. There is no
assurance that the loadings of chemicals in Tifi records were consistently estimated by
reporting textile facilities.
66
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI Database
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading’
Acetone Gehring Tricot Dolgeville, NY 1600
Goldiex Inc. Goldboro, NC 198
Guilford Mills Greensboro, NC 14654
L Hamrick Inc Gaffney, SC 2
SC Elastic Co Landrum, SC 750
Kingstree Kingstree, SC 45002
Glen Raven Mills Anderson, SC 250
Milliken & Co Belton, SC 290002
Kimberly-Clark La Grange, GA 5
WG Humphrey Toccoa, GA 35002
Russell Corp Alexander City, AL 34
Acrylic acid Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 2463
Benzyl chloride Talon Inc Lake City, SC 12000
Biphenyl Maiden Mills md Lawrence, MA 37314
Dorado Processing Woonsocket, RI 10114
Seville Dyeing Woonsocket, RI 82160
Sunbrite Eye Co. Passaic, NJ 14883
Marijon Dyeing & Fin. E Rutherford, NJ 15737
Gold Mills Dyeing Pine Grove, PA 232
Schuylkill Haven Blea Schuylkill, PA 2082
United Piece Dye Wrk Edenton, NC 52
Travis Knits Inc Cherryville, NC 35727
Cinderella Knitting Gastonia, NC 24258
Anvil Knitwear Kings Mountain, NC 9500
Bloomsburg Mills Monroe, NC 11100
Stanly Knitting Mills Oakboro, NC 4207
Burlington Industries Rabun Gap, GA 38262
Concord Fabrics Washington, GA 30400
Multitex Corp of Am Calhoun, GA 34270
Springs Industries Calhoun, GA 47350
Shaw Industries (P-2) Dalton, GA 15800
Chem-Tech Finishers Dalton, GA 223946
Wehadkee Yam Mills Talladega, AL 19
Tee Jays Mfg Co (P-i) Florence, AL 14088
Tee Jays Mfg Co (P-2) Florence, AL 49870
Vanity Fair Mills Monroeville, AL 1813
n-Butanol Lees Commercial Carp Glasgow, VA 15662
Butylbenzyl phthalate Collins & Aikman Roxboro, NC 250
Southern Phenix Tex Phenix City, AL 250
Cresol (mixed isomers) Wehadkee Yam Mills Talladega, AL 2
Cumene Oxford Textile Oxford, NJ 2452
Decabromodiphenyl oxide Maiden Mills md. Lawrence, MA 750
Joan Fabrics Corp. Lowell, MA 16
Joan Fabrics Corp. Fall River, MA 4
Rockland Bleach & D Baltimore, MD 45970
Microfibres South Winston-Salem, NC 250
Burlington House Fin Burlington, NC 660
1. Annual release (pounds) to POTW.
2 Annual release (pounds) to surface waters. This includes releases from on-site treatment systems, process
outfalls (e.g. pipes, open trenches) and stormwater runoff.
67
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading’
Decabromodiphenyl oxide Guilford Mills Greensboro, NC 4962
Precision Fabrics Greensboro, NC 6200
Collins & Aikman Roxboro, NC 1143
Superba Print Wrks Mooresville, NC 250
Joan Fabrics Newton, NC 250
Rockland Bamberg Inc Bamberg, SC 51451
Tietex Corp Spartanburg, SC 250
Milliken & Co Abbeville, SC 33ØØ2
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 250
WestPoint Pepperell Columbus, GA 250
Dichioromethane Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 9
Feudenberg Nonwoven Hopkinsville, KY 5
Diethanolamine Maiden Mills md. Lawrence, MA 28000
Robinson Mfg. Oxford, ME 267002
Carleton Woolen Winthrop, ME 19800
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalace Joan Fabrics Corp. Lowell, MA 3
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 3300
Southern Phenix Tex Phenix City, AL 250
Dves CI Basic Green 4 Dversburg Fabrics Dyersburg, TN 2900
Cl Disperse Yellow 3 Pioneer Finishing Fail River, MA 755
Ethylene glycol Cranston Print Works Webster, MA 8730
Marijon Dyeing & Fin E. Rutherford, NJ 27776
BGF Industries Altavista, VA 1900
Dan River, Inc. Danville, VA 18802
Liberty Fabrics Jamesville, NC 13692
Fieldcrest Cannon Kannapolis, NC 7020
Mohican Mills Lincolnton, NC 10547
Burke Mills Inc Valdese, NC 65000
Cranston Print Wrks Fletcher, NC 132202
Weilman Inc Johnsonville, SC 374461
Galey & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC 2202
Delta Mills Marketing Wallace, SC 14562
Milliken & Co Marietta, SC 20302
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 50000
Kimberly-Clark La Grange, GA 250
Mt. Vernon Mills Trion, GA 39269
Swift Textiles Inc Columbus, GA 11500
Wehadkee Yam Mills Talladega, AL 327
Fiberweb NA Inc Washougal, WA 5580
Formaldehyde Renco Finishing Fair Lawn, NJ 180
Firestone Fib & Tex Gastonia, NC 250
WestPoint Pepperell Lumberton, NC 2422
Belding Corticelli Th Hendersonville, NC 82000
L Hamrick Inc Gaffney, SC 3600
GS Roofing Products N. Charleston, SC 1400
Magnolia Finishing Blacksburg, SC 2912
General Tire Inc Bamesville, GA 90
1. Annual release (pounds) to POTW.
2. Annual release (pounds) LO surface waters.
68
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameters Textile Facility Location Loading’
Formaldehyde Milliken & Co La Grange, GA 200
Concord Fabrics Washington, GA 750
Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 72
Glycol ethers Liberty Fabrics Gordonsville, VA 9548
Dumaine Towel Mill Fieldale, VA 40500
Lees Commercial Carp Glasgow, VA 29962
Unifi Inc. Madison, NC 100
Guilford Mills Greensboro, NC 18445
National Spinning Co Washington, NC 75002
Fieldcrest Cannon Kannapolis, NC 29800
Mohican Mills Lincointon, NC 11096
Swift Textiles Inc Erwin, NC 2502
Chatham Mfg Elkin, NC 6202
Golding Industries Marion, SC 9651
Galey & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC 18002
Milliken & Co Marietta, SC 9302
Magnolia Finishing Blacksbur3, SC 7232
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 750
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 7800
Milliken & Co (Elm) La Grange, GA 1171
King Finishing Dover, GA 250002
Burlington Industries Rabun Gap, GA 29352
Shaw Industries (P-i) Dalton, GA 46159
Shaw Industries (P-4) Dalton, GA 6300
Shaw Industries (P-2) Dalton, GA 36600
Shaw Industries (P-8) Dalton, GA 50000
Shaw Industries (P-2) Dalton, GA 17500
Mt. Vernon Mills Trion, GA 26874
Russell Corp Alexander City, AL 17555
Avondale Mills Syiacauga, AL 7502
Isopropanol 3 L Hamnck Inc Gaffney, SC 5000
Methanol BGF Industries Altavista, VA 1900
Firestone Fib & Tex Gastonia, NC 750
American & Efird Mount Holly, NC 71450
NC Finishing Salisbury, NC 250-
Bibb Co Rockingham, NC 250
Burlington Industries Statesville, NC 14000
Belding Corticelli Th Hendersonville, NC 100000
Gale)’ & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC 502
Delta Mills Marketing Wallace, SC 25652
Bibb Co (Whitehorse) Greenville, SC 200
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 3000
WestPoint Pepperell La Grange, GA 273
Concord Fabrics Washington, GA 3300
Bibb Co Columbus, GA 2129
Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 232
Tee Jays Mfg Co Florence, AL 21585
1 Annual release (pounds) to POTW.
2 Annual release (pounds) to surface waters.
3 Reporting error. Isopropanol not manufactured at this textile facility.
69
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - Till (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading’
Methanol Vanity Fair Mills Monroeville, AL 708
WestPoint Pepperell Opelika, AL 12
WestPoint Pepperell Valley, AL 112
WestPoint Pepperell Laneit, AL 130
Methylethyl ketone Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 2100
GenCorp Polymer Columbus, MS 4
TextiLeather Toledo, OH 250
Methyhsobutyl ketone Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 250
GenCorp Polymer Columbus, MS 5
Naphthalene Gold Mills Dyeing Pine Grove, PA 102
Galey & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC 64002
Toluene Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 250
GenCorp Polymer Columbus, MS 5
TextiLeather Toledo, OH 5
Tetrachloroethlylene Park Avenue Finishing Burlington, NC 15316
Bloomsburg Mills Monroe, NC 5
American & Efird Inc Mount Holly, NC 3000
American & Efird Inc Salisbury, NC 1400
Synthetics Finishing Long View, NC 5
Synthetics Finishing Hickory, NC 5
Tetrachloroethvlene Andrex Industries Asheville, NC 250
Delta Mills Marketing Wallace, SC 7702
Russell Corp Alexander City, AL 43942
Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 2758
l,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hope Valley Dyeing W. Warwick, RI 2119
Clarksville Finishing Clarksville, VA 2502
Unifi Inc. Mayodan, NC 250
Unifi Inc Reidsville, NC 250
WestPoint Pepperell Hamilton, NC 4472
United Piece Dye Wrk Edenton, NC 52
Travis Knits Inc Cherryville, NC 25278
JC Cowan Finishing Forest City, NC 2502
Homwood Inc Lilesville, NC 2200
Mohican Mills Lincointon, NC 9997
Wansona Mfg Wadesboro, NC 250
Cheraw Dyeing & Fin Cheraw, SC 33000
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Glen Raven Mills Altamahaw, NC 2502
Trichioroethylene Forstmann & Co E. Dublin, GA 2502
1 .2.4-Trimethylbenzene Renco Finishing Fair Lawn, NJ 4000
Manner Textile Haledon, NJ 750
Oxford Textile Oxford, NJ 8172
Gold Mills Dyeing Pine Grove, PA 12-
Park Avenue Finishing Burlington, NC 37597
Travis Knits Inc Chertyville, NC 25242
Guilford Mills Inc Kenansville, NC 52
Galey & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC 14002
1. Annual release (pounds) to POTW.
2 Annual release (pounds) to surface waters.
70
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loadings’
Xylene (mixed isomers) Anglo Fabrics Co. Webster, MA 17500
Pioneer Finishing Fall River, MA 19022
Amerbelle Corp. Vernon, CT 62400
N. Bergen Piece Dye N. Bergen, NJ 10615
Interstate Dye & Fin Passaic, NJ 6147
Poughkeepsie Finish Paterson, NJ 9200
Oxford Textile Oxford, NJ 1962
Park Avenue Finishing Burlington, NC 26655
Precision Fabrics Greensboro, NC 400
Threads USA Gastonia, NC 3226
Stanly Knitting Mills Oakboro, NC 16106
Santee Print Wrks Sumter, SC 48000
Galey & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC 21002
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 750
Ammonia National Felt Co. Easthampton, MA 16862
MaIden Mills md. Lawrence, MA 125322
Freudenberg Nonwoven Lowell, MA 487
Duro Finishing Fall River, MA 250
Duro Textile Printers Fall River, MA 5
Baltic Dyeing & Fin Passaic, NJ 13983
Sunbrite Dye Co. Passaic, NJ 1797
Marijon Dyeing & Fin E. Rutherford, NJ 26700
Renco Finishing Fair Lawn, NJ 1200
Perennial Print Corp. Paterson, NJ 750
Champion Dye & Fin Paterson, NJ 3735
3M Corp. Freehold, NJ 270000
Carisbrook md. Glens Falls, NY 36428
Inernational Paper Lewisburg, PA 490
Rockland Bleach & D Baltimore, MD 5142
Clarksville Finishing Clarksville, VA 36522
Lees Commercial Carp Glasgow, VA 34782
Hurt Finishing Hurt, VA 80002
Microfibres South Winston-Salem, NC 12000
Sara Lee Hosieiy Winston-Salem, NC 12585
Copland Inc Burlington, NC 3150
Rice Hosiery High Point, NC 15435
Fieldcrest Cannon Eden, NC 5600
Goldtex Inc. Goldsboro, NC 188212
Precision Fabrics Greensboro, NC 3000
Collins & Aikman Roxboro, NC 10787
JC Cowan Finishing Forest City, NC 23672
Firestone Fib & Tex Gastonia, NC 2200
Superba Print Wrks Mooresville, NC 250
American & Efird Mount Holly, NC 8533
NC Finishing Salisbury, NC 2502
Sara Lee Hosiery Lumberton, NC 12762
Sara Lee Hosiery Rockingham, NC 3272
1. Annual release (pounds) to POTW
2 Annual release (poánds) to surface waters
71
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading’
Ammonia Synthetics Finishing Long View, NC 750
Rockland Bamberg Inc Baxnberg, SC 6342
Santee Print Wrks Sumter, Sc 18000
L Hamrick Inc Gaffney, SC 2
Springs Industries Lyman, sc 750
Sara Lee Hosiery Florence, SC 10431
Sara Lee Hosiery Bennettsville, SC 5072
Sara Lee Hosiery Hartsville, SC 4665
Golding Industries Marion, SC 10204
Sara Lee Hosiery Marion, sc 26930
Fieldcrest Cannon calhoun Falls, SC 61752
Rock Hill Printing Rock Hill, SC 1275
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 250
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 5
General Tire Inc Bamesville, GA 890
Milliken & Co (Vaiw) La Grange, GA 200
BASF Corp Sylvania, GA 10000
Burlington Industries Rabun Gap, GA 43992
Collins & Aikman Dalton, GA 4214
Lyerly Rug Mill Lyerly, GA 40002
Forstmann & Co E. Dublin, GA 20002
Forstmann & Co Milledgeville, GA 7077
TexPrint Inc Macon, GA 4
WestPoint Pepperell Columbus, GA 250
Scottsboro Rug Mill Scottsboro, AL 13340
Southern Phenix Tex Phenix City, AL 10
Phoenix Mfg London, KY 250
Western Piece Dyers Chicago, IL 42500
Burlington House Monticello, AR 10
Ammonium nitrate (solution) Lowell Bleachery Griffin, GA 14002
Thomaston Mills Thomaston, GA 250
Coats American Inc Toccoa, GA 82162
Ammonium sulfate (solution) Kayser-Roth Corp. Arecibo, PR 113315
Duro Finishing Fall River, MA 2436
Warwick Dyeing W. Warwick, RI 1240
WestPoint Pepperell Biddeford, ME 78305
Cascade Woolen Mill Oakland, ME 21003
Amerbelle Corp. Vernon, CT 44350
Sunbrite Dye Co. Passaic, NJ 83900
Carisbrook md Glens Falls, NY 83800
Hanes Dye & Finishing Winston-Salem, NC 3800
Kayser-Roth Corp. Ashboro, NC 26395
Park Avenue Finishing Burlington, NC 208254
Copland Inc. Burlington, NC 5000
Kayser-Roth Corp Graham, NC 47700
Ithaca Industries Robbins, NC 32000
Precision Fabrics Greensboro, NC 1900
Mohican Mills Lincolnton, NC 87250
1. Annual release (pounds) to P01W
2 Annual release (pounds) to surface waters.
72
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading’
Anm omum sulfate (solution) NC Finishing Salisbury, NC 2502
US Textile Corp Charlotte, NC 980
Kayser-Roth Corp Lumbenon, NC 50000
Ithaca Industries Wilkesboro, NC 130000
Kayser-Roth Corp Prosperity, SC 54000
Ithaca Industries Clinton, SC 18000
Fieldcrest Cannon Calhoun Falls, SC 2502
Milliken & Co Marietta, SC 4602
Shaw industries Cartersville, GA 179000
Springs Industries Calhoun, GA 156000
Shaw Industries (P-4) Dalton, GA 18000
Shaw Industries (P-i) Cartersville, GA 58000
Shaw Industries (P-2) Dalton, GA 362000
Shaw Industries (P-2) Dalton, GA 212000
Chem-Tech Finishers Dalton, GA 42340
Lyerly Rug Mill Lyerly, GA 52
Forstmann & Co Milledgeville, GA 27458
Scottsboro Rug Mill Scottsboro, AL 1235
Vanity Fair Mills Monroeville, AL 210950
Pennaco Hosiery Grenada, MS 19400
Atlas Carpet Mills Los Angeles, CA 10703
Royalty Carpet Mills Irvine, CA 180700
Chlorine Glaniourette Fashion Quebradillas, PR 591
Bassett-Walker Inc. Martinsvifle, VA 17321
Hurt Finishing Hurt, VA 9002
Slane Hosiery Mill High Point, NC 58250
Harriss & Covington High Point, NC 500
Mayo Knitting Mill Tarboro, NC 5
Cramerton Automotive Cramerton, NC 320002
JC Cowan Finishing Forest City, NC 7502
Stanly Knitting Mills Oakboro, NC 660
NC Finishing Salisbury, NC 250-
Morganton Dyeing & F Morganton, NC 25500
Moretz Mills Inc Newton, NC 65000
Spartan Mills Startex, SC 11002
Plusa Inc Jamestown, SC 5502
Mohawk Carpet Corp Dillon, SC 7992
Weliman Inc Johnsonville, SC 640
Rock Hill Printing Rock Hill, SC 1410
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 2402
Lowell Bleachery Griffin, GA 12002
1-lolliston Mills Inc Church Hill, TN 12472
Almore Dye House N. Hollywood, CA 50688
Hydrochloric acid Facemate Corp. Chicopee, MA 5
Pioneer Finishing Fall River, MA 31
Dorado Processing Woonsocket, RI 1209
Seville Dyeing Woonsocket, RI 1294
Renco Finishing Fair Lawn, NJ 600
1 Annual release (pounds) to POTW.
2 Annual release (pounds) to surface waters
73
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading 1
Hydrochloric acid Poughkeepsie Finish Paterson, NJ 41400
Wehadkee Yam Mills Talladega, AL 330
Caron International Rochelle, IL 250
LA Dye & Print Wrks Los Angeles, CA 5
Phosphoric acid Perennial Print Corp. Paterson, NJ 100
Concord Fabrics Washington, GA 5
LA Dye & Print Wrksl Los Angeles, CA 5
LA Dye & Print Wrks2 Los Angeles, CA 5
Sulfuric acid Glamourette Fashion Quebradillas, PR 1
Facemate Corp Chicopee, MA 5
National Felt Co. Easthampton, MA 10718
Rochambeau Worsted Manville, RI 16200
Homestead md Claremont, NH 750
International Woolen Sanford, ME 44950
Eastland Woolen Corinna, ME 280000
Anchor Dyeing & Fin Philadelphia, PA 27000
Firestone Fib & Tex Gastonia, NC 5
American & Etird Mount Holly, NC 20000
Winston Mills Inc Swannanoa, NC 11600
Dixie Yarns Inc Tryon, NC 250
Fashion Fabrics of Am Orangeburg, SC 60002
US Finishing Greenville, SC 841000
Kimberly-Clark La Grange, GA 250
Swift Textiles Inc Columbus, GA 250
Vanity Fair Mills Monroeville, AL 25207
Dixie Yarns Inc Chattanooga, TN 3
Caron International Rochelle, IL 250
Anumonv Collins & Aikman Roxboro, NC 250
Antimony compounds Joan Fabrics Corp. Lowell, MA 6
Rockland Bleach & D Baltimore, MD 22986
Burlington House Fin Burlington, NC 280
Superba Print Wrks Mooresville, NC 250
Synthetics Finishing Long View, NC 5
Joan Fabrics Newton, NC 5
Rockland Bainberg Inc Bamberg, SC 25726
Milliken & Co Abbeville, SC 15002
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 1500
Columbus Coated Fab Columbus, OH 212
TextiLeather Corp Toledo, OH 5
Western Piece Dyers Chicago, IL 250
Barium compounds Columbus Coated Fab Columbus, OH 242
TextiLeather Corp Toledo, OH 5
Cadmium compounds Columbus Coated Fab Columbus, OH 3
TextiLeather Corp Toledo, OH 5
Chromium Lees Commercial Carp Glasgow, VA 5122
1. Annual release (pounds) to POTW
2. Annual release (pounds) to surface waters.
74
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading 1
Chromium compounds Maiden Mills md. Lawrence, MA 104288
Duro Finishing Fall River, MA 124
Carleton Woolen Winthrop, ME 190
Amerbelle Corp. Vernon, CT 5200
Masland md. Carlisle, PA 247
Magee Carpet Co. Bloomsburg, PA 250
Clarksville Finishing Clarksville, VA 7502
Liberty Fabrics Woolwine, VA 412
Hurt Finishing Hurt, VA 232
Guilford Mills Greensboro, NC 2729
Collins & Aikman Albemarle, NC 250
Burlington Menswear Raeford, NC 1289
Chatham Mfg Elkin, NC 11002
Graniteville Co Graniteville, SC 250
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 2900
Forstmann & Co Louisville, GA 7502
Forstmann & Co E. Dublin, GA 5402
Vanity Fair Mills Monroevilie, AL 4536
Columbus Coated Fab Columbus, OH 4
TextiLeather Corp Toledo, OH 5
Cobalt compounds Masland md. Carlisle, PA 161
Collins & Aikman Albemarle, NC 250
Guilford Mills Inc Kenansville, NC 2502
Copper Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 278
Copper compounds Maiden Mills md. Lawrence, MA 4100
Duro Textile Printers Fail River, MA 1326
Seville Dyeing Woonsocket, RI 5166
Rogers Corp. Rogers, CT 250
Schuylkill Haven Blea Schuylkill, PA 33
Bassett-Walker inc. Martinsville, VA 40739
Cross Creek Apparel Mount Airy, NC 267
WestPoint Pepperell Hamilton, NC 1822
WestPoint Peppereil Lumberton, NC 2482
JP Stevens Wagram, NC 6322
Galey & Lord Inc Society Hill, SC 14002
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 3100
Russell Corp Alexander City, AL 2285
Wehadkee Yarn Mills Taliadega, AL 2835
Tee Jays Mfg Co Florence, AL 18130
Dyersburg Fabrics Dyersburg, TN 8100
Bekaert Steel Cord Dyersburg, TN 5
Bekaert Corp Rogers, AR 13
Lead compounds Amoco Fabrics Co Hazlehurst, GA 5
Sliaw Industries Andalusia, AL 1
TextiLeather Corp Toledo, OH 5
Columbus Coated Fab Columbus, OH 30
1. Annual release (pounds) to POTW.
2 Annual release (pounds) to surface waters
75
-------
Estimated Parameter Loadings - TRI (cont.)
Parameter Textile Facility Location Loading ’
Nickel Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 131
Nickel compounds Russell Corp Alexander City, AL 137
Wehadkee Yarn Mills Talladega, AL 2536
Zinc (fume or dust) 3 Glenoit Mills Inc. Tarboro, NC 250
Zinc compounds Joan Fabrics Corp. Lowell, MA 4
JB Martin Co Leesville, SC 750
Weilmari Inc Johnsonville, SC 1133
Graniteville Co (Greg) Graniteville, SC 250
Springs Industries Calhoun, GA 9082
Scottsboro Rug Mill Scottsboro, AL 4300
Shaw Industries Andalusia, AL 66
Springs Bath Fashion Nashville, TN 12385
Bekaert Steel Cord Dyersburg, TN 250
Columbus Coated Fab Columbus, OH 250
TextiLeather Corp Toledo, OH 250
Burlington House Monticello, AR 3600
Bekaert Corp Rogers, AR 14
1. Annual release (pounds) to POTW
2 Annual release (pounds) to surface waiers
3 Reporting error. Not used n textile processing
76
------- |