NC0026042_Wasteload Allocation_19920616

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0026042
Robersonville WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Correspondence
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
June 16, 1992
r
Whim document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reweriaet side

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Trevor Clements
FROM: Ruth Swanek 1 C S
SUBJECT: Meeting with Robersonville
Dennis Ramsey, Roger Thorpe, and I met with representatives of the Town of Robersonville,
their major SIU, Perdue, and their engineer, Ford Chambliss of the Wooten Company.
Agrimetrics Associates, a non-profit organization, rated 33 poultry plants in the southeast and
determined that Perdue's Robersonville plant had the highest cost per bird. Perdue feels that
the cost must come down in order for them to stay in business in Robersonville. Since it would
hurt Robersonville economically if Perdue left, Robersonville has asked for a reduction in
monitoring frequency or a relaxation of their monitoring requirements in order to pass on cost
savings to Perdue. (Note that Perdue constitutes approximately 70% of Robersonville's waste.
design flow = 1.8 MGD, currently at 1.1 MGD). Robersonville is concerned that their costs will
increase even more when they have to meet nutrient limits, particularly the TN limit.
Since Flat Swamp, the receiving stream has limited assimilative capacity, and the limits were
determined using a calibrated QUAL2E model, we told Robersonville that their limits would not
be relaxed. In addition, the stream becomes even slower downstream, and moving their outfall
probably would not give them relaxed limits.
The monitoring in their permit was determined from the regulations for a Grade IV treatment
plant, and therefore cannot be reduced.
Since the Town is small and does not have a large tax base, I sympathize with them. Is there any
way to reduce their costs without applying for a variance? Can the metals monitoring that they
perform for their Pretreatment program be reduced? According to the Town, pretreatment
monitoring and toxicity monitoring are the largest monitoring costs they have.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.

LQ fk - . ci)l 2oberwnv1lle
Name
arinek,
Q/ . 06/,
di n
2 f V,V/S' Aerom SF%
a o'.' —
-vi? Z) /,�
C_,\A\r\e S V `'\
E"AvRL,,Ati,I
preoevi iS Riorz e
im / licit cSuipod (9P) 733 -5083
.r) 1 c.5233 rj, 9/9- 795--45,6
/1
7/7- 713-Soft
De-4- k/uJ- .11.3
77‘ale/0''4 P2e-os3r,
?,e i Miff 7/,///

cil_ri - M� . i )1 PPberscvnvi//e
- ! &rJtte. has asked IocA:er -heir irealmati C'os/s (('nst /eh is (�K you
1160 . 72 ►rc, Gb(rsor 1I(e askvi,5 FUr relo,ie ott ��
ar rYoni/Daifis rec li/e .
- Grade. 4 «') G - fir& keno 0e1 (acq recss
- Lmi assi,uj/Oi ue. coca - CckAr rela,,k 6•714
Would relcuaak. faz Ie31 r-15 retcrern.u-J - ✓to (caul s -
lbote. co aeon sfic �rdwe
Pred?-whne441- Mon-6n #5 6c- frutfah 11/45 ea/_ptg,yre
w-�
Aan rne-n GS Ac. (non.- prbfif o j) rare &C( 33 pwilyv pcw.f3 -
1' obtrson y7/f2 plate- (Perdue) h k/- ccf
dawn fvr Prdtu stau) CA, bus+ie ss - hu/1-
- Qrdug_
'707 c gat
- Cad rtixl l 11` eve& mom du,_ rP tk- -TN I i m, f) tohicic c4(1
oPky-

kobe6onvt lie
rick LS/AXirvip
030)(4.
u(A5 - p,e m, au of R'viliC
NCLO. ULC'I a claw-) n - 3, 5 m• S c d vi 1!L _
up —rn I n awn Ir,, n
Ctf i e mP �O i e. np ►aD
3ga i4 to, 9,g 1� tO, cii. S
o(CSo 11 10.7 (0. t r0 /O, Lc ►o. 1
I I4Q ►1 iolli C.(s i 1 to. 3 qr.(.r
t;.2ic.i 13 -1, 8 6.0 l3 c.t_ -7,S
11 Ici 1 I, 7.5 1S,.. 7 2 '3.2 U.,
lolcit CI S.() 6.-7 is 3.0 -2
Iei I 06 R Oz. 0 a-i .73 -.7.0
s t9 i 09 5,1 0, "7 7, t Lc.Lc
l.Igl Lc.0. 5, O i *7, & . I
51g1 24 ce, i I.5 3 .7. (E.tQ
(fig 1 i 9 . 3 LcG is g.5 -).:5
Ncit try q. , 1 is q, 5 S,1
a 191 13 Io.3 c.5 ►3 10. I S.1
1Kt I ID, 3 q.,1P i1 ID,ki Gi?
12.1GG 1► q, S,4 11 10.0. q, 5
► Igc 13 (1.0 i4, 3 13 -7, a . 3,3
101cio ai y..-2 4.0 ci -7. . (.et
glgD as ,5,cL. 4,3 as g.0 _-1
Sig° 6,4 3,3 -?0- -1,1 .14
1 lqo 05 3,- /, 5 aki, &. � ram, 3
tt(co a3 i:.n 'l.'8 o3 �_3 it.
6 h C a3, ,3,0 E.„7--
ktiGp 1i 01.0 7, ct 101 .8 -7. 3

4k i 50 Iivr E-s) LOhy
own 0-41-1(1 c(e 10 c,i-) ors
MEMO
TO: Ire vo r"
DATE•
(11q Igo
SUBJECT: 1�UIF (Z.75r)n vi I le
lookad 4khi RobeK twilit, f don' F `,ee ant:
juk)h hcahcn h7j lower 11Yr? J, CfL1 tJ Gopcoe enctid
(Aid coJ-ea Cu 1ot[c c Cond1Lhon.:) al 0/0 loL
o pf-ed. cfec( to c\o CfGW) c)ke.
had 51a Iim,h for a 011ie Clgg( Luuq - or--crt-/L
Ptund b I, cC. cakd �C2ct I� h_) c.,,xE
Cit fi rtit.:� is
Nol-e I hc&oen 'F 1001(5,4 of recu- 'r►2 or bcc(`tj
un'er n ievion c I PULL( ,_r.'64.rj r n r L
5 n (--. 4 h 3 could t urpor f ct. &(- For rnee1)3,
From
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources cs) printedonnegcled Pa
cer

GKEX88/MP
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT
O6/O9/92
PAGE i
PERMIT -NC0026042 PIPE OOi REPORT PERIOD: 9105-9204 LOC [
FACILITY--ROBER%ONVILLE WWTP, TOWN OF DESIGN FLOW-- 1.2008 CLASS--4
LOCATION--ROBER%ONVILL[ REGION/COUNTY- 07 MARTIN
50050 003i0 00530 00610 31616 50060 00300 TAA31"i
MONTH Q/MGD BOD RE%/T%% NH3-N FEC COLI CHLORINE DO CERI48AC
LIMIT F i.8000 F 5.00 F 30.0 F 2.00 F i000.0 NOL F 6.00
91/05 i.0024 4.34 14.2 .36 49.0 .497 7.74
91/06 i.0278 3.64 15.1 .35 2.3 .725 7.81
91/07 i.0009 3.07 10.4 .43 4.9 .635 7.56
91/08 1.2000 3.81 12.7 .35 22.7 .467 7.75
91/09 1.0466 3.35 iO.i 25.0 .396 7.7i
9i/iO i.i953 2.93 7.4 .30 1.5 .658 6.79
91/ii .9375 2.68 9.8 .20 4.8 .431 7.46
9102 .9277 3.04 7.2 .37 72.7 .i9i 8.95
92/01 i.075 2.40 3.5 .67 70.3 .240 8.8i
92/02 1.1350 2.78 5.0 .45 29.3 .292 8.26
92/03 1.1556 2.20 4.1 .52 .400 8.9O
92/04 i.0793 4.45 13.6 .64 15.6 .139 8.46
AVERAGE 1.0854 3.22 9.4 .44 25.4 .422 8.0i --------
MAXIMUM 2.9000 14.30 8i.O 2.70 20000.0 1.650 1O.50 --------
MINIMUM .2700 .30 .9 .06 .O .00O 6.00 _____---
UNIT MGD MG/L MG/L MG/L 0/i0OML MG/L MG/L PERCENT
�7q�0
~.' -
9' .'--~---
-_'-_--
~~-
�'��~-

he
Wooten
Company
Engineering
Planning
Architecture
120 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh. NC
27603
919-828-0531
Since 1936
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Dennis Ramsey, NC-DEM
Mr. Ralph Mobley, Town of Robersonville
Mr. Steve Morgan, Perdue, Inc.
Mr. Amos L. Moore, The Wooten Company
FROM: Ford Chambliss f�
DATE: June 2, 1992
RE: NPDES Treatment Requirements
Town of Robersonville Wastewater Treatment Plant
This memorandum is to confirm that a meeting has been scheduled on June 15,
1992 at 10 o'clock on the 7th floor of the Archdale Building. The meeting was
requested by the Town of Robersonville and Perdue, Inc. Purposes of the meeting
are as set forth below:
(1)
Review the Robersonville wastewater treatment plant permit
requirements and discuss any changes in the permit that
might be considered by the State that could allow the Town
to lower its operating costs. Candidates for discussion would
include not only treatment requirements but also laboratory
testing requirements.
(2) Discuss current trends in the NPDES permitting and sludge
disposal permitting and the time frame for, and likely form
of, future NPDES permit requirements.
FC:hmm
RECEIVED
JUN 0 31992
WArEN i1U1iLo ;�c. flOil
OPERATION;;
REC _)
JUN .1 .50/e
t : •_