NC0072575_Permit Issuance_20070807

1 w A rF Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
ri f? r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
.� Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
August 7, 2007
Mr. John Gangwer, Director of Environmental Affairs
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc.
P. O. Box 7275
Broadway, VA 22815
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO072575
Pilgrim's Pride Processing Plant WWTP
Lee County
Dear Mr. Gangwer:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant
to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as
subsequently amended).
This final permit includes changes from the draft permit sent to Ms. Katie Kirkpatrick, P.E. on March
14, 2007. These changes were made pursuant to comments provided by Ms. Kirkpatrick in her April
10, 2007 response. The changes include correction of the units of measurement for Total Suspended
Solids and Oil & Grease limits found within the permit. The permit also has been modified to reflect . ,
the recent change in corporate ownership of the facility.
The following is a summary of terms and conditions within this permit that are different from the one
currently effective:
• In order to conform to federal NPDES regulations, monthly average and daily maximum effluent
limitations for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) have been modified.
• In order to conform to federal NPDES regulations, monthly average and daily maximum effluent
limitations for Oil & Grease have been modified.
• In order to conform to federal NPDES regulations, monthly average and daily maximum effluent
limitations for Total Nitrogen (TN) have been added to the permit.
• Monitoring frequencies for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous have been increased from
quarterly to monthly pursuant to the Division's Cape Fear River Basin permitting strategy. This
change was included in the draft permit, but was not highlighted in the cover letter that accompanied
it. We apologize for this oversight.
Noym`hCarolina
Natura!!rf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterqualitv.ore Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. John Gangwer }
NPDES Permit NCO072575 Renewal --L
p. 2 140
A Settlement Agreement has been established between the Division of Water Quality and Pilgrim's
Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc. providing a schedule of compliance for the newly imposed Total
Nitrogen limits. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is being sent to you under separate cover.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless
such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or
Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Bob Sledge at telephone number (919)
733-5083, extension 547.
Sincerely,
�z Coleen H. Sullins
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section
NPDES Unit l
Katie Kirkpatrick — Pilgrim's Pride

Permit NCO072575
s�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1012-010
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
NPDES
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Pilgrim's Pride Processing Plant
484 Zimmerman Road near Sanford
Lee County
to receiving waters designated as the Deep River within the Cape Fear River Basin, in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV
hereof.
This permit shall become effective September 1, 2007.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight September 30, 2011.
Signed this day August 7, 2007.
i ..,Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO072575
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc. is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue discharging 1.0 MGD of treated process -contact wastewater from a
treatment facility consisting of the following components:
• Solids removal area (screened and separated; trucked offsite as byproduct)
• 35,000-gallon equalization tank (with pumps)
• Anaerobic treatment lagoon (17 M gallons -- lined and covered to capture
methane)
• Methane incinerator
• Lined, open lagoon (17 M gallons -- maintained for treatment -system back up)
• Aeration basin (Schreiber process with facilities for magnesium hydroxide
additive)
• Clarifier (with RAS screw pumps and wet well/splitter to aeration basin and/or
lagoon)
• "Fuzzy" filter
• Chlorine contact chamber
• De -chlorination contact chamber (with recycle pumps for process water re -use)
• Flow measurement device (Parshall flume)
• Step aeration device
This facility is located off of Zimmerman Road near Sanford at the Pilgrim's Pride
Processing Plant in Lee County.
2. Discharge from said wastewater treatment works through Outfall 001 to the Deep
River (see attached map), a stream classified as Class C waters within the Cape Fear
River Basin.

A �
e
n
14W
Ot ,
11/ �
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc.
Poultry Processing and W WTP
Latitude: 35' 33' 50" N State Grid/Ouad: E 22 SW / Colon, NC
Longitude: 79' 13' 1 V W Permitted Flow: 1.0 MGD
Receiving Stream: Deep River Drainage Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
Stream Class: C Sub -Basin: 03-06-11
U
Facility
Location -
not to scale
NOYtI2 NPDES Permit No. NCO072575
Lee Count

Permit NCO072575
v
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge through Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified'below:
�•S �ri� M+V = r t s
• .� OW
c-_ -G^'.•"� 11.F•iZ.•. e�l!
,�ryy
mil
�V�r..O�i/•�.\�V,a�..'
-wit 'x.
i\Ia
Flow
1.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 200C
(April 1 -- October 31
5.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
3Meek
Composite
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 200C
November 1 -- March 31
10.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
3Meek
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1— October 31
1.0 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
Week
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1 -- March 31
2.0 mg/L
4.0 mg/L
3Meek
Composite
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
20 mg/L
30 mg/L
3Meek
Composite
Effluent
Oil and Grease
8.0 mg/L
14.0 mg/L
3Meek
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved 0 en2
3Meek
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform(geometric mean
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
3Meek
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
28 L
3Meek
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C
3Meek
Grab
Effluent
H3
3Meek
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen 4
103 mg/L
147 mg/L
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform(geometric mean 6
Variable?
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Temperature, °C6
Variable?
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Conductivity6
Variable?
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen6
Variable?
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Footnotes:
I. Sample Locations: E — Effluent; I — Influent; U — Upstream at NCSR 1400; D — Downstream 50 feet above
the City of Sanford outfall.
2. Daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not fall below 6.0 mg/L.
3. pH shall not fall below 6.0 nor exceed 9.0 standard units.
4. TN = TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N, where TN is Total Nitrogen, TKN is Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and NO3-N and
NO2-N are Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen, respectively.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 9 %; quarterly during January, April, July, October; See Special
Condition A. (2.)
6. Monitoring upstream (U) and downstream (D) are provisionally waived, based on the permittee's
membership in the Upper Cape Fear River Association. If at any time during the term of this permit,
membership in the association is terminated, the permittee shall notify the Division immediately, and
immediately continue instream monitoring as stipulated in this permit.
7. Variable: sample upstream and downstream 3/week during summer months of June, July August, and
September, weekly during the rest of the year.
Effluent shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

� r
Permit NCO072575
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 9%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in
the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase H Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
January, April, July, and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure, performed as the first test of any single quarter, results in a failure or ChV below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the
two following months, as described in "North Carolina Phase H Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase U Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the
report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted
to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.

Permit NCO072575
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly), continued
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month. Should any test data from this monitoring
requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential
impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate
monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (3.) PERMIT RE -OPENER: SUPPLEMENTARY MONITORING
The Division may, upon written notification to the Permittee, require additional effluent monitoring that
it deems necessary to support its water quality protection and restoration efforts in the receiving stream.

f
Of warE
\O� 9oG Michael F. Easley, Governor
� y William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
> r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
August 7, 2007
Mr. John Gangwer, Director of Environmental Affairs
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc.
P. O. Box 7275
Broadway, VA 22815
Subject: Settlement Agreement
Pilgrim's Pride Processing Plant WWTP
NPDES Permit NCO072575
Lee County
Dear Mr. Gangwer:
Attached please find a copy of the fully executed Settlement Agreement between Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation of Georgia, Inc. and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission. This
Settlement Agreement provides means of resolving issues between the two parties arising from the
reissuance of NPDES permit NC0072575.
The Agreement establishes a schedule for the facility to come into consistent compliance with newly
imposed effluent limitations for Total Nitrogen. The Agreement additionally establishes interim effluent
limits for this parameter and provisions for enforcement of the Agreement should its terns not be met.
This Settlement Agreement shall become effective on September 1, 2007, the effective date of the
reissued permit.
If you have any questions about this letter or the Settlement Agreement, please contact Mr. Bob Sledge
at [phone], extension 547, or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
i,.. usan A. Wilson, P.E.
cc: Raleigh Regional Office — SWP Section w/attachments
NPDES Permit file w/attachments
Central Files w/attachments
Katie Kirkpatrick — Pilgrim's Pride w/attachments
WhCaro ina
X
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterguality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer — 500/6 RecycleN70% Post Consumer Paper

1
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF LEE
IN THE MATTER OF )
NORTH CAROLINA )
NPDES PERMIT N00072575 ) SETTLEMENT
HELD BY PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION ) AGREEMENT
OF GEORGIA, INC. )
Pursuant to provisions of North Carolina General Statute § 143-215.3(a)(6), this Settlement
Agreement is entered into by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc., herein referred to as
Pilgrim's Pride, and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, an agency of
the State of North Carolina created by N.C. General Statute § 143B-282, and hereinafter referred
to as the Commission, agree to the following:
WHEREAS, Pilgrim's Pride holds North Carolina NPDES Permit NCO072575 for operation of a
wastewater treatment works and for making an outlet therefrom for treated wastewater to the
Deep River, Class C waters of the state in the Cape Fear River Basin and;
WHEREAS, Pilgrim's Pride currently operates in consistent compliance with the terms and
conditions of its existing NPDES permit and;
WHEREAS, Pilgrim"s Pride's existing NPDES permit has expired and must be renewed, and;
WHEREAS, regulations recently promulgated by the federal government (40 CFR 432, subpart
L) require the inclusion of effluent limitations for the discharge of Total Nitrogen from Poultry
Processors such as Pilgrim's Pride and;
WHEREAS, Pilgrim's Pride's existing NPDES permit includes monitoring for, but no
limitations for its discharge of Total Nitrogen and;
WHEREAS, Pilgrim's Pride's self monitoring data show the existing facility cannot consistently
comply with the Total Nitrogen limits included in the renewed permit and;
WHEREAS, recent inspections of Pilgrim's Pride's wastewater treatment plant by staff of the
Division of Water Quality (the Division) of Pilgrim's Pride's wastewater treatment plant
revealed it to be well operated and maintained and;
WHEREAS, Pilgrim's Pride is committed to the protection of North Carolina's water resources
as demonstrated by its compliance with the terms, conditions and limitations found in the
NPDES permit and;
WHEREAS, Pilgrim's Pride is committed to making timely and necessary changes to its
wastewater treatment facilities to ensure consistent compliance with effluent limitations for Total
Nitrogen and;

Settlement Agreement
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc. (NC0072575)
p. 2
NOW, THEREFORE, Pilgrim"s Pride and the Commission agree to the following schedule and
terms in order to facilitate Pilgrim's Pride's efficient review and/or modification of current
treatment plant operations through changes in process control; or addition of treatment units that
will ensure compliance with the Total Nitrogen limits contained in NPDES permit NCO072575:
I. Pilgrim"s Pride will secure all necessary permits for treatment process modification and
install said modifications by no later than August 31, 2008.
2. Pilgrim's Pride will attain compliance with Total Nitrogen limitations as found in NPDES
permit NC0072575 by September 30, 2008.
3. During the time between its entry into this settlement agreement and the date indicated in
item 2 above, Pilgrim's Pride will operate its wastewater treatment plant at optimum levels.
Pilgrim's Pride may implement operational initiatives in attempting to remain in
compliance with Total Nitrogen limits; however, the taking of such initiatives shall not be
seen as any defense should they have a detrimental effect on other aspects of treatment
performance and lead to noncompliance for other limited parameters.
4. From the effective date of this Agreement until September 30, 2008, interim limits for
Total Nitrogen shall be established at 110.0 mg/L (monthly average) and 160.0 mg/L (daily
maximum).
5. Failure on the part of Pilgrim's Pride to meet the interim limits established pursuant to this
Agreement shall subject Pilgrim's Pride to the assessment of civil penalties in the amounts
of $1,000.00 (monthly average) and $250.00 (daily maximum). Pilgrim's Pride will be
provided opportunity to explain the occurrence of any noncompliance with interim limits
prior to any decision being made regarding assessment of penalties for such violations. A
decision to assess shall serve as the final agency decision in the matter and Pilgrim's Pride
hereby waives its right to any form of appeal in the matter of any assessment arising from
this condition within the Agreement.
6. Failure on the part of Pilgrim's Pride to adhere to the conditions stated in items 1 and 2 of
this Agreement shall nullify the interim limit provision established in item 4 above and
subject Pilgrim's Pride to the assessment of civil penalties for any violations of Total
Nitrogen permit limits that occur during the life of the agreement.
This Settlement Agreement may be reopened if circumstances warrant its modification.

Settlement Agreement
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc. (NC0072575)
p. 3
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation of Georgia, Inc.
Q )
G
Don W. Mabe, Jr., Vice President
Date: 3 o /0-7
For the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
Date: 7
l7
fa, ,eolen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality

DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NCO072575
INTRODUCTION
Gold -Kist, Inc., formerly Golden Poultry (herein Gold -Kist or the permittee), requires a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to dispose treated wastewater to the surface
waters of the state. The permittee's 5-year NPDES permit expired September 30, 2006 and they have
requested renewal from the Division of Water Quality (the Division). This Fact Sheet summarizes
background information and rationale used by the Division's NPDES Unit to determine permit limits
and monitoring conditions. This document also contains references to information sources relevant to
this permit renewal.
Facility Description. Gold -Kist is a live chicken processing facility utilizing a Grade ID activated
sludge wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to treat process -contact slaughter -house wastewater.
This plant has a permitted flow of 1.0 MGD. Wastewater exits the slaughter house via two 14-inch
diameter lines (one for viscera/meat and one for feathers). Process water is screened of solids,
drained to a holding tank, then pumped to a covered, anaerobic treatment lagoon. Effluent from the
anaerobic lagoon includes gasses (disposed to a methane incinerator) and liquid, further treated in an
aeration basin (Schreiber), a clarifier (with activated sludge return), a "fuzzy" filter, and
chlorination/de-chlorination chambers. A Parshall flume measures flow and a step aerator provides
final treatment. Domestic waste at the facility is treated through a separate, non discharge system.
Process wastewater can be routed (after treatment) to the nondischarge process for final disposal, but
routine disposal of treated effluent is via an outfall to the Deep River.
Table 1. Gold -Kist, Inc.
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name
Gold -Kist, Inc.
Applicant Address
P.O. Box 2210, Atlanta, Georgia 30301-2210
Facility Address
484 Zimmerman Road, Sanford, North Carolina, 27330
Permitted Flow (MGD)
1.0
Type of Waste
Industrial process wastewater, Primary SIC Code 2115
W W Code Prim. 23; Treatment Unit Code
Facility/Permit Status
Class III, Minor / Renewal
Drainage Basin / County
Cape Fear River Basin / Lee County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream
Deep River
Regional Office
Ralei h
Stream Classification
C
State Grid /
USGS To o Quad
E 22 SW/
Colon, NC
303(d) Listed?
Not listed
Permit Writer
Bob Sledge
Subbasin
03-06-11
Date:
February 20,2007
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
1122
•
Lat. 350 33' 50" Long. 79I ;' 1 1"
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
17
Winter 7Q10(cfs)
32
30Q2 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs)
1240
IWC (%)
9 %
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDI'S Permit NCO072575
page I

G= Kin INC.
244 Perimeter Center. Parkway, N.E. (30346-2397) - P.O. Box 2210, Atlanta, GA 30301-2210 - [phone]
April 3, 2006
Mr. Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit/Surface Water Protection
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resotp ces
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
APR - 4 �A�6
RE: Permit Renewal Application
NPDES Permit NC0072575
Gold Kist Processing Plant/Sanford
Lee County
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Please find enclosed one original and two copies of the completed permit renewal
application for the Gold Kist Processing Plant located in Sanford, North Carolina. It is
important to note that Gold Kist has included a proposed rendering plant as a new
influent source for the wastewater treatment facility. The proposed rendering plant will
generate approximately 136,000 gpd of additional flow through the facility and will
include screening and dissolved air flotation prior to discharge to the anaerobic lagoon.
Engineering calculations have been performed and confirm that, even with the additional
load, the total oxygen requirement for the biological system remains below design
oxygen capacity (see attached calculations). Thus, the additional load generated by the
proposed rendering plant will not affect treatment performance of the biological
treatment system as permitted currently. The additional flow will be handled either
through the direct discharge permit or the non -discharge land application permit, which is
permitted for an additional 400,000 gpd.
Further, Gold Kist requests that the Division continue to include the following language
as it relates to instream sampling of the Deep River:
"Monitoring upstream (U) and downstream (D) are provisionally waived, based
on the pemuttee's membership in the Upper Cape Fear River Association. If at
any time during the term of this permit, membership in the association is
terminated, the Permittee shall notify the Division immediately, and immediately
continue instream sampling as stipulated in this permit."

Last, solids generated by the screening operation are currently sent to an off -site
rendering company. However, upon construction of the proposed rendering plant, these
solids would be handled on -site (see attached Process Flow Diagram). All sludges
generated by the biological system are recycled back to the anaerobic lagoon.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or
katie.kirkpatrick ,goldkist.com.
Sincerely,
Katie Kirkpatrick, P.E.
Director, Environmental Engineering
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Ralph Upton (w/o encl)
Mr. Don Poe (w/o encl)
Mr. John Pomeranz
Mr. Bruce Morgan
File (Sanford 3.3)

North Carolina Division _
., •,' `'L' Gold Kist Inc. Sanford, NC
Scale 1:24000 N
Colon Quadrangle
N North Carolina 7.5 Minute Series -
p GREENSBORO Sl mi. yj '
I C30LOSTON 6 M!. vaIS
s !GOLDS O 1 v,
,:• 1 �1� y � � L° � � ?moo A /
of
� •lam � • /¢ p !� � o
� � � i m ;tip I, f•
I
O
TFA
0 � 0 00 I "' � • l
. O . ty*t�
�J Q
osr O � � • '•. � a `c .
0 (/_
t O ♦ i �4.--� v flit C
q� •
1. �' ;� /I �--� _��, o �' • ;� C� - 0 :,:, �� � w,

LINE DRAWING
BLUE RIVER
90,000, GPD
RAW 45,000 GPO 45,000 GPD
MATERIALS FIBER 15.000 20,000
PREPARATION GPO DYEING GPO
10.000 GPD
40.000 GPD 40,OOD GPD
MUNICIPAL
WATER SUPPLY
30,000 GPD
10,000
WASHING I GPD
1
40,000 GPD
SLUE ,RIVER
10,000 GPO
COOLING WATER
:plYINl3--,"'O ATMOSPHERE
S.000 GPO
GPPRODUCT
5,000 GPO
SOLID WASTE NEUTRAL- LOSg WASTE
GRIT TREATMENT
RATION
4.000 GPD SEPARATOR TANK 6.000 GPO PLANT .� 2
36.000 GPO 34.000 GPO OUTFALL 002
50,000 GPD
WASTE
STORMWATER TREATMENT 70,000 GPD + STORMWATER
PLANT -* 1 IOUTFALL 001
MAX: 20,000 GPD SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLAW
BROWN MILLS, INC.
CITY. COUNTY, STATE
FIGURE 2C-1

0
POTABLE
WATER
182 birds/min, 16-20 hrs/day
1,2000000
GPD
5-6 days/week
EVAPORATION
16,000 gpd
RECEIVING
ANAEROBIC
10,000 gpd
j
BASIN
KILLING
BLOOD TO
47
RENDERER
,------
---------------
ADVANCED
FBLEEDING
'
'
AERATION
BIOLOGICAL
45,000 gpd
BASIN
SYSTEM
SCALDING
ON -SITE
RENDERING*
40,000 gpd
DEFEATHERING
CLARIFIER
40,000 gpd
NON -
WHOLE BIRD WASH
OFFAL TO
DISCHARGE
350,000 gpd
RENDERER
TERTIARY
FILTRATION
SYSTEM
EVISCERATION
'
100,000 gpd
L-------
FINAL BIRD WASH 10
1,154,000
gp SCREENING
DISINFECTION
90,000 d
gP
�
CHILLING
'-----------------
----'
110,000 gpd
CUT-UP/DEBONE
ICE/PRODUCT
STORAGE
OUTFALL 001
IRRIGATION
15,000 gpd
ADDITION
LAGOON
<0.70 MGD
POND
PACKING/PACKAGING
402000 gpd
ANNUAL AVE.
2250000 gpd
ffCLEAN-UP
10,000 gpd
SANITARY
SANITARY TREATMENT SYSTEM
GOLD KIST PROCESSING PLANT — Process Flow Diagram
Sanford, North Carolina

Mar.22. 2006 1:20PM WHEE INC
No. 1601 P. 4
cad cast Ins.
santard. NC
T" 1
ftcam—fal sauna "m proposed Fs*& Mng o mnmon Wm Mast
>+eafsr lPmta
Blood pa=wr
Hy4s+atyrercwdet ww
Dryer mate
Mast Cooker calw mate
BO" WeW bee"0nt
Bder,bb wdown
coa tttg vmr "?
V&shdmn
TOW
comM=d Wastawatar
E%Mng Wastewater
Resido tg Adddion
Gombbmd V&sfWwaW
% t
Flow
BCD
Ow
TKN
Gawthly
w lbf
ft
man Lb/day
mgfi LWduy
7.714
500
32
750
48
150
10 1
7,291
20,000
1.216.
35.000
Z128
300
18 1
5.397
600
23
750
34
200
9
26,438
500
110
750
165
300
66
46.860
500
195
760
293
300
117
2,000
100
2
260
4
25
0
6,000
100
4
250
10
25
1
-
100
-
250
25
-
35.000
760
210
1,000
292,
300
88
W4690
1,b82
1.601
2,6n
2,975
Z73
�9
11350,000
2000
22,618
3000
33,777
130
1.464
135,690
1.692
1.801
2.629
2,875
27.3
1�465.690
00
24.319
2.966
36.752
143
1,773
'Ia.19fi
1.9%
8.0%
1.1%
8.8%
10.1%
21.1%
Nate: Meat proosased in a separate cooker for Pet Food.
1131/20QB
minaw
good Stichwater data ftm API
03/22/2006 WED 13:18
IT%/RX NO 51191 IA 004

Ali} r, 22. 2006 1: 20 PM WH EE INC
No. 1601 P. 5
Gold fast Irke.
Sanford. NC
Table 2
Aeration Requirement
Proposad System With
edsesg System
M"t
Flow
MGD
1.36
1.49
HOD tMtuard
M0
ISO
166 (BCD adjustod based on increase in flaw)
DOD went
MI
5
5
TKN hVhMt
myl
130
143.1
TKN Effluent
mgA
0
0
am Removed
Iblday
1,633
1.883
TKN Removed
lb/day
IA"
1,773
HOD 02 Req.
Lbs1[b
1.5
1.6
TKN 02 Req.
Lbsllb
4.6
4.6
BOD AOR
Way
2A49
2,976
TKN AOR
[Nday
6.733
8,156
berltt6cafion Credit
0.00%
0.00°%
Total AOR
Way
0.182
11,131
Taal AOR
Ibft
383
464
Temp
•C
20
20
Elevatfon
ft
260
20 756 mm Mercury
Aveme Depth
li
16
16
Alpha
0.70
030
Beta
0.05
0.95
Theta
1.024
1.024
owaft DO
20
2.0
C-SC
, constant
9.00
0.09
C-0c
Mok safuradoon SIM
8.02
9.02
02 TwhrAdjusiment
0.61
0.51
TOW SOR
Vday
18,151
22,004
Total SOR
tblhr
TSe
917
Aembon Type
Diffused Diffused
02 Trander lb SOR! hp4w
5.1
5.1
Theordcal Aeration HP Req.
148.29
179.77
IdledAftleatlon-Hp
240
240
Alr Required
Mr
3.501
4,366
Aired
SCSI
Boo
. 970
PERCENT INCREASE
21.2%
Compare to Wginal Schreiber Des18n
9ciiseiber f)dgtnel Proposed Syslem With
Design Meat
70W AOR IbMay 12,910 11,131
Total AOR lb1hr 538 484
Total SOR Way 24.779 4004
Total SOR Iblhr 1,032 017
Ti'iem*we, the fnasase in TKN from 130 mgA to 143 mgA resells in a towgrWW AOR
and SOR it a the ort hwl design. 'Reis is primarily due to the lower SOD In the And Eitlumt
The lrrcrease to flowwtU AU have In ba handfed on the on -sits land application system. the existing tww
aWedibn operations should be evaluated to determine tf it can adequately handle the incmased flow.
BOD InGueta cotuentrafms increased proportional to flow 1nmw5es.
03/22/2006 WED 13:18 IT%/R% NO 51191 0005

HydrdYM System
HMO? Q erOm
s 64 flouts OM
TQf,M Water 70.00%
MUD Fat 3.00 a dappwww*
8
T59i Oltest96tem L
25% kIdMdS$Nn rr L
Hydrofyzar
EE
T'29 %1W
M Fat
F682 er Press `vivey-
2 LOW
410 Gamr
(a� attne S�J6 it�bNra) to Y!'arErw��'
MY GA"
Blood SYSUM
3d"cm
erg
310.5w MOOR[
FM
Ccagulatar
94f Wx'W t &OM
(to Fat 4.02%
1 jW Fei Tb11i WADI Evoctsm
IM.000 vwww
90,000 Fat 11l:
8,941 odkb =995 r
1azmb Boo t 23%
11.7mr
1,409 GeMr
0►lF9dtPtesttdperrrealc
t8Z.192 Gal Week
2W.MD 7QW 1009/
a
IWIMa YAW 90%
20,000 SM 10%
20.000 Sdidt I A
Dryer
_
Eaosrieoa cetwme
1M.W al 10091
aa,0M www
I= Fed f9i
48.000 SOM 491h
w WOW
6.0015 (attune s Os mot b"
MBT Fit
iom%
s,700 1Aletar
Fs*
16 Fat 0.68li &OD%
a scats 0.121s 002%
WM0 M/ea w
1.la2 FM
fv

Meat sys%m
0
w
w
N
w
0
0
0
I
r
w
r
00
5.0% maftn)
0
o.
m
rn
.--- 4
zm
0
CP%
a

Effluent and In -stream Data Review.
Effluent. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) form 2003 — 2006 were reviewed. Reports appear
regular, thorough, and complete. Total discharge of treated wastewater through Outfall 001 for this
time period averaged about 0.725 MGD or 73% of permitted capacity. Effluent monitoring indicates
the WWTP consistently produces a quality effluent, with occasional excursions of permit limits (see
NOVs for exceptions).
Instream Dissolved Oxygen and Fecal Coliform. Gold Kist, Inc. discontinued instream monitoring in
May 2000, as privileged by its membership in the Upper Cape Fear Basin Association who continue
to sample and monitor the Deep River for its members. Summer dissolved oxygen values (upstream
and downstream) appear marginal with respect to the Stream Standard minimum of 5 mg/L. Overall,
D.O. numbers are lower at the Carbonton location (where the river is impounded), but show regular
improvement at the downstream sampling locations.
Instream data for both fecal coliform and DO appear similar when examining samples taken upstream
compared to downstream, suggesting that this facility's discharge does not adversely impact the Deep
River.
PERMITTING APPROACH
Federal technology -based limits (40CFR Part 432) for chicken processing were promulgated by EPA
on September 4, 2004. Based upon production information provided by the facility in its renewal
application, the new rules are applicable for this facility/discharge. This will be the first permit cycle
in which the Gold Kist discharge will be affected by these rules. The facility already operates under a
permit with water quality based limitations for BOD and Ammonia. The existing WWTP has been
designed to meet those limits, which are much more strict than those offered in the federal rule.
These limits will remain as established in the current permit as will limits for fecal coliform, which
are the same as those found in the federal regulations.
To implement the federal limits for TSS and Oil & Grease, their concentration limits were converted
to mass based upon the WWTP's permitted flow. While the permit will show a great reduction in the
effluent limits for TSS and Oil & Grease, current data indicate the facility will have no problem
meeting the new limits. The only parameter for which new limits will be imposed that the facility
may have difficulty meeting is Total Nitrogen. DMR data show the facility has operated such that the
concentrations of TN in the discharge are consistently very close to the concentration limit
established by the rule. EPA Region 4 was consulted on this matter. It replied that no compliance
schedule could be added to the permit; any compliance schedule would have to be included as part of
an enforcement action.
SUMMARY OF PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
TSS Limits
Monthly average lowered from 496 Ibs/day to 167 lbs/day
Daily maximum lowered from 992 Ibs/day to 2501bs/day
On & Grease Limits
Monthly average lowered from 160 lbs/day to 67 lbs/day
Daily maximum lowered from 320 Ibs/day to 117 Ibs/day
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NCO072575
Pagc 3

Total Nitrogen Limits
Monthly average of 103 mg/L added
Daily maximum 147 mg/L added
All other terms and conditions remain the same as found in the previous permit, including those that
would implement the 2006 Cape Fear River Basin Strategy.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: March 14, 2007.
Permit Scheduled to Issue: May 7, 2007
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Bob Sledge at [phone] ext. 547.
NAME: DATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
NAME: DATE:
REGIONAL SUPERVISOR: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDLS NC107257'5
Page 4

load ���� �� mdAA11 Avf P,3h
� .(ail //f
2?rc�ny r 7 1 �( �.ly max
Permit Versioi Facility County Outfail Month Day Year Parameter UoM Value
N00072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 5 2004 Total N mgA 96.6
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 6 2004 Total N mgA 123.
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 7 2004 Total N mgA 104.6
N00072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 12 2004 Total N mg/l 94.97
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 13 2004 Total N mg/l 119.46
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 14 2004 Total N mgA 111.6
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 20 2004 Total N mg/l 31.87
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 21 2004 Total N mgA 87.27
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 22 2004 Total N mg/l 91.9
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 1 30 2004 Total N mgA 21.96
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Total N 88.323
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 5 2004 Total N mg/l 100.3
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 6 2004 Total N mg/l 96.59
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 7 2004 Total N mgA 106.35
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 12 2004 Total N mg/l 93.49
N00072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 13 2004 Total N mgA 90.4
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 14 2004 Total N mgA 102.71
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 19 2004 Total N mgA 104.37
NC0072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 20 2004 Total N mgA 117.16
NC0072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 21 2004 Total N mgA 102.27
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 26 2004 Total N mgA 109.59
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 27 2004 Total N mgA 83.2
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 4 28 2004 Total N mgA 95.1
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Total N 100.1275
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 6 2004 Total N mgA 67.92
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 7 2004 Total N mgA 119.9
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 8 2004 Total N mgA 86.43
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 12 2004 Total N mgA 101.3
N00072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 13 2004 Total N mg/l 106.76
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 14 2004 Total N mgA 94.22
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 19 2004 Total N mgA 100.09
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 20 2004 Total N mgA 102.25
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 21 2004 Total N mgA 101.88
N00072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 26 2004 Total N mgA 95.9
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 27 2004 Total N mgA 103.67
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 7 28 2004 Total N mgA 96.09
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Total N 98.034167
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 4 2004 Total N mgA 59.86
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 5 2004 Total N mgA 86.88
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 6 2004 Total N mgA 91.99
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 11 2004 Total N mgA 86.97
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 12 2004 Total N mgA 52.86
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 13 2004 Total N mgA 87.07
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 18 2004 Total N mgA 76.84
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 19 2004 Total N mgA 78.97
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 20 2004 Total N mgA 70.85
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 25 2004 Total N mgA 77.58
N00072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 26 2004 Total N mgA 34.41
NCO072575 2.00 Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Lee 001 10 27 2004 Total N mgA 40.16
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant Total N 70.37

NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
3
2005 Total N
mgA
54.28
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
4
2005 Total N
mgA
94.89
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
5
2005 Total N
mgA
42.29
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
11
2005 Total N
mgA
53.88
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
12
2005 Total N
mgA
50.1
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
13
2005 Total N
mgA
72.58
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
18
2005 Total N
mgA
52.56
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
19
2005 Total N
mgA
74.3
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
20
2005 Total N
mgA
68.7
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
24
2005 Total N
mgA
45.79
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
25
2005 Total N
mgA
49.06
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
26
2005 Total N
mgA
93.23
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
31
2005 Total N
mgA
80.94
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
64.046154
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
4
2005 Total N
mgA
76.6
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
5
2005 Total N
mgA
74.27
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
6
2005 Total N
mgA
75.26
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
11
2005 Total N
mgA
75.97
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
12
2005 Total N
mgA
78.57
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
13
2005 Total N
mgA
77.95
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
18
2005 Total N
mgA
91.89
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
19
2005 Total N
mgA
79.75
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
20
2005 Total N
mgA
87.07
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
25
2005 Total N
mgA
78.55
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
26
2005 Total N
mgA
82.25
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
27
2005 Total N
mgA
81.23
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
79.946667
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
5
2005 Total N
mgA
101.42
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
6
2005 Total N
mgA
107.7
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
7
2005 Total N
mgA
107.7
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
11
2005 Total N
mgA
91.5
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
12
2005 Total N
mgA
99.5
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
13
2005 Total N
mgA
107.4
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
18
2005 Total N
mgA
87.07
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
19
2005 Total N
mgA
87.6
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
20
2005 Total N
mgA
97.33
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
25
2005 Total N
mgA
103.65
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
26
2005 Total N
mgA
103.99
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
27
2005 Total N
mgA
91.06
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
98.826667
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
3
2005 Total N
mgA
109.5
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
4
2005 Total N
mgA
102.4
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
5
2005 Total N
mgA
101.64
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
10
2005 Total N
mgA
100.3
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
11
2005 Total N
mgA
106.3
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
12
2005 Total N
mgA
121.34
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
17
2005 Total N
mgA
102.
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
18
2005 Total N
mgA
91.1
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
19
2005 Total N
mgA
119.94
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
24
2005 Total N
mgA
107.8
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
25
2005 Total N
mgA
94.6

_ NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
26
2005 Total N
mgA
121.97
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lea
001
10
31
2005 Total N
mgA
100.4
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
106.099231
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
3
2006 Total N
mgA
82.73
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
4
2006 Total N
mgA
73.62
NCO072576
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
5
2006 Total N
mgA
77.01
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
9
2006 Total N
mgA
67.81
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist ICumnock plant
Lee
001
1
10
2006 Total N
mgA
87.02
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
11
2006 Total N
mgA
78.33
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lea
001
1
17
2006 Total N
mgA
82.9
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
18
2006 Total N
mgA
70.6
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
19
2006 Total N
mgA
73.91
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
23
2006 Total N
mgA
77.6
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
24
2006 Total N
mgA
79.21
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist /Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
25
2006 Total N
mgA
95.69
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
30
2006 Total N
mgA
94.6
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
31
2006 Total N
mgA
88.52
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
80.682143
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist/Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
3
2006 Total
mgA
80.89
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
4
2006 Total N
mgA
92.29
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
5
2006 Total N
mgA
80.61
NOW72575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
10
2006 Total N
mgA
87.18
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
11
2006 Total N
mgA
90.69
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
12
2006 Total N
mgA
92.48
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
17
2006 Total N
mgA
100.29
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
18
2006 Total N
mgA
93.99
NCDD72575
2A0
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
19
2006 Total N
mgA
90.27
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
24
2006 Total N
mgA
100.69
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist /Cumnoolc plant
Lee
001
4
25
2006 Total N
mgA
87.29
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
26
2006 Total N
mgA
95.5
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
91.014167
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist /Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
5
2006 Total N
mgA
100.8
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
6
2006 Total N
mgA
91.8
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
10
2006 Total N
mgA
82.1
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist /Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
11
2006 Total N
mgA
101.7
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
12
2006 Total N
mgA
102.2
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist /Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
17
2006 Total N
mgA
98.9
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist /Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
18
2006 Total N
mgA
101.1
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
19
2006 Total N
mgA
108.54
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
24
2006 Total N
mgA
127.7
NCO072675
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
25
2006 Total N
mgA
121.2
NCO072675
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
7
26
2006 Total N
mgA
103.2
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kiel / Cumnock plant
Lea
001
7
31
2006 Total N
mgA
106.2
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
103.786667
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
2
2006 Total N
mgA
104.
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
3
2006 Total N
mgA
99.2
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
4
2006 Total N
mgA
99.8
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
9
2006 Total N
mgA
94.4
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kiel / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
10
2006 Total N
mgA
94.4
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
11
2006 Total N
mgA
80.6
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lea
001
10
16
2006 Total N
mgA
112.2

t
S
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
17
2006 Total N
mgA
105.2
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
18
2006 Total N
mgA
111.4
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
23
2006 Total N
mgA
99.1
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
24
2006 Total N
mgA
94.4
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
25
2006 Total N
mg/l
92.9
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
30
2006 Total N
mgA
95.33
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
10
31
2006 Total N
mgA
93.13
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
9829
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
2
2007 Total N
mgA
77.53
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
3
2007 Total N
mgA
78.21
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
4
2007 Total N
mgA
75.72
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
8
2007 Total N
mgA
87.1
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
9
2007 Total N
mgA
87.87
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
10
2007 Total N
mgA
79.9
N00072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
16
2007 Total N
mgA
85.03
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
17
2007 Total N
mgA
65.98
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
18
2007 Total N
mgA
73.17
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
22
2007 Total N
mgA
94.54
NOW72575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
23
2007 Total N
mgA
57.49
NOW72575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
24
2007 Total N
mgA
89.92
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
29
2007 Total N
mgA
86.21
NC0072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
30
2007 Total N
mgA
88.4
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
1
31
2007 Total N
mgA
92.34
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Total N
81.294
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
2
2007 Total N
mgA
84.6
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
3
2007 Total N
mgA
74.8
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
4
2007 Total N
mgA
73.5
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
9
2007 Total N
mgA
82.7
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
10
2007 Total N
mgA
86.9
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
11
2007 Total N
mgA
75.1
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
16
2007 Total N
mgA
96.2
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
17
2007 Total N
mgA
93.7
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
18
2007 Total N
mgA
106.5
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
23
2007 Total N
mgA
88.9
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
24
2007 Total N
mgA
77.8
NCO072575
2.00
Gold Kist / Cumnock plant
Lee
001
4
25
2007 Total N
mgA
64.1
83.733333

Background
The Division added High Point Lake to the 2006 303(d) list due to violations of the chlorophyll a standard,
and we expect that the new Randleman Reservoir will have similar violations soon after it is filled. The
Modeling Unit has not yet scheduled stream studies in this part of the river basin, but it is possible that work
could begin during the coming permit term.
Permit Requirements
Table 2 summarizes the nutrient -related requirements for dischargers in the Deep River sub -watershed.
Dischargers are divided according to permitted flow, with breaks at 0.05 and 1.0 MGD. .
Until stream studies are scheduled and prompt increased monitoring, existing nutrient requirements in this
sub -watershed will continue unchanged. That is, dischargers. will monitor nutrients at the frequencies set in
their existing permits, which should be consistent with those in the 2B .0508 rule.
Dischargers that monitor TN and TP will report the results as concentrations; they will not be required to
report nitrogen species or mass TN loads at this time. These same permits will include a re -opener Special
Condition allowing the Division to incorporate monitoring requirements or other conditions during this permit
term if necessary to support water quality studies.
Table 2. Permitting Strategy - Deep River
Subbasins: 30608 30611
30609 30612
30610
DISCHARGER TYPE
PERMITTED
FLOW (MGD)
TN, TP
LIMITS
NUTRIENT MONITORING
SPECIAL
CONDITIONS
Frequency
Units
Report N
Mass
Re -
(TN, TP) (1)
1 (TN, TP) I
Species
Calcs
I Opener
> 1.0
See
1/Month
Conc.
Y
All Dischargers
"General
>0.05 to <1.0
1/Quarter
Conc.
Y
<0.05
N/A
N/A
Req'ts"
(1) Per 2B .0508, Footnote (*)(2)(B)
Supplement to NPDES Permitting Strategies — Cape Fear, 2006 - REVISED

DEEP RIVER STRATEGY
Permit Laneua¢e
The following are nutrient -related conditions for the Deep River sub -watershed permits. They include effluent
sheets and special conditions. Refer to Table 2 of the permitting strategy to determine which of these
requirements apply to a given permit. The effluent sheet below includes standard as well as nutrient -related
language in order to provide some context.
[PermYA'rlters
On each effluent sheet;
- Carry over existing permit limits for nutrients
- . hichrde nutrient parameters and set nronitorin9-#
requirements per Table 2]
Legend
EFFLUENT
Standard permit text
Flow (MGD)
EFFLUENT
New text for permits in this basin
Flow (MGD)
Input from Permit Writer (facility or sub -
watershed -specific)
[textieM
Comments to Permit Writers (delete prior
to Public Notice)
A.(1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
a. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall be authorized to discharge treated effluent from Outfall 001 subject to the following
effluent limitations and monitoring requirements:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location I't
Flow (MGD)
Continuous
Recording
I or E
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) QI
[existing]
[See Table 2]
Comp. Grab
E
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) (3)
[existing]
[See Table 2]
Comp. Grab
E
(1) Sample Location: I - Influent, E - Effluent
(2) TN=TKN+NOrN+NOrN,where TNis Total Nitrogen, "IKNisTotaIKjelclahlNitrogen, andNO,-Nand
NOrN are Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen, respectively. ;{Include this footnote only if pa,rarneters include, Tt�„j
(3) The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite.grab samples collected week)
during each calendar quuuarterGanua ry tilarch April -June, July -September, October -December).
footnote only for facilihrs zail/i aMquart°rl� naern. 11P lrniif
b. There shall be no discharge of Floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A.(2.) PERMIT RE -OPENER: SUPPLEMENTARY MONITORING
The Division may, upon written notification to the Permittee, require additional effluent monitoring that it
deems necessary to support its water quality protection and restoration efforts in the receiving stream.
-- end of deep river sub -watershed strategy
Supplement to NPDES Permitting Strategies — Cape Fear, 2006 - REVISED 10

NC 42 @ Carbonton
Date/Time
Value (mg/L)
1 /21 /200311:40
13.1
2/26/200310:30
9.7
3/12/2003 10:50
10.4
4/28/200312:05
7.9
5/27/200315:05
7.9
6/11 /200311:50
6.5
7/10/2003 11:10
4.8
8/21 /200315:40
7.8
9/10/200314:00
7.4
10/16/200314:00
7.5
11 /13/200313:00
6.9
12/15/2003 11:55
13.6
1 /13/2004 11:50
11.5
2/16/2004 11:40
9.6
3/10/2004 12:20
7.3
4/21 /2004 11:45
5.7
5/17/200412:20
4.4
6/15/200412:15
4.1
7/19/200412:15
3.2
8/23/200412:40
3.1
9/16/200411:05
4.7
10/11 /200415:00
6.4
11 /18/200415:05
9.4
12/8/2004 14:45
11.2
1 /6/2005 15:35
11.3
2/17/2005 13:00
11.6
3/15/2005 14:10
10
4/11 /200513:30
8
5/10/2005 12:45
12.2
6/20/200513:00
4.7
7/19/2005 11:20
4.9
8/26/200511:45
3.5
9/27/200511:15
2.2
10/18/2005 9:50
4.4
11 /14/2005 10:30
8.2
12/7/2005 11:45
10.4
2/15/2006 11:00
13.9
3/9/200611:56
11.5
4/20/2006 10:30
7.2
Deep River Instream Data
Dissolved Oxygen
15/501
Date/Time
Value (mg/L)
1 /21 /2003 12..20
12.7
2/24/200315:50
9.7
3/12/2003 11:35
10.4
4/28/2003 11:25
7.5
5/27/2003 14:10
7.3
6/11 /2003 12:50
6.9
7/10/2003 10:30
5.1
8/21 /2003 14:30
9
9/10/2003 13:20
8.9
10/16/2003 13:15
9.4
11 /13/200312:15
6.9
12/15/2003 11:25
14.3
1 /13/2004 11:30
11.6
2/16/2004 11:05
10.9
3/10/200411:35
8
4/21 /2004 11:10
5.5
5/17/2004 11:50
4.7
6/15/2004 11:25
5.1
7/19/2004 11:25
5.4
8/23/200412:00
4.4
9/16/200410:45
6.6
10/11 /2004 14:20
7
11 /18/2004 14:25
9.6
12/8/200413:45
11
1 /6/2005 14:40
11.4
2/17/2005 13:55
11.3
3/15/200515:00
10.6
Old US 1 Moncure
Date/Time
Value (mg/L)
1 /21 /2003 9:30
13.6
2/26/2003 12:10
11.3
3/12/2003 9:10
11.4
4/28/2003 10:05
9.2
5/27/2003 16:50
8.6
6/11 /200310:10
7.6
7/10/2003 9:20
6.6
8/21 /200317:15
10
9/10/2003 15:25
11.3
10/20/200310:25
11.6
11 /13/2003 13:30
9.1
12/15/200312:35
14.5
1 /28/2004 12:30
13.8
2/19/200411:45
6.2
3/18/2004 11:20
9.8
4/21 /2004 12:15
8.8
5/18/2004 9:45
6.7
6/15/200412:55
5.8
7/27/2004 10:15
4.1
8/24/2004 11:20
6.6
9/16/200411:25
10
10/12/200412:35
8.8
11 /22/200410:45
10.2
12/8/200416:45
11.7
1 /5/2005 14:15
12.9
2/14/2005 12:30
11.7
3/16/200513:15
10.6
4/12/2005 12:00
8.7
5/11 /2005 13:00
9.4
6/20/2005 14:20
8.7
7/19/2005 13:00
6.5
8/26/2005 11:10
6.3
9/27/200512:40
5.9
10/18/2005 11:15
7.8
11 /14/2005 9:10
9.4
12/7/2005 13:30
.11.3
1 /19/200612:00
13.9
2/15/2006 12:30
12.9
3/9/2006 10:35
10.8
4/20/2006 9:25
8

NC 42 @ Carbonton
Date/Time
Value (#/100ml)
1 /21 /2003 11:40
8
2/26/2003 10:30
360
3/12/200310:50
45
4/28/200312:05
1200
5/27/200315:05
1200
6/11 /200311:50
110
7/10/2003 11:10
43
8/21 /2003 15:40
26
9/10/2003 14:00
73
10/16/200314:00
25
11 /13/2003 13:00
39
12/15/2003 11:55
3300
1 /28/2004 11:00
18
2/16/2004 11:40
120
3/10/200412:20
25
4/21 /2004 11:45
11
5/17/200412:20
17
6/15/2004 12:15
22
7/19/2004 12:15
24
8/23/2004 12:40
28
9/16/2004 11:05
93
10/11 /2004 15:00
28
11 /18/2004 15:05
190
12/8/200414:45
62
1 /6/2005 15:35
55
2/17/2005 13:00
41
3/15/2005 14:10
31
4/11 /2005 13:30
270
5/10/200512:45
17
6/20/2005 13:00
16
7/19/200511:20
35
8/26/2005 11:45
15
9/27/2005 11:15
3
10/18/2005 9:50
27
11 /14/2005 10:30
20
12/7/200511:45
2600
2/15/2006 11:00
38
3/9/200611:56
47
4/20/2006 10:30
22
Deep River Instream Data
Fecal Coliform
15/501
Date/Time Value (#/100m1)
1 /21 /2003 12:20
54
2/24/2003 15:50
2300
3/12/2003 11:35
23
4/28/2003 11:25
460
5/27/200314:10
800
6/11 /2003 12:50
170
7/10/2003 10:30
60
8/21 /2003 14:30
33
9/10/2003 13:20
34
10/16/2003 13:15
12
11 /13/2003 12:15
70
12/15/2003 11:25
4000
1 /13/200411:30
51
2/16/200411:05
180
3/10/200411:35
13
4/21 /2004 11:10
19
5/17/200411:50
22
6/15/2004 11:25
64
7/19/2004 11:25
11
8/23/2004 12:00
1300
9/16/200410:45
73
10/11 /2004 14:20
35
11 /18/2004 14:25
22
12/8/2004 13:45
41
1 /6/200514:40
58
2/17/2005 13:55
33
3/15/200515:00
27
Old US 1 Moncure
Date/Time
Value (#/100ml)
1 /21 /2003 9:30
10
2/26/2003 12:10
390
3/12/2003 9:10
33
4/28/200310:05
73
5/27/200316:50
800
6/11 /2003 10:10
170
7/10/2003 9:20
45
8/21 /2003 17:15
27
9/10/200315:25
32
10/20/2003 10:25
22
11 /13/2003 13:30
48
12/15/2003 12:35
3800
1 /28/2004 12:30
11
2/19/2004 11:45
67
3/18/2004 11:20
380
4/21 /2004 12:15
11
5/18/2004 9:45
42
6/15/2004 12:55
20
7/27/2004 10:15
8
8/24/2004 11:20
250
9/16/2004 11:25
87
10/12/2004 12:35
48
11 /22/2004 10:45
57
12/8/200416:45
22
1 /5/2005 14:15
24
2/14/200512:30
20
3/16/2005 13:15
15
4/12/200512:00
65
5/11 /2005 13:00
6
6/20/2005 14:20
26
7/19/200513:00
47
8/26/2005 11:10
62
9/27/2005 12:40
37
10/18/2005 11:15
53
11 /14/2005 9:10
9
12/7/2005 13:30
4400
1 /19/2006 12:00
200
2/15/200612:30
18
3/9/2006 10:35
10
4/20/2006 9:25
20

CAPE FEAR River Basin
Subbasin 03-06-09
Assessment Subbasin Impaired Year Mlles or Acres
Class uasn
Waterbody and Description Unit (AU) Use Listed Category and Reason for Listing Potential Source(s)
___...—.__...—__..._.._.___.._____—___—,
Penwood Branch 17-12-1 C 03-06-09 6 6.1 FW Miles
From source to Haskell Creek AL 2006 6 Impaired biological integrity
CAPE FEAR River Basin Subbasin 03-06-10
---._.._._.
Cabin Creek 17-26-5-(1)b WS-III 03-06-10 6 1.2 FW Miles
From Cotton Creek to Moore County SR 1281 AL 2000 6 Impaired biological integrity
Cotton Creek 17.26-5-3a WS-III 03-06-10 6 0.3 FW Miles
From source to Center Street AL 2000 6 Impaired biological integrity Unknown
W WTP NPDES
Cotton Creek 17-265.3b WS-III 03-06-10
From Center Street to SR 1371
Cotton Creek 17-26-5-3c WS-III 03-06-10
From SR 1371 to Cabin Creek
6
integrity Unknown
W WTP NPDES
6
AL 2000 6 Impaired biological Integrity WWTP
2.5 FW Miles
3.7 FW Miles
_.. _. __ _..___ ___.........._. ... ......... ...... . ..________________—_ ....... ......—..._ _......
DEEP RIVER 17-(10.5)e2 C 03-06.10 5 2.8 FW Miles
From Subbasin 03-06-09 and 03-06-100 boundary to Grassy Creek AL 2006 6 Impaired biological integrity Unknown
UPtltftaM of G•14 Iltsl di7charr AL 2006 5 Standard violation: Turbidity
CAPE FEAR River Bastin Subbasin 03-06-11
_._..... __ ............... ... .�____.-_.---_ Big Buffalo Buffalo Creek 17-40 C 03-06-11 6 8.0 FW Miles
From source to Deep River AL 2006 6 Impaired biological integrity MS4 NPDES
DEEP RIVER 17443.5) WS-Iv 03-06-11 5 6.0 FW Miles
From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Rocky Branch to Cape Fear River (unction with FC 2006 5 Fish Advisory- Mercury
Haw River)
DewMel team o� Goia K,rl aiircharIC
DRAFT for PUBLIC REVIEW North Carolina 303(d) List- 2006 Tuesday, January 31, 2006
CAPE FEAR Basin 03-06-11 Page 14 of 126

RE: Draft Settlement Agreement Again
Subject: RE: Draft Settlement Agreement Again
From: "Katie Kirkpatrick" <Katie.Kirkpatrick@ pilgrimspride.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:42:17 -0500
To: "Bob Sledge" <[e-mail]>
Bob
We are on board with the agreement as drafted. Please proceed!
Katie
Katie Kirkpatrick, P.E.
Director of Environmental Affairs - Southeastern Region
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
P.O. Box 2210
Atlanta, GA 30301
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Sledge [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:09 PM
To: Katie Kirkpatrick
Subject: Draft Settlement Agreement Again
Hi Katie,
The suggested edits you provided all looked reasonable to us. I've
modified the document to reflect those changes and am sending a revised
version. I also changed the dates found in the paragraphs on page 2,
making them concrete and removing the parenthetical explanations. Due
to our rules regarding issuance and effective dates of permits, and your
need for legal review of the document, we'll be looking at an effective
date of September 1, 2007 for the permit. I've extended the dates in
the agreement one month to reflect that change. Please look it over
carefully - I think it looks ok, but I do make mistakes.
We would still like to get this matter finalized as soon as possible.
If you can spur your legal staff to review (and hopefully bless) this in
the time frame you suggested, that would be great. I hope we'll be able
to get this done, but I've been advised to relate that my supervisor
intends to issue the permit as drafted by August 15 whether or not we
have an agreement with regard to the Total Nitrogen issue.
I've also been told that it will be no problem getting the name change
done in association with permit reissuance. We'll just need to have the
completed form that I noted in the earlier e-mail.
Thank you for all your efforts in this matter. I'll talk with you
later.
Bob
The information contained in this e-mail (along with any attachments) is intended only for the use of the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not read its
contents, and any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received it in error, please immediately (1) delete this transmission and any attachments and (2) notify
[e-mail] to advise us of the error. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT AN OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding
the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other law of similar import, absent an express statement to the
contrary contained in this e-mail, neither this e-mail nor any attachments are an offer or acceptance to enter
into a contract, and are not intended to bind the sender, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, or any of its
subsidiaries, or any other person or entity.
1 of 1 8n/2007 2:19 PM

Re: Gold Kist Settlement Document
Subject: Re: Gold Kist Settlement Document
From: Shannon Langley <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:55:52 -0400
To: Bob Sledge <Bob. Sledge@ ncmai l.net>
Bob,
Judy and I looked at it. It looks good.
In the 7th "whereas" you mention something about "Country Square WWTP"?????
The one month compliance date may not be long enough if they are doing biological
treatment. We would be OK with three months (if biological).
Shannon
Bob Sledge wrote:
Hi Shannon,
Here's a copy of a very draft agreement document for Gold Kist. Would you mind
looking it over and offering comments. We want to get this thing done and are
willing to go this route rather than see the matter adjudicated over this stupid
issue. If EPA were reasonable, the permit would have been issued months ago.
There's probably stuff they'd object to, but the document has to show teeth, even
if we hope to never bite. Your feedback is appreciated.
Thank you,
Bob
1 of 1 7/10/2007 12:57 PM

are used to supplement the cost of administering the Title V permit program
in that fiscal year.
(le) The Commission shall collect the application, annual, and project fees for processing
and administering permits, certificates of coverage under general permits, and
certifications issued under Parts 1 and IA of this Article and for compliance
monitoring under Parts 1 and IA of this Article as provided in G.S. 143-215.31) and
G.S. 143-215.10G.
(2) To direct that such investigation be conducted as it may reasonably deem necessary
to carry out its duties as prescribed by this Article or Article 21A or Article 21B of
this Chapter, and for this purpose to enter at reasonable times upon any property,
public or private, for the purpose of investigating the condition of any waters and the
discharge therein of any sewage, industrial waste, or other waste or for the purpose of
investigating the condition of the air, air pollution, air contaminant sources,
emissions, or the installation and operation of any air -cleaning devices, and to require
written statements or the filing of reports under oath, with respect to pertinent
questions relating to the operation of any air -cleaning device, sewer system, disposal
system, or treatment works. In the case of effluent or emission data, any records,
reports, or information obtained under this Article or Article 21A or Article 21B of
this Chapter shall be related to any applicable effluent or emission limitations or
toxic, pretreatment, or new source performance standards. No person shall refuse
entry or access to any authorized representative of the Commission or Department
who requests entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate
credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper or interfere with any such
representative while in the process of carrying out his official duties.
(3) To conduct public hearings and to delegate the power to conduct public hearings in
accordance with the procedures prescribed by this Article or by Article 21B of this
Chapter.
(4) To delegate such of the powers of the Commission as the Commission deems
necessary to one or more of its members, to the Secretary or any other qualified
employee of the Department. The Commission shall not delegate to persons other
than its own members and the designated employees of the Department the power to
conduct hearings with respect to the classification. of waters, the assignment of
classifications, air quality standards, air contaminant source classifications, emission
control standards, or the issuance of any special order except in the case of an
emergency under subdivision (12) of this subsection for the abatement of existing
water or air pollution. Any employee of the Department to whom a delegation of
power is made to conduct a hearing shall report the hearing with its evidence and
record to the Commission.
(5) To institute such actions in the superior court of any county in which a violation of
this Article, Article 21B of this Chapter, or the rules of the Commission has occurred,
or, in the discretion of the Commission, in the superior court of the county in which
any defendant resides, or has his or its principal place of business, as the Commission
may deem necessary for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Article,
Article 21B of this Chapter, or of any official action of the Commission, including
proceedings to enforce subpoenas or for the punishment of contempt of the
iy3-21.f, 3 Commission.
oil noo. f (6) To agree upon or enter into any settlements or compromises of any actions and to
prosecute any appeals or other proceedings.
+�• ! H c (7) To direct the investigation of any killing of fish and wildlife which, in the opinion of
the Commission, is of sufficient magnitude to justify investigation and is known or
believed to have resulted from the pollution of the waters or air as defined in this
IIM

PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-
161E
NOTIFICATION OF
.INTENT TO ISSUE
A NPDES
WASTEWATER
PERMIT
t7h,m-(T-l3asis of thor-
ough staff review and
application of NC
General Statute
143.21, Public law 92-
500 and other lawful
standards and regula-
tions, the North Caro-
lina Environmental
Management Com-
mission proposes to
issue a National Pol-
lutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater
discharge permit to
the person(s) listed
below effective 45
days from the publish
date of this notice.
Written comments re-
garding the proposed
permit will be accept-
ed until 30 days after
the publish date of
this notice. All com-
menu-received prior
to that date are con-
sidered in, the final
determinations re-
garding the proposed
permit. The Director
of the NC Division of
Water Quality may
decide to hold a pub-
lic meeting for the
proposed permit
should the Division
receive a significant'
degree of public
inter-
est.
Affidavit of Publication -A =' "' °s '"
Lu06- (lbW
Lee County
North Carolina �; G g
Bill Horner III, Publisher of Of 4c igmnfnrd +Hrralb, a newspaper published in Lee
County in the state of North Carolina, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that the
attached advertisement of notice, in the action entitled
�Q I L)as �� t�
PIA m (f
was duly published in the aforesaid newspaper once a week for consecutive
(IIw , beginning with the issue dated the C day of � ,
r
and ending with the issue dated the day of _kI_mnj.
BilkHofnef III, Publisher
Received of 4T ONJ I fl(��� 131t'GGFf , $ , the cost of the
above publication. Mu
By: cz� t.J, l � I
Sworn to and subscribed before me, thisLL� day of .�
t
AV�`
of ry
M oIr jns o &P I ' u JIM@►►E J
m sot it : t `O `� NoranyPf1H0� T
LE'
srArEOF' `r(IATY
— ► O I MP �MMISSION EXP; N CAROl1NA
l RES APRII 12, 201

Copies of the draft
permit and other sup-
porting information
on file used to deter-
mine conditions pres-
ent in the draft per-
mit are available
upon request and
payment of the costs
of reproduction. Mail
comments and/or re-
quests for informa-
tion to the NC Divi-
sion of Water Quality
at the above address
or can the Point
Source Branch at
'[phone], exteu-
sion 363. Comments
can also be emailed to
Carolyn Bryant(,
ncmail net. Please in-
clude the NPDES per-
mit number (attach-
ed) in any communi-
cation. Interested per-
sons_may also -visit
the Division of Water
Quality at 512 N. Sal-
isbury Street, Ra-
leigh, NC 27604-1148
between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:0o p.m.
to review informa-
tion on file.
PGold Kist, Inc. has ap-
plied for renewal of
NPDES Permit
NC0072575 for its
poultry processing
plant near Cumnock
in Lee County. This,
permitted facility dis.
charges treated.
wastewater to the
Deep River in the,
Cape Fear River ba-
sin. Currently Bio-
chemical Oxygen De-
mand (BOD), Ammo.
Ma Nitro
tal Residue Chlorine
are water quality lim-
ited. This discharge
may affect futm•e allo-
cations hi this
Lion of the,

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
TO takri • I_M UD u_
TO: Bob Sledge, NPDES Unit
Division of W ter Quality
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Pi ont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 13 April 2007
SUBJECT: Proposed Permit Renewal for Gold Kist, Inc., Lee County, NPDES Permit No.
NC0072575
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
permit renewal. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of
1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d),
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.), and North Carolina Administrative Code 15A
NCAC 10I.0102.
Gold Kist, Inc. has applied for renewal of its NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater to an
Deep River in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are records for the federal and state endangered Cape
Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) in Deep River downstream of the discharge.
The information in the public notice does not indicate whether this facility uses chlorine
disinfection. Chlorine is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and can form secondary compounds that are
detrimental to aquatic life. We are especially concerned about impacts to the Cape Fear shiner. If the
facility uses chlorine disinfection, we recommend the following conditions be incorporated into the
permit to reduce impacts to aquatic resources.
1. We suggest that chlorine disinfection systems be replaced by ultraviolet light or ozone systems.
2. If not already in place, we suggest the installation of a stand-by power system.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this permit renewal. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact our office at [phone].
ec: Ryan Heise, WRC
David Rabon, USFWS
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

t
Goln Kw INc.
244 Perimeter Center Parkway, N.E. (30346-2397) • P.O. Box 2210, Atlanta, CA 30301-2210 • [phone]
April 10, 2007
Mr. Bob Sledge
Point Source Branch
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Draft NPDES Permit
Permit NCO072575
Gold Kist Processing Plant WWTP
Lee County
Dear Mr. Sledge:
a1 - M
APR 1 2 20011
DENR - WATER QUAl 11Y
POINT SOURCE 6E11 . _A
This letter is submitted in response to the issuance of a draft NPDES permit for the above
referenced facility. We have reviewed the draft permit and offer the following comments
for consideration:
In order to conform to federal NPDES regulations, monthly average and daily
maximum effluent limitations for Total Nitrogen (TN) have been added to the
permit. As noted in the permit fact sheet, the facility has operated such that the
concentrations of total nitrogen in the discharge are consistently very close to the
concentration limit established by the rule. Further, upon review of the past five
years' effluent data, the facility would have exceeded the new TN limitations on
at least six (6) occasions. Thus; the facility expected the inclusion of a
compliance schedule to provide the necessary time to implement capital
improvements or process control changes ensuring compliance with the new
limitations.
However, it appears that EPA Region IV reviewed the issue and declared that no
compliance schedule could be added to the permit. EPA Region IV specifically
referenced the following language:
"New and reissued NPDES permits to direct dischargers must include these
effluent limitations, and the permits must require immediate compliance with such
limitations. If the permitting authority wishes to provide a compliance schedule,
it must do so through an enforcement mechanism. "

Page Two
RE: Gold Kist Draft Permit, NC0072575
Under DENR rules, an enforcement mechanism is not available until an
exceedance has occurred. Therefore, despite acknowledgement by both the
permitting authorities and the facility, the final permit will be issued to a
pernttee who can not comply. We respectfully disagree with this approach and
encourage DENR to issue an enforcement mechanism at the time of permit
issuance. The enforcement mechanism should be discussed with the permittee
prior to issuance to ensure an appropriate timeframe for compliance is established.
2. In order to conform to federal NPDES regulations, monthly average and daily
maximum effluent limitations for oil and grease (O&G) and total suspended
solids (TSS) have been modified in the permit. However, the effluent limitations
in the draft permit are listed as mass loading limits versus concentration based
limits. According to 40 CFR 432, Subpart K, the effluent limitations are listed in
concentration form and should be reflected as such in the draft permit. We
request that the limitations for O&G and TSS be modified as follows:
Daily Maximum (m
Monthly Average m )
Oil and Grease
14
8
Total Suspended Solids
30
20
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at [phone] or
katie.kirkpatrick(a)oilerimspride.com.
Sincerely, V
u4fq T
Katie Kirkpatrick, P.E.
Director, Environmental Engineering
cc: Mr. Don Poe
Mr. Bruce Morgan
Mr. Ralph Upton
Mr. Vernon Rowe
Mr. John Gangwer
File (Sanford 3.12007)

re draft permit for NC0072575, Gold Kist WWTP
... I
Subject: re draft permit for NC0072575, Gold Kist WWTP
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:28:58 -0400
To: [e-mail]
EPA will not be reviewing this permit.
1 of 1 8/7/2007 2:20 PM

[Fw.d: Re: [Fwd: Re: Wayne Foods NC0006548]]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Wayne Foods NC0006548]]
From: Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:15:14 -0400
To: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Your lucky day. If this works ..... tell Smithfield they will owe me a favor and I will let them know what
it is alter this is resolved with EPA. Let me know if you need me to talk to Marshall. He is actually
one of the more reasonable folks in Atlanta and is sharp.
Tedder
-------- Original Message--------
Subject:Re: [Fwd: Re: Wayne Foods NC0006548]
Date:Tue, 23 Nov 2004 '09:29:09 -0500
From:Steve Tedder <Steve.Tedder ancmail.net>
Organization:NC DENR - Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
To:Steve Tedder <Steve. Tedder@,ncmail.net>
References:<OF 1 AA89237.673EE4ED-ON85256F54.0047D356aepamail.epa.gov>
<41A342B9.1070200 @,ncmail.net>
I concur with the proposed approach for Wayne Foods. 11/23/2004
Marshall
on 11/23/2004 9:01.AM, Steve Tedder wrote:
> Marshall,
> Wayne Foods (NC0006548) is a poultry processor. Existing permit
> expired in Dec. 2003. Previous limits were mass limits and they have
> continually been in compliance with their limits. The new draft
> permit is concentration based and they are expecting some compliance
> problems, especially with oil and grease in the winter months based of
> previous data. My recommendation is to issue the permit with its
> existing limits for 12-18 months and give them time.to construct a new
> DAF unit and then a second set of limits (concentration based) would
> kick in on a date certain. Nothing has changed at the facility except
> the limits which would then be the concentration based limits. Based
> on our discussions this morning you indicated that this approach
> should not present a problem as far as EPA is concerned.
> If you can concur please let Sergei and me know.
> Thanks
> Steve
>
> on 11/22/2004 8:09 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> glad to hear you are in a better place and it seems you have proved you
>> can go home again. hope this continues to work out for you.
>> Guess we need to talk so I get the particulars on Wayne Foods. I need
>> to understand what's in the current permit re limits and any schedule
>> and how the draft is different. Sergei's email to you might stem from
>> a recent draft permit he sent here where the current permit had a
>> compliance schedule that the facility ended up not meeting and Sergei
1 of 2 3/14/2007 7:51 AM

[FWc : Re: [Fwd: Re: Wayne Foods NC0006548]]
I
>> developed a draft permit with a new, extended schedule. Having a
>> schedule in one permit and then having a new, extended schedule in a
>> reissuance just isn't appropriate. Permits shouldn't be used to handle
>> a situation where enf is needed.
>> I'm around Mon -Wed, but late this afternoon I have a conf call. call me
>> when you are free at 404-562-9304.
>> Before I forget, what's your phone #?
>> Marshall
Steve Tedder
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone] ext 290
FAX: [phone]
Steve Tedder
[e-mail]
NC DENR Division of Water Quality ,
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
Steve Tedder <Steve. Tedder mail. net>
WSRO j
NC DENR
2 of 2 3/14/2007 7:51 AM

[Fw4: Wayne Foods N000065481
i
Subject: [Fwd: Wayne Foods NC0006548]
From: Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:06:14 -0400
To: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
This was the argument I sent Marshall Hyatt. I'm looking for the other a -mails but because of HQ's
constant badgering about to much data storage on our systems and the constant harassment, every
Damn month, these older a -mails may have been deleted to try and save all that money for the state.
I'll keep looking.
Tedder
-------- Original Message--------
Subject:WayneFoods NC0006548
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:56:37 -0500
From:Steve Tedder <Steve.Tedder ancmail.net>
Organization -.NC DENR - Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
To:Dave Goodrich <Dave.Goodrich ancmail.net>, sergei chernikov
<sergei. chernikov@ncmail. net>
Dave and Sergei,
i understand that the Wayne Foods permit is scheduled to be issued near
the end of the year. The limits in the draft permit are different than
the past with limits becoming concentration rather than mass. Data
provided by the company indicate that meeting the new limits will be
problematic until a new DAF unit is constructed. Mike Mickey indicated
that he was told that the permit could not be issued with two sets of
limits to allow them sufficient time to construct the new unit at the
WWTP. Seems we are creating a lot of extra paperwork for us and the
company by not acknowledging reality. If issued as drafted, they will
become non -compliant, we will issue NOVs, possible enforcement and
eventually they will request SOC (as we cannot issue SOC until there is
actual non-compliance), and then we will go through the SOC development/
public notice and issuance process and in effect do the same thing
issuing the permit with two sets of limits would do. Can we not head
off some state bureaucracy when we see it coming right at us?
Steve
Steve Tedder
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown.Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone] ext 290
FAX: [phone]
Steve Tedder
[e-mail]
1 of 2 3/14/2007 7:50 AM

Re: Gold Kist, NCO072575
Subject: Re: Gold Kist, NCO072575
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:02:23 -0500
To: Bob Sledge <[e-mail]>
Bob:
thanks for soliciting my opinion. A similar question came up with
Teresa and her Smithfield Packing permit. She also wanted to give a
compliance schedule for TN. My reading of the final rule is that no
compliance schedule is allowed. Here's what I'm sending her straight
from EPA's final rule:
[[Page 54536]] of the Federal Register final rule
XII. How Will This Rule Be Implemented?
This section helps permit writers and MPP facilities implement this
regulation. This section also discusses the relationship of upset and
bypass provisions, variances, and modifications to the final
limitations and standards. For additional implementation information,
see Section 15 of the Technical Development Document for today's final
rule.
A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards for Direct
Dischargers
Effluent limitations and new source performance standards act as
important mechanisms to control the discharges of pollutants to waters
of the United States. These limitations and standards are applied to
individual facilities through NPDES permits issued by the EPA or
authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
In specific cases, the.NPDES permitting authority may elect to
establish technology -based permit limits for pollutants not covered by
this regulation. In addition, where State water quality standards or
other provisions of State or Federal law require limits on pollutants
not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent limits or
standards on covered pollutants in order to attain and maintain water
quality standards), the permitting authority must apply those
limitations or standards. See CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C).
1. What Are the Compliance Dates for Existing and New Sources?
New and reissued NPDES permits to direct dischargers must include
these effluent limitations, and the permits must require immediate
compliance with such limitations. If the permitting authority wishes to
provide a compliance schedule, it must do so through an enforcement
mechanism.
hope that helps. feel free to call me at 404-562-9304 if you want to
discuss further. Marshall
1 of 2 8/7/2007 2:20 PM

RE: [Fwd: NCO072575 Gold Kist Sanford Processing Plant]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: NCO072575 Gold Kist Sanford Processing Plant]
From: "Green, Jonathan" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:14:36 -0500
To: "Bob Sledge" <[e-mail]>
Mr. Sledge,
Please accept my apologies. I have not forgotten about you.
(1) I am afraid that the equipment and treatment & control
technology (both still unsettled at this point) will not be similar
enough to other Gold Kist rendering operations, and I do not believe I
will be able to provide you with any additional data that will be
beneficial for this application. In response to concerns of pollutant
loads from the fat of livestock, I am familiar with the types of studies
you are referencing. However, the reason that those constituents may be
present in the fat is due to their high affinity for fatty substances. I
am not aware of any studies indicating that the constituents would leach
from the fat into a wastewater stream. Additionally, the vast majority
of the fat is processed and reused within the industry. There would be
residual fat present in washdown water, but for the reasons stated
above, I do not believe this load would result in the pollutants you
have noted.
(2) We are working on securing a contractor to do an evaluation on
the solids content in the anaerobic lagoon. I will continue to inform
you of our progress and hopefully will be able to provide you with an
analysis of current lagoon conditions and expected capacity soon.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Jonathan Green
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Sledge [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 2:13 PM
To: Green, Jonathan
Subject: [Fwd: NCO072575 Gold Kist Sanford Processing Plant]
Dear Mr. Green,
I received an auto -reply from Ms. Kirkpatrick saying she was out for a
while on maternity leave. Congratulations to her and her family. I've
been told that in her absence you may be able to answer some questions
we have about a Gold Kist facility in North Carolina. I've attached my
earlier e-mail to Ms. Kirkpatrick, and I hope you'll be able to help us.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bob Sledge
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: NCO072575 Gold Kist Sanford Processing Plant
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:39:46 -0400
From: Bob Sledge <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Kirkpatrick,
My name is Bob Sledge and I work with the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality. I will be the permit writer for the subject NPDES
1 of 2 11/27/2006 6:19 AM

RE: [Fwd: NC0072575 Gold Kist Sanford Processing Plant)
- r
permit. First of all, let me apologize for being so tardy in getting in
touch with you and moving the permit renewal process forward. The
delays have had nothing to do with your application, but rather in the
way I've managed my workload here. Please know that terms of your
current permit are deemed to be in effect until a new permit is issued.
I do not anticipate any problems to arise in the reissuance of this
permit. However, our staff has asked me to inquire about two items.
Getting answers to these questions should resolve some potential
concerns and allow us to move forward with confidence regarding the
permit. The questions are:
1. Does Gold Kist have a rendering facility in operation at another of
its processing plants similar to the one proposed for the Sanford plant?
If so, can Gold Kist provide a chemical analysis for the pollutants
listed on pages V-1 through V-8 of the permit application of its waste
stream? In its calculations pertaining to treatment capacity, Gold Kist
only provided information for the BOD, COD and TKN load. The stated
concern is that the pollutant load from the rendering process could be
more complex, based upon studies indicating the retention of various
pollutants in the fat of livestock. Receiving this information will be
helpful in allowing us to ascertain the overall quality of the effluent
once the rendering process comes on line. Asa follow up to this first
question, have you established a time line for the construction of the
rendering facility and the introduction of that wastestream into the
treatment process?
2. During recent inspections, facility staff have told our inspectors
its digestor has more than a twenty year capacity before the solids will
need to be removed for disposal. Can the facility provide an updated
analysis for digestor capacity that will confirm statements from the
plant staff?
I know these aren't the easiest questions to provide answers for, but
under the circumstances, I hope they appear reasonable. Thank you for
your cooperation in this matter and for your patience.
If you have any questions about this matter, you may reply to this
e-mail or you can call me at [phone], extension 547.
Sincerely,
Bob
This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is confidential,
proprietary, legally privileged, subject to copyright and is sent for
the personal attention of the intended recipient only. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please reply to advise us immediately,
delete it and destroy any printed copies of it. You are notified that
reading, disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
No employee is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf
of Gold Kist with another party by e-mail without express written
confirmation by an officer of the company. Although we have taken
reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this
e-mail, we cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage
arising from the viruses in this e-mail or attachments.
2 of 2 11/27/2006 6:19 AM

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 54555
§ 432.121 Special definitions. [Reserved]
§ 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(SPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
further processes more than 7 million
pounds per year (in units of finished
product) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
application of BPT:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(8l
Regulated
Maximum
Maximum
monthly
parameter
daily
avg.
Ammonia (as N)
8.0
4.0
BODs .................
26
16
Fecal Coliforrn ..
2
14
a
O&G (as HEM)
8.0
TSS ...................
30
20
� rng/L (PPm)•
2 Maximum of 400 MPN or CFU per 100 mL
at any time.
3 No maximum monthly average limitation.
§ 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
further processes more than 7 million
pounds per year (in units of finished
product) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
application of BAT:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Regulated Maximum Maximum
parameter daily monthly avg.'
Ammonia (as
N) .............. 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen 147 103
' mg/L (ppm).
§ 432.124 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§ 432.125 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any source that is a new source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards:
(a) Facilities that further process no
more than 7 million pounds per year (in
units of finished product) must achieve
the following performance standards:
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
[NSPS]
Regulated
parameter
Maximum
daily
Maximum
monthly avg.'
Ammonia (as
N) ..............
8.0
4.0
BODs .............
26
16
Fecal Col€form
(2)
(3)
O&G (as
HEM) .........
14
8.0
TSS ...............
30
20
' mg/L (ppm)•
2 Maximum of 400 MPN or CFU per 100 mL
at any time.
3 No maximum monthly average limitation.
(b) Facilities that further process more
than 7 million pounds per year (in units
of finished product) must achieve the
following performance standards:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[NSPS]
Regulated
parameter
Maximum
daily
Maximum
monthly avg.'
Ammonia (as
N) ..............
8.0
.4.0
BODs .............
26
16
Fecal Coliform
(2)
(3)
O&G (as
' HEM) ........
14
8.0
TSS ...............
30
20
Total Nitrogen
147
103
' mg/L (ppm)• -
2 Maximum of 400 MPN or CFU per 100 mL
at any time.
3 No maximum monthly average limitation.
§ 432.126 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
§ 432.127 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants
(BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BCT: Limitations for BODs, TSS, O&G
(as HEM), and fecal coliform are the
same as the corresponding limitation
specified in § 432.122.
(FIX Doc. 04-12017 Filed 9-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
2-SIDED PRINT

54554 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
4 May be measured as hexane extractable
material (HEM).
5 mg/L (ppm).
(b) The standards for BOD3 and TSS
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
were derived for a renderer that does
not cure cattle hide as part of the plant
operations. If a renderer does cure hide,
the same empirical formulas specified
in § 432.107(b) should be used to
calculate BODs and TSS limitations for
process wastewater associated with
cattle hide curing that apply in addition
to the standards specified in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(c) Any source that was a new source
subject to the standards specified in
§ 432.105 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1,
2003, must continue to achieve the
standards specified in this section until
'the expiration of the applicable time
period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1)
after which it must achieve the effluent
limitations specified in §§ 432.103 and
432.107.
§432.106 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
§432.107 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the beat control
technology for conventional pollutants
(BCT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BCT: Limitations for BODs, fecal
coliform, O&G, and TSS are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified
in § 432.105(a).
(b) The limitations for BODs and TSS
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
were derived for a renderer which does
not cure cattle hide. If a renderer does
cure hide, the following formulas
should be used to calculate BODs and
TSS limitations for process wastewater
associated with cattle hide curing, in
addition to the limitation specified in
paragraph (a) of this section:
Ibs BOD5/1000 Ibs RM = 7,9 x (no. of
hides)/lbs RM
kg BODs/kkg RM = 3.6 x (no. of hides)/
kg RM
Ibs TSS/1000 Ibs RM = 13.6 x (no. of
hides)/Ibs RM
kg TSS/kkg RM = 6.2 x (no. of hides)/
kg RM
Subpart K—Poultry First Processing
1432.110 Applicability.
This part applies to discharges of
process wastewater resulting from the
slaughtering of poultry, further
processing of poultry and rendering of
material derived from slaughtered
poultry. Process wastewater includes
water from animal holding areas at these
facilities.
§432.111 Special definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
Poultryfirst processing means
slaughtering of poultry and producing
whole, halved, quarter or smaller meat
cuts.
§432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
slaughters more than 100 million
pounds per year (in units of LWK) must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BFT:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Regulated
Maximum
Maximum
monthly
parameter
daily r
avg.
Ammonia (as N)
8.0
4.0
BODs .................
26
16
Fecal Coliform ..
(_)
(3)
O&G (as HEM)
14
8.0
TSS ...................
30
20
r mglL (Ppm)•
2Maximum of 400 MPN or CFU per 100 mL
at any time.
3No maximum monthly average limitation.
1432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the beat available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
slaughters more than 100 million
pounds per year (in units of LWK) must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BAT:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
Regulated
Maximum
monthly
parameter
daily r
avg.
Ammonia (as N)
8.0
4.0
Total Nitrogen ...
147
103
r mg/L (ppm)•
§ 432.114 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§ 432.115 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any source that is a new source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards:
(a) Facilities that slaughter no more
than too million pounds per year (in
units of LWK) must achieve the
following performance standards:
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
[NSPS]
Regulated
Maximum
Maximum
monthly
parameter
daily r
avg.
Ammonia (as N)
8.0
4.0
BODs .................
28
16
FecalColiform..
(a)
(3)
0&G (as HEM)
14
8.0
TSS ...................
30
20
' mgtL (ppm)•
a Maximum of 400 MPN or CFU per 100 mL
at any time.
3No maximum monthly average limitation.
(b) Facilities that slaughter more than
too million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) must achieve the following
performance standards:
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
(NSPS)
Regulated
parameter
Maximum
daily
Maximum
monthly avg.'
Ammonia (as
N) ..............
8.0
4.0
BOO, .............
26
18
Fecal Colifonn
(r)
(3)
O&G (as
HEM) .........
14
8.0
TSS ...............
30
20
Total Nitrogen
147
103
' mgrL (ppm)•
2 Maximum of 400 MPN or CFU per 100 mL
at any time.
3No maximum monthly average limitation.
§ 432.116 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
§432.117 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants
(BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BCT: Limitations for BODs, TSS, 0&G
(as HEM), and fecal coliform are the
same as the corresponding limitation
specified in § 432.112.
Subpart L—Poultry Further Processing
1432.120 Applicability.
This part applies to discharges of
process wastewater resulting from
further processing of poultry.

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(This form is best filled out on computer, rather than hard copy)
Date: May 1, 2006 County: Lee
To: NPDES Discharee Permitting Unit Permitee: Gold Kist
Attn. NPDES Reviewer: Sledge Application/ Permit No.: NCO072575
Staff Report Prepared By: J. Atkins
Project Name: Gold Kist Processing Plant/Sanford
SOC Priority Project? (Y/N) N If Yes, SOC No. _
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. This application is (check all that apply): ❑ New ® Renewal
❑ Modification
2. Was a 4 visit conducted in order to prepare this report?
a. Date of site visit: January 12, 2006
®Yes or❑I`l0.
b. Person contacted and telephone number: John Pomeranz 919 774-733\
c. Site visit conducted by: J. Atkins
d. Inspection Report Attached: ® Yes or ❑ No.
3. Keeping BIMS Accurate: Is the following BIMS information (a. through e. below) correct?
❑ Yes or ❑ No. If No, please either indicate that it is correct on the current application or the
existing permit or provide the details. If none can be supplied, please explain:
(If there is more than one discharge pipe, put the others on the last page of this form.)
a. Location OK on Application ®,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application ®,
OK on Existing PermitEl, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number:
d. Latitude/Longitude OK on Application ®, (check at http://www.topozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Latitude: Longitude:
e. Receiving Stream OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ®, or provide Receiving Stream or affected waters:
a. Stream Classification:
b. River Basin and Sub basin No.:
c. Describe receiving stream features and downstream uses:
For NEW FACILITIES Proceed to Section C, Evaluation and Recommendations
(For renewals or modifications continue to section B)

11 !
NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND WASTES) (renewals and modifications only)
1. Describe the existing treatment facility: influent pump station, aeration basin, secondary clarifier,
tertiary filter, anaerobic lagoon, methane incenerator, chlorination, dechlorination, step aerator
2. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the facilities? ® Yes or ❑ No.
Operator in Charge: Bruce Morgan Certificate # WW-4/985303 (Available in BIMS or Certification
Website)
Back- Operator in Charge: Michael Beale Certificate # WW-3/11088
3. Does the facility have operational or compliance problems? Please comment: no
Summarize your BIMS review of monitoring data (Notice(s) of violation within the last permit cycle;
Current enforcement action(s)):
NOVs
NOV-2004-LV-0035 ammonia limit violation
NOV-2004-LV-0336 ammonia limit violation
NOV-2004-LV-0574 fecal coliform limit violation
NOV-2005-LV-0243 fecal coliform limit violation
NOVAs
LV-2002-0602 fecal coliform limit violation
LV-2004-0311 ammonia limit violation
LV-2005-0143 fecal coliform limit violation
Are they currently under SOC, ❑ Currently under JOC, ❑ Currently under moratorium ❑? Have
all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit, SOC, JOC, etc. been complied with? ❑ Yes
or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Residuals Treatment: PSRP ❑ (Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, Class B) or
PFRP ❑ (Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, Class A)?
Are they liquid or dewatered to a cake?
Land Applied? Yes ❑ No ❑ If so, list Non -Discharge Permit No.
Contractor Used:
Landfilled? Yes ❑ No❑ If yes, where?
Other?
Adequate Digester Capacity? Yes ® No ❑ Sludge Storage Capacity? Yes ® No ❑
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 2

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Please comment on current operational practices: Sludge is wasted to the anaerobic digestor.
According to operators, the digestor has more than a twenty year storage capacity before the solids
would need to be removed for disposal.
5. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this
permit? ❑ Yes or ® No. If yes, please explain:
C. E VAL UA TION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: has the facility evaluated the non -discharge options available? Give
regional perspective for each option evaluated:
Spray Irrigation: already has a system under permit number WQ0014565
Connect to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
Other Disposal Options:
2. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application:
3. List any items that you would like NPDES Unit to obtain through an additional information
request. Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Recommended Additional Information
Reason
The facility to provide more information
Pollutant calculations were only provided for
concerning the discharge of the future rendering
BOD, COD, and TKN in the application. It
plant. The RRO requests the permittee perform
is reasonable to assume that the pollutant
chemical analysis on a similar rendering waste
load would be much more complicated due
stream for the pollutants listed on pages V-1
to studies indicating the retention of various
through V-8 of the permit application
pollutants in the fat of livestock.
The facility to submit an updated analysis for the
Sludge is being retained in the digestor. The
digestor capacity.
RRO basis that capacity is adequate is based
solely on conversations with the operators.
4. List specific Permit requirements that you recommend to be removed from the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each condition:
Recommended Removal Reason
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 3

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5. List specific special requirements or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in
the permit when issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Reason
6. Recommendation: ® Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office;
❑ Hold, pending review and approval of required additional information by NPDES permitting
office; ❑ Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
Reminder: attach inspectioi
7. Signature of report preparer
Signature of WQS regional
Date: 1 10
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 4