NC0072575_Report_19950214

- 4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A0TYWA
IT
[D E 1--i N R
February 14, 1995
Mr. Steven Woodruff CERTIFIED MAIL
Golden Poultry, Inc. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
P. O. Box 2210
Atlanta, Georgia 30301-2210
Subject: Diagnostic Report
Proposed Special Order by Consent
Golden Poultry, Inc.
NPDES Permit No. NCO072575
Lee County
Dear Mr. Woodruff:
In your letter to me dated January 17, 1994, you transmitted Golden Poultry's
response to our comments on the company's diagnostic report. While this response
contained a great deal of valuable information, there are still areas which require
additional clarification.
1. When the wastewater treatment system was originally designed, what was the
number of days per week that the overland flow system was intended to be in
service? If more than five days per week, what was the effect of reducing the
number of days per week in service on the quality of the effluent?
2. What were the reasons for the reduced efficiency of the DAF unit during May,
June and July of 1994? This is of special concern to us since there were also
major permit violations for this same period of time.
3. There seems to be missing data on the effluent from the DAF unit for the month
of July, 1994. Samples are normally collected and analyzed weekly but during
this month the results for only one sample were provided. What was the reason
for the missing data?
4. On page 3 of your report, you stated that "there has been a trend of increasing
concentrations of BOD, TSS, and TKN in influent water to the DAF unit over the
past 2-1/2 years". What is the reason for this increasing concentration?
5. On page 4 of the report you state "The NH3-N concentration in DAF effluent on
July 14, 1993 was above the design level for NH3-N." What was the reason for
this increased concentration?
6. On page 5 of the report you state the DAF performance has not been the major
factor contributing to the noncompliance". We fail to see how such a matter of
fact statement can be made considering the correlation between the poor
performance of the DAF unit during the summer of 1994 and the effluent
violations during these same months. How can taking a major part of your
treatment system off line not have a significant effect on the quality of the
effluent? Please explain.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 o% post -consumer paper

7. On page 7 of the report while discussing the effects of taking fields out of service
you state "We do not attribute BOD noncompliance to this action". We do not
understand how this conclusion was reached. Please explain.
8. On page 8 of the report you cite an EPA report which state "Studies with screened
raw and primary effluent municipal wastewaters showed effluent BOD
concentrations during rainfall events to be only slightly elevated above normal
operations values, but well below the 30 mg/1 secondary treatment standard".
We agree that your effluent values are below 30 mg/l, but the data in table 10 does
not support the contention that the concentrations are only slightly elevated. You
data show an average BOD of 4.1 mg/l with no rain increasing to 12.71 mg/1 with
over 1.0 inch of rain. This would seem to indicate that either deposited materials
are being washed off the field during rain events or the wastewater is receiving
lower levels of treatment during rain events, or very possibly both. Please provide
sufficient information to clarify this issue.
9. On page 14 of the report you state "The operating pressure issue with the DAF
system was not a significant problem". What led you to that conclusion? What
data is available to support that position?
10. On page 14 of the report you state "The ideal pH for the optimum treatment in
DAF systems will vary from plant to plant as well as day to day". What is the
optimum pH for this facility?
11. The effluent sampling for the months of June and July, 1994, deviate from the
normal practice of Wednesday monitoring. Why was this done? This is of
concern to us considering the facility's noncompliance during these months.
12. How often in the past two years has production taken place on weekends? When
were these production periods?
We look forward to working with you to resolve these remaining issues and to
receiving your expeditious response. If we can be of any further assistance in this or any
other matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 91gn33-5083, extension 528.
Sincerely,
Dennis R. Ramsey
Assistant Chief for Operations
Water Quality Section
cc: Craig Bromby
Jill Hickey
Raleigh Regional Office
SOC File

GOLD KIST INC. P.O. Box 2210 • Atlanta, GA 30301.244 Perimeter ter Pkwy, N.E. tlanta, A 30346 • [phone]
January 17, 1995 tl � LIU
Mr. Dennis R. Ramsey
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Diagnostic Evaluation Report
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
This letter is in response to your letter dated November 8, 1994. The information presented
herein addresses the seventeen (17) questions raised in your November 8, 1994 letter. We wish
to note that much of the information listed below has been previously submitted to NCDEM.
1) Ouestion
A detailed production history of the facility (number of birds processed) by month from
start-up through the most current month. Is production a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week
process? If the schedule of production has changed since system start-up, please explain.
Response
Production information for the facility since start-up (April 1989) through December
1994 is presented in the attached Table 1 "Production History". As this table shows, the
average number of birds processed each month has remained relatively uniform since
start-up in 1989. The facility was designed and permitted to operate two 91 bird per
minute processing lines, 16 hours per day (two 8-hour shifts), 5-6 days per week, or a
maximum processing capacity of approximately 175,000 birds per day. The actual
number of birds processed each day is typically less than 175,000 due to down time and
employee breaks. On the average, the facility processes 170,000 birds per day, five (5)
days per week. However, market conditions, holidays, and processing difficulties some
time require processing on Saturdays. As described above, the plant operates two 8-hour
processing shifts per day. As required by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), a third 8-hour shift is dedicated to plant clean-up each day.
2) Ouestion
A complete evaluation of the hydraulic loading on the pretreatment units and the land
application sites. Have these loadings increased since start-up of the facility? Are these
loadings consistent with the design criteria for the facilities? Was the initial design based

T
Response
Monitoring of flows through pretreatment units is not performed at the facility. The
facility uses an average of approximately 1.0 million gallons per processing day.
Typically, 90% of the water used in a poultry processing facility will be discharged to
wastewater treatment systems. The remainder of the water is lost to moisture pick-up
in the birds, evaporation, ice packaging, and moisture in by-products sent off -site for
rendering. Using these factors, the average daily flow to wastewater treatment systems
n1 is approximately 900,000 gallons (five day basis). This average daily flow is within the
IIV' r" V v flow capacity of the dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit (i.e. the average retention time in
s�s . the DAF is greater than 30 minutes, and the average surface loading in the DAF is less
than 1.75 GPM/ft?, (design factors used in sizing DAF units for this type of service).
ep Detailed monitoring logs on influent flows, effluent flows and rainfall data are maintained
for the overland flow (OF) treatment system. Table 2 "Summary of Hydraulic Loading
Z On Overland Flow Treatment System" and Figure 1 "Summary of Influent Hydraulic
` 0 1 Loading on Overland Flow Treatment System: 1989-1994" present summaries of the
I (� monthly average daily influent hydraulic loadings on the OF system. Table 2 also
presents a summary of the average effluent flows from the OF system and rainfall data
for 1989 through 1994. Table 2 clearly illustrates the benefits of the OF treatment
system over a direct discharge system (i.e. typically, in the critical summer months only
,y "1 a portion of the water applied is actually discharged to the river).
�2 As Figure I and Table 2 indicate, the monthly average daily influent hydraulic loading
j on the OF system has not significantly changed since start-up. The average daily flow
II and maximum peak daily flow to the OF system in 1994 were approximately 0.621 MGD
(or 0.18 in./day) and 1.943 MGD (0.55 in./day), respectively. The USEPA "Process
X Design Manual For Land Treatment Of Municipal Wastewater" dated October 1981 lists
the range for average hydraulic design loading rates for OF systems of 0.24 in/day to
2.64 in/day. The OF system at the Sanford facility is being operated at the low end of
this listed design range.
In order to minimize neighbor complaints, the facility primarily applies wastewater over
5 days (M-F). In addition, storage (and/or routing through) of significant volumes of
processing water in the on -site surge and storage ponds appears to degrade effluent
quality from the land application system. These issues are discussed in more detail in
responses to questions 4, 6, 7, and 14.
3) Question
Please provide influent data into the pretreatment facility. How has this varied since
system start-up?
2

Response
Detailed weekly sampling of influent to and effluent from the pretreatment systems
(dissolved air flotation - DAF unit) has only been conducted from mid 1992 to the
present. Sampling data associated with pretreatment systems is summarized in Table 3
"Summary of DAF Treatment Performance". Table 3 presents influent and effluent data
for the DAF unit as well as removal/treatment efficiency. Since flows are not measured
in pretreatment systems, it is most applicable to review concentration values rather than
pound loadings values. A rough estimate of the pound loadings to and from pretreatment
systems (DAF unit) is provided in Table 3. However, these values are based on the
assumption that the water irrigated represents the flow through the pretreatment
system. Since water is stored (and/or routed through) in the on -site surge pond and
holding pond, this assumption is not always correct.
It is difficult to collect representative influent samples to the pretreatment system due to
the high levels of oil and grease in the influent water. Influent sampling consists of
collecting grab samples from the wet well (samples are collected after screening
operations). The levels of BOD, TSS, TKN, etc. in plant wastewater will widely vary
throughout a typical day. A composite sample is collected from the effluent of the DAF
unit.
The levels of BOD, TSS, TKN, and NH3 N indicated in influent sampling are typical of
screened wastewater from poultry processing operations. In general, there has been a
trend of increasing concentrations of BOD, TSS, and TKN in influent water to the DAF
unit over the past 2-1/2 years. Despite these increases in influent levels of BOD, TKN,
and TSS, DAF effluent levels of these constituents have remained relatively consistent
over the past several years. As indicated in Table 3, the average removal efficiency of
the DAF unit for these constituents has also remained relatively constant. Dissolved air
flotation is ineffective in removing NH3-N.
4) Question
A complete evaluation over time of the efficiency of the pretreatment facilities prior to
land application. This evaluation must include average effluent values for all permitted
parameters. Of special interest is the quality of the effluent from the pretreatment
facilities during the period of permit violations.
Response
As indicated previously, the facility has only been performing detailed weekly sampling
of effluent from the DAF since mid 1992. Table 3 presents a summary of the
performance of the DAF unit, including influent and effluent levels for BOD, TSS, TKN,
and N113-N. A rough estimate of the pound loadings to and from pretreatment systems
(DAF unit) is provided in Table 3. However, these values are based on the
assumption that the water irrigated represents the flow through the pretreatment
system. Since water is stored (and/or routed through) in the on -site surge pond and
storage pond, this assumption is not always correct.
91

Figure 2 "DAF Effluent Characteristics" provides information on the BOD, TSS and
TKN levels in DAF effluent for the period of October 1992 - November 1994.
Average discharge values compared to typical industry averages were as
follows:
Parameter
Actual Average
Design Levels
Industry Average
BODE mg/I)
321
500
300 to 400
TSS (mg/1)
164
500
200 to 300
TKN (mg/1)
57.4
100
60 to 80
NH3-N (mg/1)
14.6
20
10 to 30
The average performance of the DAF unit has been excellent, and effluent levels are also
significantly lower than the average design criteria indicated in the original NPDES
permit application package submitted for the facility.
Attached Table 8 "Summary of Overland Flow Treatment System Performance During
Noncompliances" summarizes the DAF effluent performance during noncompliance
periods. With respect to the OF system BOD noncompliances, 5 of the 6
noncompliances (March 24, 1993; May 5, 1993; May 4; 1994; June 8, 1994; and July
22, 1994) occurred on days when rainfall ranged from 0.6 to 1.8 inches. The only BOD
noncompliance which would appear to have been impacted by DAF system performance
occurred on July 13, 1994. While there was no DAF effluent sample taken on July 13,
1994, previous samples indicate the system was experiencing a decline in effluent quality
which could have contributed to the specific noncompliance.
With respect to the OF system effluent NH3-N noncompliances, three of the
noncompliances (May 12, 1993, June 15, 1994, and August 2, 1994) occurred when the
TKN and NH3 N loadings to the system were at or near the average, thus indicating that
DAF performance was not the cause for the noncompliances. One NH; N
noncompliance (July 28, 1994) occurred on a day that no TKN influent data was
available. Two of the noncompliances (July 14, 1993 and June 29, 1994) occurred on
days when the TKN and NH3-N loadings to the OF system were above the average DAF
discharge levels, thus indicating that DAF performance may have contributed to these
specific noncompliances. TKN concentrations in DAF effluent on July 14, 1993 and
June 29, 1994 were below the design TKN level. The NH3-N concentration in DAF
effluent on July 14, 1993 was above the design level for N113-N.
As indicated on Table 5 "Summary of Influent and Effluent Monitoring Data for
Overland Flow Treatment System", during May and part of June, 1994 effluent from the
DAF was all being routed through the surge and storage ponds prior to application on
the OF system. This operating strategy was being followed to prevent neighbor
complaints. This operating strategy significantly reduced the BOD influent loadings to
the OF system, but increased NH3-N loadings to the OF system (i.e. due to conversion

of organic nitrogen to NH3-N in the ponds). Elevated levels of NH3-N were detected in
effluent from the OF system while the above described operating strategy was being
followed.
Overall, while there have been infrequent fluctuations in the effluent quality from the
DAF unit, the DAF performance has not been the major factor contributing to the
noncompliances. Overland Flow treatment systems can inherently handle fairly
significant loading fluctuations, and a review of operating data collected from the OF
system at the Golden Poultry Company plant clearly display this benefit. The
noncompliances have been primarily related to elevated effluent flows during rainfall
events (wet weather) , and, to a lesser degree, to operational issues related to the control
neighbor complaints and the necessity to periodically take fields out of service for routine
maintenance. If maintenance (haying, ditch maintenance, etc.) of OF terraces is not
performed, significant degradation of effluent quality will result and neighbor complaints
will develop.
5) Question
An explanation as to the deterioration of the quality of the wastewater being discharged
to the Deep River from start-up of the facility until present. We are especially concerned
with the deterioration of the effluent quality during the previous summers and particularly
over the past six (6) months.
Response
Table 4 "Summary of Monitoring Data - Effluent from Overland Flow Fields", Table 5
"Summary of Influent and Effluent Monitoring Data For Overland Flow Treatment
System", and Table 6 "Summary of Overland Flow Treatment System Performance"
provide information on influent to and effluent from the OF system as well as treatment
performance of the OF system.
Based on a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by NCDEM on December 18, 1991 and
subsequent inspections of the facility by NCDEM representatives in 1992, the facility
altered its effluent monitoring program in August 1992. The NOV and comments by
NCDEM representatives during inspections indicated the facility was not conducting
representative sampling of final effluent. Prior to August 1992, the facility was
specifically not sampling during days when rainfall/wet weather was influencing effluent
flows from the OF system. In August 1992, the facility shifted to performing sampling
on the same day of every week in a month. This sampling strategy guaranteed the
collection of effluent samples when flow volumes were being influenced by rainfall. The
sampling strategy adhered to prior to August 1992 was discussed in several meetings with
NCDEM officials prior to start-up of the system.
Based on the change in the facility's effluent monitoring program discussed above, it is
inappropriate to compare pound loadings of BOD and NH3-N in effluent from the OF
system prior to August 1992 with loadings from the system after this date. As Tables
5

4, 5, and 6 indicate, with the exception of the summer of 1994, the levels of BOD and
NH3-N in effluent from the OF system have been fairly consistent since 1992. Removal
efficiencies for BOD, TSS, and total nitrogen have also been relatively consistent over
this time period. There has not been a significant change in the average annual BOD
concentrations in effluent from the OF system since start-up (See Table 4). The average
annual NH3-N concentrations in effluent from the system have significantly decreased
since system start-up. As indicated in Table 7 "Summary Of Storm Water Runoff
Monitoring Data From Undeveloped Lands" the OF system is providing an effluent
quality similar to storm water runoff from undeveloped/undisturbed lands (i.e. effluent
quality comparable to background).
The elevated levels of BOD and NH3 N detected in effluent from the OF system during
May, June, July and August of 1994 are primarily related to elevated effluent flows
caused by heavy rainfall during these months. As indicated in Table 2, the amount of
rainfall in May, June, July, and August, 1994 (total of 19 in.) was significantly higher
than any previous year the facility has been in operation. June was a particularly wet
month, with more than 6.27 inches of rainfall. A discussion on each of the violations
that occurred during the summer of 1994 is provided in the response to question 4.
6) Question
In Section 3.2.3 of the Diagnostic Report, mention is made of the fact that wastewater
was not being applied to the fields during the weekends. Please provide us with a
schedule of the weekends on which wastewater was not being land applied.
Response
In June 1990 the facility discontinued applying water to the OF system on the weekends.
The OF system is typically started at 0300 on Monday morning and is operated until late
Friday afternoon to early Saturday morning, depending on the volume of water in the on -
site surge pond and storage pond. Any water generated in the plant on the weekends is
stored in the ponds until Monday. eit the sys m was operat on the weekends, the
facility received significant complaints from neighbor
uestion
An evaluation of the impact of the higher hydraulic loading was having on the fields
during the weekdays when wastewater was not being land applied during the weekends.
How have these self-imposed restrictions affected the operation of the treatment system.
Response
Application of wastewater primarily over five days rather than seven has resulted in
higher daily hydraulic loadings on the OF system. However, as indicated previously,
spraying a majority of the water direct, rather than holding it in the on -site ponds for
spraying on the weekends, seems to provide improved water quality, with respect to
NH3-N levels in the effluent . Operators also indicate the clarity of the effluent from the
OF system is improved when a majority of the DAF effluent is being sprayed directly.
11

The noncompliances that have occurred over the past several years have not occurred on
days of peak monthly influent flows to the treatment system. This indicates that
application of wastewater over five days rather than seven is not having a significant
impact on OF system performance and final effluent quality. Additional discussion on
hydraulic loadings on the system is provided in the response to question 2. As indicated
previously, minimizing application during the weekends has minimized neighbor
complaints.
8) Questio
An evaluation of the problems which have resulted from taking fields out of operation
due to harvesting of the crop. What factors determined when a field was taken out of
service? What modifications have been made to improve this situation?
Response
As indicated in the response to question number 4, some of the noncompliances related
to NH3-N may, in part, be attributable to the necessity to periodically take fields out of
service. We do not attribute BOD noncompliances to this action. Fields are taken out
of service to allow crop harvesting, tilling, liming, drying out for fly control, and spray
system maintenance. If maintenance activities were not performed on the fields,
treatment performance will be significantly degraded and neighbor complaints will occur.
Crop harvesting is a particularly important maintenance activity. Excessive grass growth
on the OF fields prevents sunlight and air currents from reaching soils on the fields,
thereby inhibiting oxidation and nitrification processes.
Beginning in April, or as early as weather conditions permit, approximately 15 % to 25 %
of the fields are taken out of use. As fields are harvested, they are put back in use and
others are taken out of service. This process continues until October, or as late as
weather allows. It typically requires two weeks to hay, harvest, and put a field back into
service. Due to weather conditions, this process has taken a minimum of seven (7) days
to a maximum of 60 days. Fields are selected for harvesting based on the amount and
height of grass on the fields.
Based on conversations with OF system experts, when a field is taken out of service and
dried out, the nitrifrer population go dormant and/or die back. When a field is brought
back into service, it takes a period of time for the nitrifrer population to recover. This
results in slightly higher short term ammonia concentrations in effluent off fields going
through this process. Additional polishing in collection ditches and effluent flow off fully
operational fields typically dampen out the influences of this condition.
In order to minimize the impacts of the above described condition, facility personnel try
to minimize the number of fields out of service at any one time. Also, fields are brought
back into full service slowly to allow recovery of the nitrifier population (i.e. the
duration of spraying on these fields is shortened). This action also minimizes the impacts
of slightly higher NH3-N concentrations in runoff from these fields on final effluent
7

r
quality.
9) Questiop
The Diagnostic Report repeatedly states that the effluent violations are the direct result
of rainfall on the site. The Report however gives no documentation to support that
effect. In fact our review of the effluent quality data and the discharge flow data do not
indicate that correlation. Figures 4 and 5 are supposed to correlate to rainfall causing
non-compliance, however, the graphs do not show what the rainfall was over any period
or give any specific date information. Please provide the information that lead the
company to this conclusion.
Response
The company has concluded that rainfall affects effluent violations based on several lines
of evidence which include:
• Discussions on the impacts of rainfall on OF system flow volumes listed in
USEPA's "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater", 1981 and supplement "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater. Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow",
October, 1984,
• An analysis of the non-compliance events associated with rainfall indicates that
rainfall has a direct affect on violations.
I. The USEPA recognizes that rainfall increases effluent flow off OF systems and
increases mass loadings of constituents (BOD, TSS, etc.) due to contributions
from background sources. There is little or no increase in constituent levels when
measured in concentration units. Table 7 presents constituent levels in rainfall
runoff (background loadings) from undeveloped lands around the plant. In Section
5.3.1., Rainfall Considerations: Impact on Effluent BOD Concentrations, page
91, the USEPA document (1984) states:
"Experience has shown that rainfall of any intensity has little effect
on effluent BOD concentrations. Studies with screened raw and
primary effluent municipal wastewaters showed effluent BOD
concentrations during rainfall events to be only slightly elevated
above normal operations values, but well below the 30 mg/L
secondary treatment standard. Similar results have been found at
several industrial overland flow systems treating food processing,
textile, and pulp and paste wastewaters. Most of the industrial
experiences shows that the effluent BOD concentration increased
slightly during moderate rainfall intensities and/or short duration
storms, but actually decreased below normal operating values
during high intensity an/or long duration rainfall events. This
M

decrease can most likely be attributed to dilution."
In section 6.2.8, Effect of Rainfall, page 6-9, the USEPA document (1981) states:
"In situations where discharge permits are based on mass discharge,
discussions with regulatory officials should be held to determine if permits
can be written to reflect background loadings occurring as a result of
rainfall runoff from OF fields or to allow higher mass discharges during
periods of high flow in receiving waters."
In section 5.3.3, Rainfall Considerations: Mass Discharges, page 91, the USEPA
document states:
"Even though the effluent BOD and suspended solids concentrations
during rainfall are similar to dry weather conditions, the mass discharge
of these constituents obviously increases proportionally to both the
intensity and duration of the rainfall event. For systems with discharge
limitations which are specified in mass units, heavy rainfall events can
cause a violation of the mass discharge limitations during the actual
event. "
In Section 5.3.4 Recommended Operating Practices, page 92, the USEPA document
states:
"While rainfall increases the mass of most pollutants discharged from an
OF system, it also results in increased steam flow and minimal impact on
receiving water quality. Therefore, the operating permits for OF systems
need not prohibit application of wastewater during rainfall events.
Recognizing this, some state regulatory agencies and EPA regions have
written permits based on flow which increase the mass discharge limits
during rainfall and/or replace them with a concentration limit.
H. An analysis of non-compliance events associated with rainfall indicates that
rainfall has a direct effect on violations. Data from the overland flow treatment
system were examined from September 1989 to November 1994. These dates
were chosen for evaluation because data were available for the variables rainfall,
effluent quality, BOD and NH3-N. We examined the compliance monitoring data
to determine the percent of measurements resulting in non-compliance, the
volume of effluent, and the BOD (mass and concentration) and NH3-N (mass and
concentration) associated with various quantities of rainfall. Rainfall was divided
in intervals of 0 inches, 0.01 to 0.50 inches, 0.51 to 0.99 inches, and > 1.00
inch, and the various levels of constituents (BOD and NH3-N) of interest were
determined for each interval. The results are given in Table 10, and a summary
0

of the descriptive statistics for each rainfall interval is given in Table 11. We
examine rainfall in intervals because the quantity of discharge is not only a
function of rain and irrigation on the day of measurement, but reflects conditions
over a several day period prior to the day of discharge.
The data are expressed in terms of median values (rather than means) for the
measure of central tendency because the data are not normally distributed. They
are skewed to the right (Table 11). Medians are most often used as measures of
central tendency for distributions that do not conform to the standard probability
models (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981, Biometry). Mean values are given for
comparative purposes in Table 11.
Rainfall and Effluent Discharge. Rainfall adds to the total effluent discharge, this
is not unexpected (see USEPA document). The median effluent discharge for the
period of analysis was 0.38 MGD when rainfall on that day was zero. The total
effluent discharge increased as the quantity of rainfall over the overland flow
system increased (Table 10, Figure 3). The phenomenon of increased surface
water flow from watersheds under rain events is well established. As indicated
in Section 5.3.4 Recommended Operating Practices, page 92, the USEPA
document (1984) states:
"While rainfall increases the mass of most pollutants discharged from an
OF system, it also results in increased steam flow and minimal impact on
receiving water quality. Therefore, the operating permits for OF systems
need not prohibit application of wastewater during rainfall events.
Recognizing this, some state regulatory agencies and EPA regions have
written permits based on flow which increase the mass discharge limits
during rainfall and/or replace them with a concentration limit."
Rainfall and BODS and NH3-N concentrations. As indicated in the USEPA
Overland Flow document (1984), during rainfall events BOD concentrations are
only slightly elevated above normal operating conditions. Table 10 and Figure
5 give the median concentrations of BOD and NH3-N corresponding to the
selected rainfall intervals. The BOD ranges from 4.1 to 12.7 mg/L and the
NH3-N ranges from 0.66 to 0.93 mg/L. In both cases the increase in
concentration associated with increasing rainfall volume are relatively small, and
constituent levels in final effluent remain comparable with tertiary treatment
levels.
Rainfall and BOD5 and NH3-N mass units. As indicated in the USEPA Overland
Flow document (1984), during rainfall events, the mass discharge of BOD
obviously increases. Table 10 and Figures 3 and 4 give the median mass
discharge associated with the rainfall intervals. The BOD ranges from 13 to 151
lb/day and the NH3-N ranges from 2.1 to 6.8 lb/day. When rainfall is zero the
10

L r
median discharge of BODS is 13 lb/day and NH3-N is 2.1 lb/day. Rainfall events
between 0.01 and 0.5 inches resulted in slight elevations in BOD (24.7 lb/day)
and no significant change in NH3-N (1.8 lb/day). Rainfall events between 0.51
and 0.99 inches resulted in a BOD loading that was 2.7 times greater than zero
rainfall, and NH3-N was 3.2 times greater than during zero rainfall. During
rainfall events 1 inch or greater, BOD loading was 11.6 times greater than during
zero rainfall. Ammonia could not be evaluated during this rainfall interval
because only one measurement of NH3-N was made.
Rainfall and the vercent of measurements that resulted in non-compliance.
During zero rainfall events, 1 % of BODS and 8.3 % NH3-N measurements resulted
in non-compliance. Table 10 and Figure 6 give the percent non -compliances for
each rainfall interval. Rainfall events in the interval of 0.01 to 0.50 inches
resulted in noncompliance, 3 and 12.5 % for BOD and NH3-N respectively.
Rainfall events of _ .51 to 0.99 inches resulted in larger percentages of
noncompliance, 30 % and 25 % for BOD and NH3-N3 respectively. Rainfall events
greater than 1 inch resulted in noncompliance 50 % of the time for BOD.
III. The effect of rainfall on the OF system was further evaluated by assessing the
influence of the total volume of rain that fell on the day of sampling, 1 day prior
to sampling, and 2 days prior to sampling. The amount of rainfall prior to
sampling is examined because the terraces are influenced by conditions that
existed prior to the day of discharge. Rainfall prior to the sampling day is an
important factor because rainfall affects soil moisture which, in turn, affects the
relative proportion of water that overland flow or infiltrate. The infiltration
capacity, or ability to infiltrate rainfall, is usually great at the start of a rain that
has been preceded by a dry spell, but drops rapidly as the rain continues to fall
and to soak into the soil. After several hours the soil's infiltration capacity
becomes almost constant. As rainfall continues, the soil reaches it field capacity.
Field capacity is reached in no more than two or three days for most soils. Once
field capacity is reached, infiltration is reduced and overland flow increases.
Data have been examined from August 1992 through November 1994. This time
period was chosen because sampling was random relative to rainfall (i.e., samples
were taken on a given day of the week regardless of weather conditions).
The total volume of rain that fell on the day of sampling (day 0), 1 day prior to
sampling (day 1), and 2 days prior to sampling (day 2) were determined and
cumulative totals were calculated. Cumulative totals were determined so that on
a sampling day we knew the total amount of rain that fell.
11

1. on the day of sampling (day 0);
2. on the day plus the day before sampling (day 1); and
3. on day 0 plus the day before sampling plus 2 days before sampling
(day 2)•
The rainfall data were then divided into two groups based on compliance status.
Sample events that resulted in non-compliance with either BOD or NH3-N are
called non-compliance sample events and sample events that resulted in
compliance with BOD and NH3-N are called compliance sample events.
The total cumulative rainfall and averages on the day of sampling (day 0), 1 day
prior to sampling (day 1), and for 2 days prior to sampling (day 2) are given for
non-compliance sample events in Table 12 and Figure 7, and for compliance
sample events in Figure 7. Total rainfall for 2 days prior to sampling was
associated with 92% (11 of 12) of non-compliance events (Table 12). Also,
cumulative rainfall on the day of sampling (day 0), 1 day prior to sampling (day
1), and for 2 days prior to sampling (day 2) was consistently greater for non-
compliance events than for sample events that were in compliance (Figure 6).
The cumulative rainfall for 2 days prior to sampling associated with non-
compliance events was 3.5 times greater than the cumulative rainfall 2 days prior
to sampling associated with compliance events. Likewise, the cumulative rainfall
for 1 day prior to sampling associated with non-compliance events was 5.7 times
greater than the cumulative rainfall 1 day prior to sampling associated with
compliance events. Also, on the day of sampling, non-compliance events
averaged 0.28 inches and events in compliance averaged 0.0 inches. Rainfall
directly affects effluent flow volumes off the OF system, and thereby affects the
mass loadings of constituents in the final effluent.
10) Question
If rainfall is currently having a significant impact on the quality of the effluent from the
system, why was this not anticipated during the design of the system and adequate steps
taken to alleviate this problem.
Response
As indicated in responses to other questions, rainfall is having an impact on the mass of
most constituents discharged from the OF system. The impact of rainfall on the OF
system was addressed in the "Site Suitability Investigation And Concept Design For Land
Treatment Of Wastewater For Golden Poultry Cumnock, NC" prepared for the facility,
a letter from Mr. John Starkey to Mr. Paul Wilms with NCDEM dated February 22,
1988 (copy attached) and in several meetings held with NCDEM representatives
concerning design and permitting issues related to the system. The above referenced
report was submitted to NCDEM for review. The impacts of rainfall on OF treatment
systems is also extensively discussed in USEPA's "Process Design Manual For Land
Treatment Of Municipal Wastewater" and the supplement to this document "Process
12

Q
Design Manual For Land Treatment Of Municipal Wastewater - Supplement On Rapid
Infiltration And Overland Flow". These USEPA documents also discuss background
loadings occurring as a result of rainfall runoff from OF fields. Correspondence from
NCDEM indicate that the above referenced USEPA manuals were used in evaluating
engineering reports and permit applications submitted for the facility/OF system.
The method of addressing rainfall consisted of not collecting samples when effluent flows
were being influenced by rainfall. This effluent monitoring program was discussed with
NCDEM representatives in several meetings held with NCDEM representatives (see
attached deposition from Mr. John Starkey, previous Environmental Manager with Gold
Kist Inc./Golden Poultry Company, Inc.). The issue of unrepresentative sampling listed
in the December 18, 1991 NOV forced a change in the facility's effluent monitoring
program. This change guaranteed the collection of effluent samples when effluent flows
are/were being impacted by rainfall. As indicated previously, certain rainfall events,
which significantly increase effluent flows, will cause noncompliances. Golden Poultry
Company, Inc. contested the new NPDES permit primarily for this reason.
As indicated in the "Site Suitability Investigation And Concept Design For Treatment Of
Wastewater For Golden Poultry Cumnock, NC", pollutant concentrations in effluent from
OF systems are essentially no different during rainfall than they are in dry weather.
Moreover, effluent pollutant concentrations tend to remain the same regardless of
whether wastewater is being applied during a rainfall event or not, due to pollutant
contributions from background sources. Thus, there is no value to discontinue the
application of wastewater during rainfall because the receiving stream will receive no
additional benefit. The above referenced USEPA manuals also indicate that there is no
need to discontinue the application of wastewater during rainfall. Specifically, USEPA's
"Process Design Manual For Land Treatment Of Municipal Wastewater - Supplement On
Rapid Infiltration And Overland Flow" states that
"While rainfall increases the mass of most pollutants discharged from an OF
system, it also results in increased stream flow and minimal impact on receiving
water quality. Therefore, the operating permits for an OF system need not
prohibit application of wastewater during rainfall events."
This issue was discussed with NCDEM representatives on several occasions during initial
permitting of the treatment system.
11) uestion
How significant was the effect of insufficient operational pressure in the Dissolved Air
Flotation Unit. When was the piping redone to divert portions of the flow to feather
flushing. Was the potential impact on the DAF Unit taken into account prior to
implementation?
13

Response
The operating pressure issue with the DAF system was not a significant problem. The
DAF system had been operating at a lower pressure and was producing excellent effluent
quality prior to the decline in DAF treatment performance experienced during this past
summer. It was pointed out by the reviewing engineer that most systems operate at
higher pressures than observed on the specific day of the visit. The piping which
allowed a portion of the flow to be diverted for feather fluming had been in operation
since plant start-up. As required under the draft SOC, a separate pump and associated
piping for feather flush water was installed prior to December 1, 1994.
12) Question
How significant were the pH problems associated with the pretreatment units? How long
had the problem with pH existed?
Response
The pH issue with the DAF system was not a significant problem. It was pointed out
-by e reviewing engineer as an observation that most systems operate at higher pH
ges than the pH which was observed on the specific day of the visit. The pH issue
occurred during the months of July and August, 1994. The ideal pH for optimum
treatment in DAF systems will vary from plant to plant as well as day to day.
13) Question
An explanation of how the polymers are used in the system. Also provide the details of
the company's efforts to use polymers to prevent permit violation.
Response
Polymers are used in the DAF system at two points:
• DAF Unit - Anionic polymers are used in conjunction with ferric sulfate
to flocculate organic pollutants for subsequent flotation in the DAF. This
is the traditional chemical pretreatment approach used by essentially all
poultry processors.
• Belt Filter Press - Cationic polymers are used to aid in flocculation of
DAF skimmings prior to dewatering using a belt filter press. This is the
traditional approach used for the operation of belt filter presses for
municipal and industrial solids dewatering.
Regarding the use of polymers to prevent permit violations, the company and the facility
work very closely with chemical suppliers to assure that the best polymer(s) are used for
the DAF and belt filter press applications. Other than the normal day to day operational
activities as relates to the optimum use of the polymers, no other specific actions have
been taken.
14

The solids from the DAF unit at the Golden Poultry Company plant in Sanford, North
Carolina are rendered off -site and incorporated back into animal feed products. Since
these solids are incorporated back into animal feed products, the polymers used in the
DAF and belt press must be either approved by the FDA or be declared as "Generally
Recognized As Safe" (GRAS). CYTEC is the only polymer supplier that currently sells
approved/GRAS polymers, and only several of their polymer lines are sold as GRAS (i.e.
very limited choice of polymers for DAF and belt pressing applications). The decline
in DAF effluent quality experienced in March, April and May, 1993 (see Table 3) were
attributable to an off -spec batch of polymer sold by CYTEC during that time period.
14) Question
An explanation on how are the surge pond and storage pond being used. How are these
units utilized during rainfall events? When fields are re -started, are these units used to
minimize the application rates and reduce the potential for wash off?
Response
During normal operation, wastewater from the processing plant is sprayed directly from
the pump house wet well to the OF system. Plant wastewater is diverted into the
surge/aeration and storage ponds under the following conditions:
1 _ _,, ,�fr • Freezing weather (no irrigation);
��ff °" • Weekends (no irrigation);
• Significant number of fields out of service due to maintenance (no
it/ ��/I irrigation, or portion of water irrigated and a portion held);
• Potential neighbor complaints (water routed through ponds and irrigated
and/or held);
• Significant upset in DAF unit (water routed through ponds and irrigated
and/or held);
• Drying out of fields to prevent flies (water held); and
• To minimize hydraulic loadings on fields being brought back into service
after harvesting or other maintenance activities (portion of water irrigated
and portion held).
An overflow pipe between the pump house and the surge pond allows irrigation of water
from the surge pgnd. When the water level in the pump house wet well is low, water
from the surge pond automatically flows back into the wet well for irrigation. When the
water level in the wet well is high, water automatically flows into the surge pond. A
diverter mechanism allows plant wastewater to directly flow into the surge pond rather
than into the wet well first. Several high speed aerators are installed in the surge pond.
Water from the surge pond can also overflow into the storage pond. A drain valve is
installed in the storage pond to allow water to flow back into the pump house wet well
for irrigation. Routing water through the surge pond and storage pond during certain
time periods minimizes potential neighbor complaints. Various pumping combinations
are used from day to day to address actual site conditions.
15

Generally, the facility continues to apply wastewater during rainy weather. As indicated
in the "Site Suitability Investigation And Concept Design For Treatment Of Wastewater
For Golden Poultry Cumnock, NC" prepared for the facility, pollutant concentrations in
effluent from OF systems are essentially no different during rainfall than they are in dry
weather. Moreover, effluent pollutant concentrations tend to remain the same regardless
of whether wastewater is being applied during a rainfall event or not, due to pollutant
contributions from background sources. Thus, there is no value to discontinue the
application of wastewater during rainfall because the receiving stream will receive no
additional benefit. Table 9 "Comparison Of Effluent BOD And NH3-N Concentrations
During Wet and Dry Weather" indicates there is no significant difference in the average
BOD concentration in effluent from the system during wet and dry weather. The average
NH3-N concentration was lower in system effluent during wet weather than during dry
weather.
As indicated above, USEPA's "Process Design Manual For Land Treatment Of
Municipal Wastewater - Supplement On Rapid Infiltration And Overland Flow" dated
October 1984 states that:
"While rainfall increases the mass of most pollutants discharged from an OF
system, it also results in increased stream flow and minimal impact on receiving
water quality. Therefore, the operating permits for an OF system need not
prohibit application of wastewater during rainfall events."
Correspondence from NCDEM listed the above referenced USEPA manual as one of the
documents used in reviewing preliminary engineering studies submitted for the
facility/OF treatment system.
15) Question
Indicators for direction of flow on all diagrams and a legend for units not labeled.
Response
Revised flow diagrams are attached.
16) Question
An explanation as to why the system has achieved better nitrification in winter than
summer.
Response
Crop harvesting and significant maintenance operations (i.e. liming, tilling, etc.) are not
performed on the OF system during the winter months. We believe the system achieves
enhanced nitrification in the winter months because of this factor. Due to depressed crop
growth rates during the winter months, harvesting is not generally required.
16

Ik ' ..1
17) Question
Please provide a description of the chlorinating system. Please explain the actions taken
by the company to correct past problems that resulted in permit violations.
Response
Chlorine solution is added to effluent from the OF system near the effluent flow
monitoring structure. Chlorine solution is added directly to the effluent flowing in the
main effluent collection Swale. Contact time is provided in the culverts under OF system
perimeter road and in a series of baffled channels just ahead of effluent flow monitoring
structure. The effluent flow monitoring structure is more than 1000 feet from the point
where the effluent discharges into the Deep River. A description of the chlorinating
system and the upgrades that have been made to the system were provided in a letter to
Mr. Kenneth Schuster with NCDEM dated September 8, 1993. A copy of this letter is
attached.
It is difficult to achieve disinfection during periods of elevated effluent flows caused by
rainfall/wet weather.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any additional questions concerning the above
information.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Woodruff, P.E.
Director, Environmental Engineering
and Compliance
Attachments
cc: Mr. Craig Bromby (Hunton and Williams)
Mr. Vernon Rowe (Rowe Environmental)
Mr. Bud Smart (Smart and Associates)
Mr. Glenn Berry
Mr. Sidney Prince/Mr. Bruce Morgan
File
17

. t ,-
TABLE 1
Production History
Golden Poultry Company
Sanford, North Carolina
Month/Year
Birds Processed
Head Million
Month/Year
Birds Processed
Head Million
1/89
N/A
1 /92
4.022
2/89
N/A
2/92
3.067
3/89
N/A
3/92
3.009
4/89
2.774
4/92
3.725
5/89
2.473
5/92
3.351
6/89
3.572
6/92
3.400
7/89
3.948
7/92
3.858
8/89
3.045
8/92
3.247
9/89
3.179
9/92
3.256
10/89
4.170
10/92
3.971
11 /89
2.720
11 /92
2.678
12/89
2.797
12/92
2.830
Avg. Mil. Head/Mth
3.186
Avg. Mil. Head/Mth
3.368
1 /90
3.600
1 /93
4.135
2/90
3.119
2/93
3.045
3/90
3.130
3/93
3.280
4/90
3.825
4/93
3.785
5/90
3.302
5/93
3.234
6/90
3.377
6/93
3.181
7/90
3.796
7/93
3.907
8/90
3.248
8/93
3.218
9/90
2.933
9/93
3.288
10/90
4.011
10/93
3.840
11 /90
2.954
11 /93
2.821
12/90
3.009
12/93
2.948
Avg. Mil. Head/Mth
3.359
Avg. Mil. Head%Mth
3.390
1 /91
3.816
1 /94
3.958
2/91
3.092
2/94
3.027
3/91
2.798
3/94
2.868
4/91
4.131
4/94
4.062
5/91
3.236
5/94
3.287
6/91
3.323
6/94
3.181
7/91
3.914
7/94
3.911
8/91
3.342
8/94
3.281
9/91
3.040
9/94
3.327
10/91
4.005
10/94
3.975
11 /91
2.662
11 /94
2.623
12/91
2.837
12/94
3.180
Avg. Mil. Head/Mt h
3.350 i
Avg. Mil. Head/Mth
3.390 '
Notes:
1) The facility was designed and permitted to operate two 91 bird per minute
processing lines, 16 hours per day (two hour shifts), 5-6 days per week.
SRW 1/16/95

'01 `%
TABLE 2
Summary of Hydraulic Loading On Overland Flow Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company
Sanford, North Carolina
1989
Month
Influent Flow to OF System
Effluent from OF System
Total Monthly
Rainfall
Inches
Notes
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Sept.
0.860
1.270
24
0.680
2.350
21
3.2
Oct.
0.870
1.130
27
0.870
4.820
18
6.0
Eff. flow to high to read on several days of mth.
Nov.
0.748
1.207
22
0.875
3.296
25
1.5
Eff. flow meter in -operative one day in mth.
Dec.
0.603
1.890
19
0.705
1.985
18
2.8
Freezing wthr. no appl. 4 days, River backed u into outfall
Average
0.770
- -
23
0.783
- -
21
- -
Annual
Totals
- -
- -
92
- -
- -
82
13.50
1990
Month
Influent Flow to OF System
Effluent from OF System
Total Monthly
Rainfall
Inches
Notes
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Jan.
0.992
1.818
30
0.674
3.710
23
3.3
Feb.
0.750
1.230
21
0.895
1.890
25
2.9
Mar.
0.749
1.662
22
0.577
1.290
17
3.8
Apr.
0.698
1.118
21
0.436
1.400
13
1.8
May
0.803
1.541
25
1.018
4.160
32
6.4
June
0.795
1.764
24
0.370
1.000
11
1.1
--July
0.796
1.654
25
0.284
0.780
9
1.2
Aug.
0.679
1.523
21
0.319
1.800
10
1.4
Sept.
0.590
1.200
18
0.360
1.200
11
1.3
Oct.
0.655
0.9321
20
0.880
3.978
23
9.4
Outfall flooded 5 days, no flow effluent flow reading
Nov.
0.560
1.416
17
0.259
0.776
8
0.6
Dec.
0.534
1.281
17
0.468
1.600
15
3.2
Average
0.717
- -
22
0.545
- -
16
- -
Annual
Totals
- -
- -
261
- -
- -
197
36.40
Notes;
1) Actual daily flow information is presented in attached "Daily Operating Data" sheets.

Z- off' y
TABLE 2 Contd.
Summary of Hydraulic Loading On Overland Flow Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company
Sanford, North Carolina
1991
Month
Influent Flow to OF S stem
Effluent from OF System
Total Monthly
Rainfall
Inches
Notes
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Jan.
0.685
1.611
21
2.048
8.729
64
5.4
Outfall flooded; Freezing temps., Manual flow readings
Feb.
0.625
1.451
18
0.503
1.316
14
5.6
Mar.
0.524
1.206
16
0.608
2.468
19
3.9
Apr.
0.668
0.903
20
0.229
0.820
7
2.0
May
0.584
1.079
18
0.358
1.588
11
2.1
June
0.638
1.042
19
0.329
3.036
10
4.6
July
0.613
1.102
19
0.535
2.232
16
4.65
Aug.
0.670
1.176
20
0.544
2.300
17
2.95
Sept.
0.715
1.021
21
0.521
3.600
15
5.1
Oct.
0.751
1.099
23
0.735
3.012
23
2.1
Nov.
0.624
1.362
18
0.455
0.786
14
1.5
Dec.
0.586
1.047
18
0.684
2.338
21
3.3
Average
0.640
- -
19
0.629
- -
19
--
Annual
Totals
-
- -
231
- -
- -
231
43.20
1992
Month
Influent Flow to OF System
Effluent from OF System
Total Monthly
Rainfall
Inches
Notes
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Jan.
0.722
1.420
22
0.780
1.656
24
2.83
Feb.
0.597
1.266
17
0.694
3.222
19
2.1
Outfall flooded 1 day in mth. no flow value
Mar.
0.456
1.153
10
0.534
2.068
17
3.5
Apr.
0.560
0.983
17
0.352
1.068
10
2.95
Outfall flooded 1 day in mth. no flow value)
May
0.570
1.621
18
0.461
1.212
14
1.75
June
0.590
1.743
18
0.694
2.934
18
8.15
Could not get grass cut due to wet weather, Flow meter out 27-31
July
0.630
1.555
20
0.235
1.296
7
1.25
Aug.
0.607
2.078
19
0.422
3.944
13
4.55
Sept.
0.597
1.222
18
0.360
1.170
11
2.08
Oct.
0.558
0.989
17
0.578
1.338
18
4.45
Nov.
0.519
1.599
16
0.950
4.448
29
7.97
Dec.
0.575
1.205
18
0.712
2.580
22
3.03
Average
0.582
- -
18
0.564
- -
17
- -
Annual
Totals 1
- -
- -
210
- -
- -
202
44.61
Notes:
1) Actual daily flow information is presented in attached "Daily Operating Data" sheets.

3 c:T- y
TABLE 2 Contd.
Summary of Hydraulic Loading On Overland Flow Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company
Sanford, North Carolina
1993
Month
Influent Flow to OF System
Effluent from OF System
Total Monthly
Rainfall
Inches
Notes
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Jan.
0.627
1.749
19
0.937
2.864
29
5.07
Feb.
0.554
1.448
12
0.727
2.424
20
1.87
Mar.
0.710
1.855
21
0.917
3.290
20
8.02
Apr.
0.604
1.030
18
0.259
0.784
6
5.19
Outfall flooded 7 days of month no flow values
May
0.555
1.061
17
0.379
1.326
12
2.23
June
0.644
1.862
19
0.216
0.412
6
2.14
July
0.587
1.203
18
0.214
0.656
7
2.20
Aug.
0.521
1.020
16
0.322
1.188
10
3.94
Sept.
0.658
1.099
20
6.346
0.825
10
2.21
Oct.
0.577
1.386
18
0.567
2.767
18
1.53
Nov.
0.499
1.047
15
0.712
2.767
21
4.57
Dec.
0.534
1.840
17
0.757
2.540
23
3.49
-Average
0.589
- -
18
0.529
- -
15
- -
Annual
Totals
-- I
--
210
--
--
182
42.46
1994
Month
Influent Flow to OF System
Effluent from OF System
Total Monthly
Rainfall
Inches
Notes
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Jan.
0.618
1.943
19
0.828
2.976
26
3.66
Feb.
0.583
1.245
21
0.734
3.520
21
3.22
Mar.
0.603
1.749
19
0.494
2.180
12
4.38
Outfall flooded 7 days of month no flow values
Apr.
0.577
1.220
17
0.302
0.994
9
1.06
May
0.596
1.758
18
0.401
2.468
12
4.00
June
0.609
1.265
18
0.981
4.975
29
6.27
July
0.635
1.696
20
0.612
2.636
19
5.54
Aug.
0.666
1.252
21
0.512
1.684
16
3.19
Sept.
0.721
1.391
22
0.570
2.428
17
2.68
Oct.
0.608
1.420
19
0.641
1.940
20
4.12
Nov.
0.613
1.689
18
0.589
1.592
18
2.26
Dec.
0.623
1.776
19
0.627
2.904
19
1.17
Average
0.621
- -
19
0.608
- -
18
--
Annual
Totals
--
--
212
--
--
199
40.38
Notes:
1) Actual daily flow information is presented in attached "Daily Operating Data" sheets.

W
4 V� w
TABLE 2 Contd.
Summary of Hydraulic Loading On Overland Flow Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company
Sanford, North Carolina
Averages 1989 - 1994
Month
Influent Flow to OF System
Effluent from OF System
Total Monthly
Rainfall
Inches
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Avg. Daily
MGD
Max. Daily
MGD
Total Mth.
MG
Jan.
0.729
1.708
22
1.053
3.987
33
4.05
Feb.
0.622
1.328
18
0.711
2.474
20
3.14
Mar.
0.608
1.525
18
0.626
2.259
17
4.72
Apr.
0.621
1.051
19
0.316
1.013
9
2.60
May
0.622
1.412
19
0.523
2.151
16
3.30
June
0.655
1.535
20
0.518
2.471
15
4.45
July
0.652
1.442
20
0.376
1.520
12
2.97
Aug.
0.629
1.410
19
0.424
2.183
13
3.21
Sept.
0.690
1.201
21
0.473
1.929
14
2.76
Oct.
0.670
1.159
21
0.712
2.976
20
4.60
Nov.
0.594
1.387
18
0.640
2.278
19
3.07
Dec. 1
0.5761
1.507
18
0.659
2.325
20
2.83
Average 1
0.639
- -
19
0.586
- -
5
- -
Notes:
1) Actual daily flow information is presented in attached "Daily Operating Data" sheets.
SRW 1/10/94

v a-k- :5
TM3
5.m d DAP TredmeM Pedarmerv:e
Gd Poultry Caagerv/
Pouery Pracea" PW
Sedad. North C dY
Weser
BOD
TSS
T"
NRi N
Dal.
Pumped
OD
Idlwrl
PM
IM1.0
(lb/day)P
Efiloord
Bmm
/doy
em0:4I
Ea.
Idlued
PM
Id1umm
A/de
Efflrd
PM
Enlu
/den
Re 61
Ea.
Id1ueM
PMj_
IMIueM
/de
BI.M
M
EMIueM
19/d.
RemovalI
Ea.
11mrd
/de0_
IIIWM
Phl�
alu
/d!
Remwel
E8. %
6 IDJ12
1.733
2870.0
N480.7
x40.0
340a.a
91.6
2540.0
30711.2
e4,0
1214.1
06.7
129
Pt17.1
450
M.4
179.2
9.6
137.3
234
ua 188E
Awre a
2870.0
414E0.7
240.0
3 .a
91.a
2540.0
56711.2
64.0
1214.1
9a7
129
167.1
4S0
650.4
170.E
0.5
IW 3
NA
7/14M 0.Rw
2200.0
17595.7
470.0
3759.1
78.6
1430.0
11437.2
290.0
2310A
79.7
111.4
891.0
48.9
391.1
50.1
w0
9.5
70.0
13.6
Ju119B2 Average
:nOO.O
1]585.7
470.0
3750.1
Me
1430.0
IM7.2
290.0
2319A
]a7
111.4
891.0
4a9
301.1
Sal
6E.0
9.5
7E.0
f
9/02192 0.812
3410.0
230B2.B
520.0
3521.5
a4.8
2600.0
/7607.4
270.0
182a.5
89.8
124.7
844.5
51.9
351.6
55.4
110.5
A
9/16/82 0.814
34WO
23217.E
470.0
3190.7
86.3
2190.0
14667A
1B0.0
1289.9
91.3
128.7
073.7
54.9
372.7
57.3
132.4
ISO
101.8
0.1'
S .199E Aw
3415.0
23155.2
425.0
3356.1
BSS
2305.0
IM7.4
230.0
1559.2
90.5
126.7
859.1
514
M.1
57.9
124.4
ISO
101.8
NA
10/070.81E
1360.0
9210M
MOO
2167.1
76.5
1320.0
8939.1
120.0
812.E
90.9
118.2
800.5
52.4
354.9
551
907
9.7
05.)
271
1021ry2 0.892
1650.0
122748
560.0
4166.0
66.1
1247.0
2276.8
494.0
3675.0
604
130.7
972.3
72.8
WA
44.3
1056
0.7
722
31.7
Oct. 1022A
I505.o
10742.4
440.0
31MS
71.3
1283.5
91oe.0
307.0
2243.8
756
124.5
MA
eza
446.E
Sn0
M2
9.7
E6Y
NA
12/02/92 1.205
1814.0
10220.E
215.0
2160.7
86.7
1495.0
15024.3
96.0
864.E
93.E
138.9
1395.9
51.5
511.E
02.8
IOD.S
10.8
109.5
OA
12/23'02 0.804
2t10.0
t0626.8
290.0
1480.8
88.3
1440.0
7253.8
170.0
B56A
88.E
147.]
744.0
49.E
249.9
88.0
40.E
205.5
f0.9
54.D
73.3
Deo. 199E Awwage
1 1002.01
13424.51
467.5
11139.0
133.0
W10.51
Mal
143.3
lu'u.01
Sn01
OCri
ZSWI
622
NA
7902 Am
2320.3
1921a1
385.a
20116.E
62i
17MO
15139.7
214.3
1620.1
M3
114.E
638.a
5 4
40.7
50.1
17.4
120.4
10.7
ee.2
NA

Table 3 Contd.
Z a'1- S
Water
SOD
75S
TKN
NHi_ N
Dale
Prunpod
MGD}
frdluerd
PM
Irdfuord
Ib/da
EHluerd
PM
Etfluerd
Ib/da�
Removal
Etf. 96
trdluord
PM
Irdtuont
Ib/da
Efftuord
PM
Effluord
/day)
807.7
Removal
EH. 16)
97.9
95.6
Irdluord
PM)
Irdluort
tb/day)
2812.8
1183.8
f luonl
PM)
45.2
EHtuard
Ib/dayl}
Removal
H. )
Wluord
PM)
fnftuent
Ib/dad
1900.
07.0
_
Eftlueril
PM
Effluent
/dad
1528
97.0
amoral
Eff.
22.1
00
1106193
1/13/93
1.794
0.994
3004.0
2028.0
4494S.7
180.0
2393.9
94.7
2795.0
41818.7
60.0
188.0
142,E
676.3
76.0
13.1
10.2
11.7
16812.0
169.0
1401.0
91.7
1930.0
15999.6
27.0
223.8
43.7
362.3
336.4
69.4
11.7
1/20/93
0.923
2340.0
18012.9
240.0
1847.5
89.7
2540.0
19SS2.5
130.0
1000.7
94,9
192.4
1481.1
43.7
77.3
13.1
100.4
79.8
118.4
69.5
W.7
9.5
1t%S
&0
82.4
69.6
100.4
47.S
120.0
16.3
12.8
1/27 3 1
0.878
1686.0
12345.8
23fJ29.1
176.0
1288.8
89.6
1450.0
10617.7
69.0
505.3
95.2
96.E
90.6
134.1
161.3
124.4
981.9
1611.9
40.8
431
298.8
418.4
69.8
10.9
Jan. 199Ci
Aver a
2264.b
188.3
1732.8
91.4
2178.e
21997.1
7897.E
71.5
056.9
742.3
731
62.5
122
11.7
NA
31.6
2/10/93
b/43
0.712
1460.0
8010.2
240.0
1425.1
83.4
1330.0
12S.0
738.7
1 .8
46.6
276.7
1.448
1160.0
14008.
420.
3 .
.8
6-
/02$2.8
25d.0
3691
60.8
100.1
50.5
609.9
42.8
9.S
114'.7
10 0
2117/93
0.692
1 S00.0
8658.9
470.0
2712.S
65.7
1305.0
7531.5
347.0
2002.6
73.4
123.9
71 S.1
S9.8
345.1
51.7
13.1
75.8
77.E
84.3
135.0
99.1
9.6
56.6
26.2
2i24/93
0.710
2230.0
13204.7
460.0
2723.8
79.4
2010.0
11902.0
327.0
1938.3
83.7
142.8
845.0
53.4
316.2
62.6
5666
13.1
11.9
10.7
9.6
03.4
72.0
100.2
18.3
NA
25.1
Feb. 1993
Aver a
1SSS.0
11120.1
397.S
2953.41
73.8
1373.5
9396.01
263.8
1943.2
79.4
122.8
877.0
52-6
387.01
3/03/93 1
1.178
1970.0
19364.3
410.0
4028.1
79.2
2025.0
19894.7
329.0
3232.3
83.8
144.3
1417.7
52.5
515.8
63.6
13.8
la 2
3/10/93
1 1.016
3690.0
31267.0
310.0
2626.8
91.6
4140.0
35080.0
152.0
1288.0
95.3
223.7
1895.5
45.7
357.2
79.6
11.7
102
86.4
12.8
3/17/93
1.181
1842.0
18142.9
286.0
2817.0
84.5
1780.0
17532.2
120.0
1181.9
93.3
147.2
1449.9
49.6
488.5
66.3
13.1
129.0
1b76
107.4
15.8
Mar. 1993
A
2500.7
22921.4
336.3
31S7.3
85 1
2648.3
24169.0
200.3
1900.7
91.1
171.7
1587.7
49.3
463.9
69.e
52.1
12-9
13.8
121.2
1 i a. S
1CL4
14.4
9Q0
1240
NA
4/14/93
1.030
2330.0
2001 S.2
1060.0
9105.6
54.5
1944.0
18699.3
727.0
6246.1
62.6
169.8
1458.6
81.3
698.4
4/21/93
1 1.021
4410.0
37S51.81
420.0
3576.4
90.51
3210.0
27333.6
200.0
1703.01
93.8
189.6
1014.6
49.3
419.8
74.0
11.2
95.4
88.8
160.0
11.0
7.3
IOA
13.1
93.7
S59
1i1.2
1.8
37.1
4/28/93
1 0.918
3210.0
24676.1
470.0
3598.4
85.4
3150.0
24116.8
33S.0
2564.8
89.41
168.3
1288.5
62.4
477.7
62.9
63.0
11.E
I i
r. 1993
Aver
3316.7
27381.0
660.0
5428.8
78.8
2768.0
22716.6
430.7
3504.3
81.9
17S.0
1453.9
64.3
S32.0
NA
0.0
5/OS/93
0.848
1S2.4
1077.8
64.8
458.3
57.5
13.1
92.E
92.6
5/12/93
0.931
2180.0
16926.7
220.0
1708.2
89.9
1710.0
13277.4
83.0
644.5
95.1
153.8
1194.2
52.2
405.3
66.1
18.1
140.S
14.9
115.7
17.7
5/19/93
0.957
1S30.0
12211.5
200.0
1596.3
86.9
1450.0
11573.0
76.0
622.S
94.6
123.3
984.1
45.0
359.2
03.5
12.3
98.2
12.3
98.2
0.0
5/26/93
1.061
2329.0
20608.7
210.0
1858.2
91.0
1665.0
13848.3
36.0
318.6
97.7
150.9
1335.3
43.6
384.9
71.2
13.8
/4.3
122.1
113.4
12.0
1&1
106.2
103.2
13.0
NA
May 1993
Aver 0
2013.0
18582.3
210.0
1720.9
69.31
157S.0
12899.5
65.7
528.S
95.8
/4S.1
1147.8
51.4
401.9
64.E
6/02/93
I 0.9S1
4220.0
33470.3
370.0
2934.6
91.2
1820.0
14435.0
124.0
983.5
93.2
140.7
111 S.9
62.9
490.9
55.3
14.5
115.0
18.7
132.5
6/09/93
1.862
1350.0
20964.3
350.0
6435.2
74.1
1000.0
15529.1
130.0
2018.8
87.0
116.1
1802.9
54.2
841.7
53.3
16.0
248.5
13.1
203.4
18.1
6/16,93
0.892
1370.0
10191.8
310.0
2306.2
77.4
1090.0
8108.8
130.0
907.1
88.1
123.3
917.3
61.4
456.8
50.2
14.5
107.9
14.9
110.8
6123,93
1 0.888
1830.0
13552.8
310.0
229S.8
83.1
1670.0
12367.9
130.0
962.8
92.2
138.6
1026.5
54.7
405.1
60.5
14.S
107.4
16.7
123.7
Jum 1993Aver
a
2192.5
19644.8
335.01
3242.9
81.4
1395.0
12510.21
125.5
1233.0
90.1
120.7
1215.6
5e.3
550.6
54.8
14.9
144.7
1S.4
27.9
142.6
229.7
NA
14.4
7/14/93
1 0.987
3010.01
24777.1
430.0
3539.6
85.7
2440.0
20085.1
180.0
1481.7
92.6
183.6
1S11.3
71.1
585.3
61.3
32.6
268.3
7/28/93
1 1.203
7470.0
74946.7
170.0
170S.6
97.7
2870.0
28794.8
60.0
602.0
97.9
208.9
198.3
148.0
2095.9
49.3
494.6
76.4
16.0
160.S
12.3
123.4
I MS
117.4
23.1
NA
Jul. 1993 Avera
5240.0
49561.9
300.0
2622.6
91.7
2655.0
24439.9
120.0
1041.8
1097.4
95.3
181)3.6
60.2
539.9
68.8
24.3
214.4
2Q 1
13.8
13.8
118
8/18/93
1 1.020
2590.0
22032.6
250.0
2126.7
90.3
2170.0
18459.8
129.0
94.1
1259.0
52.7
448.3
64.4
15.2
129.3
9.2
23.8
NA
8/25M3
1 1.014
3110.0
26300.5
310.0
2621.E
90.0
2590.0
21903.0
163.0
1378.S
93.7
18S.7
1570.4
59.0
498.9
68.2
18.1
ISM
1 MY
117.0
Aug.k5jP93
Aver
2850.0
24100.6
200.0
2374.1
9Q2
2380.0
20181.4
146.0
1237.9
93.9
100.9
1414.7
55.9
473.6
66.3
16.7
141.2
0.966
2150.0
17321.3
210.0
1691.9
90.2
1650.0
13293.1
79.0
636.5
95.2
127.0
1023.2
50.1
403.6
60.6
15.2
122.5
12.3
99.1
19.1
0.973
2120.0
17203.4
260.0
2109.9
87.7
1970.0
16986.2
116.0
941.3
94.1
137.8
1118.2
63.7
435.8
61.0
15.2
123.3
11.E
94.1
29.7
0.906
3630.0
27428.4
330.0
2493.5
90.9
3070.0
23197.0
110.0
831.2
96.4
181.4
1370.7
60.9
460.2
66.4
17.4
131.5
14.5
109.6
16.7
ver
2633.3
20651.1
265.7
2098.4
89.6
2230.0
17492.1
101.7
803.0
95.2
148.7
1170.7
54.9
433.2
627
15.9
125.E
1213
100.9
NA
0.974
2380.0
19333.1
260.0
2112.0
89.1
2440.0
19820.5
86.0
698.6
96.5
165.4
1343.6
53.2
432.2
67.8
13.1
106.4
11.6
94.2
11.S
__ 10/13/93
1 0.949
2290.0
18124.61
320.0
2532.7
86.0
2065.0
16343.8
122.0
965.8
94.1
154.5
1222.8
55.1
436.1
64.3
1S.2
120.3
13.8
109.2
9.2
10/27 3
0.997
3150.0
28192.21
230.0
1912.4
92.7
2125.0
17669.3
81.0
673.5
96.2
161.1
1339.5
50.8
422.4
68.5
14.5
120.6
10.2
84.8
29.7
Oct. 1993
Aver a
2606.7
21210.6
270.0
2185.7
89.3
2210.0
17944.S
96.3
779.2
9ELGI
160.3
1302.0
53.0
430.2
68.9
14.3
115.8
11.9
96.1
NA
11/03/93
0.845
2860.0
20155.3
230.0
1620.9
92.0
2880.0
20296.2
66.0
465.1
97.7
190.9
1345.3
53.5
377.0
72.0
16.9
119.1
12.7
89.5
24.9
11/10/93
0.943
2440.0
19189.7
320.0
2S16.7
86.9
2630.0
20684.0
120.0
943.8
9SA
211.4
1662.6
90.9
714.9
57.0
22.5
177.0
16.9
132.9
24.9
11/17/93
1.097
1910.0
17474.6
240.0
2195.8
87.4
2205.0
20173.5
13S.0
1235.1
93.9
146.5
1340.3
48.8
446.5
66.7
12.7
116.2
9.2
84.2
27.6
11/24/93
0.835
4490.0
31267.9
430.0
2994.5
90.4
2720.0
18941.8
215.0
1497.2
92.1
201.S
1403.2
62.9
438.0
68.8
39.5
275A
30.6
213.1
22.5
Nov. 1993
Average
292S.0
22021.9
305.0
2331.9
89.2
2608.0
20023.91
134.0
1035.3
94.8
187.6
1437.9
64.0
494.1
88.1
22.9
171.8
17.4
129.9
NA
12/01/93
0.576
1580.0
7590.11
320.0
1537.2
79.7
1530.0
7349.9
12S.0
600.51
91.8
133.9
643.2
53.1
255.1
60.3
12.7
61.0
16.2
77.8
12/OS/93
1
0.551
2640.0
12351.9
240.0
1122.9
90.9
2570.0
12024.4
93.0
435.1
96.4
187.4
876.8
57.8
270.4
69.2
16.9
79.1
12.3
57.5
27.2
12/15/93
0.414
2910.0
10047.5
280.0
966.8
90.4
3010.0
10392.8
110.0
379.8
96.3
194.4
071.2
58.7
202.7
69.8
15.5
53.5
14.8
51.11
4.5
12/2W03
1.166
1670.0
16239.8
260.0
2528.4
84.4
1325.0
12884.9
86.0
836.3
93.5
152.8
1485.9
57.1
655.3
62.6
14.3
139.1
11.4
110.9
20.3
Dec. 1993
Average 1
2200.0
11557.3
275.0
1538.8
88.4
2108.8
10683.0
103.5
582.9
94.5
167.1
919.3
5&71
320.91
65.5
14,91
83.2
13.7
74.3
NA
1993 Annual Avers o
2SSS.51
21113.01
318.7
2591.8
85.7
2128.81
17273.51
153.61
12S2.1
91.81
159.11
1205.71
S5.0
447.4
G4.Sj
15.3
124.1
MIS
106.9
NA

Table 3 Contd.
Water
BOD
TSS
TKN
NH -N
Ode
Pumped
MGO
Influent
PM
Influert
b/da
Effluerd
PM
Effluerd
Ib/de
Removal
Eff. %
Irdluont
P
Irdluerd
tb/da
Effluerd
PM
Effluord
Ib/da
Removal
Eff.
Irdluerd
PM
Influerd
Ib/da
Effluent
PM
Effluort
b/de
Removal
Eff.
Irdluort
PM
Inffuerd
Ib/deb
ffluonl
PM
Effluent
Ib/dad
Removal
Eff.
1/06/94
0.398
1450.0
4813.0
280.0
929.4
60.7
1440.0
4779.8
110.0
365.1
92.4
152.8
507.2
01.4
203.8
59.8
14.3
47.5
12.1
40.2
1SA
1/19/94
0.505
1780.0
7496.8
330.0
1389.9
81.S
1380.0
S612.1
116.0
484.3
91.7
139.2
565.3
61.9
260.7
55.5
15.0
633 2
9.8
40.4
36.0
0.743
10SO.0
6SO6.5
300.0
1659.0
71.4
640.0
5205.2
120.0
743.6
85.7
76.4
473.4
S9.3
367.S
277.3
22.4
45.9
7.9
/24
40.0
532
100
62.0
Aver a
1426.7
6272.1
303.3
1392.8
77.9
1220.0
S265.7
9107.3
115.0
531.0
89.9
122.8
522.3
6Q9
IO.6
47.S
63.1
NA
235
0.728
1S00.0
0107.3
260.0
1578.6
82.7
1500.0
130.0
789.3
91.3
122.8
745.6
56.6
343.6
53.9
13.E
11.4
826
101.2
10.4
L
1.064
2120.0
18812.4
260.0
2307.2
87.7
2060.0
18279.9
100.0
807.4
95.1
167.8
1489.0
56.2
498.7
86.5
8.6
76.3
24.6
0.952
2160.0
17149.7
250.0
1984.9
88.4
1880.0
15720.6
100.0
794.0
94.9
172.8
1372.0
47.6
377.9
72.5
13.6
108.0
10.0
79.4
26.5
1.042
2030.0
17641.3
300.0
2607.1
85.2
1750.0
15208.0
140.0
1216.6
92.0
ISIS
1334.0
57.6
500.6
62.S
13.0
118.2
10.4
90.4
23.5
Feb. 1904
Average
1952.5
15577.7
257.5
2119.4
86.0
1822.5
14678.9
117.S
921.8
93.4
1 S4.2
1235.1
54.5
430.2
63.8
1 K 11
102.5
9.9
77.3
NA
3 09/94
0.738
1720.0
10586.5
200.0
1231.0
88.4
1550.0
9724.81
9.5.0
590.9
93.91
143.S
883.2
53.3
320.1
472.3
62.9
11.4
702
10.0
61.5
12.3
3/16194
1.004
360.0
3014.4
140.0
1172.3
0.0
58.4
1
0.0
5.0
41.9
3/23194
0.965
2290.0
18430.1
310.0
2494.9
86.5
2010.0
16176.7
70.0
563.4
96.5
1S1.4
1218.5
56.2
452.3
62.9
12.9
103 a
27.1
11.4
91.7
11.6
3/30/94
0.269
1850.0
3701.7
270.0
605.7
83.6
1470.0
3297.9
110.0
246.8
92.5
129.9
291.4
S5.2
123.8
57.5
12.1
11.4
25.6
5.8
Mar. 1994
A
1866.7
1OMA
28S.0
1838.5
86.2
1686.7
9733.1
104.0
643.3
94.3
141.6
590.3
55.3
344.1
61.1
12.1
50.E
9.S
SS.2
NA
4/06/94
1.082
2690.0
24274.2
410.0
3699.8
84.8
1930.0
17416.1
170.0
1 S34.1
91.2
135.7
1224.5
62.8
556.7
S3.7
12.9
116.4
11.1
100. 2
14.0
411 4t94
1 1.034
3710.0
31993.4
270.0
2328.4
92.7
2810.0
24232.2
110.0
948.6
96.1
174.2
1S02.2
58.11
SOLO
66.6
15.7
135.4
11.4
98.3
27.4
4/27,94
0.994
2340.0
19398.S
260.0
2155.4
88.9
2080.0
17243.1
100.0
829.0
95.2
139.9
1159.8
56.2
46S.9
S9.8
11.4
94.5
11.4
94.S
0.0
r. 1994
Aver 0
2913.3
25222.1
313.3
2727.8
88.8
2273.3
19630.S
125.7
1103.9
94.2
149.9
129S.S
60.0
511.2
00.1
1&3
115.4
109.2
11.3
97.7
NA
5/04/94
0.916
2430.0
18563.8
300.0
2291.8
87.7
1420.0
10848.0
110.0
840.3
92.3
130.0
993.1
68.5
S23.3
47.3
14.3
10.7
81.7
25.2
5/11/94
1.027
2860.0
24496.4
320.0
2740.9
88.8
1760.0
15246.0
59.0
606.3
96.7
171.4
1468.1
57.8
495.1
60.3
1S.3
131.0
12.5
107.1
18.3
5/18/94
0.667
2990.0
16632.7
450.0
2SO3.3
84.9
2040.0
11348.1
140.0
778.8
93.1
144.4
803.3
71.3
398.6
50.6
13.9
77.3
13.5
75.1
2.9
5/25/94
1.084
2460.0
22239.8
420.0
3797.0
82.91
1980.0
17900.3
190.0
1717.7
90.4
149.9
13SS.2
59.7
539.7
60.2
17.4
157.3
13.2
119.3
24.1
Mav 1994Avers
a
2685.01
20483.2
377-Sl
2533.2
86.1
1805.0
13535.6
124.8
900.5
9&11
148.9
1154.9
64.3
488.7
S6.1
15.2
118.7
12.5
9566
NA
6/01/94
1 0.776
6630.0
42908.3
380.0
2469.3
94.3
4920.0
31841.5
140.0
908.1
97.2
211.0
1365.6
62.9
407.1
70.2
15.3
99.0
13.9
90.0
9.2
6/08/94
0.941
3470.0
27232.4
430.0
3374.6
87.6
2530.0
19855.3
130.0
1020.2
94.9
175.6
137a.1
68.0
533.7
81.3
23.6
185.2
20.8
163.2
11.9
6/1S/94
1.030
3030.0
26026.3
290.0
2491.2
90.4
2400.0
20016.5
75.0
644.3
96.9
169.3
1454.3
56.4
484.5
66.7
18.0
154.6
14.9
128.0
17.2
6/22/94
0.924
5220.0
40226.2
500.0
38S3.1
90.4
3660.0
28358.7
270.0
2050.7
92.7
192.9
1486.5
67.5
520.2
. 65.0
18.0
138.7
17.0
131.0
so
6/29
0.927
3830.0
29610.4
700.0
5411.8
81.7
2820.0
21801.9
470.0
3633.7
83.3
183.2
1416.4
80.5
622.4
56.1
20.11
155.4
14.2
109.8
29.4
Jun. 1994
Aver a
1 4436.0
33201.1
400.0
3518.0
8&91
3270.0
24494.8
217.01
16S7.0
93.0
180.41
1420.2
67.1
513.6
63.8
19.0
M.6
1&2'
124.4
NA
7/07/94 0.886
1920.0
14187.3
1124.0
8305.5
41.5
1760.0
13005.1
990.0
7315.3
43.8
143.4
1059.6
102.7
758.9
28.4
20.8
153.7
27.1
27.1
2002
_
Jul. 1994 A 0
1920.0
141a7.3
1124.0
8305.5
41.5
1760.0
13005.1
990.0
7315.3
43.8
143.4
1059.6
102.7
755.9
20.8
153.7
200.2
126.6
NA
8103/94
0.931
4720.0
36648.6
430.0
3338.8
90.9
3760.0
29194.7
180.0
1397.6
95.2
192.9
1497.8
62.0
481.4
67.9
21.5
166.9
16.3
24.2
8/10/94
0.796
4120.0
27351.2
S60.0
3717.6
86.4
3280.0
21774.7
270.0
1792.4
91.8
177.0
1175.0
65.2
432.6
63.2
16.7
110.9
14.9
98.9
10.8
8/16/94
0.915
6340.0
48381.2
430.0
3281.4
93.2
4810.0
36705.6
120.0
915.7
97.5
216.6
1652.1
60.6
462.4
72.0
15.3
116.8
18.0
137.4
6/24,94
0.820
2330.0
15934.41
290.0
1983.3
87.6
2110.01
14429.9
69.0
471.91
96.7
127.0
868.5
69.01
403.5
53.5
13.9
95.1
15.3
104.E
8/31 4
0.547
2810.0
19849.8
300.0
2119.2
69.3
2090.0
14763.7
130.0
918.3
93.8
124.9
882.3
56.9
401.9
54.4
18.0
127.2
16.0
113.0
11.1
Aug. 1994
Average
4064.0
29633.0
402.0
2888.0
89.5
3210.0
23373.7
153.8
1099.2
95.0
167.7
1215.2
60.7
435.4
62.2
17.1
123.4
16.1
116.1
NA
9/08/94
0.951
2560.0
20304.2
650.0
5155.4
74.6
1580.0
12531.5
380.0
3013.9
75.9
150.6
1194.5
75.0
594.9
50.2
15.3
121.3
11.1
88.0
27.5
9/14/94
0.997
5610.0
46647.0
4420.0
36752.2
231.8
1927.4
18.0
149.7
9%21#94
0.859
3980.0
28S13.0
200.0
1432.8
95.0
3380.0
24214.5
57.0
408.4
98.3
201.9
1446.4
50.7
363.2
74.9
19.8
141.8
12.4
85.8
37.4
9/28/94
0.90S
2380.0
17963.5
230.0
1735.0
90.3
2000.0
1509SA
73.0
551.0
96.4
160.9
1214.4
54.61
412.1
66.1
19.01
143.4
12.4
93.5
34.7
Sept. 1994
Average
3632.5
28356.9
300.0
2774.7
86.6
2845.0
22148.4
170.0
1324.4
1 90.2
185.3
1445.7
60.1
456.7
63.7
I&GI
139.1
12.0
90.2
NA
10/05/94
1 0.819
2040.0
13934.1
200.0
1366.1
90.2
1640.0
11202.0
57.0
389.3
95.5
122.9
839.5
47.3
323.1
61.5
13.2
90.2
11.7
79.9
11.4
10/12/94
1 0.836
4510.0
31444.8
220.0
1533.9
95.1
3530.0
24612.0
59.0
411.4
96.3
202.6
1412.6
50.7
353.5
75.0
14.6
101.8
14.6
101.8
0.0
10/19/94 1
0.836
1840.0
12828.9
200.0
1394.4
89.1
1630.0
11364.8
69.0
481.1
95.8
130.2
907.8
49.7
346.5
61.8
14.6
101.8
11.7
81.5
19.9
Oct. 1994
A e
2796.7
19402.6
206.7
1431.5
91.5
2256.7
1S728.2
61.7
427.3
96.9
151.9
1053.3
49.2
341.0
6&1
14.1
97.9
12.7
87.81
NA
11/O?J4 1
0.896
2320.0
17336.5
220.0
1644.0
90.5
2190.0
16365.1
77.0
575.4
96.5
168.2
12S6.9
50.7
378.9
69.9
12.4
92.7
12.1
90.4
2.4
1130194 1
0.854
3150.0
22435.4
270.0
1923.0
91.4
2750.0
19S06.5
71.0
505.7
97.4
120.0
854.7
54.11
385.3
54.9
13.2
94.0
14.6
104.0
NOW. 1994
Average
273S.0
19888.0
245.0
1783.5
91.0
2470.0
17975.8
74.01
S40.51
97.0
144.1
IOS5.8
SZ41
3a2.1
62.4
Me
93.3
13.4
97.2
NA
1994 Anrwal Avera
2974.1
21935.4
356.1
2595.7
86.0
2350.3
17341.0
156.7
1147.0
SZ2
150.3
1123.8
00.3
434.7
59.8
15.4
105.7
13.0
94.0
NA
RGO 1111/95

I wpr- Q0,
TABLE 4
Summery of Monitoring Data - Effluent from Overland Flow Fields
Gold Kist Inc.
Poultry Processing Plant
Senferd_ Nnrth Cardim
Date
Rain
On
Da n.
Rain
Prev.
Da n.
Water
Pumped .
MGD
Water
Dischargec
MGD
BOD
TSS
NH -N
TKN
Total N
O b t3
Fecal
cddorm'"
N 1tlOm�
PM
b da
PM
tb da
PM
lb da
PM
b da
PM
Ib de
PM
Ib de
5 89
0.02
13.0
2.2
13.0
2.2
a.0
1.0
18.0
3.0
10
5 189
-
-
0.02
2.0
0.3
A for may 1069
7.50
1.25
13.00
2.17
6.00
1.00
18.00
3.00
10
61 69
-
0.72
17.0
102.1
15.0
90.1
11.0
66.1
9.0
54.0
6/26/69
-
-
-
0.13
29.0
31.4
8/27 89
-
-
-
0.14
3.0
3.5
34.0
39.7
7.0
8.2
9.0
10.5
22.0
25.7
2
Avera
me for June 19M
10.00
52.79
26.00
53.74
9.00
37.11
9.00
10.51
15.50
30.87
2
7/5/89
-
-
-
0.04
6.0
2.0
24.0
8.0
3.0
1.0
7.0
2.3
7/11/89
-
-
-
0.0351
10.0
2.9
7/19189
-
-
0.178
6.0
8.9
83.0
123.2
3.6
5.3
4.0
5.9
2
712 5/89
1
0.12
13.0
13.0
2
Awmae for July 1989
8.75
6.71
53.50
66.61
3.30
3.17
5.5o
4.14
2
B a9
-
-
0.44
21.0
77.1
9.0
33.0
6 8 89
-
-
-
0.6
16.0
80.1
1.0
5.0
500
8 21 89
-
-
0.02
2.0
0.3
9.0
1.5
0.7
0.1
2.0
0.3
5.0
0.8
2
8 69
-
-
0.69
6.01
34.5
7.0
40.3
5.0
28.8
Avow
a for August 19M
1125
48.00
8.00
20.89
4.90
20.64
2.00
0.33
3.00
2.92
32
9 5/89
0
0
0.70
0.104
3.0
2.6
24.0
20.8
0.7
0.6
< 1.0
0.9
9/13/89
0
0
0.921
0.33
8.0
22.0
3.0
8.3
6.0
16.5
9/27/89
0
0
1.006
0.916
1.0
7.6
22.0
168.1
1.0
7.8
900
9/30/89
0.1
0.8
1.01
1.502
1.0
12.5
2.0
25.1
Avemmaefor
SqAerntw
19M
4.00
10.75
16.33
05.71
2.57
9.88
2.00
2S.05
1.00
4.25
900
1010/89
0
0
0.757
0.22
4.0
7.3
1.0
1.8
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.8
10/17/89
0
1.S
0.997
0.1
7.0
5.8
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
24.0
20.0
10 69
0
0
0.857
0.5
4.0
16.7
7.0
29.2
4.0
16.7
10 7 89
0
0
0.947
1.18
1.0
9.8
2
10 89
0
0
0.884
0.374
5.0
15.6
1.2
3.7
2
A for Odder 19M
5.00
11.36
3.00
10.62
1.80
6.18
1.20
3.74
8.67
10.56
2
11189
0
01
0.7151
0.1
2.0
1.7
7.0
5.8
1.9
1.6
2.9
2.4
1.0
0.8
/ 1 /7/89
0
0
1207
0.948
2.0
15.6
2
11/14/89
0
01
0.884
0.174
6.0
8.7
6.0
8.7
1.4
2.0
2.9
4.2
1.0
1.4
50
11 /29/89
0
0.31
0.8151
0.633
6.0
31.7
Averatfle for November
1989
4.01
14.48
6.47
7.25
1.65
1.80
2.90
3.31
0.95
1.10
10
12/6r89
0
0 0.7951
0.38
4.0
12.7
2.0
6.3
9.0
28.5
2
12/19/89
01
01 0.5611
0.122
8.0
8.1
7.0
7.1
12.0
12.2
15.0
15.3
13.0
13.2
130
12/28/89 1
of
01 0.8741
0.184
100.0
153.4
Avers a
for December 19M
37.31
58.07
4.48
6.70
11.99
1220
15.00
1526
10.98
20.85
16
Winter 1989 Average
- mar.
1828
33.16
5.48
0.98
5.10
5.27
6.93
7.301
5.971
10.98
Summer 1969 Average
V�W2 - Oct.)7.74
21.30
19.43
40.38
4.17
13.69
3.55
9.91
1
7.83
11.42
Annual Awnige for 1989
10.581
24.49
16.33
ffi.98
4.33
12.20
5.00
8.79
1
7.97
1 11.31
-
(1) Fecal cdiforrn average is the geometric mean.
RGD 1/10194

Table 4 Contd.
Date
Rain
On
Da n.
Rain
Prev.
Da n.
Water
Pumped
MGO
Water
Dischargec
BOD
TSS
NH -N
TKN
Total N
03 G
Fecal
Coliform""
M/100rrt
PM
/da
Jdn
P
/4M
(PPhq
MIOAPM
b doV)
(PPhq
1 /2/90
0
0
0.301
0.022
3.0
0.6
8.0
1.5
9.0
1.7
11.0
2.0
1.0
0.2
2
1 /90
0
1.3
1.087
0.32
6.0
16.0
1/17190
0
0
1.221
0.692
5.0
28.8
9.0
51.9
1.0
5.8
1/31
0
0.11
.8821
0.592
15.0
74.1
Average for January990
4.06
0.0
15.12
40.0
8.50
14.0
26.69
04.8
12.00
7.0
37.88
47.4
11.00
2.02
0.90
2.0
2.97
2
2
2 6g90
0
0
0.963
0.812
13.5
21
0
0
0.979
0.98
7.0
56.0
7.0
66.0
2
2 7
0
0
1.226
0.036
1.0
0.3
7.0
2.1
4.7
1.4
8.0
2.4
A for Feb 1990
4.66
32.30
10.50
48.45
5.83
24.40
8.00
2.40
4.40
34.76
2
3 5
0
01
0.7941
0.336
10.0
28.0
19.01
53.2
9.0
25.2
17.0
47.6
1.0
2.8
220
3/14f90
0
01
1.0141
0.38
24.0
76.0
24.0
76.0
30
3/26/90
0
01
0.7631
0.1
5.0
4.2
33.9
28.3
3.4
2.8
12.0
10.0
3/27
0
01
0.6551
0.2
4.0
6.7
Averw
ie for Mardi
1990
10.76
28.73
25.63
52.50
6.18
14.00
17.00
47.64
6.49
0.40
81
4/4/90
0
0
0.8311
0.14
6.0
7.0
17.0
19.8
419190
0
0
0.8671
0.06
53.9
32.0
40.0
20.0
4.0
2.0
11.6
5.8
18.0
9.0
16M
4116190
0
0
0.6061
0.32
1.0
2.7
8.0
21.3
1.0
2.7
30
4/23/90
0
0
0.7821
0.08
15.0
10.0
A
for April
1990
21 AQ
12.93
21.64
20.37
4.00
2.00
11.60
5.80
9.50
6.85
219
5/14W
01
01
0.792
0.6
5.0
25.0
24.0
120.1
2.0
10.0
1.0
5.0
5/15NO
01
01
0.777
0.5
10.0
41.7
11.0
45.9
2
51 90
01
01
0.875
0.62
10.0
51.7
13.0
67.2
300
5131
01
01
1.121
0.62
142
73.4
22.0
113.7
8.2
42.4
12.7
65.7
3.0
15.5
1200
A e for Ma 1990
9.80
47.05
17.50
86.73
5.10
2520
12.70
05.67
2.00
1025
90
6/4/90
01
of
1.328
0.03
24.0
6.0
38.8
9.7
8.8
2.2
15.5
3.9
4.0
1.0
16M
6/12/90
0
0
0.797
0.38
22.0
69.7
7.022.1
6/20M
0
0
0.91
0.62
8.0
41.3
1.0
5.2
2
6 25/90
0
0
1.7641
0.15
1.6
2.1
Awem me for June 1990
17.99
39.00
15.77
11.30
8.79
220
15.50
3.88
2.50
3.10
57
7/9/90
0 0.5
1.654
0.12
17.0
17.0
8.0
8.0
1.1
1.1
4.6
4.6
1.0
1.0
7 17 90
0 0.4
1.329
0.78
8.0
62.0
14.0
91.0
1.0
6.5
500
7
0 01
0.341
0.3
11.0
27.5
500
T
0 01
1.293
02
9.0
15.0
3.3
5.5
Avemne for Ju 1990
1124
27.88
10.99
49.50
2.20
3.30
4.00
4.60
1.00
3.75
500
81
0
01
0.921
0.04
9.0
3.0
12.9
4.3
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.3
110
8 1 %w
0
0
0.986
0.081
24.0
16.0
30.9
20.6
5.1
3.4
11.3
7.5
9.9
6.8
130
8/20/90
0
01
1.012
0.14
5.0
5.8
3.9
4.5
8 7/90
0
01
0.786
0.08
6.0
4.0
3.3
2.2
Averate
for Au gust 1990
10.98
7.20
21.86
12.45
3.89
2.80
11.30
7.54
5.40
3.45
120
9/5/90
0
0
0.931
0.42
7.0
24.5
5.0
17.5
0.7
2.4
3.0
10.5
2.0
7.0
917/90
0
0
0.94
0.05
5.0
2.5
21.0
10.5
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.5
350
919/90
0
0
0.889
026
7.0
15.2
1.6
3.5
9 2 90
0
0
0.867
0.8
2.0
13.3
0.1
0.5
2
Avew==e for SqAember
1990
5.25
13.88
12.99
14.00
0.64
1.63
3A0
10.51
1.50
3.751
26
101
01
01
0.896
0.024
1.0
0.2
4.0
0.8
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.2
Igaw
01
0
L 0.778
0.356
4.0
11.9
7.0
20.7
2.0
5.9
1017
01
01
0.921
021
5.0
8.7
4.0
7.0
0.8
1 A
3.5
6.1
10
01
01
0.83
0.214
2.0
3.5
4.0
7.1
-C2
Avers for October 1990
2.98
6.08
4.74
8.90
0.50
0.72
3.50
6.13
1.49
3.05
2
1115/90
0
01
0.8151
0.014
0.9
0.1
6.9
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.1
2
11/14/90
0
0
0.8281
0.256
4.0
8.5
5.0
10.6
0.1
0.2
1.7
3.6
4.0
8.5
11/19/90
0
0
1.0161
0.072
1.0
0.6
30
11
0.1
0
0.8051
0.732
6.0
36.6
17
Avecane for November
1990
2.95
11.45
5.91
5.70
0.08
0.08
1.70
3.63
2.42
4.30
10
12/10/90 1
01
0
0.7951
0.062
1.9
1.0
20.0
10.8
02
0.1
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.5
14
12/12190 1
01
0
0.8731
0.368
4.0
12.2
6.0
15.3
12 17 90 1
01
0
0.7831
0.124
4.0
4.1
2.0
2.1
0.2
0.2
70
12 90 1
01
0
0.4341
0.272
6.0
13.6
7.0
15.6
Avers a for Deoetrber
1990
3.97
7.73
9.30
9.40
0.19
0.15
0.50
0.25
3.97
8.15
31
Winter 1990 Average
Nov. - Mar.
5.48
118Z51
12.88
26.95
4.86
15.30
7.64
11.19
3.67
11.32
_
Summer 1990 Average
. - Oct.
11.15
21.50
14.64
31.47
2.91
5.15
8.w
14.88
3.34
4.74
Annual Average far 1990
8.88
20.32
13MI
30.62
&001
9.051
8.37
13.34
3.48
7.48

IdUle 4 UOULde
.r 4%- 040
Date
Rain
On
Da n.
Rain
Prev.
Da n.
Water
Pumped
GD
Water
Dischargec
GD
BOO
TSS
NH -N
TKN
Total N
O & G
Fecal
Coliforrd"
M f00mQ
(lb/day)P
lb/da
P(lb/day)P
b da
P
da
PM
ode
1/2/91
0
0
0.87
0.5
3.0
12.5
6.0
25.0
0.3
1.2
1.0
4.1
2
1/M91
0
0
1.511
1.611
4.0
53.7
6.0
80.6
0.9
12.0
1.8
242
0.4
5.5
17
1/16/91
0.3
0
1.048
1.048
2.5
22.1
1128V91
1 0
01
0.7851
0.785
4.0
26.2
A fa jarwary 1991
3.38
28.63
6.00
52.80
0.59
6.00
1.80
24.18
0.70
4.80
6
2 4 l
01
01
0.159
0.41
6.0
20.5
8.0
27.4
7.0
23.9
10.3
35.2
6.01
20.5
4
2 6 91
0
01
1.451
0.456
5.0
19.0
211 1
01
01
0.834
0.264
6.0
132
6.0
13.2
0.5
1.1
2.8
0.2
1.0
22
11
2125J91
0.21
01
0.881
0.474
3.0
11.8
0.5
2.0
A for Feb 1991
4.99
18.13
7.00
20.30
2.67
9.00
6.56
20.60
3.50
11.35
7
3/7/91
0
01
1.2001
0.364
1.0
3.0
5.0
152
0.1
0.3
1.9
5.8
4.0
12.1
3/12/91
01
0
0.984
0.212
7.0
12.4
9.0
15.9
2.1
3.7
2.0
3.5
500
3/19/93
01
0.71
0AW1
1.104
2.0
18.4
3/26/91
01
0
0.6921
0.008
3.0
02
L 2
A
far Mamh
1991
3.25
8.50
7.00
15.65
1.10
2.00
1.90
5.77
2.95
7.80
32
4/2/91
0
0
0.824
0.108
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
4
4/9/93
0.1
0
0.794
0.156
3.0
3.9
67.9
88.4
1.3
1.7
6.0
7.8
16M
4116MI
0
0.2
0.877
0224
8.0
14.9
1.4
2.6
4: 2
4 1
0
0.1
0.889
0.34
3.0
8.5
A for April1991
4.49
7.73
34.47
44.85
0.02
1.45
1.20
1.06
3.50
4.35
23
5 1
0
01
0.888
0.16
2.0
2.7
11.0
14.7
0.3
0.4
1.0
1.3
3.0
4.0
51 1
0
01
0.833
0.208
5.0
8.7
7.0
12.1
0.1
0.2
1.0
1.7
2
5/28/91
0.1
01
1.079
022
4.0
7.3
0.7
1.3
5/2"1
0
0.11
0.824
0200
3.0
52
13
A for 1991
3.50
5.98
9.00
13.40
0.37
OA2
1.00
1.33
1.99
2.85
5
614101
01
1.41
0.924
0.324
9.0
24.3
13.0
35.1
13.1
35.4
10.0
27.0
23
6/11/91
01
0
0.592
0.1
3.0
2.5
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.8
6/17/91
01
01
0.799
0.164
6.0
6.8
5.0
6.8
13
8/26�91
01
01
0.932
0.122
1.0
1.0
2.1
2.1
A
for June 1991
4.49
8.6S
6.31
1423
1.45
1.40
13.10
35.40
5.48
13.90
17
71 1
0
01
0.881
0.036
2.0
0.6
11.0
3.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
6.7
2.0
240
7 9 1
0
0
0.965
0.116
4.0
3.9
11.0
10.6
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
300
71 1
0
01
0.795
0.088
2.0
1.5
0.2
0.1
23
7 1
0
01
0.637
0.132
6.01
6.6
1.1
1.2
A e for Ju 1991
3.50
3.14
10.99
6.97
0.67
0.64
0.20
0.05
3.85
1.50
lie
8/6/91
0
0.81
0.815
0.188
2.0
3.1
12.0
18.8
0.7
1.1
1.9
3.0
3.0
4.7
2
8/18J91
0
01
0.031
0.241
8.0
16.1
25.0
50.2
0.1
0.2
1.0
2.0
80
8/1 91
0
01
0.7421
0.104
0.0
5.2
0.1
0.1
16M
8/26/91
0
0
0.&551
0.596
7.0
34.8
Avemae
for Aft"usnowst 1991
5.75
14.80
18.48
34.50
0.30
0.46
1.90
2.98
2.00
3.35
83
9/2191
0
0
0.943
0.076
3.0
1.9
3.0
1.9
0.5
0.3
2.8
1.8
0.9
0.61
900
9/9/91
0
0
0.981
0.036
3.0
0.9
0.3
0.1
2.0
0.6
50
9 17 91
0
0
0.995
0.43
5.0
17.9
0.1
0.4
30
9 1
0
0
0.92
0.084
2.0
1.4
Average for S eq0Aember
1991
3.25
5.52
3.00
1.90
0.31
0.27
2.80
1.77
1.47
0.60
111
10 1
0
0
0"
0.508
5.0
21.0
5.0
21.2
0.1
0.4
1.0
4.2
300
1015 1
0.3
0
0.967
0.386
1.9
6.0
0.1
0.3
2.0
6.4
23
10/22/91
r1
0
0
0.901
0.68
3.9
19.0
0.8
4.0
1.4
6.8
80
0 /91 1
0
0
0.962
0.788
5.0
33.0
A for October 1991
3.94
19.75
5.00
21.20
0.34
1.67
1.40
6.77
1.49
5.30
82
l l /5/91
0
0.01
0.939
0.204
16.3
26.0
3.0
5.1
9.3
15.8
2.0
3.4
1
11 /12191
0
1.5
0.905
0.532
29.1
129.0
1.5
6.7
8.0
35.5
1
1119/91
0
0
0.477
0.426
1.1
4.0
8.0
14.0
28.4
23.1
2.2
7.8
1
11 1
0
0
0.534
0.198
1.8
3.0
Averwe for November
1991
11.82
40.50
8.33
18.87
4.33
10.10
5.00
19.45
1
12 1
0.61
0
0.927
0.642
2.0
10.7
3.0
16.11
1.3
7.0
1.0
5.4
1
1210 1
0.5
0
0.905
0.808
2.0
13.5
8.0
63.9
0.1
0.7
1.0
6.7
220
1217 1
0
0.01
0.671
0.456
1.0
3.8
4.3
16.4
1
12 1
0
1.1
0.577
0.266
2.0
4.4
2.9
6.4
8ynge for December
1991
1.75
8.10
5.50
35.00
1.91
8.03
2.90
6.43
1.00
6.05
6
Water 1991 Average
Mac - Lbr.
5.04
20.37
6.91
13.29
10.37
27.83
20.37
23.70
2.31
0.60
1.25
7.58
0.88
3.44
3.94
3.09
3.44
15.65
7.06
10.60
2.64
2.82
2.75
9.89
4.55
Summer 1901 Average
. - Oct.
4.13
4.51
9.37
13AS
Annual Average for 1991

'fable 4 Contd.
4 =V- C
Date
Rain
On
Da in.
Rain
Prev.
Oa in.
Water
Pumped
GD
Water
Discharged
GD
BOO
TSS
NH -N
TKN
Total N
O 3 G
Fecal
Colitorrd')
#/100m
PM
b da
PM
da
PM
Ib/da
P
b/da
PM(lb/day)
PM
Ib da ]
1 UL92
0
0.5
1.151
0.672
3.0
17.0
13.0
73.0
0.6
4.5
0.9
5.0
50
1 /1 S/92
0
0.3
0.869
0.872
6.0
36.0
17.1
124.0
1.0
7.3
1
1122&2
0
0
1.145
0.36
3.0
9.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.2
1
1 /28 92
1 0.351
01
0.859
1.424
3.6
43.0
4
Average for Jan umrV1992
3.56
2625
15.04
98.50
0.45
2.40
0.40
120
0.95
0.15
4
1214/92
2 11 j2
0
0
0.964
0.278
2.0
4.0
3.0
0.9
0.1
0.22
0.5
1.2
1.0
2.3
145
120
0.1
0
.532
0.322
0.2
24.7
b.0
13.4
0.6
1.6
1.0
2.7
2/18/920.01
0.3
0.801
0.706
6.4
31.9
10
2 S
0.15
0.25
0.536
0.79
6.0
43.6
78
Aversa for Feb 1992
5.80
26.18
3"
10.15
0.34
0.90
0.50
1.15
1.00
2.50
61
3
0
0
0.7891
0.148
2.9
3.6
5.0
6.2
1.5
1.9
0.6
0.7
4.0
4.9
1
3/10/92
0
0
0.7451
0.186
6.1
9.5
2.0
3.1
1.5
2.3
1.0
1.6
1
3 17 92
0
0
0.593
0.458
7.2
27.6
18
3/24/92
0
0.5
0.0121
1.176
2.7
26.9
8.0
78.5
1.7
16.7
15.2
149.1
6
3 5
0
0
01
0.308
1.0
2.6
7.0
18.0
0.8
2.1
1.0
4.9
3
Avers
ie for March 1992
4.00
14.04
5.51
26.45
1.39
5.75
5.90
51.57
2.50
325
3
4 2
0
1
0.884
0.358
10.1
30.1
1.0
3.0
0.6
1.8
0.1
0.3
1.0
3.0
485
4/21192
0.4
0.05
0.781
0.122
4.1
4.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
95
4 8
0.2
0.05
0.807
0.802
8.7
58.2
560
4/29 92
0
0.2
0.829
0.82
5.8
39.7
12
Ave a for April
1992
7.18
33.05
029
2.00
0.60
1.20
0.10
0.30
0.99
2.00
133
5/5/92
0.01
01
0.886
0.164
11.1
152
6.0
8.2
1.4
1.9
3.9
5.3
1.0
1.4
2640
5/12/92
0
0
0.862
0.31
5.6
14.2
9.0
23.3
1.0
2.6
1065
5126/92
0.01
01
0.9691
0.5
6.7
27.9
0.7
2.9
1
5/27
0.01
0.011
1.6211
0.72
2.0
12.0
82
Avers a for Ma 1992
6.32
17.33
7.50
15.75
1.04
2.40
3.90
6.33
1.01
2.00
123
6/2/92
0
1.31
0.283
0.432
10.8
38.9
16.0
57.5
0.6
2.2
6.8
24.5
4.0
14.4
100
6/16/92
0.4
0.3
1.733
1.432
13.8
164.8
90
6/17/92
0
0.4
1.271
1.686
17.3
243.3
2.2
30.9
42.2
1
6/23 92
0
0.7
0.95
0.43
11.3
40.5
460
Avers
a for June 1992
13.30
121.88
15.99
57.60
1.40
16.65
6.80
24.50
4.00
28.30
46
7/2/92
01
0
0.834
0.2721
2.0
4.5
27.0
612
2.9
6.6
4.9
11.1
1355
7/7/92
0
0.35
0.647
0276
22.2
51.1
1.5
3.5
1.01
2.3
1
7/14/92
0
0
0.959
0.064
7.1
3.8
1
7/28 92
0
0
0.926
0.06
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1
Average for J 1992
8.58
15.23
26.98
61.20
221
5.05
4.90
11.12
1.00
1.40
6
8/4192
0
0.11
0.703
0.058
3.9
1.9
5.0
2.4
2.7
1.3
2.9
1.4
2.1
1.0
10
8/11/92
0
01
2.078
0.066
2.0
1.1
18.0
9.9
2.0
1.11
1
8/18/92
0.1
0.51
1.421
0.712
4.0
24.0
8125/92
0
01
0.668
0.072
8.2
4.9
0.7
0.4
30
Averof
a for August 1992
4.53
7.98
11.47
6.15
1.68
0.85
2.90
1.40
2.03
1.05
7
9/2/92
0
0
0.812
0.094
4.0
3.1
20.0
15.7
0.3
0.2
3.1
2.4
1
919/92
0
0.92
0.876
0.064
6.7
3.6
3.0
1.6
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.5
2
9/16/92
0
0
0.814
0.222
4.0
7.4
0.5
12.0
2
9123
0
0
0.771
0.36
3.5
10.5
995
Avera a for September
1992
4.55
6.15
11.51
8.65
022
0.15
6.50
12.03
2.00
1 AS
8
10/7/92
01
0.08
0.7131
0.812
2.5
16.9
3.0
20.3
0.3
2.0
1.6
10.8
3.4
23.0
2
1014 2
0
0
0.914
0.822
3.3
22.6
8.0
54.8
0.6
4.1
2.9
19.9
4.3
29.5
2400
10/2192
0
0
0.892
0.312
5.2
13.5
2
10 8 2
0.1
0
0.938
0.325
3.8
10.3
2
Aversa for October 1992
3.70
15.85
5.50
37-W
0.45
3.07
225
15.38
3.85
2625
12
114
01
0.811
0.857
1.348
2.7
30.0
2.7
30.4
0.5
5.6
8.2
922
5.0
56.2
300
11/11
0
0.559
0.63
2.1
11.0
8.0
42.0
0.5
2.6
14.4
75.7
2.8
14.7
2
11 18 2
0
JO
0.994
0.32
2.25.9
17200
11/25/92
0
0.464
0.702
2.0
11.7
2
Avers a for November
1992
225
14.66
5.35
3622
0.50
4.11
11.30
83.93
3.90
35.48
67
12/2/92
0
0.03 1.205f
0.724
2.3
13.9
2.0
12.1
1.1
6.6
7.3
44.1
18.7
112.9
2
12 92
0
0 0.7401
0.472
2.5
9.9
1.0
3.9
2.3
9.1
86.4
340.1
15.4
60.6
1290
12/16/92
0
0 0.7661
0.36
4.2
12.6
2
12/23L02
0
0.02 0.604
0.972
2.0
16.2
8
Average for December 1992
2.75
13.15
1.50
7.99
1.71
7.67
46.8S
192.10
17.05
86.78
14
Winter 1992 Average
(Now. - Mar.
3.71
18.62
0.15
3429
0.96
4.46
3.72
31 Al
29.08
138.01
5.081
26.82
-
Summer 1992 Average
t. - Oct.
0.88
31.05
9.74
21.69
1.09
4.18
4.18
0.11
225
15.36
1.98
8.92
Annual Aywage for 1992
SA
25.73
7.95
27.94
1.03
4.31
3.97
19.25
20.13
97.13
3..W
16.38

Zs%FVb
Date
Rein
On
Da n I
Rain
Prev.
Da n.)
Water
Pumped
(MGD)
Water
Dis&sargec
(MGD
SOD
TSS
NH -N
TKN
P Ib/da
Total N
P Ib dayj
08 G
PM lb/day)
Fecal
ColiforWil
M/toomR
PM
2.3
LIhday)
33.8
M
Lys
14.7
PM
Mday
1/0193
0
0.55
1.794
1.764
1.0
0.7
10.3
8.8
129.5
5.0
73.8
1
1/13(93
0.42
0.36
0.994
1.338
3.2
35.7
1.0
11.2
0.3
3.3
10.6
120.5
11.7
130.d
2
1/20/93
0
0
0.923
0.672
3.4
19.1
1 7/93
1 01
01
0.8781
0.628
3.7
19.4
26.99
12.94
F�2.4
2
Average for 1993
0 01 0.712 0.284
3.15
1.00
0.50
6.82
9.80
124.99
8.35
102.00
42.6
1
0.4
15.2
1.0
0.8
1.8
1.9
9.3
22.0
18.0
2
21 3
0
0.28
1.448
0.054
2.3
12.5
1.0
5.5
9.8
11.5
62.7
1.0
5.5
2
2 17 93
0.68
0.1
0.692
2.424
5.1
103.1
2
0
01
0.71
0.532
3.4
15.1
A
for Febmmm
1903
4.30
30.47
1.00
3.91
1.30
5.80
10.40
42M
9.50
24.04
2
3/3/93
0
01
1.178
0.724
5.4
32.0
1.0
6.0
0.1
0.6
7.6
45.9
9.6
58.0
2
3/10/93
0
0
1.016
0.688
5.9
33.9
1.5
8.0
0.3
1.7
8.0
46.0
12.7
72.0
2
3/17 3
0.2
0
1.181
1.16
8.1
78.4
3/24193
1.35
0
0.497
3.29
9.2
252.4
A
for MOM
1993
7.15
99.31
1.25
7.32
0.20
1.16
7.00
45.93
11.15
65.42
2
4/14M3
0
0
1.03
0.446
GA
23.8
1.0
3.7
0.9
3.3
3.8
14.1
4.9
18.2
2
4/2193
0
0 1.021
0.254
2.0
4.2
1.0
2.1
0.2
0.4
3.9
8.3
7.5
15.9
2
4/28/93
0
0.071 0.9181
0.205
2.0
3.4
Avernae
for AprilI993
3.47
10.49
1.00
2.92
0.55
1.89
3.85
1120
0.20
17.06
2
5 5 93
0.92
0.021
0.848
1.326
11.0
121.7
11.5
127.2
0.6
6.6
7.2
79.6
10.4
115.0
5200
5/12193
0
01
0.931
0.308
20.0
51.4
5.7
14A
5.8
14.9
5.0
12.8
456
51 93
Q
01
0.957
0.392
4.3
14.1
5/2 93
0.66
01
1.061
0.404
16.3
55.0
1140
Average
for May
1993
12.91
00.53
8.00
70.92
3.20
10.75
7.20
79.60
7.70
63.92
271
612/93
01
0.781
0.412
8.8
30.2
12.0
41.2
1.1
3.8
15.1
51.9
5.0
172
29M
6/9/93
1 0
0
1.862
0.364
13.8
41.9
6.0
18.2
0.7
2.1
16.2
49.2
5.0
152
492
611 W3
1 0
0
0.892
0.282
4.8
11.3
2
6/2 93
I Ol
0.121
0.888
0.178
6.8
10.1
30000
Avem
ne for June
1993
8.55
23M
9.00
29.72
0.90
2.95
16.66
50.53
5A0
16.18
137
7R
0
0
0.496
0.102
2.0
< 1.7
1.5
1.3
0.3
0.3
6.9
5.91
5.0
4.3
2
-?'/14193
0
0.01
0.987
0.152
11.6
14.6
20.0
25.4
8.8
112
21.9
27.8
25200
7 1
0
0.18
0.978
0.256
2.9
6.2
4
7 93
0
0
1.203
0.312
4.0
10.41
22200
A forJu 1993
5.10
8.22
10.75
13.31
4.56
5.71
6.90
5.87
13.45
16.01
259
8/4193
1.1
01
0.694
1.188
4.0
39.6
23.5
219.1
0.3
2.8
3.8
35.4
5.0
46.0
300N
8/11 3
0
1.51
0.974
0.324
< 2.0
5.4
4.0
10.8
0.5
1.4
15.3
41.3
2
8/1af93
0
0
1.02
0.15
3.7
4.6
2
8/25/93
0
0
1.014
0.08
2.2
1.5
Averace
for Au
at 1993
2.98
12.78
13.75
114.96
0.40
2.07
3.80
35.43
10.15
43.98
49
9/8/93
0
0
0.9661
0.502
5.9
24.7
2.5
10.5
0.8
3.3
6.0
25.1
17.6
73.7
44.00
9/15/93
0.3
0
0.973
0.452
13.0
49.0
17.0
64.1
0.3
1.1
6.5
24.5
5.0
18.8
4,2.00
9/22/93
0
0.22
0.6171
0.214
2.7
4.8
S 3
0
0
0.9wl
0.274
5.9
13.5
Aveme
fa September
1993
6.88
23.00
9.75
3729
0.55
2.22
6.25
24.80
11.30
4627
9
10 3
0
0
0.974
0268
8.7
19.4
5.0
11.2
02
0.4
6.4
14.3
5.0
112
-C 2
101 3
0
0.05
0.949
0.608
14.0
71.0
3.5
17.7
0.7
3.5
8.4
42.6
11.5
58.3
15
10 3
0
0
1.015
0.64
4.7
25.1
10/27/93
0.26
0.06
0.997
1.548
42
54.2
Averane
for October
1993
7.90
42.43
4.25
14.45
0.45
2.0
7.40
28.45
8.25
34.75
8
113
0
01
0.845
0.68
9.8
56.6
3.3
18.7
1.7
9.6
4.0
22.7
4.9
28.0
C 2
11/10/93
0
01
0.943
0.666
25.0
138.9
14.8
82.0
1.4
7.8
5.0
28.0
8
11/17 3
0
01
1.097
0.588
5.9
13.2
11 /24/93
0
01
0.835
0.384
7.7
24.7
0.4
1.3
Averme
for November
1993
12.10
56.10
9.05
5025
1.17
6.20
4.00
22.70
4.95
28.00
4
12/1 3
0
0
0.576
0.442
10.1
37.2
4.6
17.0
0.8
3.0
8.4
31.0
7.8
28.0
4 2
12
0
0
0.561
0.43
2.6
9.3
2.0
7.0
0.1
0.4
5.4
19.4
5.7
24.0
2
1215
0.9
0
0.414
0.414
19.7
68.0
12 22 3
0
0.58
0.428
0.428
7.5
26.9
12 28 93
0
0
1.166
0.232
2.1
4.1
Avers a for December 1993
Winter 1993 Average
- fir•
8.40
29.10
3.30
12.00
0.45
1.70
6.90
2520
7.15
26.00
2
7.09
49.00
3.12
17.30
0.76
4.531
8.20
56.62
8.22
49.10
-
Ssmmer 1993 Average
VIM - Oct.
6.951
26.40
8.101
40.51
1.51
3.94
7.66
31.90
8.861
34.02
Arimsel Average for 1993
7.01
36291
6.06
30.84
1.18
4.20
1
7.90
42.53
8.60
40.31
-

IdUld 4 UUl1LU
Date
Rain
On
Da n.
Rain
Prey.
Da n.
Water
Pumped
Water
Discharge
MGO
SOD
TSS
NH -N
TKN
Total N
O & O
Fecal
Coliforrn'')
(01100m
PM
(lb/day)PM
Ida
PM
ib/da
P
tb/da
P
de
PM
/daY)_
16/94
0
0
0.398
0.4
22
8.2
1.1
4.0
0.8
3.0
9.0
33.5
7.6
29.0
4 2
1/12/94
0.7
0
0.294
1
2.0
< 16.2
1.5
12.0
0.4
3.2
119/94
0
0.6
0.505
0.5
3.8
15.6
1 �194
0
0
0.743
0.4
162
55.1
A fo Jams 1994
8.05
23.78
1.30
8.00
0.60
3.10
9.00
33.50
7.80
29.00
2
212M
0
0
0.726
0.7
t 2.0
12.3
4.5
28.0
0.7
4.3
1
7.0
43.2
13.4
83.0
2
2L9194
0
0.1
1.054
0.9
0.9
49.5
1.0
7.0
0.6
4.3
112
80.0
2
21 effl4
0
0
0.952
0.4
2.3
8.1
2 94
0.3
0
1.042
0.81
3.1
21.2
A for Feb 1994
3.58
22.78
2.75
17.50
0.65
4.30
7.00
4320
12.30
81.50
2
3 94
1.8
0
0
2
3.0
50.1
3/9/94
0
0
0.759
0.1
2.2
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.7
2.0
3.3
4.0
43.3
52.0
2
3/1
0
0
1.004
0.4
9.5
31.1
7.0
23.0
0.6
2.0
4.9
< 10.0
L 2
3/2 4
0
0.1
0.965
0.5
5.0
19.4
3 94
0
1.5
0.269
Flooded
Averm
ie for March
1994
4.93
25.80
3.90
12.00
1.15
2.00
3.30
4.00
24.10
34.00
2
4/6/94
0
01
1.0821
0.4
14.2
41.7
6.8
20.0
0.3
0.0
2.5
7.3
15.4
48.0
2
4113/94
0.2
01
1.0341
0.3
11.0
26.4
10.0
24.0
1.5
3.6
27.9
67.0
L 2
4W94
0
01
1.0091
0.1
15.0
16.0
4 7 4
0
01
0.9941
0.1
11.1
5.9
A e for April
1994
12.83
22.50
8.40
22.00
0.90
2.25
2.50
7.30
22.15
67.50
2
5 4
1.8
0
0.916
2.5
12.50
257.3
5/11 4
0
0
1.027
0.4
19.00
68.5
19.0
68.5
2.2
7.9
6.9
24.9
9.6
34.6
2
5/18/94
0
0
0.667
0.3
6.90
15.9
4.0
9.2
0.8
1.8
5.0
11.5
t 2
5/2 4
0
01
1.084
0.1
11.10
7.8
A e for k4ay 1994
12.38
87.38
11.50
38.85
1.50
4.85
6.90
24.90
7.30
23.05
2
6/1/94
0
0
0.776
0.1
12.3
9.4
12.6
9.7
3.6
2.7
4.6
3.5
7.3
5.6
< 2
6/8/94
0.7
0.5
0.105
0.7
25.9
146.9
6115194
0
0
1.03
0.7
6.3
34.7
5.71
31.4
2.2
12.1
32.11
176.7
22
6/22194
0
0
0.924
0.2
5.6
11.6
0.4
0.9
6 94
0.3
0.2
0.927
0.5
8.9
39.3
3.5
15.5
Avers
a for June 1994
11.80
48.38
9.15
20.55
2.40
7.80
4.60
3.50
19.70
91.16
7
7f7194
0
0.2
0.88
0.306
21.1
53.8
10.2
26.0
32
8.2
12.6
32.2
16.8
43.0
71 3ffl4
<0.1
0.4
1.038
0.948
16.1
127.3
21.0
166.0
13.7
108.0
7/22194
0.6
1.8
0.974
1.956
7.1
115.8
4
7/2 94
0
1.3
0.891
1.084
2.1
19.0
1.6
14.5
900
A for Ju 1994
11.60
78.98
16.50
96.00
2.40
11.35
12.60
32.20
15251
75.50
60
8/2/94
0.3
0.6
0.931
0.74
5.4
33.3
13.3
82.0
1.6
9.9
1
5.5
33.9
9.1
56.0
26
8/10/94
0
0
0.796
0.172
3.5
5.0
9.1
13.0
G 0.1
L 0.1
7.0
10.0
A. 2
8/16194
0.2
0.2
0.915
0.308
4.4
11.3
8/24194
0
0
0.82
0.44
3.1
11.4
8/31
0
0.4
0.847
0.7
2.8
16.3
Averat
e for Au at 1994
3.84
15.46
1120
47.50
0.85
5.00
5.50
33.90
8.05
33.00
7
9
0
0
0.951
0.36
4.2
12.6
5.3
15.9
0.6
1.8
4.3
12.9
G 5.0
< 15.0
4
91 V94
0
0
0.997
0.328
6.1
16.7
11.3
30.9
0
2.7
t 5.0
13.7
60
9 1
0
0
0.859
0.504
3.1
13.0
9
0
0
0.905
0.432
3.1
11.2
AveMe
for S
or 1994
4.13
13.38
8.30
23.40
0.80
` , 2.25
4.30
12.90
5.00
14.35
15
01
0
0.819
0.584
4.1
20.0
2.4
11.7
��..
6.5
31.7
5.0
24.4
< 1
110/5/94
10/12/94
0
0
0.836
0.492
2.9
11.9
1.6
6.6
4 1.0
L 4.1
5.0
20.5
1
10/19 94
01
0
0.836
0.356
10.1
30.0
1.0
L 3.0
10/25/94
01
0
0.901
0.452
22
8.3
A for October 1994
4.83
17.55
2.00
9.15
1.00
3.55
6.50
31.70
5.00
22.45
1
11 /3/94
0
0
0.896
0.536
6.0
25.0
3.8
17.0
c 1.0
e- 4.5
4.7
21.0
< 5.0
e- 22.0
2
11/g194
0
0
0.856
0.362
2.1
6.3
5.6
17.01
1.0
L 3.0
G 5.0
t 15.0
C. 1
ll 16 4
0
0
0.915
0.904
5.8
43.7
11 94
0
0.15
0.999
0.620
4.0
20.7
11 30 4
0.15
0.12
0.854
1.020
4- 2.0
4 17.0
Average for November
1994
4.0
22.5
4.7
17.0
1.0
3.8
4.7
21.0
5.0
18.5
1.4
Winter 1994 Average
Nov. - Mar.
4.59
23.65
3.19
13.63
0.85
3.29
6.00
25.43
12.94
42.43
-
Summer 1994 Average
- Oct.)8.71
39.94
9.45
38.78
1.53
6.61
6.13
20.91
11.78
4629
-
Anrwal Averege far 1994
7.2
34.1
7.21
28.4
1.3
4.111
8.1
22.61
12.2
41.3
(1) Fecal conform average is the geometric mean.

TABLE 6
Summary Of Influent and Ertwnt Monitor" Data For Overland Flow Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company. Inc.
SYSTEM INFLUENT MONITORING
DATA
RAIN DATA
SYSTEM
EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
Data
Water
Pumped
MGD
SOD
TSS
NH -N
TKN
Rain
On
Oa ln.
Ratn
Prev.
De ln.
Water
Dischaty
MGD
SOD
TSS
NH -N
Total N
O & G
Few
CoYorrn
i/100
PPM
b/ds
PPM
b/ds
PPM
b/de
PPM
b/da
PPM
b/day
PPM
b/de��
(PPM
bLY)_
_(PPAA�
18
b/dar
108
PPM
b/de
1017/92
0.713
320.0
1902.9
120.0
713.6
0.7
57.7
52.4
311.6
0.0
0.1
0.812
2, 5
1 &0
3.0
80
20 3
510
0, 3
05
20
4 1
34
230
2
10/14/92
10121(02
0.822
33
226
20
199
43
295
2400
0.892
560.0
41000
494.0
3875.0
9.7
72.2
72.8
541.0
0.0
0.0
0.312
52
135
2
10 e/92
0 325
3.8
10.3
2
11 4 2
/ 3"fi
2.7
30.0
2.7
304
05
5.0
2.6
02
14.4
922
1 75.7
50
56.2
300
11 11 2
0.559
200.0
932.4
69.0
321.7
8.7
40A
40.8
190.2
0.0
0.0
0.630
2.11
11.0
8.0
42.0
0 5
2.8
14.7
2
11/18/92
0.320
2.2
5,9
17200
11 /92
0 702
20
117
2
12/2/92
1.2051
2/5.0
2160.7
00.0
964.6
10.9
109.51
51.5
517.6
0.0
0.0
0.724
2.3
13.9
2.0
12.1
1.1
so
73
44.1
187
1129
2
1249192
0.472
2.5
9.9
1.0
3.9
2.3
9.1
66.4
340.1
15.4
500
1290
12/18/92
0 360
4.2
12.6
2
12/23/92
0.6041
290.0
1460.8
170.0
858.4
10.9
54.9
49.6
249.9
0 972
20,
18.2
8
Annual
Average
- -
317.0
2124A
189.8
1306.3
10.0
87.0
53.4
302.2
- -
- -
- -
2.9
14.6
4.1
27.3
0.9
5.0
20.1
07.1
83
49.5
- -
Apr. -Oct.
Aver a
--
440.0
3034.4
307.0
2194.31
9.71
414.91
62.8
426.6
- -
- -
- -
3.7
15.0
5.5
37.11
0.5
3.1
23.
15.4
39
20 3
- -
Nov. -Mar.
Average
--
235.0
1518.0
111.71
714.3
10.2
08.3
47.3
319.2
--
--
2.5
139
3.4
22.1
1./
6.0
-
29.1
138.0
10.5
811
-

Z of 3
Trble 5 Contd.
Golden Poultry Conpanr, Inc.
Sanford. North Carohna
SYSTEM
INFLUENT MONITORING DATA
RAIN
DATA
SYSTEM
EFFLUENT MONITORING
DATA
Dale
Water
Pumped
MGD
BOD
TSS
N -N
TKN
Rain
On
0 In.
Rain
Prev.
Da In
Water
Ohchaq
OD
SOD
TSS
N -N
Total N
O A G
Fecal
CoMronn
♦/100
PPM
b/d
PPM
PPM
b da
PPM
b da
PPM
b/da
PPM
b/da
PPM
b a
PPM
b/d a»
1295
PPM
_(b/ a7)
1/8193
1.794
160.0
2393.9
60.097.7
10.2
1520
45.2
5703
00
0.6
1.764
1.33E
0072
23
3 2
338
1.0
14.7
0.7
10388
5.0
/1.7
735
1306
1
2
1/13/93
0.994
169.0
1401.0
27.023.5
Pd
11.7
97.0
43.7
3823
04
04
35.7
101
1.0
11.2
0.3
33
10a
120.5
1 3
0.923
240.0
1647.5
130.000.7
10.7
82.4
43.7
330.4
00
0.0
34
37
1 7 3
0.878
178.0
1208.8
69.005.3
9.6
69.0
40.8
298.8
00
00
0 628
0 254
19.4
3
0.712
240.0
1425.1
125.0742.3
8.0
47.5
48.8
270.7
0.0
00
6.4
2.3
15.2
125
1.0
1.0
2.4
5.5
0.0
1.8
1.9
0.8
9 3
11.5
22.0
02.7
10 0
42.E
2
2/10/93
1.448
420.0
5072.1
258.0
3091.5
10.0
120.8
50.5
809.9
00
0.3
0 654
2 424
1.0
5.5
2
7417193
0.692
470.0
2712.5
347.0
2002.E
9.8
56.8
59.8
345.1
08
0.1
5.1
103.1
2/24t93
0.710
460.0
2723.8
327.0
1936.3
10.7
83.4
53.4
318.2
00
00
0 532
34
451
3/3/93
1.175
410.0
4028.1
329.0
3232.3
10.2
100.2
52.5
515.8
0.0
0.0
0 724
54
32.6
1.0
8.0
0.1
0.5
7.8
45.9
9.8
58-0
2
W10/93
1.016
310.0
2620.8
152.0
1283.0
10.2
66.4
45.7
387.2
0.0
0.0
0.50
59
339
1.5
8.6
0.3
1.7
5.0
46.0
12.7
72.9
2
17 3
1.181
286.0
2817.0
120.0
1181.9
10.0
107.4
49.E
488.5
0.2
0.0
1.180
8.1
78.1
3/24 3
0.497
1 660.0
2735.7
325.01
1347.1
12.0
49.71
56A
235.4
1.4
0.0
3.290
92
252.4
4 14/93
1.0301
1060.0
9105.8
727.0
8245.1
14.5
124.6
81.3
698.4
0.0
0.0
0.446
64
23.8
1.0
3.7
0.9
3.3
3.8
14.1
49
102
2
4/21/03
1.0211
420.0
3576.4
200.0
1703.0
11.0
93.7
49.3
419.8
0.0
0.0
0.254
2.0
4.2
1.0
2.1
0.2
0.4
3.9
8.3
7.5
ISO
2
4/28/93
0.918
470.0
3598.4
335.0
2564.8
7.3
55.9
82.4
477.7
0.0
0.1
0.208
2.0
3.4
S/5/93
0.848
13.1
92.0
64.8
458.3
0.9
0.0
1-326
11.0
121.7
11.5
127.2
0.8
6.8
7.2
79.6
10.4
1150
5200
5/12193
0.931
220.0
1705.2
83.0
844.5
14.9
115.7
52.2
405.3
0.0
0.0
0.308
20.0
51.4
5.7
14.6
5.8
14.91
5.0
C 12.8
450
5/19 3
0.957
200.0
1596.3
78.0
622.5
12.3
98.2
45.0
359.2
0.0
0.0
0.392
4.3
14.1
2
5/25/93
1.061
210.0
1858.2
38.01
318.6
12.0
106.2
43.5
384.9
0.7
0.0
0.404
16.3
550
1140
6/2/93
0.951
370.0
2934.8
124.0
983.5
16.7
132.5
62.9
498.9
0.0
0.5
0.412
8.8
30.2
12.0
41.2
1.1
3.8
15.1
51.9
G 5.0
17.2
29M
6/9/93
1.862
350.0
5435.2
130.0
2018.8
13.1
203.4
54.2
841.7
0.0
0.0
0.364
13.8
41.9
8.0
18.2
0.7
2.1
18.2
49.2
5.0
C 15.2
421
6/16/93
0.892
310.0
2306.2
130.0
967.1
14.9
110.8
61.4
458.8
0.0
0.0
0.282
4.8
11.31
2
6/23193
0.888
310.0
2295.8
130.0
962.8
10.7
123.7
54.7
405.1
0, 0
0.1
0.178
0.8
10.1
30000
7 3
0.495
0.0
0.0
0.102
e 2.0
e, 1.7
1.5
1.3
0.3
0.31
8.9
5.9
z 5.0
.3
C 2
7/14/93
0.087
430.0
3539.E
180.0
1481.7
27.9
229.7
71.1
585.3
0.01
0.0
0.152
11.5
14.5
20.01
25.4
8.8
11.21
21.9
27.8
25200
7/21/93
0.978
I
1
0.0
0.2
0.256
2.9
8.2
4
7128193
1.2031
170.0
1705.E
80.0
602.0
12.3
123.4
49.3
494.8
0.0
0.0
0.312
4.0
10.4
22200
8/4 3
0.694
1.1
0.0
1.118
4,01
39.6
23.5
219.1
0.3
2.8
3.31
35.4
5.0
G 49.5
30000
8111/93
0.974
00
1.5
0.324
L 2.0
5.4
4.0
10.6
0.5
1.4
15.3
41.3
2
8/18/93
1.020
250.0
2126.7
129.0
1097.4
13.8
117.4
52.7
448.3
0.0
0.0
0.150
3.7
4.8
2
8/25/93
1.014
310.0
2621.6
163.0
1378.5
13.8
110.7
59.0
499.0
0.0
0.0
0.080
2.2
1.5
9/8/93
0.96E
210.0
1691.9
79.0
638.5
12.31
99.1
50.1
403.61
0.0
0.0
0.502
5.9
24.7
2.51
10.5
0.8
3.3
6.0
25.1
17.0
73.7
44
9/1 W93
0.973
260.0
2109.9
116.0
041.3
11.6
94.11
53.7
435.8
0.3
0.0
0.452
13.0
49.0
17.0
64.1
0.3
1.1
6.5
24.5
5.0
189
2
9/22/93
0.6171
1
0.0
0.2
0.214
2.7
4.8
9/29 3
0.906
330.0
2493.5
110.0
631.2
14.5
109.6
60.9
460.2
0.0
0.0
0.274
5.9
13.5
10/6/93
0.974
260.0
2112.0
66.0
698.6
11.6
94.2
53.2
432.2
0.0
0.0
0.268
8.7
19.4
5.0
11.2
0.2
0.4
8.4
14.3
L 5.0
411.2
4C 2
1013/93
0.949
320.0
2532.7
122.0
965.0
13.8
109.2
55.1
436.1
0.0
0.1
0.608
14.0
71.0
3.5
17.7
0.7
3.5
8.4
42.0
11.5
58.3
10
10/20/93
1.015
0.01
0.0
0.640
4.7
25.1
10/27/93
0.997
230.0
1912.4
81.01
873.5
10.2
84.8
50.8
422.4
0.31
0.1
1.548
4.2
54.2
11/3193
0.845
230.0
1620.9
66.0
455.1
12.7
89.5
53.5
377.0
0.0
0.0
0.680
9.8
55.0
3.3
18.7
1.7
9.81
4.0
22.7
C 5.0
L 20.0
C 2
11 10/93
0.943
320.0
2516.7
120.0
943.8
16.9
132.91
90.9
714.9
0.0
0.0
0.668
} 25.0
? 138.9
14.8
82.0
1.4
7.8
e- 5.0
4 20.0
8
1117/93
1.097
240.0
2195.8
135.0
1235.1
9.2
84.2
48.8
446.5
0.0
0.0
0.588
5.9
13.2
11/24/93
0.835
430.0
2994.5
215.0
1497.2
30.6
213.1
62.9
438.0
0.0
0.0
0.384
7.7
24.7
0.4
1.3
12/1193
0.578
320.0
1537.2
125.0
600.5
16.2
77.8
53.1
255.1
0.0
0.0
0.442
10.1
37.2
4.6
17.0
0.8
3.0
8.4
31.0
7.5
280
2
12/8/93
0.561
240.0
1122.9
93.0
435.1
12.3
57.5
57.8
270.4
0.0
0.0
0.430
2.6
9.3
2.01
7.0
Z 0.1
4C 0.4
5.4
19.4
6.7
24.0
< 2
12/15/93
0.414
280.0
906.8
110.01
379.8
14.8
51.1
58.7
202.7
0.9
0.0
0.414
19.7
68.0
1Z/2Y/93
0.428
0.0
0.6
0.428
7.5
26.9
12/28/93
1.16E
260.0
2528.4
86.0
835.3
11.4
110.9
57.1
555.3
0.0
0.0
0.2321
2.1
4.1
Annul
Average
325.3
2595.4
157.9
1254.5
13.1
104.5
55.1
442.2
--
- -
- -
7.01
36.3
6.1
30.8
1.2
4.2
7.0
42.5
8.0
40.4
- -
Apr. -Oct.
Average
-
334.5
2863.0
155.0
1310.81
13.7
118.0
56.E
477.3
--
- -
-
6.9
20.4
8.2
40.5
I.S.3.9
7.7
31.9
8.9
34.2
--
Nov. -Mat.
Average
318.1
2327.E
160.9
1192.1
12.1
92.5
53.E
405.4
--
-
7.1
40.0
3.1
17.3
0.6
4.51
8.2
55.5
8.2
49A
--

Table 5 Contd.
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, NorthCarollne
3 w-V- 3
SYSTEM INFLUENT MONITORING
DATA
RAIN
DATA
SYSTEM
EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
Date
Water
Pumped
MGO
130D
TSS
NH -N
TKN
Rain
On
Oa tn.
Rain
Prev.
Da In.
Water
Discharged
MGO
BOO
TBS
NH -N
Total N
O 3 G
Fecal
Colmorm
i1i00~mj
PPM
b/da
PPM
b da
PPM
b da
PPM
b/da
PPM
b ds
PPM
b/d•
PPM
b dey
PPM
b/dam
PPM
b/dad-
1/0/94
0.398
280.0
929.4
110.0
365.1
12.1
40.2
81.4
203.E
0.0
0.0
6446
22
8.2
1.1
4A
08
. 30
9.0
335
< 7 8
< 29 0
t 2
1/12104
0.294
0.7
0.0
0.972
Z 20
L 18.2
1.5
12.0
0A
3.2
12.8
104 0
76
1/10/94
0.505
300.0
1263.5
120.0
505.4
10.0
42.1
59.3
249A
0.0
0.8
0.492
3.6
15.0
1 0/94
0.743
330.0
2044.9
115.0
712.0
9.8
59.5
81.9
333.6
0, 0
0.0
0.408
10.2
55.1
0.728
260.0
1576.8
130.0
789.3
10A
03.1
50.6
343.8
0.0
0.0
0.740
e- 2.0
c 12.3
4.5
28.0
0.7
4.3
7.0
432
134
830
c 2
2/9/94
1.064
260.0
2307.2
100.01
887.4
8.6
78.3
58.2
496.7
0.0
0.1
0.860
8.9
49.5
1.0
7.0
1 0.6
4.3
1
11.2
800
.4 2
2118/94
0.952
250.0
1984.9
100.01
704.0
10.0
79.4
47.5
377.9
0.01
0.0
0.420
2.3
8.1
2/23/94
1.042
300.0
2607.1
140.0
1218.0
10.4
90.4
57.6
500.6
0.3
0.0
0.820
3.1
21.2
3 4
0.000
1.8
0.0
2.004
3.0
50.1
3/9/94
0.738
200.0
1231.0
90.0
590.9
10.0
81.5
53.3
328.1
0.0
0.0
0.144
2.2
2.8
1.0
1.0
1.7
2.0
33
40
433
520
L 2
3/18194
1.004
350.0
3014.4
140.0
1172.3
5.0
41.9
50.4
472.3
0.0
0.0
0.392
9.51
31.1
7.0
23.0
0.0
2.0
L 50
c 100
2
3/23 4
0.965
310.0
2494.9
70.0
503.4
11.4
01.71
56.2
452.3
0.0
0.1
0.464
5.0
19.4
30/94
0.269
270.0
605.7
110.0
246.8
11.4
25.0
55.2
123.8
0.0
1.5
Flooded
4/6/94
1.082
410.0
3699.E
170.0
1534.1
11.1
100.2
62.8
586.7
0.0
0.0
0.352
14.2
41.7
0.8
20.0
0.3
0.9
2.51
7.3
18.4
48.0
2
413/94
1.034
270.0
2328.4
110.0
048.8
11.4
98.3
58.1
501.0
0.2
0.01
0.288
11.0
26.4
10.0
24.0
1.5
3.6
27.9
87.0
L 2
4/20/94
1.009
0.6
0.0
0.12E
15.0
16.0
4/27
0.994
260.0
2155.4
100.0
629.0
11.4
94.5
50.2
465.9
523.3
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.054
2.468
11.1
12.51
5.9
257.3
5/4194
0.9161
300.0
2291.8
110.0
840.3
10.7
81.7
68.5
5/11 /94
1.0271
320.0
2740.9
59.0
505.3
12.5
107.1
57.8
495.1
0.0
0.0
0 432
19.01
68.5
19.0
88.5
2.2
7.9
6.9
24.9
go
348
t 2
5/16/94
0.067
150.0
834.4
200.01
1112.0
51.4
285.9
79.1
440.0
0.0
0.0
0.276
8.9
15.9
4.0
9.2
0.8
Ta
5.0
11.5
< 2
5/25/94
1.082
110.0
993.0
370.01
3340.1
48.4
436.9
68.0
813.9
404.5
0.0
0.01
0.71
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.084
0.092
0.680
11.1
12.3
25.9
78
9.4
146.9
12.8
0.7
3.5
2.7
4.81
3.5
73
501
4. 2
6/1 4 2
0.778
130.0
641.3
140.01
900.1
48.8
314.5
62.5
6/8/94
0.941
78.0
612.1
99.01
776.9
52.7
413.6
56.6
522.7
815194
1.030
290.0
2491.2
75.01
644.3
14.9
126.E
50.4
484.5
0.0
0.0
0.660
6.3
34.7
5.7
31.4
2.2
12.1
32.1
176.7
22
6/22/94
0.924
500.0
3853.1
270.0
2080.7
17.0
131.0
67.5
520.2
0.0
0.0
0.248
5.8
11.6
0.4
0.9
6/29/94
0 927
700.0
5411.E
470.0
3633.7
14.2
109.8
80.5
622.4
0.3
<0.1
0.530
6.9
39.3
3.5
15.5
7 4
0.880
1124.0
8249.3
990.0
7265.8
27.1
198.9
102.7
753.7
0.0
0.2
0.306
21.1
53.8
10.2
26.0
3.2
5.2
12.6
32.2
10.8
430
7/13/94
1.038
<0.1
0.4
0.948
18.1
127.3
21.0
186.0
13.7
108.0
7/22/94
0.974
0.6
1.8
1.956
7.1
1/5.8
1
7/28/94
0.891
62,0
481.4
0.0
0.3
1.3
0.6
1.084
0.740
2.1
5.4
19.0
33.3
13.3
82.0
1.0
1.0
14.5
9.9
5.5
33.9
9.1
560
900
20
8/2/94
0.931
430.0
3338.8
180.0
1397.0
18.3
126.8
8/10/94
0.790
560.0
3717.E
270.0
1792.4
14.9
98.9
65.2
432.6
0.0
0.0
0.172
3.5
5.0
9.1
13.0
C 0.1
c 0.1
7-0
10.0
< 2
all6/94
0.915
180.0
1373.6
220.0
1678.8
16.0
137.4
50.0
381.E
0.2
0.2
0.308
4.41
11.3
8/24/94
6.620
290.0
1983.3
69.0
471.9
15.3
104.6
59.0
403.5
0.0
0.0
0.440
3.11
11.4
8131/94
0.847
300.0
2119.2
130.0
918.3
16.0
113.0
56.9
401.9
0.0
0.4
0.700
2.8
16.3
9/7/94
0.951
650.0
5155.4
380.0
3013.9
11.1
88.0
75.0
594.9
0.0
0.0
0.360
4.2
12.0
5.31
15.9
0.6
1.8
4.31
12.9
L 5.0
4 1501
4
9/14
0.997
1
0.01
0.0
0.328
6.1
16.7
11.3
30.91
1.0
2.7
< 5.0
< 13-7
60
9/21/94
0.859
200.0
1432.8
57.0
408.4
12.4
88.8
50.7
363.2
412.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.504
0.432
3.1
3.1
13.0
11.2
9128/94
0.905
230.0
173&0
73.0
551.0
12.4
93.61
54.E
10/5/94
0.819
200.0
1366.1
57.0
389.3
11.7
79.91
47.3
323.1
0.0
0.0
0.584
4.1
20.0
2.4
11.7
6.5
31.7
5.0
24.4
L 1
10/12/94
0.83E
220.0
1533.9
59.0
411.4
14.6
101.8
50.7
353.5
0.0
0.0
0.492
2.91
11.9
1.6
6.8
L 1.0
4.1
5.0
< 205
1
10/19/94
0.836
200.0
1394.4
69.0
481.1
11.7
81.6
49.7
346.5
0.0
0.0
0.356
10.1
30.0
1.0
< 3.0
10/26/94
0.901
0.0
0.0
0.452
2.2
8.3
11/3/94
0.808
0.01
0.0
0.536
6.0
25.0
3.6
17.0
G 1.0
L 4.5
4.71
21.0
< 5.0
L 22.0
2
11 /9/94
0.858
0.0
0.0
0.362
2.1
6.3
5.6
17.0
1.0
G 3.0
< 5.0
< ISO
1
11/16/94
0.915
0.0
0.0
0.904
5.8
43.7
11/23/94
0.999
355.3
0.0
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.020
1.020
4.0
t 2.0
20.7
t 17.0
11 /30/94
0.854
270.0
1923.0
71.0
505.7
14.8
104.0
54.1
Annual
Aver *
--
320.6 1
2334.7
170.2
1250.7
17.0
122.5
60.8
438.4
--
- -
- -
7.2
34.1
7.2
20.4
1.3
4.8
6.1
22.0
12.2
47.0
-
Apr. -Oct.
Average
- -
337.6
2508.9
197.01
1497.1
20.2
1 150.61
62.8
1 475.3
357.7
- -
- -
- -
-
al39.9
4.8
23.7
9.5
3.2
36.8
13.6
1.5
0.8
5.8
3.3
0.1
6.0
20.9
25.4
11.8
12.9
45.3
50.1
- -
-
Nov. - Mar.
Average
--
283.8
1823.8
111.9
713.1
9.9
61.1
56.5
10/92 -
11/94
Average,
-
322.7
2451.9
185.3
1250.1
14.8
110.0
57.5
435.8
--
-
8.6
32.9
0.3
29.4
1.2
4.6
9.3
45.4
10.1
44.3
(2) Effluent from the OAF was routed through the storage pond before release to the fields. RGO 12R6N4

o` 3
TABLE 6
Summary of Overland Flow Treatment System Performance
Golden Poultry Company. Inc.
e-4-d u...w6
Date
Rain
On
Da in.
Rain
Prev.
Oa in.)
Water
Pumped
(MGD)
Water
Discharged
(MGO
-- BOD - - - -
TSS
Total NO
To Fields
b/da
Effluent
b/day)
Removal
Eff. %
To Fields
b/da(lb/day)
Effluent
Removal
Eff. %
To Fields Effluent
b/da b/day)
Removal
Eff. "1 1
10/7/92
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.8
1902.9
16.9
99.1
713.6
20.3
97.2
311.E i. 10.8
96.5
10/14/92
0.8
22.6
54.8
l 19.9
i
10/21 /92
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.3
4166.0
13.6
99.7
3675.0
541.6 f
10/28/92
0.3
10.3
11 /4/92
1.3
30.0
3OA
92.2
11 /11 /92
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
932.4
11.0
98.8
321.7
42.0
86.9
1902
N 75.7
60.2
11/18/92
0.3
5.9
p
11 /25/92
0.7
11.7
1212/92
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.7
2160.7
13.9
99.4
964.8
12.1
98.7
517A
f 44.1
91.5
12/9192
0.5
9.9
3.9
340.1
12/16/92
0.4
12.6
12/23/92
0.6
1.0
1460.8
16.2
98.9
856.4
2499
Apr.-OcL
AveraE
3034.4
15.8
99.4
1 2194.3
37.6
97.2
426A
; 15.4
96.5
Nov.-Mw
Avers
--
--
--
--
1518.0
13.9
99.0
714.3
22.1
92.8
3192
138.0
75.9
Annual
Avers
--
--
--
--
2124.61
14.E
1 99.2
1305.3
27.31
94.3
362.2
97.1
82.7

2"q3
TABLE 6
Summary of Overland Flow Treatment System Performance
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, North Carolina
Date
Rain
On
Da m.
Rain
Prev.
Day Qn.)GD
Water
Pumped
Water
Discharge
GD
BOD
TSS
Total N
To Fields
b/da
Effluent
b/day)
Removal
Eff.
To Fields
Qb1da
Effluent
b/day)
Removal
Eff.
To Fields
b/da
Effluent
b/day)
Removal
Eff. (')
1/6/93
0.0
0.6
1.8
1.8
2393.9
33.8
98.6
897.7
14.7
98.4
676.3
129.5
80.9
1 /13/93
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.3
1401.0
35.7
97.5
223.8
11.2
95.0
362.3
120.5
66.7
1/20/93
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.7
1847.5
19.1
99.0
1000.7
335.4
1/27/93
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.6
1288.81
19.4
98.5
605.3
298.8
213/93
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.3
1425.1
15.2
98.9
742.3
2.4
99.7
276.7
22.0
92.0
2/10/93
0.0
0.3
1.4
0.7
5072.1
12.5
99.8
3091.5
5.5
99.8
609.9
62.7
89.7
2/17/93
0.6
0.1
0.7
2.4
2712.5
103.1
96.2
2002.6
345.1
2/24/93
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.5
2723.8
15.1
99.4
1936.3
316.2
3/3/93
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.7
4028.1
32.6
99.2
3232.3
6.0
99.8
515.8
45.91
91.1
3/10193
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.7
2626.8
33.9
98.7
1288.0
8.6
99.3
367.2
46.01
98.1
3117/93
0.2
0.0
1.2
1.2
2817.0
78.4
97.2
1181.9
488.5
3/24/93
1.4
0.0
0.5
3.3
2735.7
252.4
90.8
1347.1
235.4
4/14/93
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.4
9105.6
23.8
99.7
6245.1
3.7
99.9
098.4
14.1
98.0
4/21 /93
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.3
3576.4
4.21
99.9
1703.0
2.1
99.9
419.8
8.3
98.0
4/28/93
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.2
3598.4
3.4
99.9
2564.8
477.7
5/5/93
0.9
0.0
0.8
1.3
121.7
127.2
458.3
79.6
82.6
5/12193
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.3
1708.2
51.4
97.0
644.5
14.6
97.7
405.3
5/19/93
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.4
1596.3
14.1
99.1
822.5
359.2
5/26/93
0.7
0.0
1.1
OA
1858.2
21.6 1
98.8
318.6
384.9
6/2/93
0.0
0.81
1.0
0.4
2934.6
30.2
99.0
983.5
41.2
95.8
498.9
51.9
89.6
6/9/93
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.4
5435.2
41.9
99.2
2018.8
18.2
99.1
$41.7
49.2
94.2
6116193
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.3
2306.2
11.3
99.5
967.1
458.8
6/23/93
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.2
2295.8
10.1
99.6
962.8
405.1
7/7I93
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
1.7
1.3
5.9
7/14/93
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.2
3539.6
14.6 1
99.6
1481.7
25.4
98.3
585.3
7/21/93
0.0
0.2
1.0
0.3
8.2
7/28/93
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.3
1705.6
10.4
99.4
602.0
494.6
8/4/93
1.1
0.0
0.7
1.1
37.3
219.1
35.4
8/11/93
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.3
5.4
10.8
8/18/93
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.2
2126.7
4.6
99.8
1097A
448.3
8125/93
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.1
2821.6
1.5
99.9
1378.5
499.0
9/8/93
0.01
0.0
1.0
0.5
1691.91
24.7
98.5
636.5
10.5
98.4
403.6
25.11
93.8
9/15/93
0.31
0.0
1.0
0.5
2109.9
49.0
97.7
941.3
64.1
93.2
425.8
24.5
94.4
9122193
0.01
0.2
0.6
0.2
4.8
9/29/93
0.01
0.01
0.9
0.3
2493.5
13.5
99.5
831.2
460•2
10/6193
0.0
0.01
1.0
0.3
2112.0
19.4
99.1
698.6
11.2
98.4
432.2
14.3
96.7
10/13/93
0.0
0.11
0.9
0.6
2532.7
71.0
97.2
965.6
17.7
98.2
438.1
42.6
90.2
10/20/93
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.6
25.1
10/27/93
0.3
0.11
1.0
1.5
1912.4
54.2
97.2
873.5
422.4
11/3193
0.0
0.01
0.8
0.7
1620.9
55.6
96.6
465.1
18.7
96.0
377.01
22.7
94.0
11 /10/93
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.7
2516.7
138.9
94.5
943.8
82.0
91.3
714.9
11/17/93
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
2195.8
13.2
99.4
1235.1
446.5
11/24/93
0.0
0.0
0.8
OA
2994.5
24.7
99.2
1497.2
438.0
12/1 /93
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
1537.2
37.2
97.6
600.5
17.0
97.2
255.1
31.0
87.8
12/8/93
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
1122.9
9.3
99.2
435.1
7.0
98.4
270.4
19.4
92.8
12/15/93
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.4
966.8
68.0
93.0
379.8
202.7
12/22/93
0.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
26.9
12/28/93
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.2
2528.41
4.1
99.8
836.3
555.3
Apr. -Oct.
Avers
--
--
--
--
2863.0
25.1
99.0
1316.8
40.5
97.9
477.3
31.9
93.1
Nov.-Mw
Averane
2327.8
49.01
97.6
1192.1
17.3
97.5
405.4
55.5
87.0
Anmud
Average
--
--
--
--
2595A
1 35.5
98.31
1254.51
30.8
97.7
442.2
42.5
90.0

TABLE 6
Summary of Overland Flow Treatment System Performance
Golden Poultry Company. Inc.
Sanford, North Carolina
Date
1 /6/94
1 /12194
Rain
On
Da m.
0.0
0.7
Rain
Prev.
Da in.
0.0
0.0
Water
Pumped
GD
0.398
0.294
Water
Discharged
GD
0.446
0.972
BOD
TSS
Total NUI
To Fields
b/da
929.4
Effluent
b/da
8.2
16.2
Removal
Eff.
99.1
To Fields
b/da
365.1
Effluent
b/da
4.0
12.0
Removal
Eff.
98.9
To Fields
lb/da
203.8
Effluent
b/day)
33.5
Removal
Eff. (')
83.6
1119/94
0.0
0.0
0.505
0.492
1263.5
15.61
98.8
505.4
249.8
1 /26/94
0.0
0.0
0.743
0.408
2044.9
55.1
97.3
712.6
383.E
2/2194
0.0
0.0
0.728
0.740
1578.6
12.3
99.2
789.3
28.0
96.5
343.6
43.2
87.4
219/94
1 0.0
0.1
1.064
0.860
2307.2
49.5
97.9
887.4
7.0
99.2
498.7
2116/94
0.0
0.0
0.952
0.420
1984.9
8.1
99.6
794.0
377.9
2/23/94
0.3
0.0
1.042
0.820
2607.1
21.2
99.2
1216.6
600.6
3/2/94
1.8
0.0
0.000
2.004
50.1
3/9/94
0.0
0.0
0.738
0.144
1231.0
2.6
99.8
590.9
1.0
99.8
328.1
4.0
98.8
3116/94
0.0
0.0
1.004
0.392
3014.4
31.1
99.0
1172.3
23.0
98.0
472.3
3/23/94
0.0
0.1
0.965
0.464
2494.9
19.4
99.2
563.4
452.3
3130194
0.0
1.5
0.269
Flooded
605.7
246.8
123.8
4/6/94
0.0
0.0
1.082
0.352
3699.8
41.7
98.9
1534.1
20.0
98.7
566.7
7.3
98.7
4/13/94
0.2
0.0
1.034
0.288
2328.4
26.4
98.9
946.6
24.0
97.5
501.0
4/20/94
0.0
0.0
1.009
0.128
16.0
4/27/94
0.0
0.0
0.994
0.084
2155.4
5.9
99.7
829.0
465.9
5/4/94
1.8
0.0
0.916
2.468
2291.8
257.3
88.81
840.3
523.3
5/11/94
0.0
0.0
1.027
0.432
2740.9
68.5
97.5
505.3
68.5
86.4
495.1
24.9
95.7
5/18/94 2
0.0
0.0
0.667
0.278
834.4
15.9
98.1
1112.6
9.2
99.2
440.0
5/25/94 2
0.0
0.0
1.082
0.084
993.0
7.8
99.2
3340.1
613.9
6/1 /94 2
0.0
0.0
0.776
0.092
841.3
9.4
98.9
906.1
9.7
98.9
404.5
3.5
99.1
6/8/94 2
0.7
0.5
0.941
0.680
612.1
146.9
76.0
776.9
522.7
6/15/94
0.0
0.0
1.030
0.660
2491.2
34.7
98.6
644.3
31.4
95.1
484.5
6/22/94
0.0
0.0
0.924
0.248
3853.1
11.6
99.7
2080.7
520.2
6/29/94
1 0.3
<0.1
0.927
0.530
6411.8
39.3
99.3
3633.7
622.4
7/7194
0.0
0.2
0.880
0.306
8249.3
53.8
99.3
7265.8
26.0
99.6
753.7
32.2
95.7
7/13/94
<0.1
0.4
1.038
0.948
127.3
166.0
7/22194
0.6
1.8
0.974
1.956
115.8
7/28/94
0.0
1.3
0.891
1.094
19.0
8/2/94
0.3
0.6
0.931
0.740
3333.8
33.3
99.0
1397.6
82.0
94.1
481.4
33.9
63.0
8/10/94
0.0
0.0
0.796
0.172
3717.6
5.0
99.9
1792.4
13.0
99.3
432.8
8/18/04
0.2
0.2
0.915
0.308
1373.6
11.3
99.2
1678.8
381.E
8/24/94
0.0
0.0
0.820
0.440
1983.3
11.4
99.4
471.9
403.5
8/31/94
0.0
0.4
0.847
0.700
2119.2
16.3
99.2
918.3
401.9
9/7/94
0.0
0.0
0.9511
0.360
5155.4
12.6
99.8
3013.9
15.9
99.5
594.91
12.9
97.8
9/14/94
0.0
0.0
0.997
0.328
16.7
1 30.9
9/21 /94
0.0
0.0
0.859
0.504
1432.8
13.0
99.1
408.4
363.2
9/28/94
0.0
0.0
0.905
0.432
1736.0
11.2
99.4
551.0
412.1
10/5/94
0.0
0.0
0.819
0.584
1366.1
20.0
98.5
389.3
11.7
97.0
323.1
31.7
90.2
10/12/94
0.0
0.0
0.836
0.492
1533.9
11.9
99.2
411.4
6.6
98.4
353.5
10/19/94
0.0
0.0
0.836
0.356
1394.4
30.0
97.8
481.1
346.5
10/26/94
0.0
0.0
0.901
0.452
8.3
11 /3/94
0
0
0.896
0.536
1644.0
25.0
98.5
575.4
17.0
97.0
378.9
21.0
94.5
11 /9/94
0
0
0.856
0.362
6.3
17
11 /16/04
0
0
0.915
0.904
43.7
11/23/04
0
0.15
0.909
0.62
20.7
11/30/94
0.15
0.12
0.854
1.02
1923.0
17
99.1
505.7
385.3
Apr. -Oct.
Average
--
--
--
--
2568.7
39.9
97.8
1497.1
36.8
97.0
475.3
20.9
95.8
Nov. -Mar
Average
- -
- -
- -
- -
1817.6
23.7
98.9
686.5
13.6
98.2
361.4
25.4
91.1
Annual
Averace
2304.8
34.1
98.1
1212.3
28.4
97.4
435.3
22.6
94.0
Total
Apr. -Oct.
Average
--
--
--
--
2716.9
31.8
98.3
1449.1
38.6
97.4
474.2
26.4
94.4
Total
Nov. -Mar
Avers e
--
--
--
--
2076.1
33.5
98.2
969.7
16.8
97.2
382.4
87.8
86.6
Total
Annual
Avers e
--
--
--
--
2435.6
32.5
98.3
1238.8
29.4
97.3
434.3
45.4
90.7
(1) Analyzed from TKN data to fields and Total N data from fields effluent (i.e. assumed NOJNO,-N levels in influent = 0).
(2) Effluent tram the DAF was routed through the storage pond before release to the fields. RGD 1/10/94

TAE
SUMMARY OF STORM WATER RUNOFF MOI
GOLDEN POI:
SANFORD, N4
Sample Location
Sample Dde
111503 10 4A4
1
3 vera •
2
11 5
3
9 / 6 3 Aver •
4
11 1 3
9 O43
aramA•r
SOD m
4.6
3.0
3.5
2.9
42.0
3.2
4.7
12.0
8.8
10.4
11.2
6.5
OC m
17.41
7.41
7.61
13.8
12.5
11.7
14.2
4.22
--
4.22
10.0
28.9
DO m
--
1 11.7
10.72
10.40
9.46
8.46
--
--
9.3
9.3
7.15
7.3
TKN (mgM
3.91
2.1
3.2
3.7
1.6
2.9
2.7
41.0
2.1
21.6
28.1
8.3
NH -N m /1
0.2
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.3
0.7
0.3
1.7
0.3
1.0
0.5
0.1
Ng, -N
0.005
0.007
40.005
4 0.005
0.016
0.008
< 0.005
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.3
C 0.005
NO -N m
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
2.1
C 0.1
Total N m
4.01
2.61
4.01
4.5/
2.721
3.55
46 3.01
41.11
2.31
21.71
30.50
4 8.41
Sample Location Description:
Location 1: Runoff samplecollected from un develcped grass and pine area below Lee County Water Plant.
Location 2: Runoff sample collected from major drainage feature receiving drainage from wooded area to the north
of spray fields.
Location 3: Runoff sample collected from area drained through oufall 001 (near number 4 spray field). This area is
not under Irrigation.
Location 4: Runoff sample collected from area dralned through outfall 001 (near number 5 spray field). This area Is
also not under Irrigation.
Location 5: Runoff samples collected from bean field
Location 6: Runoff sample collected from thicket on southem side of site.
Location 7: Runoff sample collected from slope near Lee County Water Plart.
Notes:
1) Average constituent concentrations In treated effluent between the time frame of 10/92 - 11/94.

Table 8
Summary of Overland Flow Treatment System Performance during Noncompfances
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, North Carolina
Date
Rain
On
Da in.
er
Pumped
14AG1]
Water
Discharged
IIIIGD}
NITROGEN
TN To Fieldsi EM a nt NH3K
�
To Fields
Iblday}
2735.7
mg j
660.0
Effluent'
]blda) ; _ rrxtl'
252.4
9.2
�llbrday} m4/1
_z
_ �ibfday
3/24193
1.4 ; 0.5 3.3
_
235 4 56.81
515i93
0.9.
0.8=
1.3
121.7
11.0
A583
64.8. 6.6
0.6
5/12193
0.0
0.91
0.3
1708.2
220.01
51.4+
20.0
AC5.3
5_85.3
52.2
?1.1
14.9
11.21
5.8
8.8
7114f93
0.0 1.01
0_4
a
3539.6 430-014.6 11.5
514194
618194
1.8
0.916
2.468
2291.8. 300.0
257.3
12.5
523.31
522.Y `
484.5
68.5
66 s-
56 A
12.1
2.2
0.7 0.941
0.680
612.1: 78.0 146.9 25 9
4
0.0 1.030
0.660
2491.2 290.0 34.0 6.3
4
0.3
0.927
0.530
$411.8
700.0
39.3
8.9
622.4
8G 5
15.5
3.5
4
rJ28/94
0.0-
1.0381
0.948
127.3
16.1
4
0.6:
0.9741,
1.956
115.8
7.1
0.0':
0.891. 1.084
19.Q
2.1
14.5
1.5
0.3
0.931 ' 0.740
3333.8
429.4
33.3
5.4
481.41
62.0
9.9
�� 1.6

ff
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT BOD AND NH3-N CONCENTRATIONS DURING WET AND DRY WEATHERM
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, North Carolina
Wet
Weather
D rryWeathe
-Sample Date
Rainfall in.
BOD(mg/1)
NH,;- N(mg/1)
Sample Date
Rainfall in.
BOD(mg/1)
NH -N(mg/1)
1 /13/93
0.4
3.2
0.3
1 /20/93
0.0
3.4
2/17/93
0.6
5.1
2/24/93
0.0
3.4
3/17/93
0.2
8.1
3/10/93
0.0
5.9
0.3
3/24/93
1.4
9.2
4/14/93
0.0
8.1
5/5/93
0.9
11.0
0.6
5/12/93
0.0
20.0
5.8
5/26/93
0.7
16.3
6/2/93
0.0
8.8
1.1
8/4/93
1.1
4.0
0.3
8/11 /93
0.0
2.0
0.5
9/15/93
0.3
13
0.3
9/22/93
0.0
2.7
10/27/93
0.3
4.2
11 /3/93
0.0
9.8
1.7
12/15/93
0.9
19.7
12/22/93
0.0
7.5
1 /12/94
0.7
2.0
0.4
1 /6/94
0.0
2.2
0.8
2/23/94
0.3
3.1
2/16/94
0.0
2.3
3/2/94
1.8
3.0
3/9/94
0.0
2.2
1.7
4/13/94
0.2
11.0
1.5
4/20/94
0.0
15.0
5/4/94
1.8
12.5
5/11 /94
0.0
19.0
2.2
6/8/94
0.7
25.9
6/15/94
0.0
6.3
2.2
6/29/94
0.3
8.9
3.5
7/7/94
0.0
21.1
3.2
7/22/94
0.6
7.1
7/28/94
0.0
2.1
1.6
8/2/94
0.31
5.4
1.6
8/10/94
0.0
3.5
0.1
8/16/94
0.2
4.4
8/24/94
0.0
3.1
11 /30/94
0.15
2.0
11 /23/94 1
0.01
4.0
Average
- -1
8.5
0.91
1--
-1
7.31
1.8
Notes:
1) A more accurate method of assessing the impact of rainfall on OF systems consists of collecting samples of runoff
during rainfall from a field receiving irrigation and one not receiving irrigation. This sampling protocol was used in
USEPA's evaluations of OF systems. (See USEPA's "Process Design Manual For Land Treatment Of Municipal
Wastewater - Supplement On Rapid Infiltration And Overland Flow" October 1984).
2) Data from next sampling event following listed wet weather sampling event. If rain on next sampling event,
data from event preceeding listed wet weather sample event.
SRW 1/22/95

Table 10
Rainfall Intervals, Effluent (MGD), BODS (mg/L and lb/day), NH3-N (mg/L and lb/day), Percent of measurements
resulting in non-compliance.
Rain Interval
Effluent:
BODS
inches
MGD
mg/L
lb/day
0
0.38
4.10
13
0.01 - 0.50
0.52
5.69
24.7
0.51- 0.99
0.87
9.34
68
1.0 +
1.43
12.71
151
a One measurment of NH3-N
NH3-N
BODS, % of
Measurements
resulting in
Noncompliance
NH3-N, % of
Measurements
resulting in
Noncompliance
mg/L
lb/day
%
%
0.66
2.1
0.98
8.3
0.42
1.8
3
12.5
0.93
6.8
30
25
-a
-
50
-

Table 11
Summary Statistics by Rainfall intervals for Effluent, BOD5, and NH3-N for Golden Poultry,
Sanford, NC, September
1989 to November 1994,
Summa Statistics
for effluent, BOD5, and NH3-N when rain was 0 on measureament
date.
Effluent MGD
BOD5 Ib/da
NH3-N(Ib/da )
Mean
0.494295
Mean
20.58878
Mean
5.457213
Standard Error
0.015147
Standard Error
0.897573
Standard Error
0.317741
Median
0.38
Median
13
Median
2.1
Mode
0
Mode
0
Mode
0
Standard Deviation
0.469546
Standard Deviation
27.82477
Standard Deviation
9.849966
Kurtosis
16.7915
Kurtosis
86.21319
Kurtosis
165.5751
Skewness
3.115098
Skewness
7.70066
Skewness
11.28566
Range
4.8
Range
243.3
Range
74.1
Minimum
0
Minimum
0.1
Minimum
0.01
Maximum
4.8
Maximum
243.3
Maximum
74.1
Count
904
Count
205
Count
122
Summary statistics for effluent, rain, NH3-N, and BOD5
when rainfall
was between 0.01
and 0.5 inches.
Effluent MGD)
Rain (inches)
BOD5 LB/DA 10
NH3-N (LB/DA
Mean
0.648149
Mean
0.187331
Mean
32.03581
Mean
3.310625
Standard Error
0.032432
Standard Error
0.009304
Standard Error
1.881437
Standard Error
0.247704
Median
0.52
Median
0.15
Median
24.7
Median
1.8
Mode
0
Mode
0.1
Mode
0
Mode
0
Standard Deviation
0.528957
Standard Deviation
0.151745
Standard Deviation
30.68531
Standard Deviation
4.039933
Kurtosis
3.435205
Kurtosis
-0.74799
Kurtosis
60.25399
Kurtosis
101.7112
Skewness
1.687254
Skewness
0.662738
Skewness
6.670053
Skewness
9.420861
Range
2.944
Range
0.49
Range
164.8
Range
15.5
Minimum
0
Minimum
0.01
Minimum
3.9
Minimum
0.32
Maximum
2.944
Maximum
0.5
Maximum
164.8
Maximum
15.5
Count
255
Count
266
Count
31
Count
16
Summary of effluent, rain, BOD5, NH3-N when rain was between
0.51 to 0.99 inches
on the da
of measurement.
E111uent MGD
Rain inches
BOD5 LB/DA
NH3-N LB/DA
Mean
1.139994
Mean
0.709688
Mean
64.01
Mean
7.315
Standard Error
0.106661
Standard Error
0.014114
Standard Error
6.702132
Standard Error
0.466814
Median
0.84
Median
0.7
Median
68
Median
6.78
Mode
0
Mode
0.7
Mode
0
Mode
0
Standard Deviation
0.853286
Standard Deviation
0.112912
Standard Deviation
55.2672
Standard Deviation
3.849446
Kurtosis
1.787595
Kurtosis
-0.92026
Kurtosis
10.7326
Kurtosis
26.61206
Skewness
1.33295
Skewness
0.312659
Skewness
3.398768
Skewness
5.003336
Range
4.16
Range
0.4
Range
146.9
Range
12.5
Minimum
0.08
Minimum
0.52
Minimum
0
Minimum
3.2
Maximum
4.16
Maximum
0.92
Maximum
146.9
Maximum
12.5
Count
63
Count
64 1
Count
10
Count
4
Summary of effluent, rain, BOD5,
and NH3-N when rain
was greater
than 1 inch the
ay of measurement.
Effluent (MGD)
Rain (inches)
BOD5 LB/DA
NH3-N (LB/DAl�
Mean
1.713547
Mean
1.760959
Mean
149.85
Mean
3
Standard Error
0.13395
Standard Error
0.102147
Standard Error
14.20128
Standard Error
Median
1.425
Median
1.5
Median
151.25
Median
3
Mode
0
Mode
1.5
Mode
0
Mode
0
Standard Deviation
1.144471
Standard Deviation
0.872743
Standard Deviation
121.3358
Standard Deviation
Kurtosis
-0.08632
Kurtosis
8.911321
Kurtosis
31.68051
Kurtosis
73
Skewness
0.735994
Skewness
2.578591
Skewness
5.66
Skewness
8.544004
Range
4.975
Range
5.2
Range
257.3
Range
3
Minimum
0.07
Minimum
1
Minimum
39.6
Minimum
3
Maximum
4.9751
Maximum
6.2
Maximum
257.31
Maximum
3
1
Count
64
1 Count
73
Count
4
1 Count
1

Table 12
Cumulative rainfall on days 0, 1, and 2 prior to a con -compliance measurement.
Noncom liance
Cumulative
rainfall prior
to Measurement.
BOD5
NH3-N
2 days
1 day
0 day
(lb/day)
(lb/day)
Inches
Inches
Inches
03/24/93
252.4
1.35
1.35
1.35
05/05/93
121.7
0.94
0.94
0.92
05/12/93
14.9
0
0
0
07/14/93
11.2
0.48
0.01
0
05/04/94
257.3
2.24
1.76
1.76
06/08/94
146.9
1.21
1.18
0.7
O6/15/94
12.1
1.77
0
0
06/29/94
15.5
0.61
0.43
0.28
07/13/94
127.3
0.63
0.42
0
07/22/94
115.8
1.9
1.86
0.61
07/28/94
14.5
1.25
1.25
0
08/02/94
9.9
0.88
0.88
0.28
Median Rainfall
1.075
0.91
0.28
Mean Rainfall
1.105
0.840
0.492

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
FIGURE 1
Summary of Influent Hydraulic Loading on
Overland Flow Treatment System: 1989-1994
Golden Poultry Company
Sanford, North Carolina
O O O O O
r r r r r r r r r r r ar r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
C > M cc 3 > c c`a ego o, > c o. > c a o, > c 0 M 3 a>
Z -`°i Cl) Z n 2 2 n �n Z-1 2 2 �n Z cn Z cn z°

Figure 2
DAF Eff Characteristics
Golden Poultry Company,, Ire , Sanfcfd, N.C.
I ON
woIi
GCO
400
+
no
a lei
pp
Z RA
#
40- *4 4t 10,
LAI
% lop
IF
AL jA A&L `MAAOA a& AN&O :AAgL
AW jW A
0
low
ism
Date (Odobw 1922 thm Nwwbei, 19841
71"
I g DAF Eff BOD, m9A * :KF El TSS, rn.:..l * OAF Eff TN, mq-q j

r
160
140
120
�>s 100
to
a_
80
0
m 60
M
20
Figure 3
U UAD U./
Rainfall (inches)
I .O
—IN— Effluent (MGD) 13
BOD (lb/day)
BOD5 (lb/day) and Effluent (MGD) at Rainfall intervals of 0, 0.1 - 0.5, 0.51 -0.99, 1+ inches at Golden Poultry, Sanford,
NC, from September 1989 through November 1994.
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.2
re,

7
0
5
ct3
v
.n
z
M
=3
z
2
1
All
Figure 4
u u.10 U.
Rainfall (inches)
1.0
—III— Effluent (MGD) 0 NH3-N (lb/day)
NH3 N (lb/day), Effluent (MGD) at Rainfall intervals of 0, 0.1 - 0.5, 0.51 -0.99, 1+ inches at Golden Poultry, Sanford,
NC, from September 1989 through November 1994.
1.6
1.4
W
1 �
0.8
c
0.6 EF
w
IIIV
0.2
IC

30
25
rn 20
1 6
5
C
Figure 5
0 0.15 0.7 1.5
Rainfall (inches)
- A BOD —0 NH3-N
Concentrations of BODS (mg/L) and NH3-N (mg/L) at Rainfall intervals of 0, 0.1 - 0.51 0.51 -0.999 1+ inches at Golden
Poultry, Sanford, NC, from September 1989 through November 1994.

100
90
80
70
60
c
50
m
a 40
30
20
10
0
Figure 6
0 0.15 0.7 1.5
Rainfall (inches)
The percent of BOD5 and NH3-N measurements resulting in non-compliance at Rainfall intervals of 0, 0.1 -0.5,
0.51 - 0.99, and 1+ inches at Golden Poultry, Sanford, NC, September 1989 through November 1994.

Figure 7
1.2
1
Cn
iU
J 0.8
c
awe
N
0.4
U
0.2
M
d
-------------------- --
1i7�;.ki 4
U
c
2
a
�
J
1 1 U
Days prior to measurement
Rain during non-compliance events c Rain during compliance events
Cumulative rainfall on days 0, 1, and 2 prior to measurement for compliance at Golden Poultry, Sanford NC.

TC FEATHER FLOWAWAY
3
AIR
SKIWU ` GS
SwJ' MMINGS
TAW.
m
J 7u3
W
.,.� w
W z
= w
lu z
z w
w 2
= W
P'.uwP
s
�V
W
IL
~LU
4�
Q�
a
o vi
0
tu w
i a�i
PRESSURE
3
SANK
,+
VACLAN
__66
PUMPS
FERRIC
SULFATE
DAF FEED
FEED
PUMPS
SYSTEM
COAG AID
k
FEED
BELT
=
FILTER
o
CAUS71C
PRESS
m
FEED
S"
z
SYSTEM
o
OAF
•-
m
w
m
BELT PRESS
m
PO..Y%SR
SYSTMI
A
VACUUM
PUMP
COOLING
EE^-
WATER
'�N'ASH
PUMPS
•
BUMF
FYI NO. a
r
�■r�
amr POULTMISMFOIMINIC.
DAF
POLfMER
SYSTEM
3
RQWEavnRa>rMEmt
EFF-IJE%T 70 OMERLAND FLC kY SYESTEM
m

TO FEATHEit %0WAWAY
z z �.
_rW JW =t u y
tLi U e:i.0 ~� Qx
N!.`w re.7��' Q ow LL W UU.. w
flow Firms
and Ike Caeee6e Screwed
Feed Lire Wmftwater
DAF FEED
Ak-P UMPS
FERRIC
SULFATE,
FEED
SYSTEM
Solt Aas Aftme
CAUSTIC
FEED SUMP
SYSTEM
Re�ocal�+d
Fe Ic
�Jfd I.fa�e
Modifications
Operating Reconunendatons
1. Complete Feather Pump Installation
1. Minimize flow to OAF when
- 2. Reroute Ferric Feed Line to Sump lnfluerd
Second Feed Pump is
nvu*V
2. Add suffmien3 Caustic to
force sufficient Fenric b
produce cleareffiuent
3. Operate at PH of 5.2 to
5.5 to achieve optimun
Polymer Floc Point
4. Operate Influent Pressure
13GURE NO. 3
to DAs= at 40 to 50 psi
ScINEMATIC LAYOUT
PRETRMTMENT SYSTEM
(Modified)
GOLDEN POULTRY
SANFORD. N.C.
ROWEMYIftOMM ENiTAL
'°`I ` T
S<mm NCS
LU w
PJMP
= w
OC
8de
kL rp)
Feed
feed
In
Line
1VVbrw
BELT
FILTER
PRESS
liegdd Una
'JACUUM
PUMPS
paryow
Lb*
BELT PRESS
PO'-V b=_R
MTEP.4
baft
line
4EL.T
FOASH
FUP.'IP
SKIII- I IGS OAF
4OLDING Fete
TArV tine
PRESSURE
TAN {
Recyde
coding
Q it ww
'rA'%%oUUM
PUMP
COOLING
:��'.ATER
FUMPS
OAF
POLYMER
SYSTEM
EFFLUENT TO OVERLM-0 FLOW SYSTEM

C
i
V {
{
gold Rml ine, 244 Perimeter Center Parkway.-N.E./ P.O. Box 2210 Atlanta. Ga. 30301
February 22, 1988
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Wilms:
Re: Proposed NPDES Permit
Golden Poultry
Sanford, NC
This letter is to file comments on certain conditions of the
referenced permit, as well as methodologies employed to determine
permit conditions. We would like to review the following six
areas:
1. Wastewater treatment plant classification
2. CBOD/BOD ratio for treated poultry wastewater
3. Impact of rainfall on discharge flow
4. Stream monitoring requirements
5. Ratio of carbonaceous to nitrogenous oxygen demand
6. Chronic toxicity testing
Each of these items is discussed sequentially below:
1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Classification
The monitoring frequency indicated in the permit indicates
the plant has been classified as a Class III plant. Please
inform us of the process by which this classification was
made.
The land treatment process we have chosen is a simple, yet
efficient wastewater treatment system. It is neither equip-
ment oriented nor energy intensive. It is a very stable
treatment process not subject to frequent upsets. Granted,
meeting the proposed permit limits by any other means would
require a fairly sophisticated advanced wastewater treatment
system. However, given the relative simplicity of our pro-
posed system and our review of NCDEM's rating checklist, we
feel the system should be rated as Class II. Therefore, we
request consideration be given to changing this to a Class II
facility.

Mr. R. Paul Wilms
February 22, 1988
Page 2
2. CBOD/BOD5'ratio for treated poultry Wastewater
The draft Level B Desktop Modeling Procedure developed by
NCDEM dated September 1987 states that "In the absence of
wastewater specific CBOD/BOD5 data..." a ratio of 3.0 can be
used for pure industrial wastewater. Chicken processing, by
the very nature of the industry, produces a readily
degradable food source for bacteria. There is no significant
presence of refractory compounds or petroleum oils that would
be difficult for a biological treatment system to break down.
Consequently, we would anticipate the ratio to be closer to
1.5 to 2.0. Obviously, such a ratio would significantly
alter the proposed BOD5 limits.
We are currently in the process of analyzing effluents from
two poultry plants and determining the actual CBOD/BODS
ratio. These tests are being carried out in accordance with
NCDEM's methodology for determining the ratio.
In the event a lower ratio is confirmed with our submission
of the data, Golden would expect higher BOD5 levels to be
permitted. Golden would be willing to incorporate into its
monitoring schedule, on a quarterly or monthly basis,
performing the ultimate BOD test to insure conformance with
the lower ratio.
3. Impact of rainfall on discharge flow
In the overland flow system, precipitation falling on the
terraces will be collected and discharged through the outfall
In order to prevent these events from skewing discharge flow,
from the facility, Golden proposes to measure rainfall, apply
a runoff coefficient of 0.75 (for pastureland, Agricultural
Engineers Handbook, 1961) and subtract the quantity of rain-
fall from the recorded discharge flow.
4. Stream
Monitoring Requirements
The proposed facility will be analyzing its effluent prior to
discharge for fecal coliform on a regular basis. As long as
we meet the proposed permit limits, we should not have any
significant impact on in -stream coliform counts. These in -
stream counts, we would anticipate, would be highly erratic
due to occurrence and conditions unrelated to the proposed
discharge. Consequently, we request the upstream and down-
stream monitoring for fecal coliform be deleted from the
permit.

YV
1
l
Mr. R. Paul Wilms
February 22, 1988
Page .3
Also, we request stream monitoring for conductance be deleted
from permit monitoring requirements. Conductance is not
normally a required monitoring parameter for treated poultry
wastewater, and we question whether stream monitoring of
conductance will yield any useful information.
5• Ratio of Carbonaceous and Nitrogenous Oxygen
Based on our discussions with NCDEM personnel, the proposed
BOD5 and ammonia limits are a reflection of the total oxygen
demand being allocated for this facility. It is also our
understanding that adjustment of one parameter at the expense
of the other is allowable if the total oxygen demand allo-
cated is not exceeded. For example, if the facility easily
meets its BOD5 limits, but encounters difficulty in meeting
ammonia limits, we could modify the permit for a lower BODS
limit and higher ammonia limit, as long as the allotted total
oxygen demand is not exceeded. If this is not correct,
please let us know.
6. Chronic Toxicity Testing
The draft permit states that the first toxicity test will be
conducted within one month of permit issuance. We request
this be modified to within one month of plant start-up.
To address the above issues, we request a meeting with appropri-
ate NCDEM personnel. We will be contacting the permitting office
shortly to arrange this meeting. In the meantime, if you have
any questions or comments, please call.
JES:er
cc: Mr. Glenn Berry
Mr. James Brown
Mr. Don Deemer
Mr. Arthur Mouberry
Mr. Dale Overcash
Sincerely,
0e., 5 L--
John E. Starkey, Mana er
Environmental Engineering
[phone]

l`. ! .% J�
s OLD KIST INC. P.O. Box 2210 - Atlanta, GA 30301. 244 Perimeter Center Pkwy., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30346 - [phone]
September 8, 1993
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment_, Health
and Natural Resources
3800 Barnett Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Re: Minor Wastewater Treatment. System Modifications
Golden Poultry Company
Sanford, North Carolina
NPDES Permit No. NCO072575
Dear Mr. Schuster:
We are in the process making several minor modifications to the wastewater treatment systenn
at the referenced facility. These improvements, which are discussed below, will improve
effluent disinfection and effluent flow monitoring.
A brick wall has been installed across the concrete effluent flow channel (near flume) to retain
a volume of water upstream of this structure. This improvement will enhance effluent
disinfection by increasing chlorine contact time and minimizing short circuiting of effluent
through the chlorination area. Mr. Cashion with NCDEM is familiar with this modification.
We intend to replace the existing Stevens Model 61 R open channel effluent flow meter with a
3200 series ISCO open channel flow meter. Specifically, an ISCO model 3-30 bubbler type
flow meter will be installed. This modification will improve effluent flow monitoring,
particularly during low flow conditions (i.e. less than 100,000 gallons per day. This flow meter
will also allow flow weighted composite effluent sampling.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any additional questions concerning these
improvements.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Woodruff
Director of Environmental
Engineering and Compliance
cc: Mr. James Brown/Mr. Bruce Morgan, Mr. Craig Bromby (Hunton and Williams)
Mr. Glenn Berry, File

NOV-17-'93 10: 44 I D: H NTON AND WILL I AM. . _ TEL NO: 919-034-9903 _ . #361 P02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF LEE
GOLDEN POULTRY COMPANY, INC. }
Petitioner }
}
v. }
}
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTN3MRT }
OF ENVIRONMENT # HEALTH, % }
NATURAL RESOURCES �
Respondent }
I
IN THE OFFICE or
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARIVGS
93 ERR 0835
93 Rim 0603
93 UM 1099
AFFIDAVIT of
JOHN EDVARD STARKEY
I, John Edgard Starkey, under oath, testifies as follows:
1. That during the time appurtenant to this natter, I was
employed by Gold Kist, Ina, as a Manager of Environmental
Engineering at corporate headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia;
2. That during December 1987, a meeting was asllad during
negotiations of the 1998 NPDES permit for Golden Poultry. Among
the attendees at the meeting was Glenn Berry of Gold Kist, D9tle
Overcash, Arthur Mouberry and Donald Safrit from the Division of
Environmental Managenent with State of North Carolina, and
myself. This meeting was held in the Archdale Building, Raleigh,
North Carolina. •
3. Among the purpose of this meeting was to determfn$
sampling requireIaaenta for the NPDE9 permit. I understood that
sampling needed to be representative and I questioned the above -
referenced individuals as to testing durinq rain events. While
Mr. Safrit seemed very knowledgable about this syotoxf the
discussion was lead by Mr. Mouberry and Mr. Overaesh. Following
the discussion, it was a general consensus that sampling would
not be representative if it occurred during rain induced high
flows. I left the meeting With the knowledge of all present that
sampling should not occur during rain events which caused unduly
high flows.
This the 17th day of November, 1993.
SO EDWARD STARKEY
swORN To AND SUBSCRXBED EEIPORE
5 17th DAY OF NNavEMSER, 1993.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES w • —OFFICIAL SE[AALL
DONNA C. BLACKWELL
'='•'% NOTARY PUBUC - AR
s,►. r.�► ���r BENTON COUNTY
01 Comm. BON ' �� �z

Diagnostic
EvIation
Report
Wastewater Treatment System
Golden Poultry
Sanford, North Carolina
September 28, 1994
l
i
I
' RQWENVIRONMENTAL
:1 15 Sun Hala
. Pittsburg, Texas 75686
[phone] FAX [phone]
i
1 ROWENVIRONMENTAI
f
Y1
1 �

Diagnostic
Evaluation
Report
Wastewater Treatment System
Golden Poultry
Sanford, North Carolina
September 28, 1994
ROWENVIRONMENTAC
15 Sun Hala
Pittsburg, Texas 75686
[phone] FAX [phone]
ROWENVIRONMENTAI

Table of Contents
Section Description page
1 Background 1
2 Pretreatment System 4
3 Overland Flow Land 10
Application System
4 Saunasary of 17
Recommendations
List of Figures
Figure No.
Description
page
1
Schematic Layout - Wastewater
2
Treatment System
2
Schematic Layout - Existing
S
Pretreatment System
3
Schematic Layout - Modified
8
Pretreatment System
4
i
Discharge now vs Effluent HOD
11
S
Discharge now vs Effluent NH3N
12
6
Effluent HOD
13
Z
10luent KK3N
14
ROWENVIROMM EMTAI

ecti'oon i
a lkgrous�d
i
i
i
ROWENVIRONMEI(1At

Sermon I
Background)
Golden Poultry currently operates a poultry processing facility near Sanford, North Carolina. The
wastewater from the processing plant is treated using a system consisting of the following
components:
■ Primary screening
■ Dissolved air flotation with ferric sulfate and polymer addition
■ Overland flow land application
■ Chlorination
■ Effluent monitoring
Figure No. 1 provides a schematic layout of the system.
Discharge from the treatment system is regulated under NPDES Permit No. NCO072575 issued
by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. While the discharge from the
treatment system has generally complied with permit limitations, violations have occurred,
primarily related to high flows during rainfall periods.
In order to address the noncompliance issues, Golden Poultry and the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management have entered into a Special Order of Consent_ One requirement of
the Order is that Golden Poultry complete a diagnostic evaluation of the treatment system and
submit a written report with recommendations for improved treatment to the Division of
Environmental Management.
Y
ROWE/MRONMENTAI

Skimmings to
Renderer
Caustic Soda
Ferric Wash Water Polymer
Sulfate
30
Screens Pump
Process Sump
Wastewater
N
Discharge
to Deep
River
F
Monitoring
Station
Chlorine
Overland Flow Land
Application System
Feed
Pumps
Polym er
Belt Skimmings
Press Storage
Dissolved
Air
Flotation Unit
Recvcle
Storage
Lagoon
Splitter
Box
Pump
Station
Land Application
Pumps
Surge
Basin
'Figure No. 1
Schematic Layout
Wastewater Treatment System
Golden Poultry, Sanford, N. C.
RUWENVIRONMENTAI

I
i
This Diagnostic Evaluation Report fulfills this requirement of the Order. The scope of the report
has been limited to immediate actions which can be taken to improve treatment efficiency. Other
actions such as additional pretreatment and/or effluent storage will be evaluated in detail in a
future requirement of the Order which will address overall wastewater treatment and discharge
alternatives.
3
ROWEWiROMMErRAt

Section 2
Pretreatment
System
ROWEnvin.... rv,A

Se,ction 2
Pretreatment System
2.1 , iesc"ptlon of System
The pretreatment system was visited on August 15, 1994 for the purpose of evaluating the
operation and performance.
Figure No. 2 provides a schematic layout of the pretreatment system. The system consists of the
following components:
■ Three (3) feather screens and two (2) offal screens
■ Effluent sump and two (2) Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) System feed pumps
■ Dissolved air flotation unit with anionic polymer and ferric sulfate feed systems
■ Skimmings holding tank and skimmings pump
■ Skimmings beltifilter press with polymer feed system
2.2. Screens
The existing screening is excellent for the type of wastewater being treated. No improvements to
the screening system are believed to be necessary.
2.3 Effluent Sump and
IDAF System Feed Pumps
The effluent sump is adequate and provides sufficient volume and detention type for pumping and
chemical reactions.
4
ROW[Kviaor-.e•rrAt

FERRIC
SULFATE
FEED
SYSTEM
CAUSTIC
FEED
SYSTEM
N
TO FEATHER FLOWAWAY
Z
Qw
i.L
�w
ww
w
=w
w
=w
IIJ
0U)
u- oC
U.
��
�0
�_
�0
J DAF FEED
PUMPS
COAG AID
FEED BELT
FILTER
PRESS
SUMP
FIGURE NO. 2
SCHEMATIC LAYOUT
EXISTING PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
GOLDEN POULTRY, SANFORD, N.C.
ROWENVIRONMENTAI
AIR I
SKIMMINGS
PUMP
SKIMMINGS
HOLDING
TANK
VACUUM
PUMPS
DAF
BELT PRESS
POLYMER
SYSTEM
BELT
WASH
PUMP
PRESSURE
TANK
VACUUM
PUMP
COOLING
WATER
PUMPS
DAF
POLYMER
SYSTEM
EFFLUENT TO OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM

At the time of the evaluation visit, the DAF System Feed pumps were piped so that a portion of
the flow from the pumps was being recycled back to the plant for feather flushing. This
arrangement was contributing to problems in maintaining an optimum operating pressure in the
dissolved air flotation unit. Golden Poultry had already taken steps to install a new dedicated
pump to provide recycled water for feather flushing. This new pump -vN ill allow the pumping of a
more consistent volume and pressure of flow to the DAF System, which will improve the
operating efficiency.
With- the completion of the installation of the new feather flush pump, no other improvements are
believed to be necessary.
Flotation System
At the time of the visit to the pretreatment system, the following observations were made related
to the operation of the system:
■ Based on recommendations made by chemical suppliers, the system was being
-----.operated at a pH of approximately 4.6 which is too low for a ferric sulfate based
system such as used by Golden Poultry
■ Insufficient quantities of ferric sulfate were being added to provide optimum
organics removal
■ Due to the limitations caused by the feed pump arrangement previously discussed,
+ the system was operating at a pressure of less than 20 psi entering the DAF which
was not allowing optimum flotation of coagulated oils and greases and solids
0
ROWExvistopme rAt

The following recommendations were made on site to improve the performance of the DAF
system:
■ The caustic soda feed rate to the influent of the system was increased to raise
the background pH and force the addition of a higher dosage of ferric sulfate
■ The operating pH was raised from 4.6 to 5.3 to provide operation in the best floc
range of the anionic polymer being used
The following additional recommendations which are shown on Figure No. 3 were made:
■ Complete the feather pump installation
f
■ Reroute the ferric sulfate feed line to the pump sump influent
■ Minimize the flow to the DAF system when the second feed pump is running
■ Operate the influent pressure to the DAF system in the 40 to 50 psi range
With the implementation. *of these recommendations, the Golden Poultry pretreatment system will
provide optimum treatment upstream of the overland flow land application system.
i
f
2-5 Sk%zbegs Holding Tank and SMICEmmings Putmp
The skimmings holding tank and skimmings pump are adequate for the quantity of skimmings
being produced by the DAF System No improvements to the skimmings tank or pump are
needed.
2.6 Sidmmings Belt Filter Press
The Skimmings Belt Filter Press capacity and performance is more than adequate for the quantity
of skimmings being generated. No improvements to the belt filter press operations are deemed
necessary.
7
ROWERVIRommefdTAt

TO FEATHER FLOWAWAY
Z Zt
Qw QW =w =w =M
LLU LL(.) Q� Q� Qx
Now Feather Ow 0U) �� u_� u_0
Flow Pump
awd Line Caustic Screened
_. Feed Line Wastewater
DAF FEED
PUMPS
FERRIC
SULFATE
FEED
SYSTEM
CAUSTIC
FEED
SYSTEM
101
SUMP
W mmmi
Re,facated
Ferric
Aid Liae
Modifications
1. Complete Feather Pump Installation
2. Reroute Ferric Feed Line to Sump Influent
Recycle
Belt Press Filtrate F
Operating Recommendations
1. Minimize flow to DAF when
Second Feed Pump is
running
2. Add sufficient Caustic to
force sufficient Ferric to
produce clear effluent
3. Operate at pH of* 5.2 to
5.5 to achieve optimum
Polymer Floc Point
4. Operate Influent Pressure
to DAF at 40 to 50 psi
FIGURE NO.3
SCHEMATIC LAYOUT
PRETREATMENT SYSTEM (Modified)
GOLDEN POULTRY
SANFORID, N.C.
RQWENViRONMENTAI
r Water
.�
BELT
FILTER
PRESS
AIR
SKIMMINGS
SKIMMINGS
HOLDING
PUMP
TANK
Belt
Pross
Feed
Polymor
Line
Feed
PUMPSM
Polymor
Line
BELT PRESS
POLYMER
SYSTEM
Bolt Wash
Water Line
BELT
WASH
PUMP
DAF
DAF
Feed
Line
PRESSURE
TANK
Recycle
Cooling
Water
VACUUM
PUMP
COOLING
WATER
PUMPS
Roc) cle Line-
i
DAF
POLYMER
SYSTEM
EFFLUENT TO OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM

3
2.7 Summmmaury
In summary, the existing pretreatment system at the Golden Poultry facility is more than adequate
to provide excellent pretreatment upstream of the overland flow land application system. With
the implementation of the recommendations discussed herein, the system will provide optimum
performance. No significant structural improvements are deemed necessary for the pretreatment
system.
9
ROWEIMROMIMEMTAI

section 3
Overland
Flow
Land
Application
System
ROWE.VIROR ENTA(

Section 3
Overland Flow hand
Application System
3.1 Sy of Performance
A review of monitoring records was completed to determine the most probable cause(s) for the
variations which have occurred in past performance. The two main causes for variations are:
' RaWftlll Runoff
Increases in mass quantity discharges are caused by elevated flows during rainfall
periods. Figures No. 4 and No. 5 show the relationship of effluent flow versus
effluent BOD and effluent NH3N, respectively.
' fand Application held Re -Startup
l
1 Short-term increases in constituent concentrations occur during land application
field re -startup periods (when fields are placed back into operation following the
cutting of hay)_ Figures No. 6 and No. 7 show monthly average and peak daily
effluent BOD and -.effluent NH3N, respectively.
3.2 Stem Components
The overland flow land application system was visited on August 15, 1994 for the purpose of
evaluating the operation and performance. The overland flow system consists of the following
components:
■ Pump station
■ Surge basin and storage lagoon
io
ROWEiw ROMAgFxrA[

Figure No. 4 - Discharge Flow vs Effluent BOD Ib s/day
Overland Flow System, Golden Poultry, Sanford, N.C.
,)An

15
Discharge Flow, mgd
■ Effluent NH3N, lbs/day

F+
W
120
100
80
0
m 60
c
w
40
20
Figure No. 6 - Effluent 1300, Mg/l
Overland Flow System, Golden Poultry, Sanford, N.C.

�
/
./
Overland Flow System, Golden Poultry, Sanford, KC,
'| 20 ,—
'
�
15
|
"z
E
10
co
-
ho Jam Jul Jam Jul Jam Jul
Jan Jul Jan Jul

■ Land application fields
Chlorination system
■ Effluent monitoring system
3.2.1 Pump Station
The existing pump station is well designed and provides optimum flexibility in the operation of the
overland flow system. No improvements to the pump station are deemed to be necessary.
3.2.2 Surge Basics and
Storage Lagoon .
Under normal operations the pretreated wastewater is applied directly to the land application
fields. The surge basin and storage lagoon were provided in the original design to provide a
limited amount of storage during extreme wet or cold weather conditions. The basin and lagoon
have sewed well in this capacity and no significant modifications are suggested at this time.
The use of the surge basin and storage lagoon are being evaluated as a part of the next report
which will address overall treatment options as compared to the existing system. If it is
determined that the basin and/or lagoon will be an integral component of a modified or new
system and will be utilized on a continuous basis, the adequacy of the existing two 20 horsepower
aerators installed in the surge basin will be evaluated.
3.2.3 Land Application Melds
The land application fields are well designed and operated. Golden Poultry's management and
operating personnel are operating the system to pr
ovide optimum performance given the size of
1S
ROWEIMRONMEKTAt

the system and the loadings to the system. As indicated, fluctuations in the effluent quality and
quantities from the system are caused by rainfall runoff impacts and the lag time .in re -activating
fields after hay cuttings. Additionally, because of concerns about odors and insects, operational
periods have been restricted so that water is not applied on the weekends. This self imposed
restriction, while addressing the concerns of neighbors, has limited utilization of the system.
3.2.4 Chlorination and Effluent Monitoring Systems
The chlorination and effluent monitoring system are adequate for the system and need no
modifications.
3.3 Summary
In summary, the overland flow system is well designed and operated. The system is providing
i
s
overall excellent performance, with the major limitations being the impact that rainfall runoff
has on discharge quantities and the increases in ammonia nitrogen concentrations during field
startups. No specific structural improvements that can be implemented quickly would make
significant improvements in the capability of the system. Structural improvements such as
additional pretreatment upstream of the system and/or storage downstream of the system are
being evaluated as a part of the next report which will address overall wastewater treatment
options. In the meantime, efforts should be made to minimize the number of fields that are cut
and taken out of service at any given time, to apply to active fields as much as possible, and to
bring recently cut fields back on line as slowly as possible.
16
ROWEnvironmental

ection 4
Summary
of
Reco en atlooloszs
ROWEmviaommEmTo,l

Section 4
Siam of Recommea`tiations
4.1 Pretreabnent System
The fcglow'ing recommendations are made to enhance the performance of the pretreatment
systern:
Complete the installation of the new feather water pump and line to improve the
I
flow conditions and pressure in the DAF System
t
,
■ Reroute the ferric sulfate feed line to the pump sump influent to provide
unproved mixing of ferric sulfate with the wastewater
` Minimize the flow to the DAF System when the second feed pump is running
■ Add sufficient caustic soda in the raw plant wastewater to force the addition
of sufficient ferric sulfate into the wastewater to provide optimum organics
i
i removal
■ Operate the system at the optimum pH for the polymer in use, which is generally
in the range of 5.2 to 5.5
■ Operate the influent pressure to the DAF System in the 40 to 50 psi range
4.2 Overland Flow Land
Application System
The following recommendations are made to enhance the performance of the overland flow land
applica ion system:
IZ
RQWErM;tow.sewrwt

a "
■ Minimize the number of fields that are cut and taken out of service at any given
time to provide maximum surface area for wastewater treatment
■ Maximize the time that wastewater is applied to the fields while minimizing
other potential impacts
■ To the maxi -mum extent possible, bring recently cut fields back on line slowly
18
ROWEnviaonMurral