NC0005126_Correspondence_19890913

NPDES DOCW4ENT SCANNING: COVER !;MEET
NC0005126
Harmony Rendering Plant
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
September 13, 1989
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content cm. the reYerse ecide

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mr. Craig A. Bromby
Moore & Van Allen, Attorneys at Law
One Hannover Square, Suite 1700
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Subject: Holly Farms Foods, Inc. Harmony Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0005126
Iredell County
Dear Mr. Bromby,
I am writing in resp.)nse to your letter dated September 5, 1989, concerning the
Holly FarmsNPDES Permit. You expressed concern with several items existing in
the renewal permit issued September 1, 1989. Below, I have commented on each of
these items hopefully to your satisfaction.
The regulation 15 NCAC 2B.0508 details the minimum amount of monitoring required
for any particular water pollution control facility or point source. Section
(b) of this regulation states that any tests, sampling points, or frequency of
monitoring requirements that may not be deemed necessary for a particular facil-
ity could be waived or modified. The effluent limitations for this plant are
not water quality limited and review of existing data indicate that a signifi-
cant amount of degradation to the stream is not anticipated. Therefore, pursu-
ant to this regulation, D M will drop the instream monitoring requirements for
dissolved oxygen, temperature, fecal coliform, conductivity, BOD5, and ammonia
from the Holly Farms Harmony Plant's permit requirement as you have requested.
The monitoring requirements for the effluent will remain as written in the per-
mit renewal for this facility. The effluent monitoring requirement for MBAS is
due to the on -site truck washing and possibility of detergents being present in
the effluent. Monitoring for total residual chlorine will remain in the permit
due to the disinfection required by the fecal coliform limit. The whole efflu-
ent toxicity testing requirement is a limit and not simply a monitoring require-
ment. This limit is water quality based and will remain in the permit renewal.
Toxicity limits are required for all major industrial facilities, facilities
with complex wastewaters, and major municipalities.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

I hope that this letter adequately addresses your concerns. However, if the
above decisions are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this
letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statues, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Carolina
27604. Unless such a request is made, this decision is final and binding.
If you have any question or comments regarding this matter please contact Mr.
Trevor Clements or Mr. Dale Overcash from my staff at [phone].
cc:
revor_ Clements
Dale Overcash
Brenda Smith
Central Files
Sincerely,

r4 .7:-
gcu
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE HANNOVER SOUARE
SUITE 1700
POST OFFICE BOX 26507
RALEIGH, N.C. 27611
TELEPHONE [phone]
September 5, 1989
R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re:
Holly Farms Foods, Inc. Harmony Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0005126;
Review under 15 NCAC 2B.0508(b)
Dear Mr. Wilms:
SEP 1 3 1989,
. t..C,nr�CC ' �.'U�',,}' GRIFB I�R LS!
w i'S.ai�.i^
CHARLOTTE, N.G.
DURHAM, N.C.
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.
SOUTH PARK - CHARLOTTE, N.
TELEFAX [phone]
S Fp 7
21 i9 c
By this letter, Holly Farms Foods, Inc. .s requesti.ng review
pursuant to 15 NCAC 2B.0508(b) of monitoring and reporting
conditions incorporated in NPDES Permit No NC0005126 issued to
Holly Farms for its rendering facility near Harmony, North
Carolina. This procedure is cited in your letter of July 28,
1989 (which was mailed on August 2, 1989) transmitting NPDES
Permit No. NC0005126 to Holly Farms Foods, Inc.
The SIC code for the plant is, according to the DEM staff
report, 2077, which would place it in the Focd and Beverage
Processing category of the regulation. The minimum monitoring
q t r� is specify za l. san of T l 1 p t-
re u�,�c:r;er:.:, all effluent �.Nmp�._.1S only for _ . ..� r_
limited permit, such as the one issued to Holly Farms. Even in
the water -quality limited situation instream monitoring is
required only for temperature and dissolved oxygen. The permit
requires instream monitoring for BOD5, fecal coliform, NH3 as N,
and conductivity.
Since the receiving stream for the permitted discharge is not
water -quality limited, Holly Farms would like to request that the
instream monitoring requirements be deleted. Also, Holly Farms
requests the deletion of the monitoring requirements of dissolved
oxygen, conductivity, fecal coliform, total residual chlorine and
MBA S, as there was no rationale provided in the Staff Report and
Recommendations beyond the fact of the recommendation itself.
Finally, it is our understanding that the Chronic Toxicity
Testing Requirement at Part III, subpart G of the permit is also
a monitoring requirement. This requirement also is outside the

R. Paul Wilms
September 5, 1989
Page 2
minimum monitoring requirements of 2B.0508 and is not supported
by any rationale stated in the record. Due to the consistent
nature of the discharge at Holly Farms Harmony plant, we do not
feel it is justifiable to request this information, if at all,
more than once per year. The procedure has ostensibly been
approved as one suitable for determining compliance with the
water quality standard for toxic substances. As the DEM staff
has determined that the Holly Farms Harmony plant does not
discharge to a water -quality limited stream segment, it does not
seem reasonable to impose this expensive and time-consuming
procedure on a routine basis.
We think it is significant, with respect to the record for
this permit, that NPDES Staff Report and Recommendations contain
the following statements:
"Excellent flow in receiving stream. No other
discharges and/or water intakes are present for
several miles. Area is rural in nature with primarily
agricultural users. No detrimental effect was
observed on the receiving stream as a result of this
discharge." (Part I, subpart 10.c.)
"The wastewater treatment facilities serving the Holly
Farms plant were in excellent operational condition at
the time of the site inspection. All wastewater units
appeared to be well -maintained, and were operating
properly. Self -monitoring data reflects a consistent
compliance record at this facility." (Part IV)
It would appear that there is little rationale to compel this
plant to monitor beyond the minimum requirements. It has an
excellent compliance history and there is nothing in the record
for this permit which suggests a need to add expensive additional
-r:r, t ,h: will little _ r:! a'} generate
monitoring requirements ;•,�.�ch do more �_ r_ ,�
data of questionable usefulness.

R. Paul Wilms
September 5, 1989
Page 3
Please let me know when it would be appropriate to meet to
resolve the aforementioned issues pursuant to 15 NCAC 2D.0508(b).
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
`.4.'t°It
Craig A. Bromby
Post Office Box 26507
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
CAB/tdh
cc: Gary Bottomley
Bill' Warden
Charles D. Case