NC0072575_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_19950131

c
Detailed Engineering Report
Evaluation
of
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Ferric
Sulfate
Processing
Skimmings
PlantD,
to
Screens
..,,. Renderer
Chlorine
Discharge
to
Deep River
Discharge
Monitoring
Station
......._...I U I Land
AF Feed Application
D
Pump AF Polymer System Pumps
Sump Ps
Overland Flow Land Application Surge
Pond
Bell Fitter Press
Skinwmags ❑...;
Pumps
Polymer
Storage
Pond
Golden poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, N.C.
January, 1995
S.,ibrr:��<uc� Yc t,,cOGM
��3t(g5 by
s
R®WENVIRONMENTAI

aw
Detailed Engineering Evaluation
WF Of
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
004
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, North Carolina
7
417
lanuary.1995
ROWENORONMENTAt
15 Sun Hala
Pittsburg, Texas 75686
[phone] FAX [phone]

ow—
aa-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Imp -
Section No.
Description
Page
g
1 •
BACKGROUND
1
La.
Description of Existing System
1
l.b.
Performance of Existing System
1
�
I.C.
Reason for Evaluation
3
2.
DESIGN CRITERIA
11
2.a.
Flow
2.b.
BOD
11
11
2.c.
TKN
15
2.d.
Summary
19
3.
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
20
FAIR
3.a.
Direct Discharge Systems
20
3.a.1.
Mass Based Limitations
Z0
3.a.2
Concentration Based Limitations
24
3.b.
Overland Flow Systems
24
3.b.1
Mass Based Limitations
24
3.b.2.
Concentration Based Limitations
28
3.c.
Summary
28
4.
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
31
4.a.
Introduction
31
4.b.
Modified Overland Flow
31
4.c.
Direct Discharge
31
4.d.
Zero Discharge or Reduced Discharge
32
5.
DETAILED DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
34
5.a.
Alt. No. I - Overland Flow with Effluent Storage
34
and Controlled Release
5.b.
Alt. No. 2 - Influent Equalization and Overland Flow
37
5.c.
Alt. No. 3 - Influent Equalization and Overland Flow
37
with Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
5.d.
Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow
39

popi-
TABLE OF CONTENTS Ac®nued)
oft-
'w
Section No.
Description
Page
fmh-
5.e.
Alt. No. 5 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow with
41
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
5.f
Alt. No. 6 - New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow
41
5•g•
Alt. No. 7 - New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow
45
with Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
5.h.
Alt. No. 8 - New Activated Sludge with Direct
48
,�►
Discharge
5.i.
Alt. No. 9 - Discharge to City of Sanford, N.C.
50
Wastewater Treatment System
Pa
5.j.
Alt. No. 10 - Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land
53
Application System
51.
Alt. No. 1 I - New Activated Sludge System with Low
55
Flow Slow Rate Land Application System
5.1.
Summary
57
6.
DETAILED COST ANALYSIS
61
6.a.
Existing System Costs
61
6.b.
Alternative System Costs
61
6. b.1.
Capital Costs
61
6.b.2.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
63
6.b.3.
Annual Costs
63
6.b.4.
Present Worth Costs
87
6.c.
Comparison of Costs
89
7.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
91
Ta.
Introduction
91
7.b.
Compliance with Average Limitations
91
F,
7.c.
Compliance with Peak Limitations
96
_
7.d.
Summary
101
8.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALT.
103
9.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
108
-
9.a.
No. 1 Ranked Alternative
108

TA13L£ OF CONTENTS (coued)
Section No.
Description
Page
9.b.
No. 2 Ranked Alternative
108
9.c.
No. 3 Ranked Alternative
108
9.d.
No. 4 Ranked Alternative
110
9.e.
No. 5 Ranked Alternative
110
9. f
No. 6 Ranked Alternative
110
9•g.
No. 7 Ranked Alternative
111
9. h.
No. 8 Ranked Alternative
11 I
9. i.
No. 9 Ranked Alternative
I 1 I
9•j•
Summary
111
10.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
115
10.a.
Conclusions
115
10.b.
Recommendations
116
Appendix A Wastewater Process Vendor Comments

LIST OF FIGURES (co I ed)
Figure No.
Description
22
Alt. No. 7 - Flow Schematic - New Activated Sludge
and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and
Controlled Release
23
Alt. No. 8 - Flow Schematic - New Activated Sludge
with Direct Discharge
24
Alt. No. 8 - Schematic Layout - New Activated
Sludge with Filtration
25
Alt. No. 9 - Flow Schematic - Discharge to City of 54
Sanford, N.C. Wastewater Treatment System
26
Alt. No. 10 - Flow Schematic - Cyclic Reactor and 56
Slow Rate Land Application System
27
Alt. No. 11 - Flow Schematic - New Activated Sludge
System with Low Flow Slow Rate Land
Application System
28
Comparison of Avg. BOD Discharges
29
Comparison of Avg. NH3N Discharges
30
Comparison of Peak BOD Discharges
31
Comparison of Peak NH3N Discharges
32
BOD Discharge - Overland Flow vs Direct Discharge
33
NH3N Discharge - Overland Flow vs Direct Discharge
Page
49
51
52
58
94
95
99
100
113
114

If Gold
Inc. considers requesting an NPDES permit modification to allow
discharge, a study will be required to determine if this discharge s
the
Golden Poultry must
shall
dischar e. '1'o accomplish tlus, the current ettects of the Ci0ltlen Poultry aiscnarge on me
Deep River must be established, and the assimilative capacity of the Deep River in the
vicinity of the discharge for oxygen consuming wastes must be determined at different river
discharges.
To quantify the effect the discharge is currently having on the river and to determine the
assimilative capacity of the Deep River for oxygen consuming wastes at different river
discharges, the sampling study must quantify current dissolved oxygen concentrations
upstream and downstream of the Golden Poultry discharge, instream oxygen demand
(ultimate biochemical oxygen demand, sediment oxygen demand, net photosynthesis and
respiration), concentrations of oxygen -consuming wastes in the Golden Poultry discharge,
and the flow rates of the Deep River and Golden Poultry discharge. Intensive data
collection and modeling will be required to perform a waste load allocation for multiple
receiving stream flows. At a minimum, this will include:
1.) installation of a flow gage and daily monitoring of river
discharge at SR 1400 (if no suitable control cross section is available
in the vicinity of SR 1400, another site downstream of Carbonton
dam and upstream of the Sanford WWTP discharge could be used),
2.) measurement of daily precipitation at Golden Poultry,
3.) monitoring of dissolved oxygen concentrations, pH,
temperature, and conductivity at one station above and two stations
below the Golden Poultry discharge before 9 AM, 3 times/week,
4.) monthly measurements of BODIt, NH~-N, TKN,
NOx-N, TP, and chlorophyll -a at one station above and two stations
below the Golden Poultry discharge,
5.) monthly measurements of BODIt, NH3/NH4+-N, TKN,
NOX N, and TP in the Golden Poultry discharge,
6.) monthly, 24 hr, diurnal (hourly measurements over a 24
hour period), dissolved oxygen measurements during the months of
May -September at one upstream and one downstream station, and
7.) quarterly sediment oxygen demand (SOD) measurements at
one upstream and one downstream station.
The study should be conducted over the period of L&ar(s). The first monthly sample
should be taken on Monday, with the second monthly sample on Tuesday, etc., to
randomize the sampling events. The upstream station should be at SR 1400 near
Cumnock. The first downstream station should be upstream of the Sanford W WTP
discharge and the second should be at Hwy 151501. As well, to properly calibrate model
hydraulics, at least two time -of -travel (TOT) studies should be conducted in the Deep River
from Carbonton dam to US Hwy 1. One study should be conducted when river flow has
been below 100 cfs at the SR 1400 gage for at least 3 days. The second study should be
conducted at a flow above 150 gage and at least 100 cfs greater than the
ro
�i

first TOT. Additional monitoring (increased frequency for requirements 3-5) or TOT
studies would improve model accuracy.
The QUAL2E-UNCAS water quality model (or another model approved by the WQ
Section) should be utilized to predict DO concentration profiles from Carbonton Dam to US
Hwy 1, utilizing the proposed hydrographic release scheme and assuming the Sanford
WWTP is discharging at permitted limits. A sensitivity analysis should also be performed.
The objectives outlined in the proposed study plan submitted on 12/1/94 will not provide
the information necessary for the Water Quality Section to make a determination that equal
or better protection of the dissolved oxygen standard will be provided by the alternative
flow strategy as required by 15A NCAC 2B .0206(a)(1). If Golden Poultry wishes to
pursue the study outlined in the draft report for your own purposes, the Division will not
discourage the company. However, the only stormwater runoff characterization that the
Division can take into consideration when evaluating the study results for "equal or better
protection" of the river is that which is from areas which are NOT a part of the treatment
system (i.e. terraces which have been designed as a component of the treatment system will
not be taken into consideration).
.r

W
I*h
LIST OF FABLES
I1h-
,,
Table No.
Description
Page
I
Overland Flow System Effluent Characteristics
4
�+
2
Overland Flow System Noncompliances
10
3
Required Effluent Concentrations versus Direct
21
Discharge Flow for Permit Compliance
4
Required Effluent Concentrations versus Overland
25
Flow Discharge Flow for Permit Compliance
5
Summary of Treatment Requirements for
30
Direct Discharge and Overland Flow
6
Summary of Stormwater Runoff Monitoring Data
33
7
Summary of Treatment Alternative Components
59
8
Existing Wastewater Treatment Costs
62
9
Alt. No. 1 - Capital Costs - Overland Flow with
64
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
10
Alt. No. 2 - Capital Costs - Influent Equalization
65
and Overland Flow
11
Alt. No. 3 - Capital Costs - Influent Equalization
66
and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage
and Controlled Release
12
Alt. No. 4 - Capital Costs - Cyclic Reactor and
67
Overland Flow
13
Alt. No. 5 - Capital Costs - Cyclic Reactor and
68
�+
Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and
Controlled Release
14
Alt. No. 6 - Capital Costs - New Activated Sludge
69
and Overland Flow
15
Alt. No. 7 - Capital Costs - New Activated Sludge
70
and
and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and
Oki
Release
16
Alt. No. 8 - Capital Costs - New Activated Sludge
71
with Direct Discharge
17
Alt. No. 9 - Capital Costs - Discharge to City of
72
Sanford, N.C. Wastewater Treatment System
18
Alt. No. 10 - Capital Costs - Cyclic Reactor and
73
Slow Rate Land Application System
19
Alt. No. I I - Capital Costs - New Activated Sludge
74
r*
System with Low Floe Slow Rate Land
Application System
ML,
0"

9
LIST OF TABLES (co awed)
Table No.
Description
Page
20
Alt. No. I - O&M Costs - Overland Flow with
75
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
21
Alt. No. 2 - O&M Costs - Influent Equalization
76
and Overland Flow
22
Alt. No. 3 - O&M Costs - Influent Equalization
77
and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage
and Controlled Release
23
Alt. No. 4 - O&M Costs - Cyclic Reactor and
78
Overland Flow
24
Alt. No. 5 - O&M Costs - Cyclic Reactor and
79
Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and
Controlled Release
25
Alt. No. 6 - O&M Costs - New Activated Sludge
80
and Overland Flow
26
Alt. No. 7 - O&M Costs - New Activated Sludge
81
and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and
Controlled Release
27
Alt. No. 8 - O&M Costs - New Activated Sludge
82
with Direct Discharge
28
Alt. No. 9 - O&M Costs - Discharge to City of
83
Sanford, N.C. Wastewater Treatment System
29
Alt. No. 10 - O&M Costs - Cyclic Reactor and
84
Slow Rate Land Application System
t
30
Alt. No. 11 - O&M Costs - New Activated Sludge
85
System with Low Flow SIow Rate Land
Application System
31
Summary of Annual Costs of Alternatives
86
32
Summary of Present Worth Costs of Alternatives
88
33
Comparison of Alternatives
90
34
Projected Average Discharge Quality for each
92
Alternative
35
Projected Peak Discharge Quality for each
97
Alternative
36
Summary of Environmental Impacts
102
37
Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives
104
38
Comparison and Ranking of Alternatives
109

r_�
on
on
in
m
00
ROWENVIRONMENTAI
m

r
l
4
1�
IL
L
11
L
L
e
L
L
1
SECTION I
BACKGROUND
La. Description of
wng Systeae
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina, currently discharges treated wastewater
emanating from its poultry processing plant to the Deep River. The plant processes
approximately 170,000 broilers per day and generates an average processing day wastewater
flow of approximately 0.9 million gallons per day (mgd). Wastewater is treated prior to
discharge using a system consisting of the following components:
■ Primary Screens
■ DissoIved Air Flotation (DAF) Unit Feed Pumps
■ Dissolved Air Flotation Unit with Ferric Sulfate and Polymer Addition
and Skimmings Dewatering with Belt Filter Press
■ Surge and Storage Ponds ,
■ Land Application System Pump Station
■ Overland Flow Land Application System
■ Chlorination System
■ Effluent Monitoring Station
Figure No. I provides a flow schematic of the existing system.
Lb. lerforma-ince of
w w g System
The existing system is regulated by NPDES Permit No. NCO072575 issued by the State of North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The limitations
established by the permit are as follows:
Parameter
BOD, lbs/day
TSS, lbs/day
�+ NH3N, lbs/day
Oil and Grease (O&G), lbs/day
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg/1
Fecal Coliform (FC), 9/100 ml
November - March
April - October
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
80
160
40
80
496
992
496
992
8.4
16.8
4.2
8.4
160
320
160
320
6.6
6.6
200
400
200
400

Skimmings
Ferric
Sulfate
to *=�qoopoq
Renderer
Belt Filter Press
Processing Screens
Plant
DAF Unit
Skimmings
Storage
Tank
Pump _
Sump
Polymer
Skimmings
Pumps
Chlorine
DAF Feed
Land Application
Pumps
System Pumps
Polymer
Pump Station
Sump
Discharge
Surge
to
Pond
Storage
Deep River
�\
Overland Flow Land Application
Pond
Discharge
Monitoring
Station
Le end
Chemicals Wastewater
N

3
1'
Table No. 1 provides the effluent characteristics for BOD, Total Suspended Solids, Ammonia
Nitrogen, and Oil and Grease from the overland flow system for the period of November, 1992
thru November, 1994. Based on this data, the typical effluent values for the most critical
pollutants, i.e. BOD and NH3N, were as follows:
Item BOD, mg/1 BOD, lbs/day NH3N, mg/1 NH3N, lbs/day
Permit Limit for April 40/80 4.2/8.4
thru October Months
(Average/Peak)
Permit Limit for November 80/160 8.4/16.8
thru March Months
(Average/Peak)
Average for Period 7.04 33.5 1.19 4.46
Peak for Period 25.9 257.3 8.8 15.5
t Average for April 7.8 33.2 1.46 4.62
thru October Months
Peak for April thru 25.9 257.3 8.8 15.5
October Months
Average for November 5.33 33.9 0.84 4.26
thru March Months
Peak for November 25 252.4 2.3 10.3
thru March Months
Table No. 2 summarizes noncompliances with the permit limitations over the same period.
While there have been average monthly and peak violations for BOD and NH3N due to the very
stringent mass based discharge permit, overall the system has performed very well and is
believed to have an insignificant impact on the receiving stream. For the critical flow period of
April thru October, the average total oxygen demand (taken as BOD plus 4.6 times NH3N) of
54.51bs per day has been below the total oxygen demand based on the permit of 59.3 lbs/day.
PL
i.c. Reason for
} Evaluation
As a result of the noncompliances which have occurred, the State of North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources is requiring that Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
complete a detailed evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives. Specifically, Golden
Poultry Company, Inc. is being required to:
"Develop a detailed engineering economic analysis comparing resent worth costs
bP
of possible alternatives to achieve compliance with existing NPDLS limits.
} Alternatives shall include, but not be limited to: modification of the current treatment
works, construction of conventional tertiary treatment works, and elimination of
discharge through connection to municipal facilities..... "
i
This Detailed Engineering Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives has been prepared
to comply with the above stated requirement.
AT

Table No. 1
Summary of Overland Flow System Effluent Characteristics
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina
sanistbt
IDate .Discharged
LQ4GD
11 /4/92 1.348
11 /11 /92 0.63
11 /18/92 0.32
�11/25/92-�----0.702
iAvg for Nov, 1992 -�
r-- - - - - - - _ _
! 2/2/92 0.724
12/9/92 1 0.472
_ _
.12/16/92--� 0.36
)2/23/92 0.972
'A% for 992
g - - Dec,�... _ ----
1/6/93 _ 1.764
- T 1.338
1 -
1 /20/93 1 0.672
BOD
TSS
PP M Ib/da
2.7 30.4
8.0 42.0
5.35 36.22
NH3-N0
PPM Ib/dai(PPM
0.5 5.6-
0.5 2.6
0.50 4.11+--
��-��-�
5.0
- 2.8
93 0
& G
Ib/da�
(- y�
56.2
(PPM)
2.7
2.1
_ _ 2.2
(Ib/da
30.0
11.0
5.9
14.7
_---
2.0
11.7
2.25
14.66
2.3
2.5
4.2
2.0
13.9
9 9
12.6
16.2
2.0
1.0
_
12.1
3.9
1.1
2.3
1.71
0.7
_. 0.3
-� 6.61
9.1
7.87
10.3
3.3
18.7
-1_
15.4
-
- --
17.05
5.0
_ _35.46 .
1.12.9
.-- --�
� 60.6ry
--�-- !
_1
---�
86.76
73.6
130.E
-- ---
- - - 2.75
13.15
1. 50
1.0
1.0
---..---------...._-
7.99
14.7
11.2
.. _------..._._.
2.3
3.2
- - . - -- •---------
3.4
_
33.8
35.7
-.....---------.-----
19.1
11.7
-- --
- - - -- -
1 /27/93 0.628
Avg for Jan, 1993_ _
2/3/93 0.284
12/10/93 ;_-__-0.654
!2/17/93 2.424
_2/24/93 0.532
3.7
19.4
_26.99
_ 15.2
12.5
_ _ 103.1
-
1.00
_1:0
_ 1.0
12.94
2.4
5.5
_ 0.50
_- - 0.8
_ 1.8
__ 6.82
1.9
9.81
--- ~
---.---___._. --
_8__.35
18.0
--- 1 0
-______.___-
102.06
42.6 i
--- - -�
.__.__
_-_ _3.15
6.4
2.3
5.1
15.1
--
_.-__•------
-•-- -
;Avg for Feb,
f3/3/93
,3l10/93
13/17/93
1993
T -0.724
0.688
1.16
_3.4
_ 4.30
5.4
5.9
_36.47
32.6
33.9
1._00
1.0
1.5
3.91_ _ 1.30
6.0 0.1
8.6 _ 0.3
6.86 ,
---0.6
_- _ 1.7
9.50
9.6--1
-.-_w.--, 12.7
24.04
58.0
72.9
93 ---L
,Avg for Mar,
9 _
3.29
-- - -- . -- - - --�--
1993)1.251r-_
.. �
_8.1
---^-- --- 9.2
_ - - - -
___--- _7.1
_ __
252.4
- ----- - --- -
99.31
_
- -- - 1
_
- - -- --- -- - --___-
- 7.32 i 0.20
- _ -_ _ -
1.16 ;
----►
11.15
_
C 65.42
11
A.

0
11
Table No. 1 (continued)
Summary of Overland Flow System Effluent Characteristics
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.,, Sanford, North Carolina
Date
Discharged
BOD
T S S
N H3-N
O & G
(MGD
PPM)
(lb/day)
'(PPM)
(lb/day)
(PPM)
(lb/day) -_(P.PMj
_jb/jay�
4/14/93 0.446
6.4
23.8
1.0
3.7
0.9
3.3
4.9
18.2
2.0
4.2
1.0
2.1
0.2
4/21/93 + 0.254
4/28/93 0.206
jAvg for Apr, 1993
0.4
7.5
15
2.0
3.47
3.4
_JDA9--=::��,
1.00
2.92
0.55
1.00
w %7
6.20
17.Od
5/5/93 1.326
11.0
121.7
11.5
127.2
0.6
6.6
10.4
115.0
�5/12/93 0.308
20A.
4.3
16.31
12.91
8.8
13.8
4.8
14.1
55.0
60.53
1 30.2
41.9
11.3
5.7
8.60
12.0
6.0
14.6
70.92F
41.2
18.2
5.8
3.20
1.1
0.7
14.9
10.75
3.8
2.1
5.01
7.70
V
5-10
5.0]
12.8
1
63.92
17.2
15.21
15/19/93 0.392
-5/26/93 1 0.4041
;Avg or May, _I-66i
6/2/93 0.412
�6/9/93 0.364
lf6/16/93 0.282
1 6/23/93 0.178
6.8
10.1
,Avg_for Jun, 1993
8.55
23.38
9.00
29.72
0.90
2.95
5.00
16.18,
7/7/93 0.102
7/14/93 0152.
2.0
11.5
1.7
14.6
1.5
20.0
1.3' 0.3
25.4-- 8.8
0.3
11.2
5.0
21.9
4.31
27.8
7/21/93 --'--0.256-1
2.9
6.2
7/28/93 1 0.312
4.0
10.4
Avg_for Jul, 1993
8/4/93 - 1. 188
8/11/93 0.324
- -- -
8/18/93 0.15
8/25/9 3 0.08
8.22
39.6
5.4
4.6
1.5
5.101-
----4-.OT-
2.0
3.7
2.2
10.75
- 23.5
4.0
-------
13.31
219.1
10.8---0.5
4.55"----'
0.3
5.71
2.81_
1.4
13.45
5.0
15
16.01
46.61
1
41.3!
Avg for Aug, 1-99*3
2.98
12.78
13.75!
114.96
- --- - - -
0.40
2.07,
10.15
43.98j
tA

. 1.... . I- . I- . I- . I- , I- I" j.- I- I- I- t- I- I- I- ]--% 1-1 rn
Table No. 1 (continued)
Summary of Overland ]Flow System Effluent Characteristics
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina
Date
918193
9/15/93 -
9/22193---
I Discharged
MGD�_
0.502
0.452
0.214
BOD _
TSS
NH3-N
(PPM
(lb/day)
(PPM(lb/day)
PPM(lb/day
s
5.9
24.7
2.5
10.5
0.8
0.3
3.3
1.1
-- 13.0
49.0
17.0
64.1
2.7
4.8
r9/29/93
0.274
5.9
13.5
_
Avg for Sep, 1993
10/6/93 0.268
110/13/93- _ _ 0.608
310/20/93 0.64
10/27/93 1.548
_ --..--
:Avg for Oct, 1993 _
i 11 /3/93 j _ _ 0.68
�0.666
6.88
�-------8.7
23.00
- _-19.4
9.751
-
37_.29
---11.2
0.55
2.22
5.0
0.2
--�----0.4
14.0
71.0
3.5
17.7
0.7
3.5
4.7
4.2
-
25.1
54.2
--- -
-----___---_-
--- ---
_..._
7.90
42.43
4.25
s 3.3
14.45
18.7
0.45
2.0
9.8
25.0.
55.6
_138.9
13.2
24.7
58.10
37.2
1.7
9.6
111/10/93
11 /17/93 1 0.588
11/24/93 ! 0.384
r -
;Avg for_Nov, 1993
12/1/93 0.442
14.8
82.0
1.4
7.8
5.9
7.7
50.35
17.0
0.4
1.3
12.10
10.1
9.05
4.6
1.17
0.8
6.20
3.0
12/8/93
[12/15/93_-r
12/22/93
_ 0.43
,__0.414
_ 0.428
-----0.232
-
2.6
9.3
2.0
� -^--
3.30
_ _ _ ^7.0
-- -
12.00
0.1
0.4
-
1.70
_ _ 19.7
68.0
_ 7.5
2.1
26.9
4.1
0.45
12/28/93 �
'Avg for Dec, 1993
_ 8.40
29.10
I.
O&G
PPM)---- lb/da r�
17.6 73.7
-- 5A --- 18.8
11.30
46.27
5.0
11.2
11.5
58.3
8.25
34.75
4.9
28.0
5.0
28.0
4.951 28.00
----- 7.6 � -- 28.0
--6.71---- - - 24-0
c,

0
Table No. 1 (continued)
Summary of Overland Flow System Effluent Characteristics
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina
Date
i11/6/94
1 /� 12/94
Discharged
(MGD)
0.4
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
O & G
_ (PPM�
2.2
2.0
Ib/da r
8.2
16.2
_(PPM) _ _
1.1
1.5
_alb/da r)
4.0
M
0.8
day
3.0
(PPM)
7.8
(Ib/da
29.0
_
1
12.0
0.4
-� 3. 2
_
i 1 /19/94 0.5
1/26/94 0.4
;Avg for Jan, 1994
2/2/94 _ 0.7
i 2/9/94 _ T_ ___ 0.9
2/16/94 0.4
3.8
16.2
15.6
55.1
1.30
8.00
28.0
7.0
0.60
0.7
0.6
-
3.10
7.80
29.00
6.05
23.78
2.0
6.9
12.3
49.5
4.5
1.0
4.3
4.3
13.4
11.2
83.01
80.0
2.3
3.1
8.1
21.2
23/94
0.8
for Feb, 1994
' 3/2/94 _ _ _ 2
3/9/94 ! 0.1
3/16/94_ 0.4
_ 0.5
13/30/94 i Flooded-
lAvg for Mar, 1994
- - - -j.- --
A /!_ 0.4
14/13/94 -1 _- 0.3
i� 4/20/94 ---0,1
3.58
3.0
22.78
50.1
2.75
0.8
7.0
_
17.50
0.65
4.30
_ 2.0
2.0
12.30
43.3
4.9
81 50
52.01
16.0
2.2
9.5
2.6
31.1
19.4
1.0
23.0
1`7
0.6
5.0
12.00
20.0
1-.1-5--------
_2. 00f
0
4.93
14.2
25.80
41.7
3.90
6.8
_ 10.0
--.---
0.3
_...24_.1
__ __0.9
3.6
.__.___.__.
16.4
_34.00
-- 48.0
11.0
26.4
24.0
.-..-------
1.5
27.9
67.0_.
- 15.0
16.0
-5.9
_
_
-----_-_.
,, 27194 _---0.1 _
'Avg -for Apr,-1994 -- - - -----
11.1
-
--
- 2.26
-
12.83
22.6Q
---- 8.40
_ 22.Q0
Q.go
- - - 22.18
57.50
J

Table No. 1 (continued!)
Summary of Overland now System Effluent Characteristics
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina
,Date Discharged
5r /4/94 2.5
5/11/94 0.4
5/18/94 0.3
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
O & G
PPM
12.50
19.00
6.90
Ib/
25 .
68.
15.9
(PPM(lb/day)
19.0
4.0
68.5
(PPM
(lb/day)
(PPM)
(Ib/day
2.2
7.9
9.6
34.6
9.2
0.8
1.8
5.0
11.5
5/25/94
0.1
11.10
7.8
"
jAvg for May,
1994
12.38
87.38
11.60
38.85
1.50
4.85
7.30
23.05
i6/1 /94
�6/8/94
0.11
_ 0.7
12.3
25.9
146.9
12.6
9.7
3.5
2.7
7.3
5.6
16/15/94
i 6/22/94
0.7
_00.2
6.3
5.6
11.6
5.7
31.4
2.2
0.4
12.1
0.9
32.1
176.7
6/29/94 0.5
Aygffor Jun, 1994
17/7/94 (_ 0.306
_ _ _ 8.9
-11.80
_ _ 3 9. 3
48.38
_
20.55
3.5
15.5
9.15
2.40
_
7.80
_ 19.70
_
91.15
21.1
16.1
53.8
Cj
10.2
21.0
26.0
166.0
3.2
8.2
16.8
13.7
43.0 ,
108.0
_
7/13/94 t _ 0.948
�a1.956
1/22194
7/28/94 �- - 1.084
7.1
2.1
.8
1.6
_ 14._5
_11.35
-
Avg for Jul, 1994 [
' 8/� 2/94 I 0.74
_
" 11.60
5.4
_ 78.98
33.3
_ 16.60
13.3
96.00
82.0
_ _ _ 2.40
_ __
_ 15.25
- 75.50
_ 1.6
9.9
9.1
_ ~� 56.0
L8/10/94_
_ 0.172
3.5
4.4
-_
5.0
11.3
9.1
13.0
0.1
0.1
7.0
10.0
'8/16/94__
_- 0.308
---
-
8/24/94 ! __ 0.44 _
18/31 /94 - -- -- -- 0.7
:Avg_for Aug, 1994 . --
3.1
11.4
-
5_._00 (�
-
8.05 I
__---
33.001
2.8
_ 3.84
16.3-
15.46
_ 11.20 !
47.50
_ 0.85
00

I 1 I I I I, 1, I, I, 1, 1 1 I 1 I I
Table No. 1 (continued)
Summary of Overland Flow System Effluent Characteristics
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina
Date
9/7/94
Discharged
0.36
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
O & G
(PPM)
4.2
(I
12.6
(PPM)
5.3
11.3
/da
15.9
30.9
PPM
0.6
1.0
Ib/day)
1.8
2.7
(PPM)
5.0
5.0
(Ib/day
15.0
13.7
9/14/94
0.328
6.1
16.7
9/21 /94
0.504
3.1
13.0
9; /28/94
0.432
3.1
11.2
-
1Avg for Sep,
10/5/94
1994
4.13
13.38
8.30
23.40
0.80
1.0
2.25
4.1
6.00
5.0
_ 14.35
_ 24.4
_
0.584
4.1
2.9
20.0
11.9
2.4
1.6
11.7
6.6
10/12/94 _
_0_.492
5.0
1 10/19/94 _
_ _ �- 0.356
1 10/26/94� 0.452
Avg for Oct, 1994 _
10.1
30.0
1.0
3.0
_
-�
2.2
8.3
2.00
9.15
1.00
3.55
5.00
22.45
4.83
17.55
11 /3/94
11 /9/94
�11 /16/94
11 /23/94 -
0.536
0.362
0.904
-_--'�_0.62
6.0
2.1
25.0
6.3
3.8
5.6
17.0
17.0
1.0
1.0
4.5
3.0
y 5.0
+ 22.0
5.0
15.0 '
_ _ 5.8
�
_43.7
^-
4.0
20.7
--- -----
--
11 /30/94 1.02
Avg for Nov, 1994 _
2.0
`_ 3.98
17.0
22.54
4.70
17.00
1.00
__- 3.75
5.00 1
18.50
do

8.4' I to s��E1�
.;PCs toC_
4,slat
�4 C)

Table No. 2
Summary of Overland Flow Treatment System Performance during Noncompliances
November, 1992 thru November, 1994
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.
Sanford, North Carolina
Noncom Ilancek-A
BOD
April - October Permit Limit Peak 80.0 Ibs/day
November -March Permit Limit Peak 160.0 Ibs/day
NH3N
8.4 Ibs/day
16.8 Ibs/day
Date
Rain
On
Water
Pumped
Water
Discharged
B_OD
NITROGEN
To Fields
Effluent
TN To Fields
Day (in.
MGD
MG
Ib/da
lb/da m /�_
(lb/day)m /l
Effluent NH3N
Ib/da m /l
_
3/24/93`_
1.4
0.51
3.3
2735.7 660.0
252.4 9.2
235.4 56.8
5/5/93
5/12/93
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.9
.3
0.3
7
1708.2 220.0
121.7 11.0
51.4 20.0
458.3 64.8
`
6.6 0.6
7/14/93_
0.0
1.0
0.2
3539.6 430.0
14.6 11.5
405.3
585.3, 1.
7 -- 14.9 . 5.8
11.2
5/4/94
_ 1.8
0.9161
2.468
2291.8 300.0
.257.3 12.5
523.3 68.5
8.8
- _
6/8/94
6/15/9_4
0.7
0.941
- 0.680
612.1
78.0
-_-146.9
25.
522.7
66.6
_
6/29/94
7/13/94
_ _0.0
0.3
0.0
_. _ . 0.6 f
1.030
, 0.927
_ 1.038
- � 0.974
0.660
0.510
0.948
1.956
2491.2
5411.8
290.0
700.0
'�
34.7
39.3
127.3
115.8
6.3
8.9
- 16.1
7.1
_ 484.5
622.4
---- --
___ 56.4
_
-----
12.1 _ 2.2
15.5 3.5
-----^--
7/22/94 -_
7/28/94 _
0.0
�0.891
1.084
_
----
19.0
2�
-
---
14.5/1.6
.36
.
.81
429.4
4
4814
62.0
9.9 1.6
0

D E Sip N
CRITERIA
ROWENORONNIENrnl

o'
11
MW
SECTION 2
'W DESIGN ClUTERIA
rMT 2.a. Flow
/
1f
Figure No. 2 s ter flows pumped to the overland flow system r the -
period July, 1993 thru November, 1994. he average and peak daily flows were as follows:
Parameter Value
Average Flow Pumped 0.6024V-1,�-r��
to Overland Flow System, mgd
Peak Flow Pumped to 1.943
Overland Flow System, mgd 1
IJ
The peak flow does not represent the actual peak flow generated by the processing plant due to
�+ the fact that process wastewater can be stored in on -site surge and storage ponds during periods
of inclement weather, freezing, or maintenance for future pumping to the overland flow system.
riml
Figure No. 3 shows the 5-day, 7-day, and 30-day running average flow pumped to the overland
flow system for the July, 1993 thru November, 1994 period. The flows were as follows:
Parameter
Peak 5-day Average Flow, mgd
Pea -da A a e Flow an d
Peak 30-day Average Flow, mgd
The following design flows will be used for the pui
Design Criteria _.
'Actual 30-da
Bio ogical Process Design, mgd
Actual Peak Day Flow, mgd
Peak Hydraulic Design Flow Rate, mgd
Mn
2-b. DOD
Value
1.163
0.93
F-this evaluation:
Value
0.9
1.20
1.5
7Kq e".
4
- Z
Figure No. 4 shows a graph of DAF effluent BOD values for the period of October, 1992 thru
November, 1994. The average and peak values for the period were as follows. r•.
4-_ J "
eaI'te-2--

I . B . J , J , I . I I I I ] I l I I I I t
Figure No. 2 - Flows pumped to overland Flow System - july, 93 thru November, 94
Golden poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina
2.5
V 2 -
cn
E
3
0
1.5 —
cv _
L
ram+
m 1 -
a
E
M
0-
0
0.5
%j U U uumju U
July, 1993 - November, 1994
N

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
E
0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure No. 3 - Running Average Flows to Overland now
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, North Carolina
i
l
Date (July, 1993 - November, 1994)
5-day Running Avg — 7-day Running Avg — 30-day Running A

I I I
1200
1000
a�
800
E
200
0
Figure No. 4 = DAF Effluent HOD
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Date (Oct, 92 - Nov, 94)

15
Parameter Value
Average DAF Effluent BOD, mg/l 321
Peak DAF Effluent BOD, mg/1 1,124
�+ Figure No. 5 shows a graph of the percentage of time the DAF effluent BOD was less than a
given value. A summary of the DAF effluent BOD distribution is as follows:
DAF Effluent Percent of Time
BOD, mg/1 Less than, %
2 000 -00- -- -
1,500 100
1,000 , �, �aS�' 97.5
750 97.5
500 r- lie,.... S� 90.0
400 � �l � �
77.5
300 CGt c — 58.75
200 11.25
Based on this distribution, a design OD of 500 mg/1 will be utilized for the purposes of this
evaluation.
2.c. TELN
Figure No. 6 shows a graph of DAF effluent TKN values for the period of October, 1992 thru
November, 1994. The average and peak values for the period were as follows:
Parameter Value
Average DAF Effluent TKN, mg/l 57.3
Peak DAF Effluent TKN, mg/1 103
Figure No. 7 shows a graph of the percentage of time the DAF effluent TKN was less than a
given value. A summary of the DAF effluent TKN distribution is as follows:
DAF Effluent Percent of Time
TKN, mg/l Less than, %
Owl
125 100
100 98.75
p, 80 95.0
60 71.25
50 21.25
MR
OR

120
100
0
80
N
J
O
m 60
E
0
40
L
a
20
�L
Figure No. S - DAF Effluent DOD Distrib
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
t
1 i
1
I
i
� If
I I ( !
i
I
200 300 400 600 760 1000 1600 2000
DAF Effluent BOD, mgll

120
100
40
20
Figure No. 6 - DAr Effluent TKN
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Date (Oct, 92 - Nav, 94)

h +]~ I• IM �' J- �- J" 1- Jr 1- J« JAL J,
120
100
0
0
40
L
a
20
1 0
Figure No. 7 - DAF Effluent NH3N Distri
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
50 60 70 80 100 125
DAF Effluent TKN, mg/l
00

19
Based on this distribution, esign TKN of 80 mg/1 will be utilized for the purposes of this
evaluation.
2.d. Sn a" - ^_
In summary, the design criteria to be used for the purposes of this evaluation is as follows:
Parameter Value
Average Process Design Flow, mgd l .2*
Peak Day Process Design Flow, mgd 1.5
Peak Hydraulic Design Flow Rate, mgd 2.0
BOD, mg/I 500
TKN, mg/1 80
A
A

PC
A
A
A
��l
A
A
Fk
SECTION 3oo
TREATMENT
0
EOUIREMENTS
ROWENVIRONMENTAI
ran

Mir
20
SECTION 3
TREAT NT R QU ENTS
3.a. Direct Discharge Altematioes
3.a.1. Mass Based l ioutatso ns
(BOD, TSS, NH3N, Oil and Grease)
The level of treatment re uired for
SS N and Oil and Grease existing permit is dependeaLup. ischar&e„�
flow rate. Table No. 3 summa ce.fluent concentrations versus discharge flow
or eac parame er.
The required effluent concentrations for TSS and Oil and Grease are well above the capabilities
of the existing system, as well as any of the alternatives being evaluated. Compliance with TSS
and Oil and Grease requirements are not considered to be a problem.
As relates to compliance with the BOD and NH3N limitations, the impact of discharge flow,
particularly during the critical flow discharge penod of April thru October, is very significant
m
because of the fact t at the iitations are mass based. us, as flows go up treatment levels
must go down. Figure No. 8 shows the required effluent BOD concentration versus discharge
flow for permit compliance. Figure No. 9 shows the required effluent NH3N concentration
versus discharge flow for permit compliance. The required effluent concentrations versus
discharge flow are summarized as follows:
A
Apr - Oct
Nov - Mar Apr - Oct
Nov - Mar
Discharge BOD, mg/1
BOD, mg/1 NH3N, mg/1
NH3N, mg/1
A
Flow, mgd Avg Max
Avg Max Avg Max
Avg Max
-
0.5 9.59 19.18
19.18 38.37 1.01 2.01
2.01 4.03
0.80 6.00 11.99
11.99 23.98 0.63 1.26
1.26 2.52
1.0 4.8 9.59
5 1 O 1
O 1 2.01�lM
_
F1.520 4 7.99
3.2
7.99 15.99 0.42 0.84
e
0.84 1.68
6.39
6.39 12.79 0.34 0.67
0.67 1.34
Compliance with permit limitations
e(;
for direct discharge at the current average flow of ��
approximately 0.9 mgd, design average flow of 1.2 mgd, and peak daily flow of 1.5 mgd«nll
require the following BOD and NH3N treatment levels:
•
Apr - Oct
Nov - Mar
Parameter Avg
Design Max Avg
Design Max
rah
•
Flow, mgd 0.9
1.2 1.5 0.9
1.2 1.5
Effluent BOD, mg/1 5.3
4.0 6.4 10.6
8.0 12.8
r:n
Effluent NH3N, mg/1 0.56
0.42 0.67 1.12
0.84 1.34
MR

Table No. 3
Required Direct Discharge (fluent Concentrations vs. Effluent Flow for Permit Compliance
Golden Poultry Company, Inc,. Sanford, N.C.
SOD, mg/l 8O0, mg/l BOD, mg/l
BOD, mg/l
TSS, mg/l
TSS, mg/l
TSS, mg/l
TSS, mg/l
O&G, mg/l
OBG, mg/I
OBG, mail
O&G, mg/l
NH3N, mg/l
NH3N, mg/l NH3N. mg/l
NH3N, mg/l -
To Moot To Moot To Moot
To Moot
To Moot
To Moat
To Meat
To Moot
To Moot
To Moot
To Moot
To Moot
To Moot
To Moot To Moot
To Moat
80lbs/day 160lbs/day 40lbs/day
80lbs/day
496lbs/day
992lbs/day
496lbs/day
992lbs/day
160lbs/day
320lbs/day
160lbs/day
320lbs/day
8.4lbs/day
16.81bs/day 4.2lbs/day
8.4lbs/da Y
Flow, I Average Max Daily Average
±Winter
Max Daily
Average
Max Daily
Average
Max Daily
Average
Max Daily
Average
Max Daily
Average
Max Daily Average
Max Dairy
mad Limit I Winter Limit Summer Limit
Summer Limit
Winter Limit
Winter Limit
Summer Limit
Summer Limit
Willer Limit
Winter Limit
Summer limit
Summer Limit
WEntor Limit
Winter Limit Summer Limit
Summer Limit
0.2 j 47.96 95.92 23.98
47.96
297.36
594.72
297.36
594.72
95.92
191.85
95.92
191.85
5.04
10.07 2.52
5.04
0.3 ' 31.97 63.95 15.99
31.97
198.24
396.48
198.24
396.48
63.95
127.90
63.95
127.90
3.36
6.71 1.68
3.36
0.4 ! 23.98 47.96 11.99
0.5
23.98
148.68
297.36
148.68
297,36
47.96
95.92
47.96
95.92
2.52
5.041 1.26
2.521
19-181 38.37 ; 9.59
19.18
118.94
237.89
118.94
237.89
38.37
76.74
38.37
76.74
2.01
4.031 1.01
2.01
06 15.99: 31,971 7.99
15.99
99.12
198.24
99.12
198.24
31.97
63,95
31.97
63.95
I
f 1.68
3.36 0.84
1.681
0.7 ; 13.70 27.41 6.85
13.70
84.96
169.92
84.96
169.92
27.41
54.81
27.41
54.81
1.44
2.88 ; 4.72
1.44
0.8 1: 11.99 23.98 6.00
11.99
74.34
148.68
74.34
148.68
23.98
47.96
23.98
47.96
1.26
2.52 0.63
1.261
0.9 10.66 ; 21.32 5.33
10.66
66.08
132.16
66.08
132.16
21.32
42.63
21.32
42.63
1.12
2.241 0.56
1.121
1 9.59 ( 19.18 4.80
i
9.59
59.47
118.94
59.47
118.94
19.18
38.37
19.18
38.37
1.01
2.01 I 0.50
1.01
1.11 8.72 17.44 4.36
8.72
54.07
108.13
54.07
108.13
17.44
34.88
17.44
34.88
0.92
1.83 ' 0.46
0.92
1.2 , 7.99 15.99 4.00
7.99
49.56
99.12
49.56
99.12
15.99
31.97
15.99
31.97
0.84
1.68 0.42
0.84
1.3 7.38 14.76 3.69
7.38
45.75
91.50
45.75
91.50
14.76
29.51
14.76
29.51
0.77
1.55 ; 0.39
0.77
1.4 6.85 13.70 3.43
6.85
42.48
84.96
42.48
84.96
13.70
27.41
13.70
27.41
0.72
1.44 0.36
0.72
1.5 ! 6.39 12.79 3.20
6.39
39.65
79.30
39.65
79.30
12.79
25.58
12.79
25.58
0.67
1.34 0.34
0.67
1.6' 6.00 11.99 3.00
6.00
37.17
74,34
37.17
74.34
11.99
23.98
11.99
23.98
0,63
1.26 0.31
0.63
1.7 ; 5.64 11.29 2.82
1
1.8
5.64
34.98
69.97
34.98
69.97
11.29
22.57
11.29
22.57
0.59
1.18 0.30
0.59
` 5.3310.66 2.66
5.33
33.04
66.08
33.04
66.08
10.66
21.32
10.66
21.32
0.56
1.12 0.28
0.56
1.9. 5.05 10.10 2.52
I
5.05
31.30
62.60
31.30
62.60
10.10
20.19
10.10
20.19
0.53
1.06 0.27
0.53
2 ' 4 80 : 9. 59 2.40
4.80
29.74
59.47
29.74
59.47
9.59
19.18
9.59
19.18 !
0.50
1.01 0.251
0.50
SANlUMIT
N

l , l- , ly 1 1- k I- , l. 114 , L I. L L t 1. K. I.I I J� tI
W
rigure No. 8 - Required Effluent BOD Conc, vs. Effluent Flow
Direct Discharge Alternatives, Golden Poultry Co.,Inc., Sanford, N.C.
3l
40
v�
E 30
0
m
c
20
W
10
0 '
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Discharge Flow, mgd
■ Winter Avg. ♦ Winter Max. • Summer Avg. 9 Summer Max.
ote: Summer Max and Winter Average limitations are equal and are both depicted on the middle line,
..
N
N

I' t l• t . k . J I r I- k #- I V V --1 1, t, 1, 11.1
Figure No. 9 = Required Effluent NH3N Conc. vs. Effluent Flow
Direct Discharge Mternatives, Golden Poultry Co., Inc., Sanford N.C.
4
'tM
E
,
}
Z
W
I j
--
---■
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Discharge Flow, mgd
■ Winter Avg. ♦ Winter Max. A Summer Avg. p Summer Max.
j Note: Summer Max and Winter Average limitations are equal and are both depicted on the middle line.

P�1
24
Appendix A provides a summary of comments received from vendors during the receipt of
proposals for the preparation of this report. The required treatment levels for a direct discharge
to meet the current permit limitations are very stringent and can not be guaranteed. It is possible
that they can be met, but this can not be known until a state-of-the-art system is constructed and
actual performance on the specific wastewater in question demonstrated.
3.a.2. Concentration Based Limitations
f" The average concentration based limits for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and pH are:
Parameter Value
DO, mg/1 6.6
Fecal Coliform, #/100 ml 200
pH 6to9
These limitations can be attained by all alternatives being considered and represent no major
problem.
3.b. Overland Flow Alternatives
of
3.b.1. Mass Based 'L MM ations
(BOD, TSS, NH3N, Oil and Grease)
Even more so than for the direct discharge alternatives, the level of treatment required for
compliance with the mass based effluent limitations for BOD, TSS, NH3N, and Oil and Grease
is dependent upon the discharge flow rate from the overland flows stem due to the impact of
rainfall induced high f ows and bac groun pollutant levels. Table No. 4 summarizes the
required effluent concentrations versus discharge flow for each parameter. The required effluent
concentrations for TSS and Oil and Grease are well above the capabilities of the existing system,
as well as any of the alternatives being evaluated. Compliance with TSS and Oil and Grease
requirements are not considered to be a problem. As relates to compliance with the BOD and
NH3N limitations, the impact of discharge flow is very significant. Figure No. 10 shows the
required effluent BOD concentration versus discharge flow for permit compliance. Figure No.
11 shows the required effluent NH3N concentration versus discharge flow for permit
compliance. The required effluent concentrations versus discharge flow are summarized as
follows:
Apr - Oct Nov - Mar Apr - Oct Nov - Mar
Discharge BOD, mg/l BOD, mg/l N113N, mg/l NH3N, mg/l
Flow, mgd Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max
0.80 6.00 11.99 11.99 23.98 0.63 1.26 1.26 2.52
1.0 4.8 9.59 9.59 19.18 0.5 1.01 1.01 2.01
1.20 4 7.99 7.99 15.99 0.84 0. 1.68 'C
1.5 .2 6.39 .39 12.79 0.3 0.67 � 1.34
5.0 6 1.92 3.84 0. 0.20 0.20 0.40

Table No. 4
Required Overland flow ERlnent Concentrations vs. Effluent Flow for Permit Compliance
Golden Poultry Company. Inc.. Sanford. N.C.
iFlow,
mgd
SOD, mg/l
To Meet
80 lbs/day
Average
Winter Limit
SOD, mg/l
To Moot
160 lbs/day
Max Daily
Winter limit
SOD, mg/l
To Moot
40 lbslday
Average
Summer Limit
SOD, mgn
To Meat
80 lbs/day
Max Daily
Summer Limit
TSS, mall
To Moot
496 lbs/day
Average
Winter Limit
TSS, mg/l
To Moot
992 lbs/day
Max Daily
Winter Limit
TSS, mg/l
To Meet
496 lbs/day
Average
Summer Limit
TSS, mg/l
To Moot
992 lbs/day
Max Daily
Summer Limit
O&G, mall
To Moot
160 lbs/day
Average
Winter Limit
O&G, mall
To Moot
320 lbs/day
Max Daily
Winter Limit
O&G, mg/I
To Moot
160 lbs/day
Average
Summer Limit
O&G, mg/l
To Moot
320 lbs/day
Max Daily
Summer Limit
N113N, m9/1
To Moot
8.4 lbslday
Average
Winter Limit
NH3N, mg/l
To Meet
16.8 lbs/day
Max Daily
Winter Limit
NH3N, mg/l
To Moot
4.2 lbs/day
Average
Summer Limit
NH3N, mg/l
To Moot
8.4 lbs/day
Max Daily
Summer Limit
0.2 47.96
95.92
23.98
47.96
297.36
594.72
297.36
594.72
95.92
191.85
95.92
191.85
5.04
10.07
2.52
5.04
0.3 31.97
63.95
15.99
31.97
198.24
396.48
198.24
396.48
63,95
127.90
63.95
127.90
3.36
6.71
1.68
3.36
0.4 23.98
47.96
11.99
23.98
148.68
297.36
148.68
297.36
47.96
95.92
47.96
95.92
2.52
5.04
1.26
2.52
1 0.5 19.18
38.37
9.59
19.18
118.94
237.89
118.94
237.89
38.37
76.74
38.37
76.74
2.01
4.03I
1.01
2.01
0.6 1 15.99
31.97
7.99
15.99
99.12
198.24
99.12
198.24
31.97
63.95
31.97
63.95
1.68
3.36
0.84
1.68
0.7 i 13.70
27.41
6.85
13.70
84.96
169.92
84.96
169.92
27.41
54.81
27.41
54.81
1.44
2.88
0.72
1.44
i 0.81 11.99
23.98
6.00
11.99
74.34
148.68
74.34
148.68
23.98
47.96
23.98
47.96
1.26
2.52
0.63
1.26
0.9E 10.66
21.32
5.33
10.66
66.08
132.16
66.08
132.16
21.32
42.63
21.32
42.63
1.12
2.24
0.56
1.12
11 9.59
19.18
4.80
9.59
59.47
118.94
59.47
118.94
19.18
38.37
19.18
38.37
1.01
2.01
0.50
1.01
1.1, 8.72
17.44
4.36
8.72
54.07
108.13
54.07
108.13
17.44
34.88
17.44
34.88
0.92
1.83
0.46
0.92
1.2 7.99
15.99
4.00
7.99
49.56
99.12
49.56
99.12
15.99
31.97
15.99
31.97
0.84
1.68
0.42
0.84
1.3; 7.38
14.76
3.69
I
7.38
45.75
91.50
45.75
91.50
14,76
29.51
14.76
29.51
0.77
1.55
0.39
0.77
1.41 6.85
1.51 6.39
f 13.70
12.79
3.43
I 3.20
6.85
6.39
42.48
39.65
84.96
42.48
84.96
13.70
27.41
13.70
27.41
0.72
1.44
0.36
0.72
79.30
39.65
79.30
12.79
25.58
12.79
25.58
0.67
1.34
0.34
0.67
1.6 j 6.00
11.99
3.00
6.00
37.17
74.34
37.17
74.34
11.99
23.98
11.99
23.98
0.63
1.26
0.31
0.63
1.71 5.64
11.29
2.82
5.64
34.98
69.97
34.98
69.97
11.29
22.57
11.29
22.57
0.59
1.18
0.30
0.59 !
1.8 ! 5.33
10.66
2.66
5.33
33.04
66.08
33.04
66.08
10.66
21.32
10.66
21.32
0.56
1.12
0.28
0.56'
1.9 ! 5.05
21 4.80
10.10
9.59
2.52
5.05
31.30
62.60
31.30
62.60
10.10
20.19
10.10
20.19
0.53
1.06
0.27
0.53
I
2.40
4.80
29.74
59.47
29.74
59.47
9.59
19.18
9.59
19.18
0.50
1.01
0.25
0.50
2.5 ( 3.84
7.67
1.92
3.84
23.79
47.58
23.79
47.58
7.67
15.35
7.67
15.35
0.40
0.81
0.20
0.40
31 3.20
6.39
1.60
3.20
19.82
39.65
19.82
39.65
6.39
12.79
6.39
12.79
0.34
0.67
0.17
0.34
3.51 2.74
5.48
1.37
2.74
16.99
33.98
16.99
33.98
5.48
10.96
5.48
10.96
0.29
0.58
0.14
0.29
4I 2.40
4.51 2.13
4.80 i
1.20
2.40
14.87
29.74
14.87
29.74
4.80
9.59
4.80
9.59
0.25
0.50 i
0.13
0.25 �
4.261
1.07
2.13
13.22
26.43
13.22
26.43
4.26
8.53
4.26
8.53
0.22
0.45
0.11
0.221
51 1.92
3 84 (
0.96
1.92
11.89
23.79
11.89
23.79
3.84
7.67
3.84
7.67
0.20
0.40 I
0.10
0.20
5.5 i 1.74
6 1.60 ,
3.49 +
3.201
0.87
0.80
1.74
1.60
10.81
9.91
21.63
19. 82
10.81
9.91
21.63
19.82
3.49
3.20
6.98
6.39
3.49
3.20
6.98
6. 39
0.18
0.17
0.37
0.34
0.09
0.08
0.18
0.17
-r
-
aANLIMIT
W
r,�

. I . l . l• , I , I I' , I , I • 11 1
J h 3 1, 1, I, 1, 11 111
WC
40
E 30
ft
In
m
20
w
10
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Discharge Flow, mgd
Figure No. 10 = Required Effluent ROD Conc. vs. Effluent Flow
Overland Flow Alternatives, Golden Poultry Co., Inc., Sanford, N.C.
I
1' '•`
I
� � I I
�
I
I
I( �
I � �
I► i i j � (
�
! I � i
i
■ Winter Avg. ♦ Winter Max. f Summer Avg. a Summer Max.
Note: Summer Max and Winter Average limitations are equal and are both depicted on t-% -- --j
he middle line.
N
CN

I- 1` I. 1. 11 1 1
JL 1. .1� jI
5
4
w
M
z
C
2
W
1
IIIIIIIII
Figure No. i i = Required Effluent NH3N Conc. vs. Effluent Flow
Overland now Alternatives, Golden Poultry Co., Inc., Sanford N.C.
1
1
■ C ` ! I
1 i - I
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.6 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.6 6
Discharge Flow, mgd
■ Winter Avg. ♦ Winter Max. -A. Summer Avg. S Summer Max.
rNote: Summer Max and Winter Average limitations are equal and are both depicted on the middle line.

TI
28
Figure No. 12 provides a graph of the daily and 30-day running average discharge flows from the
�+ overland flow system for the period of July, 1993 thru November, 1994. This data range was
used due to the fact that the rainfall during the summer of 1994 was very high, thus providing a
conservative period for analysis. The peak 30-day average and peak daily flow were 1.031 mgd
and 4.975 mgd, respectively. The required effluent quality from the overland flow system to
comply with permit limitations at these peak average and daily flows is:
@ Peak Month Avg @Peak Daily Flow
Parameter Flow of 1.031 mgd of 4.975 mgd
Effluent BOD. mg/l < 4.65 < 1.92
Effluent NH3N, mg/I < 0.48 < 0.20
r4 These average concentrations are approximately the same as typical background levels in the
area and are very stringent. With modifications it is possible that the overland flow system cowl
meet the average permit limitations. However, the limits are very stringent and can not be y ►
guaranteed. The system can not meet the peak day limitations at peak flow rates due to the fact .
that background pollutant concentrations exceed the required effluent values. Q
r�
3.b.2. Concentration used Limitations
A
R6
The concentration based limits for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and pH are:
Parameter
DO, mg/1
Fecal Coliform, #/100 ml
pH
Value
6.6 I200
6 to 9 �,-
The DO, fecal coliform, and pH limitations can be attained by all alternatives being considered
and represent no major problem.
3.c. Suaia�ary
Table No. 5 summarizes the treatment requirements for the direct discharge and overland flow
alternatives at the selected design criteria. Attainment of the treatment requirements for the
direct discharge alternatives will require advanced wastewater treatment, including effluent
filtration. Attainment of the average treatment requirements for the overland flow alternatives
will require upgrading of the existing system to include addit al influent eq alization or
biological pretreatment.;Atainment of the peak treatment requirements or the overland flow
alternatives will requirendment of the permit to ide allowances for rainfall induced
peak flows or effluent storage and controlled release.
"i"

6
5
V
IM
E
a 4
Co
L
M
M
c.i
N
3
3
0
11
�v
c
M 2
L
0
1
0
Figure No. 12 = overland Flow ]Discharge Flows
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
i
77
VI[A !k�
f_
Date (July,1993 - November, 1994)
FDaily Flows, mgd — 30-day Running Average Flow, mgd
N
�O

op
11
Table No. S
Summary of ROD and NH3N Treatment Requirements
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
I
Direct Discharge
to
Overland Flow
Discharge
to Deep River
Existing
@ Existing
Average
'i
Average
@ Peak
�
With Flow
With Flow With Flow �
Item
Flow
Design
low
Average
Flow
Average
Flow
Controlled
@ 0.63 mgd
Controlled Controlled
_
0.6
0.63
'Projected Actual Average Flow, mgd
0.9
1.2�
�~ 0.63 0.63-�
(during peak month in Apr - Oct period)
Projected Actual Peak Flows, mgd
1.5
1.5
5
3
0.63
1
(during peak month in Apr - Oct period)
1. 25
I
Required BOD to Meet 40 lb/day Average
5.33
4.00
4.80
7.99
7.61
7.61 7.61
April - October Permit Limitation
(Required NH3N to Meet 4.2 lb/day Average
0.56
0.42
0.50
0.84
0.80
0.80 0.80
April -October Permit Limitation
i
Required BOD to Meet 80 lb/day Peak
April
6.39
6.39
1.92
3.20
15.23
9.591 7.67 ,
- October Permit Limitation
Required NH3N to Meet 8.4 lb/day Peak
0.67
0.67
0.20
0.34
1.60
I�
1.01 0.81 ,
April - October Permit Limitation
MIN

aw
ROWENVIRONMENTAI

F
WA
Pi
4
A
4
4
31
SECTION 4
GENMRLAL DISCUSSION
OF
ALTERNATIVES
4.a. Introduction
There are three categories of alternatives which can be utilized to modify the wastewater
treatment capabilities at the Golden Poultry Company, Inc. facility:
■ Modified Overland Flow
■ Treatment and Direct Discharge
■ Zero Discharge or Reduced Discharge
A general discussion of each of these categories follows.
4.b. Modred Dverftnd Flow
The existing overland flow system can be modified to provide improved treatment and more
consistent permit compliance by various combinations of the following:
■ Installing a new diffused aeration system in the existing surge pond `
■ Modifying the existing storage pond to provide aerated influent equalization-
■ Converting the existing surge pond into a Cyclic Reactor to provide nitrification
and denitrification prior to overland flow
■ Constructing a new activated sludge system to provide nitrification and
denitrification prior to overland flow
■ Constructing an effluent storage pond to allowed controlled release of flows
from the overland flow system
4.c. Direct Di"charge
The inherent problem of rainfall induced high flow noncompliances can be eliminated by
abandoning the overland flow system and installing a new advanced wastewater treatment
system with direct discharge to Deep River. In order to meet the very stringent treatment
requirements of 4 mg/1 BOD and 0.42 mg/1 NH3N at the design flow of 1.2 mgd, the system will
require upstream equalization and effluent filtration. These treatment requirements are
extremely stringent and, while they are potentially achievable they can not guaranteed
If

32
This alternative would appear to solve the issue of noncompliance as relates to the direct
discharge from Golden Poultry Company, Inc. However, it is questionable that the total impact
on the environment will be enhanced over a modified overland flow approach. This statement is
based on the fact that if an advanced wastewater treatment system is installed, the natural runoff
from the current overland flow land application area will still be flouring to Deep River. Thus,
M
the loading on Deep River as compared to the current overland flow scenario will be the direct
discharge plus the natural runoff from the abandoned overland flow site. Table No. 6 provides
the results of the analysis of various runoff samples taken from areas not receiving wastewater.
These results indicate that median BOD and NH3N concentrations of 4.7 mg/l and 4.6 mgil,
respectively, can be expected even if the overland flow system is abandoned. The impact of this
scenario will be discussed in more detail in Section 7.
4.d. Zero Discharge or
Reduced Discharge
4 The Golden Poultry Company, Inc. discharge to Deep River can be eliminated or reduced by:
■ Routing pretreated wastewater to the City of Sanford's wastewater treatment
+ system
■ Converting the existing surge pond to a Cyclic Reactor to provide nitrification
and denitriftcation followed by a slow rate land application system with zero
discharge, if adequate land can be acquired
■ Installing a new advanced wastewater treatment system with a portion of the
discharge being pumped to the existing overland flow system during periods of
low stream flow
L
i,
i

Table No. 6
Summary of Storm Water Runoff Monitoring Data
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
FS No.
_ Sample Description
Date
11/5/93
BOD,
4.8
NH3N,
0.2
1
Undeveloped grass and pine area below Lee County Water Plant
2/10/94
3
0.5
2/24/94
3.5
1.1
3/2/94
2.9
0.5
i
3/29/94
2
1.3
E2
Major drainage feature receiving drainage from wooded area to the north of spray fields
11 /5/93
4.7
0.3
! 3
Area drained through Outfall 001 near No. 4 spray field, area not under irrigation
9/6/93
12
1.7
4
Area drained through Outfall 001 near No. 5 spray field, area not under irrigation
12/6/93
11/1/93
8.8
11.2
0.3
0.5
5
Bean field
9/6/93
8.5
0.1
4
11/1/93
3.9
1.8
6
Thicket on south side of site
2/10/94
2.7
0.4
2/24/94
5
0.8
3/2/94
2.6
1
3/29/94
3.7.
0.4
7
Slope near Lee County Water Plant
2/10/94
2.3
0.6
2/24/94
9.1 !
0.7 ,
3/2/94
5.2 I
0.8
3/29/94
5
0.6
iAverage
5.31
0.72
4.70
0.60
,Median

M?
ROWENORONMENTAI

M
34
SECTION 5
3
DETAILED DISCUSSION
OF
ALTERNATIVES
A
I
MR
U
r
MR
A
i
F"
I
0M
S.a. Alt. No. 1 - Overland Flow wins Effluent
Storage and Controlled Release
This alternative consists of the following improvements:
Improvement Description
Surge Pond Aeration System Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
bubble diffused aeration system xonsi sting of
three 50 horsepower positive displacement blowers
and 336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine '
bubble diffusers.' Pond bottom to be leveled and
pond to be lined.
Effluent Storage Pond Construct new 22,400,000 gallon effluent storage
pond with 450 gpm, variable speed pump_station to
allow controlled release of treated wastewater to
levels below 0.63 mgd
Figure No. 13 provides a flow schematic for this alternative.
The effluent storage pond was sized on the following basis:
■ Figure No. 14 provides a graph of projected effluent storage pond volume needed
versus the overland flow system discharge flow. If flows are limited to 0.5 mgd
an infinitel tors a pond would be re d. The required storage pond
volume versus discharge ow is: '� 1h!`� ,� �t ( c� �
Owl
Discharge Flow, mgd Storage Pond Volume, gallons
0.6 2628201000
0.75 15,0009040
1.0 13,750,000
■ Based on a review of the data in Table 1, the treatment capabilities of a -
modified overland flow system are projected to be an effluent BOD and NH3N of
5 mg/l and 0.8 mg/l, respectively.
MR

I I I 1 II 1- 1- h V I. 1. I 1- 1 1 I I 1 I,
Processing
Plant
Screens
Chlorine
Discharge
Monitoring
Discharge
to
Deep River
Holding Lagoon
Release Pumps
(450 gpm)
Skimmings
Ferric t!:7g
O0
Sulfate Renderer
Belt Filter Press
DAF Unit Skimmings
Storage
Tank
Pump
Sump Polymer Skimmings
Pumps
DAF Feed Land Application
Pumps System Pumps
Y Pump Station Polymer
sump
Blowers IN Storage
(3 Q 50 bp) Pond
Overland Flow Land Application Existing Surge Pond wJ New
Diffused Aeration
System; pond bottom to be I"eled
and pond to be lined
Legend
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings`
w
VI

M
cn 60
E
E
0
> 40
0
CID
.r
Cn
20
.`ice
-20
Figure No. 14 = Effluent Storage Volume vs Discharge Flow
Overland Flow System, Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
&9
July, 1993 - November, 1994
— 0.5 mgd — 0.75 mgd — 1.0 mgd — 1.25 mgd — 1.5 mgd
Graph represents cumulative effluent storage basin volume versus the relative maximum design dischargeGraph represents cumulative effluent storage basin volume versus the relative maximum design discharge rate
o A46,A,
w

37
■ From Figures No. 10 and 11, the allowable flow at these effluent levels to
maintain permit compliance would be 0.63 mgd, with NH3N controlling
■ The required storage volume at an average discharge flow of 0.63 mgd is
22,400,000 gallons.
As noted, this design volume is based on data for the period of July, 1993 thru November, 1994.
Rainfall intensities greater than this design period could necessitate discharging at higher flows
than the 0.63 mgd design basis.
S.b. Alt. No. 2 - Influent Equalization and Overland glow
This alternative consists of the following improvements:
Improvement Description
Surge Pond Aeration System Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
bubble diffused aeration system consisting of
three 50 horsepower positive displacement blowers
and 336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine of
bubble diffusers. Pond bottom to be leveled and
pond to be lined.
Influent Equalization Pond Modify existing storage pond with six 10 hp
brush aerators. Pond bottom to be leveled.
Figure No. 15 provides a flow schematic for this alternative.
S.c. hilt. No. 3 - Influent Equalization and Overland Flow with
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
This alternative consists of the following improvements:
Improvement Description
Surge Pond Aeration System Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
bubble diffused aeration system consisting of
three 50 horsepower positive displacement blowers
and 336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine
bubble diffusers. Pond bottom to be leveled and
pond to be lined.
Effluent Equalization Pond Modify existing storage pond with the installation
of six 10 hp brush aerators. Pond bottom to be
leveled.

I V Y 1 V I. 1 I. 1 V 1- t ) 1 i 1 1 1� )
Processing
Plant
Screens
Chlorine
Discharge
Monitoring
Discharge Station
to
Deep River
Skimmings
Ferric
to
Renderer
000
Sulfate
Belt Filter Press
Storage
Tank
Pump
Sump
EUnitSkimmings
Skimmings
Pumps❑DAF
7ation
FeedPumpsPolymer
Pump St
Sump
Biowers
(3 ®50 hp)
Overland Flow Land Application C.dsting Surge Pond w/ New
Diffused Aeration
System; pond bottom to be _
leveled and pond to be lined
E)dsting Storage
Pond - Enlarged w/
Now Brush
Aeration System
Leqend
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings
,SANALT2
W
00

Mc 39
Effluent Storage Pond Construct new 22,400,000 gallon effluent storage
pond with 450 gpm, variable speed pump station to
allow controlled release of treated wastewater to
levels below 0.63 mgd
Figure o M provides a flow schematic for this alternative.
5. Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland glow
This altemativ hewing-irrrprav�me`nts:
Improvement Description
Cyclic Reactor Convert existing surge pond to 2,400,000 gallon
with Sludge Handling cyclic reactor equipped with fine bubble diffused
aeration system consisting of four 100 horsepower
positive displacement blowers and 1,208 three foot
long by 2 inch diameter fine bubble diffusers;
effluent decant system 'with 7,500 gpm capacity;
and PLC based automated system to control
oxic, anoxic, settling, decanting, and sludge
wasting cycles. System will be equipped with a
750,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester and
1.5 meter belt filter press for sludge dewatering.
Dewatered sludge will be disposed of in a state
approved landfill.
A The system will provide nitrification and denitrification and will produce the following effluent
quality for pumping to the overland flow system:
Parameter Value
BOD, mg/1 < 30
NH3N, mg/1 < 2
TKN, mg/l < 10
NO3N + NO2N, mg/l < 5
TSS, mg/1 < 50
ran The objective of this alternative will be to level out the discharge quality from the overland flow
system by eliminating the load variations which can occur from the existing DAF pretreatment
system and allowing 7 day usage of the overland flow system.

I I I I I- f h r i II 1 1 I I I I I II
Processing
Plant
Screens
Chlorine
Discharge
Monitoring
Discharge Sty%
to
Deep River
Holding Lagoon
Release Pumps
(450 gpm)
Skimmings
Ferric
to
Renderer
000
Sulfate
Sell: Filter Press
Skimmings
DAF Unit
Storage
Tank
Skimmings
Sump
❑ Polymer
P
DAF Fee�e d
Land Application
Pumps
System Pumps
Y
Pump Station
Sump
Polymer
Blowers
(3 ® 50 hp) KMIII
Overland Flow Land Application Existing Surge Pond w/ New
Diffused Aeration
System; pond bottom to be
leveled and pond to be lined
Existing Storage
Pond - Enlarged w/
New Brush
Aeration System
Legend
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings`
i.
O

41
41
Figure No. 17 provides a flow schematic for this alternative. Figure No. 18 provides a more
detailed schematic layout of the cyclic reactor system.
S-e- hilt. No. S - Cyclic Reactor and Overland glow
with Effluent Storage and Controlled Release '
This alternative consists of the following improvements: G ' r
Improvement Description r X.
p jd��.
Cyclic Reactor Convert existing surge pond to 2,400,000 gallon
with Sludge Handling cyclic reactor equipped with fine bubble diffused
aeration system consisting of four 100 horsepower
positive displacement blowers and 1,208 three foot
fil GF''' yam. long by 2 inch diameter fine bubble diffusers;
5
effluent decant system with 450 gpm capacity;
o�
/L
and PLC based automated system to control �f '
",?�-oxic, anoxic, settling, decanting, and sludge ' a
wasting cycles. System will be equipped with a
�-- 750,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester and
1.5 meter belt filter press for sludge dewaterin .
P b g
Dewatered sludge will be disposed of in a state
approved landfill.
�+ Effluent Storage Pond Construct new g e 22,400,000 gallon effluent storage
pond with 450 gpm, variable speed pump station to
allow controlled-rel of treated wastewater to
levels belof�r 0'.b3 .mgd.
This system will provide high level pretreatment upstream of the overland flow system and
storage to limit discharge flows in order to control peak discharge quantities.
Figure No. 19 provides a flow schematic for this alternative.
S.L lilt. No. 5 -stew Activated Sludge
and Overland glow
:., This alternative consists of the following improvements:
Improvement Description
Surge Pond Aeration System Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
Y
bubble diffused aeration system consisting of

Am
41
fin -
Figure No. 17 provides a flow schematic for this alternative. Figure No. 18 provides a
detailed schematic layout of the cyclic reactor system.
e-
5.e. Alt. 5 - Cyclic R d Flow
�► frith east lied Release
This alternative consist of the following provements:
Pon
Improvement Description's
Pam! Cyclic Reactor Convert existin su a and to 400� 000 gallon
P
with Sludge Handling cyclic reactor equipped with fin bubble diffused
aeration system onsisting of four 100 horsepower
positive dispI ement blowers and 1,208 three foot
long by 2 in diameter fine bubble diffusers:
effluent deant system with 450 gpm capacity;
and PLC ased automated system to control
oxic, a oxic, settling, decanting, and sludge
avast* g cycles. System will be equipped with a
4,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester and
1 meter belt filter press for sludge dewatering.
a atered sludge will be disposed of in a state
�appr ved landfill.
ran Effluent Storage Pond Const t new 22,4001000 gallon effluent storage
pond wit 450 gpm, variable speed pump station to
allow con fled release of treated wastewater to
levels belo 0.63 mgd
This system will provide high le el pretreatment upstream the overland flow system and
storage to limit discharge flow in order to control peak disc ge quantities.
Figure No. 19 provides a flo schematic for this alternative.
S.f. Alt. No. 5 - N w Actavated Sludge
and over d glow
ram
This alternative consi is of the following improvements:
Improvem t Description
Surge Po d Aeration System Replace existing high s\system
with fine
bubble diffused aeratiosting of
w

I I. I- V I- 1- 1- I, I. L. I,.. I . 1. I I I I. 1
Processing
Plant
Screens
Chlorine
Discharge
Monitoring
Discharge
to
Deep River
Belt Filter Press
Skimmings
Storage
Tank
Skimmings
Pumps ❑
Polymer
Pump Station
Sump
Overland Flow Land Application Land pplicationSystem Pumps
Blowers
(g @ �t•tl�� Storage
100 hp)�' ■gpg■ Pond
Blowers Existing Surge Pond -
(2 ® TS hp) Enlarged to 2,400,000
New Aerobic gallons, lined, and
Sludge Digester Converted to Cyclic
(750,000 Reactor for Nitrification
gallons) and Denitrification
Sludge to
Landfill
New Sludge Dewatering
Building w/ 1.5 meter Legend
Belt Filter Press
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings/Sludge
Skimmings
Ferric
to
Sulfate
Renderer
DAF Unit
Pump
Sump ❑ Polymer
DAF Feed r
Pumps

l_ a h a I— i 1- I— I— ]— 11— 1-- 1 10. 1 1- -ij.; 1--, I,, l—i I,
^ .t, � "` i d: `F' It �;ti;��Y "F:� sl :•'.., ,j... j -�, t. ".;r"x S j r ° ... �.3 t 2.
Coarse ! '! 1, ' + i ';}l,f'lr r+ j l.j3}t
yE rAsirobc S[iidge t}7'.t . s. r,i.-h'I ',� x a 'rs:� ��,.- t -:�i x�:_!:� } �.i':• y, s; } tr
.r•. • Xi)�•L" rY � $ # � X:#aiis t_e.i�j .. r'.� }. •s
_ }. :y pia, .+ w _'_ �-. �`S� t� �2> > t
Bubbie ! ! :i r 7 J; }b,t.F P #' .,a:-• ��+lt';i;tx.l •�' t t rl fi`•z' 1 {� r i+� i( t i' R r ! F
x. 'D� `esters ?50 0` a,-.: x, _ : _E.= .{
Aeration] t # i
»;.. ■��, � `;i=1 j'}}�� :.-i r,{. i., Sx .'fit ,...:},' S4Yy1 Y?.��� y.•}..1.•�� y. :�^' ,'t r gf �•s� a �,.,,,, •ff S'A t i .,. ,, � 1.:.:`�T .i � .. �.j. ? i..� l
' •:i• 1-' �ir ei�::{.�s^t� d(t:SE��vwf?.:.1+j4 l r�1 .:r•�' c� i?'F. f• 1 -;{' rrx ! ;-7 4't. x't> `!» ;,d � r :j;•�t € .a1f !, � � �.�.
i� ;� i r` tl'�rl=k^f�.c.,.t->=E• ",�"x.l�e°�",�'N'�5��.��':�t `a��r''.�! Sri'�'� 4i ft�'r,x �ssl,• $ ,.S ��;li•'f , +.� 2�° , :
System 'Sl die �t of erg , j ,fit jt
Pumps• �. Feed sysfiem . a , I.. s Y , r g., r ; ; j , , t
t1rS1
} yttr at .sil ti(y�lk. tirri
j -^>•' �..•r a v ty�
� i -1 ! •!1 s. } •� f�.. }: 'ix}� �.) soy Ss a- �• �� { • � t! T - f -
onv}e�or f..,�}J' �Z si <����1 .tt`$,•r� -.r.
,yi �,: a ,..a�o :trailer: }"ej ! F i ;)ti� _ •J, #.t' 3�1�•!t' v.tp .# {.7 FF ; t r ;1
i�illue�t
, ,� � �. }:� ��� ��, :� �'`,>}r�:�3� ,.f�',1:, •'�,,��.1.,r�rR ��r,��,r�fN' v('�t 4't'f �1 �y ���z 'Stg-1:'+�r�`It , ` °:; .'`1 r,� ", =(
d •,� i � �itt�g�;l�as�in� }]jj �.•,x�{'� � , sr � t =� ! ix� � tritiutior> , i i-• ,i
.j, _�.'.) i , ! t; .t=,°o'£'k �K) `?)•:4`"»•-i•!{�.�� f4 rs; ,�" S4 �'1�� t#s tQ }y�,�.p }r r^ .t,zl�-! �I
yy�u F,' +•,�; i'. r .;" yr7;,s� js..: } x `: 1;•,$ j�r:)If{i _ }.1 Va„\ii .s �':d!•! ' '- ..!
• ps .� e�t`p .�i°r• ='
r. }• 4, r ) 7 r r 7; . :ii �, j l•..i
.� # x 1 �..�! • �j. �' 7 '' r� r�•,• .f �� ,'Am
,�',
riQ i.>+►qz.`N� L. } )3 xx! ►•
.._,.. ., � •!?`;4 . i.��,. r-•t'i,� 1 ..t.t l;:;�•r.• ,-tl.. �>�t . ..� ., .�,� �•,:�. A —tt. t •i
! r. I ~I
i
BI wer } c
B Ilding* C �i
y.. a Influent
;' :..� Z0 10 R from DAF
Disch `rgo,
' s
Valve ox'
Dec nter
t ` Flow
,f. Splitter and
Distribution
' Fine Bubble Diffused Aeration System Pipes
Discharge to
Existing Storage
Pond
w

Processing
Plant
Screens
Chlorine
Discharge
Monitoring
Discharge Stj
to
Deep River
Holding Lagoon
Release Pumps
(450 gpm)
Skimmings
0SulfFerric t0 !:�TBIII:
ate Renderer Filter Press
Zmn
DAF Unit
'E
Pump
Sump ❑ Polymer DAF Feed
Pumps
mer
Pump Staump
Land pplicationOverland Flow Land Application System Pumps
(4® M���� 100 hp)l— MESON
Blowers Fidsting Surge Pond
(2 ® 75 hp) Enlarged to 2,400,000
gallons, lined, and
New Aerobic Converted to Cyclic
Sludge Digester Reactor for Nitrification
(7s0,000 and Denitrification
gallons)
Sludge to
Landfill
New Sludge Dewatering
Building w/ LS motor Legend
Belt Filter Press
�I— Existing I Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings/Sludge
> --ti-
SANALT5

45
three 50 horsepower positive displacement blowers
_ and 336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine
bubble diffusers. Pond bottom to be leveled and
pond to be lined.
I -
New Activated Sludge Construct new activated sludge system using
with Sludge Handling Schreiber Simultech process consisting of
140 foot diameter by 15 foot side water depth
aeration basin equipped with four 75 hp positive
displacement blowers and a Schreiber counter
current fine bubble diffused aeration system; 70
foot diameter by 13 foot side water depth
Schreiber clarifier; and PLC based 02 Optimizer
control system. The system will be equipped with a
750,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester and
1.5 meter belt filter press for sludge dewatering.
Dewatered sludge will be disposed of in a state
approved landfill.
r� The system will provide nitrification and denitrif cation and will produce the following effluent
quality for pumping to the overland flow system:
rNO3N
meter Value
mg/1 < 10
full mg/1 < 1
mg/1 < 5
+ NO2N, mg/1 < 5mg/1 < 20
The objective of this alternative will be to level out the discharge quality from the overland flow
system by eliminating the Ioad variations which can occur from the existing DAF pretreatment
system and allowing 7 day usage of the overland flow system. Additionally, the alternative will
address the fly and odor issues.
Figure No. 20 provides a flow schematic for this alternative. Figure No. 21 provides a more
detailed schematic layout of the Schreiber Simultech system.
5-g. A11L No. 7 - New Activated Sludge and
Overland Flow with Effluent
Storage and Controlled Release
FA
This alternative consists of the following improvements:

Skimmings
Ferric
Sulfate
to
Renderer
OOO
Belt Filter Press
Processing
Screens
Plant
DAF Unit
Skimmings
Storage
Tank
Pump
Sump ❑
Polymer
Skimmings
Pumps
Chlorine
DAF Feed
❑
Pumps
Pump Station Polymer
Sump
Discharge
Overland Flow Land Application
Land pplication
Monitoring
Blowers
System Pumps
Discharge
St�ati�
(3
to
Deep River
SO bp)
Storage
odsHng Sargd Poad av New
Pond
Diapred deraHen
Blowers
Srrtem; pond bosom to he
(2 (0 75 hp) HP
le.eled wad Pead to be lined
New Aerobic
Sludge Digester
(750.000 gallons)
New ACHrated Sludge Splem for
Sludge t0
NltrificaHoa wad fienitrlecaflon
(Schrelbar Simullech Process w/
Landfill
I" n diem Aarwtien l in, 70 n
diem clarifier four 7S hp blowers-.
New Sludge Dewatering
ass Screw Pump
Building w/ 1.5 meter
Legend
Belt Filter Press
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
NEW
Chemicals Wastewater SkimmingslSludge
Figure No. 20
Flow Schematic
Alt. No. 6 - New Activated Sludge and
Overland Flow
Golden Po ftry, Sanford N.-
ROWENVIRONMENTAI

1-€
{
•t�
1
. I E
i t
`
.. . 2
l f'
PIN
Aerobic
Digester*.`
{
(750,00o gel)
f
{ S(
•i
f I
i
' Coarse •Bubbe
f
Diffused Aeration:
r
System
.a �i• i tt "°iIt '!' �I Hai ; � Ij j}! `S r r't t { �;�� �s 1i + .f ,; `. :
3 l.{ t. f{c•ri':'i ", '1 ;fi f' •'Zl
,i rt ?- ,! y i
is r,: �: '��it': ..i; I•.-, _ i7....3" i •f
5�ud ` e•.�o'•. Fr+1 i .'•t' •. �. { �1 .r k 1 j
t
drir i. 1 .r i . I
i ! A' 3 is rr � • 1 5 r i :.
,j .
v e
+ F
{
is 7
.% :�`� .Ya'? � ?�;; t ! ;:�• `. i, '• tf*" :�^i• � t�.. 'i � f"': , i ,� - i 1 .� � t I. 1:�
i i ,, s? _r `•�� I �Cbntro I , .:; g, , :, � •, : � 1.!
_, �.,. j } 7 7 I. Parisi! �', , • ,7
LR
t z 1 i
it t, ; �� ►, l; Motor Contiro Center
re s `3 idi�g'�.� > 1 s t
� f 1 ►
i 3 ( •} i7' � , +i .•l Y'{i �• r we i ,1 t •:t �� 1 t 1! t � �� , t
I }j
p ng,.i, ,�r i.���_ yf�; 7.:t`S E <r: j. i'• i.rr # I ',� t (� ' l�f.
�r• .''d tthe s, ri{{ +a.A
t:y;.'4'. t 'r°a..
}¢ } , i{, 7,...•, •„r>r e S ,��i i �} ;i , j 3;F. x., '�
':11 'tY 4 l.` .. sL`. .L r�, ,f • f t t 'r .:i
:3. .,� �. ..i'% .,,.,;I i.. ..t .•.•,L.'4•+, uy ,,;•r. ;i � i kR 3 fr
:E.: i. ...j' •T �{' H;#.Y: '���...,ty., p-. e;.:, c, :.t: .•r• .:Fi�
•rw.����,.�. tt.r •. .VAt,
it i:...'i(]1 r• 1.;ef .i x .r
=t '. p..i .e•.i ..t�• ',s t; .: j. .,•. .� ` t a:i�;• °�. ix. ,1 _:I .•... ..1 ,1 ,.
h ; �.t = 3�: e'f+• t t : + r�; 7, .i f � t , � •,
i+ .., � s �• '' , 1 't 7 1,, ii r rl 1 = � :� i, •S 3 5,:1 r,� 1`{lz :�,+,.
UM
I74Vl J S;i r z! Counter , i�F f ` ' F'3 SiiO 3t#' '� s I at.-� r.•' r •.,�t 1'
a� Current
•i 1 t i L \ 'fF! Diffused
Aeration r €
tFI fluent #rdm
}>Aerate&* t _;
xI.r
'
crew umps
Discharge,, -
to
Existing.
Storage �.
Pond
i •t , ! 4
( •7 t f l� Ii
Surge Pond -1.
Aeration
;
x,
r �,,,
i{
Basin
FE7 (
ft diami kY
' � -f. l .. a ^T y i I , i� & fi ,,
l
•�sft f -:a
� t E" +M I t t •S
f,`
15 ft SWD)140
`• 315 _; � ; :
1,€
; , rty k
; {T f� " � � `:j t
�1
" •t .� `1
if �n li t' <' , ,
�
� f ;!
1 tfiii 1 r •� `
'�ji
1{{ Al
' i ,i
•`F { `� �?� i �; t ' i i ::} •+
� •i f ',_�t�
,
� '
�
, ii:' ;_
sftr � ,
i I
to
Cc S � '� ► :'� {` i� i �� 1. t
: 1 .l�F� s�'�{i r'1!-} �1 7 1 :: i4 :� ) i7�..'rj •wf7j {-..�ijj �i' 1, lk_ •�, , '•i 'i.�-�{ ,{l ,�,!'
' 41i 't tt i}, #� i� �,.4. ,��4 i..j!"!ril:'}� `+tli�r, f; 'i; �{ti i.: t•2j .: f:
}E{ i.l
ti �;:�
t :�:
S..t "�! 7,. � i'�r� + 1 i.•i• "
,1 �� ;�� {7 7� ;'�
�j ai
,le#+;, ,;�. .,►` -�: •, .,;�: to ��
(70 ft diamIf,►�
.. .; �,
.'t �i .1! •i ,:� E t t i'• 1 1
J1.1
I t 1 # icy •�l
,'S F <ff
,}
rf .�
M
J

48
4
1
FM
L
IM
AM
A
A
T
6
Improvement Description
Surge Pond Aeration System Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
bubble diffused aeration system consisting of
three 50 horsepower positive displacement blowers
and 336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine
bubble diffusers. Pond bottom to be leveled and
pond to be lined.
New Activated Sludge Construct new activated sludge system using
with Sludge Handling Schreiber Simultech process consisting of 140 foot
diameter by 15 foot side water depth aeration basin
equipped with four 75 positive displacement
blowers and a Schreiber counter current fine bubble
diffused aeration system; 70 foot diameter by 13
foot side water depth Schreiber clarifier; and PLC
based 02 Optimizer control system. The system
will be equipped with a 750,000 gallon aerobic
sludge digester and 1.5 meter belt filter press for
sludge dewatering. Dewatered sludge will be
disposed of in a state approved landfill.
Effluent Storage Pond Construct new 22,4002000 gallon effluent storage
pond with 450 gpm, variable speed pump station to
allow controlled release of treated wastewater to
levels below 0.63 mgd
This system will provide high level pretreatment upstream of the overland flow system and
storage to limit discharge flows in order to control peak discharge quantities.
Figure No. 22 provides a flow schematic for this alternative.
S-h. Alt. No. 8 - New Activated Sludge with Direct Discharge
This alternative consists of the following improvements:
Improvement Description
Surge Pond Aeration System Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
bubble diffused aeration system consisting of
three 50 horsepower positive displacement blowers
and 336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine
bubble diffusers. Pond bottom to be leveled and
pond to be lined.
6

1. 1 1 1 1 1 l
Skimmings
Ferric
to
Sulfate
Renderer OOO
Belt Filter Press
Processing Screens
Plant
DAF Unit Skimmings
Storage
Tank
Pump
Sump ❑
Polymer Skimmings
Chlorine
DAF Feed
Pumps
❑
Pumps
Pump Station Polymer
Sump
Discharge
Overland Flow Land Application
Land pplication
Monitoring
System Pumps
Discharge Sty j
lowers
It ® so hp) mil
to
Deep River �\
Storage
E dsting Snrge Pond w/ New Pond
Blowers
Diffused Aeration
Holding Lagoon
(2 ® 75 b P)
System; pond bottom to be
leveled and pond to be lined
Release Pumps
New Aerobic
(450 gpm)
Sludge Digester
(750.000 gallons)
New Activated Sludge System for
Overland Flow systemSludge
to
Nitrification and Dunit ifte. ion
7
Landfill
(Schreiber Slmultech Process w/ 190 R
r ,
diem Aeration Basta, 70 fi diem clarifier;
New Sludge Dewalering lour 7s by blowers; RAS Screw Pump)
Building w/ 1.5 meter
Legend
Bell Filler Press
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings/Sludge
> .-------- 311�
Figure No. 22
Flow Schematic
Alt. No. 7 - New Activated Sludge & Overland
Flow w/ Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry, Sanford, N.C.
_
R OWENVIRONMENTAI

A�!
5
A
A
A
A
A
A
U
4
A
FOI,
Am
AM
50
New Activated Sludge
Construct new activated sludge system using
with Effluent Filtration and
Schreiber Simultech process consisting of 140 foot
Sludge Handling
diameter by 15 foot side water depth aeration basin
System
equipped with four 75 hp positive displacement
blowers and a Schreiber counter current fine .bubble
diffused aeration system; 70 foot diameter by
13 foot side water depth Schreiber clarifier; and
PLC based 02 Optimizer control system.
Effluent will be filtered using four 60 square feet
Parkson Dynasand filters and chlorinated and
dechlorinated in a new 42,000 gallon basin.
Chlorine feed equipment will be designed to allow
the use of breakpoint chlorination, if needed to
meet the very stringent NH3N limit. The system
will be equipped with a 750,000 gallon aerobic
sludge digester and 1.5 meter belt filter press for
sludge dewatering. Dewatered sludge will be
disposed of in a state approved landfill
The system will provide advanced wastewater treatment, including nitrification and
denitrification, and will produce the following effluent quality for direct discharge:
Parameter Value
BOD, mgA < 4
NH3N, mgA < 0.4
TKN, mgA < 5
NO3N + NO2N, mgA < 5
TSS, mgA < 10
Figure No. 23 provides a flow schematic for this alternative. Figure No. 24 provides a more
detailed schematic layout of the Schreiber Simultech system.
S-i. Alt. No. 9 - Discharge to City of Sanford, N.C.
Wastewater Treatment Systems
This alternative consists of the following improvements:
Improvement Description
Surge Pond Aeration System Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
bubble diffused aeration system consisting of three
50 horsepower positive displacement blowers and
336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine bubble
diffusers. Pond bottom to be leveled and pond to
be lined.

1 . . I 1 1- 1— 1— r
Processing
Plant
Screens
Skimmings
to
Renderer
DAF Unit
PIMP ❑ Pump Station and
Sump Pumps Converted to
DAF Feed Feed New System
Pumps Polymer (1,400 gpm)
Overland Flow Land Application _
Discharge System Eliminated.
Monitoring aro.,v..
Discharge to ®so na)
to
Deep River �� 502 Feed Blowers Existing Surge Pond w/ Now
Diffused Aeration
Synlem (2 @ 75 hp)
® (250 N/day) leveled and pond pondd t o bottom to he
tbe lined)
New norobic
> Sludge Digester
New Chlorination/ (750,000 gallons)
Dechlorination
Chlorine Basin (42,000 Sludge to
Feed System gallons) Landfill
(250 M/day) New Sludge Dewatering --
Belt Filter Press
Skimmings
Storage
Tank
Skimmings
Pumps ❑
Polymer
Building w/ I.5 meter Bell Filter Press Legend
Now Activated Sledge /
System for Nitrification and
Denitrificat)on (Schreiber
Simultech Process w/ 140 it
diam Aeration Basin, 70 it
diam clarifier; four 75 hp
blowers; RAS Screw Pump;
four 60 sg N Parkson
Dyeasand Filters)
Existing Storage
Pond Converted
to Off -Spec
Storage Basin
Existing Abandoned Now/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings/Sludge
' —4

Belt` Filter
t
Aerobic F
Press Buis
Digester
t
(750,000 gal).'
.
,
�i
. Coarse' Bubble
Diffused Aeration'
System
Parkson
'
�!'1
RAS i
Screw'
Dynasand Filters
Chlorination/ (60
Dechlorination
s ft each)
'
�
)f
;T
K�rr! Sludge tot `SS
(140
1.�. }fit � � t r �
Landfill i ' 1r s.
'Pan�eli
Yr < t
.: ,.2
:Control f rt
it
t
Motor Control: Center
In
;
s,.
Blower' ` ,
t
p
Building
t
.,
-A
Lime .
!
t
Counter
Silo , r
t:
Current
"
Diffused
t
t
Aeration
'
a
Influent from
Aerated
Surge Pond,
Influent
�uMps.
Aeration
Boz
i
Basin
" d'
iam,
Basin ( i -,% ft -Qwn%
Discharge to
Deep River

53
Pump Station and Pipeline Modify existing land application system pump
station and construct approximate 1.5 mile
pipeline to City of Sanford Wastewater Treatment
System.
This alternative will eliminate the direct discharge from Golden Poultry Company, Inc., but will
shift the load to a municipal plant which generally performs very well, but is subject to
infiltration/inflow impacts on effluent quality. Additionally, the long term reliability of this
�+ alternative is very uncertain due to the fact that the City of Sanford has expressed a strong desire
to reserve existing capacity for future growth.
A
A
I
A
4
rl
4
4
Figure No. 25 provides a flow schematic for this alternative.
54- Alt. NO. 10 - cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate
Land Application System
This alternative would consist of the following improvements:
Improvement
Description
Cyclic Reactor Convert existing surge pond to 2,400,000 gallon
with Sludge Handling cyclic reactor equipped with fine bubble diffused
aeration system consisting of four 100 horsepower
positive displacement blowers and 1.208 three foot
long by 2 inch diameter fine bubble diffusers;
effluent decant system with 7,500 gpm capacity;
and PLC based automated system to control
oxic, anoxic, settling, decanting, and sludge
wasting cycles. System will be equipped with a
750,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester and
1.5 meter belt filter press for sludge dewatering.
Dewatered sludge will be disposed of in a state
approved landfill.
Land Application System Modify existing storage pond to provide
Storage 3020001000 gallon, or 30 day, storage for slow
rate land application system
Slow Rate Land Convert existing 160 acre overland flow land
Application System application system to slow rate land application
system and add 400 acres of new land for
slow rate land application.
The cyclic reactor system will provide nitrification and denitrification and will produce the
following effluent quality for pumping to the slow rate land application system:
i
PM

1.... 1,. 1.1 1. 1. - V . F- F F._. 1._. 1. - h- F- I- 1 1- 1 I , V.
Skimmings
to
Renderer
Belt Filter Press
Processing
Screens
Plant
ENNEEMENNO
ENENENNNEN1Storage
DAF Unit
Skimmings
OOOEIlINNEON
ommanommom
OPUMP
Tank
Modify Pump Station Skimmings
❑ Polymer
ruminate
to Pump to City of
Pumps
Chlorination
DAF Feed
Sanford WWTP
❑
System
Pumps
(1,400
Polymer
Eliminate Discharge
- -,
_._:i--
ir
____,__
_
Eliminate
Direct
Monitoring Station.
-
-%
_
Discharge
____- _._.
-d._.: _ -.:.. _.
_.i�r::_:.-:
Blowers
(3 ® 50 hp)
to
Eliminate Overland
ExistiSurge Pond w/ New
Deep River
Flow Land Application
Diffused Aeration
Eliminate
Approx
1.5 mile,
System; pond bottom to be
Storage
12 inch DIP
leveled and pond to be lined
Pond
City of Sanford
Discharge to
Deep River
Legend
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings`
>
Ur
L

A
55
Parameter Value
BOD, mg/l
< 30
NH3N, mg/1
< 2
TKN, mg/I
< 10
�+ NO3N f NO2N, mg/1
< 5
TSS, mg/1
< 50
At these treatment levels, the system will be hydraulically limited. The objective of the system
will be to completely eliminate the Golden Poultry Company, Inc. discharge to Deep River,
either directly or indirectly thru the City of Sanford's system.
Figure No. 26 provides a flow diagram for this alternative.
S.k. Alt No. 11 - New Activated Sludge
System witla Low Flow Slow Rate
Land Application System
A This alternative would consist of the following improvements:
M�
Ll
Improvement
Surge Pond Aeration System
New Activated Sludge
with Effluent Filtration
and Sludge Handling
System
Description
Replace existing high speed aerators with fine
bubble diffused aeration system consisting of
three 50 horsepower positive displacement blowers
and 336 three foot long by 2 inch diameter fine
bubble diffusers.
Construct new activated sludge system using
Schreiber Simultech process consisting of 140 foot
diameter by 15 foot side water depth aeration basin
equipped with four 75 hp positive displacement
blowers and a Schreiber counter current fine bubble
diffused aeration system; 70 foot diameter by
13 foot side water depth Schreiber clarifier; and
PLC based 02 Optimizer control system. Effluent
will be filtered using four 60 square feet Parkson
Dynasand filters and chlorinated and dechlorinated
in a new 42,000 gallon basin. The system will be
equipped with a 750,000 gallon aerobic sludge
digester and 1.5 meter belt filter press for sludge
dewatering. Dewatered sludge will be disposed of
in a state approved landfill

Processing I Screens
Plant
Pump
Sump
Eliminate
Chlorination
Skimmings
to
Renderer
DAF Unit
❑ Polymer
DAF Feed r
Pumps
Belt Filter Press
Skimmings
Storage
Tank
Skimmings
Pumps ❑
Polymer
Pump Station
Convert Overland Flow Land
Sump
Application to Slow Rate
Land .pplicati-n
System Pumps
Eliminate
Blowers
Direct
Direct
Discharge
(4
��
to
100 hp).....
Deep River
Eliminate
Discharge
Blowers
(2 ® T5 hp�
Existing Surge Pond
Enlarged
to 2,400,000
Monitoring
Station
New Aerobic
gallons, lined, and
Sludge Digester
Converted to Cyclic
(7So,000
Reactor for NitriBeation
gallon)
and Denitrification
Sludge to
Landfill
New Sludge Dewatering
Building w/ 1.5 meter Legend
Belt Filter Press
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
I _
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings/Sludge
> --------- 4

57
Improvement p Description
Low Flow Land Convert existing overland flow system to slow
Application System rate land application system to be utilized during
low stream flow periods
This system will provide advanced wastewater treatment, including nitrification and
denitrification, and will produce the following effluent quality for direct discharge to Deep
River:
Parameter Value
M1
BOD, mg/1 < 4
NH3N1) mg/1 < 0.4
TKN, mg/1 < 5
NO3N + NO2N, mg/1 < 5
TSS, mg/1 < 10
The objective of the alternative will be to provide the highest quality effluent possible for direct
discharge to Deep River and to provide for partial land application of wastewater during low •
stream flow periods so as to minimize the loadings on the river.
Figure No. 27 provides a flow schematic for this alternative.
1 5.1. Su
Table No. 7 summarizes the key components of each alternative being evaluated.
P,
a
l
P"

I.... 1._1 I.. I . I. 1--- 1,.11.,1,. 1.,- 1,.- 1,_. I_ I,... U. 1.. I._ 1.1 1." , L..I
Processing
Plant
Discharge
to
Deep River
Screens
Skimmings
Ferric to
Sulfate Renderer
DAF Unit
mp
Sump Pump Stadoa and
Pumps Couverfod to
DAF Feed Feed Now System
Pumps Polymer (1,400 gpm)
Convert Overland Flow Land Application
System to Slow Rate System for Low
Rainfall/Stream Flow Periods
Discharge
Monitoring F(3
wer
St�o%
hp)
UUULM—
Existing Surge Pond w/ New
0
Chlorine
Feed System
(250 N/day)
s02 reed
(2 ® 75 hp) "T"
snre.e
IF, 1 (290 x/dar)
New Aar hic
Sludge Digester
New Chlorination/
(750,000 gallons)
:r
Dechiorination
Basin (42.000
gallons)
Sludge to
Landfill
New Sludge Dewatering
Building w/ 1-5 meter Belt Filter Press
New Activated Sludge
System for Nitrification and
Denitrification (Schreiber o
Simullecb Process w/ 140 ft
diam Aeration Basin; 70 ft
diam Clarifier; four 75 hp
Blowers; RAS Screw Pump:
tour 60 ag ft Parkson
Dynaeand Filters)
Diffused Aeration
System; pond bottom to be
leveled and pond to be lined
Belt Filter Press
Storage
Tank
Pumps C�
Polymer
Existing Storage
Pond Converted
to Off -Spec
Storage Basin
Legend
Existing Abandoned New/Modified
Chemicals Wastewater Skimmings/Sludge
I

L _-Li - L, - -L., LI
IL
AN. No. 1
Overland
Flow wy
Effluent
Storage &
Controlled
Surge Pond
!Three 50 hp blowers; 336 diffusers;
Aeration System
jPond bottom leveled and pond lined
Effluent Storage Pond
i
122,400,000 gallon pond with 450 gpm
variable speed pump station
Storage Pond
'Six 10 hp brush aerators; Pond bottom
Aeration System
;leveled
Surge Pond Converted
2.400,000 gallon basin with
10 Cyclic Reactor
,four 100 hp blowers and
1.208 diffusers. 7.500 gpm effluent I
decanter. PLC control system
Aerobic Sludge
750.000 gallon basin with two 75 hp
Digester
blowers and 84 coarse bubble
diffusers
Bell Filter Press
1 5 meter with polymer feed system
New Activated
.Schreiber Simultech Process
Sludge System
:consisting of 140It diameter aeration
,basin; four 75 hp blowers, counter
current aeration system. 70 ft
diameter clarifier, Screw pumps for
'return activated sludge
Lime Feed System
80.000lb time sdo with 4 ton per day
feed system
Effluent Filters
Four 60 sq ft each Parkson Dynasand
Filters
Table No. 7
Component Summary
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Alt. No. 2
Alt. No. 3
AN. No. 4
Influent
Equalization
Influent
and
Cyclic
Equalization
Overland
Reactor
and
Flow&
and
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Flow
Release
Flow
Alt. No. 5
Aft. No. 6
Cyclic
Reactor
and
New Act.
Overland
Sludge
Flow &
and
Controlled
Overland
Release
Flow
-._.__
AIL No. 7
AIL No. 6
Alt. No. 6
AIL No. 10
Alt. No.o.11 11
New Act.
i
Cyclic
New Act.
Sludge
New
Discharge
Reactor
Sludge
and
Activated
to City
and
and Low
Overland
Sludge
of Sanford
Slow
Flow Slow
Flow&
with
Wastewater
Rate
Rate
Controlled
Direct
Treatment i
Land
Land
Release
Discharge
Aecfern
en1111e....
n....u...e....

lm l- 1-1 1_1 ]V ' 1-1 ]my
Table No. 7 (continued)
Component Summary
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Att. No.1
Alt. No, 2
Alt. No. 5
Att. No.4
Att. No. &
An, No. 8
Alt. No. 7
Att. No. 8
Alt. —No
Att. No. 10
Alt. No. 11
Influent
Cyclic
New Act.
Cyclic
New Act.
Overland
Equalization
Reactor
Sludge
New
Discharge
Reactor
Sludge
Flow wl
Influent
and
Cyclic
and
New Act.
and
Activated
to City
and
and Low
Effluent
Equalization
Overland
Reactor
Overland
Sludge
Overland
Sludge
of Sanford
Slow
Flow Slow
Storage&
and
Flow&
and
Flow&
and
Flow&
with
Wastewater
Rate
Rate
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Direct
Treatment
Land
Land
Component
Description
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Discharge
System
Application
Application
Chlorination System
42,000 gallon contact basin with
250 to per day gas chlorine
feed system
'Dechlorination
250 lb per day sulfur diexide feed
system
Modify Existing
Convert to 1,400 gpm capacity
Land Application System
Pump Station
Force Main to City of
1.5 mile force main (detailed study
Sanford Wastewater
may indicate that gravity flow can be
.Treatment Plant
utilized)
Convert Existing
Convert 160 acres
Overland Flow to
Slow Rate Land App.
Enlarge Existing Storage
30,000,000 gallon storage pond
Pond to Provide Wet
Weather Storage
New Slow Rate Lend
400 acres with center pivot
Application System
application
Qx
O

F,
COST
ANAIYSl*S
ROWENVIRONMENTAI

M
61
SECTION 6
r* DETAE.ED COST ANALYSIS
INK
6-a. Existing System Costs
PM
Table No. 8 summarizes the existing costs of wastewater treatment at Golden Poultry Company,
Inc. The combined capital costs of the existing pretreatment system and overland flow system
were approximately $2,884,000. The annual cost of depreciation, interest, and operation and
maintenance is approximately $1,006,000, resulting in a unit cost of treatment of approximately
$4.59 per 1,000 gallons.
6.b. Alternative System Costs
as
6.b.1. Capital Costs
Tables No. 9 thru 19 provide the estimated capital costs for the eleven alternatives being
evaluated. The capitals costs listed from the least cost system to the highest cost system are
summarized as follows:
Alternative No. Description Capital Costs, $
F"
2 Influent Equalization and Overland Flow $431,831
9 Discharge to City of Sanford System $778,420
1 Overland Flow and Effluent Storage $1,049,089
3 Influent Equalization, Overland Flow, $1,208,950
and Effluent Storage
4 Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow $1,3156,048
5 Cyclic Reactor, Overland Flow, and $2,133,166
Effluent Storage
a� 6 New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow $2,413,345
8 New Activated Sludge w/ Direct Discharge $2,845,345
11 New Activated Sludge w/ Low Flow Slow $2,865,345
Rate Land Application
7 New Activated Sludge, Overland Flow, $3,190,464
and Controlled Release
10 Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land $4,085,079
Application
The least cost alternative is Alternative No. 2 - Influent Equalization and Overland Flow. The
highest cost alternative is Alternative No. 10 - Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land Application.

62
14
14
Table No. 8
Odsting Costs
Wastewater Tr--aent System
Golden Poultry Company, Inc-, Sanford, N.C.
Item
Total, $/ ear
Pretreatment System Costs
Operation and Maintenance
$2501559
Interest
$14,872
Depreciation
$1339168
Total
$398,599
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
$111,348
Repairs and Maintenance
$171043
Utilities
$161950
Supplies
$32,147
Transportation and Rentals
$19,525
Laboratory
$59,109
Miscellaneous
$411933 !
Interest Charges
$800400
Depreciation
$2281807
Total
$607,262
Total System Costs, $/year
$19005,861

W
6.b.2. ®]perameon and Maintenance Cosfs
Tables No. 20 thru 30 provide the estimated operation and maintenance costs for the eleven
alternatives being evaluated.
The operation and maintenance costs listed from the least cost
system to the highest cost system are summarized as follows:
Alternative No.
Description
O&M Costs, Wyear
I
Overland Flow and Effluent Storage
$653,334
2
Influent Equalization and Overland Flow
$688,446
3
Influent Equalization, Overland Flow,
$694,430
and Effluent Storage
8
New Activated Sludge w/ Direct Discharge
$737,875
6
New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow
$809,395
7
New Activated Sludge, Overland Flow,
$821,099
and Controlled Release
4
Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow
$838,655
5
Cyclic Reactor, Overland Flow, and
$850,359
Effluent Storage
1 I
New Activated Sludge w/ Low Flow Slow
$869,902
Rate Land Application
10
Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land
$899,162
Application
9
Discharge to City of Sanford System
$1,268,340
r�
On
63
The least cost alternative is Alternative No. 1 - Overland Flow and Effluent Storage. The highest
cost alternative is Alternative No. 9 - Discharge to the City of Sanford wastewater system. It is
noted that the City of Sanford has different sets of sewer rates for users inside the City limits and
outside the City limits. For the purposes of this evaluation the inside the City rates were used. If
the City of Sanford imposed the outside the city limits charges, the costs for discharge to the
City's sewer system would increase to $1,68411179.
6.b.3. Annual Costs
Tables No. 31 provides the estimated annual costs for the eleven alternatives being evaluated.
The annual costs listed from the least cost system to the highest cost system are summarized as
follows:

64
Table No. 9
Estimated Capital Costs
Mt. No. i - Overland flow w/
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
{ Estim-ated
Capital
Component
Description
Costs, $
Surge Pond Aeration System
Three 50 hp blowers
i
; $54,000
336 diffusers and piping
$67,200
Earth work
$36,296
Pond liner
! $49,2801
Building
► $10,800'
Effluent Storage Pond
22,400,000 gallon earthen pond
' $554,195 !
450 gpm pump station
$67,500'
Subtotal
$839,27*1
Engineering, Administration, Legal
I
! $125,891 1
Contingencies
! $83,927
(Total 1 ! $1.049.089

65
Table No. 10
Estimated Capital Costs
Alt. No. 2 - Influent Equalization and Overland flow
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Surge Pond Aeration System
A
A
Storage Pond Aeration System
4
Subtotal
r3a
Engineering, Administration, Legal
Contingencies
Total
0114
Description
Three 50 hp blowers
336 diffusers and piping
Earth work
Pond liner
Building
Six 10 hp brush aeratiors
Earth work
Estimated
Capita!
Costs, $
$54,000
$67,200 f'
$36,2961
$49,2801
$10,800
I
$75,000 I
$52, 889
$345,465
$51, 8201
$34,5471
$431.831
o6

66
Table No. 11
Estimated Capital Costs
Mt. No. 3 - Influent Equalization and Overland Flow w/
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Estimated
Capital
Component
Description
Costs, $
Surge Pond Aeration System
Three 50 hp blowers
$54,000'
f
336 diffusers and pip
ing P�P 9
$67,200
I
Earth work
$36,296
Pond liner
1
$49,280
Building
$10,800
Effluent Storage Pond
22,400,000 gallon earthen pond
I
$554,195
450 gpm pump station
$67,500 E
1
Storage Pond Aeration System
Six 10 hp brush aeratiors
$75,000 j
Earth work
$52,889 !
Subtotal
$967,160 `
Engineering, Administration, Legal
$145,074 !
Contingencies
$96,716
Total
$1,208,950
I
1
t
l�

Table No. 12
Estimated Capital Costs
Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland now
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Component
Surge Pond Converted to Cyclic Reactor
Aerobic Digester
Belt Filter Press
Lime Feed System
Subtotal
Engineering, Administration, Legal
Contingencies
Total
m
Earth work
Pond liner
Four 100 hp blowers
1,208 diffusers and piping
7,500 gpm decanter
Motor control center and control panel
Building
750,000 gallon concrete basin
Two 75 hp blowers
84 coarse bubble diffusers
Building
1.5 meter belt filter press
Polymer feed system
Pumps and controls
Conveyors
Building
80,000 Ib lime silo
4 ton per day feed system
Estimated
Capital
Costs, $
$59, 378
$53, 760
$120,000
$241,600
$30, 000
$50, 000
$27,000
$112,500
$36,000
$16,8001
$10,8001
I
$175,000 !
$10,000
$15,000
$10,0001
$27,000
$80,0001
$10,000 1
i
$1,084,838 1
$162,726
$108.484 i
1
$1,356,048
67

r�
rat
A
A
r•�
r
Table No. 13
Estimated Capital Costs
Alt- No- 5 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland glow w/
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Estimated
Capital
Component
Description
Costs, $
Effluent Storage Pond
I
22,400,000 gallon earthen pond
$554 195I
450 gpm pump station
$67,500
Surge Pond Converted to Cyclic Reactor
Earth work
$59,378
Pond liner
$53,760
Four 100 hp blowers
$120,000
1,208 diffusers and piping
$241,600
7,500 gpm decanter
$30,000
Motor control center and control panel
$50,000
Building
$27, 000
Aerobic Digester
750,000 gallon concrete basin
$112,500
Two 75 hp blowers
$36,000
84 coarse bubble diffusers
$16,800
Building
$10,800
Belt Filter Press
1.5 meter belt filter press
$175,000
Polymer feed system
$10,000
Pumps and controls
$15,000
Conveyors
$10,000
Building
$27,000
Lime Feed System
80,000 lb lime silo
$80,000
4 ton per day feed system
$10,000
Subtotal
1
$1,706, 533 l
1
Engineering, Administration, Legal
$255,980
Contingencies
$170,653
i
Total
$2,133,166 1
68

1
^I
1
1
1
1
a
1
1
Table No. 14
Estimated Capital Costs
Alt. No. 6 - New Activated Sludge and Overland flow
Golden Poultry Company. inc., Sanford, N.C.
Surge Pond Aeration System
Aerobic Digester
Belt Filter Press
New Activated Sludge System
Lime Feed System
Subtotal
Engineering, Administration, Legal
Contingencies
Total
I
I Description '
Estimated
Capital
Costs, $
i
Three 50 hp blowers (
$54,000
336 diffusers and piping i
$67,200
Earth work
I
$36,296
Pond liner
$49,280
Building
$10,800
750,000 gallon concrete basin
$112,500
Two 75 hp blowers
$36,000'
84 coarse bubble diffusers
$16,800
Building
$10,800
1.5 meter belt filter press f
$175,000
Polymer feed system i
$10.000
Pumps and controls
$15,000
Conveyors
$10,000
Building
$27,000 I
i
140 ft diameter aeration basin
$370,000
70 ft diameter clarifier basin
$115,000
Schreiber Simultech Equipment
$650,000
Screw um structure
pump
75 0 6 0
$ , 0
80,000 lb lime silo
$80,000
4 ton per day feed system
$10,000
`
i
$1,930,676
$289,601
f$193,068
i
E
$2,413,345
69

70
Table No. 15
-Alt-
Estimated Capital Costs
Volk
No. 7 - New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow w/
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Estimated }
,�-
Capital
Component Description
Costs, $
Surge Pond Aeration System Three 50 hp blowers
$54,000 ;
1
336 diffusers and piping
P P 9 �
$67,200
Earth work i
$36,296
Pond liner
$49,2801
Building
$10,800
Effluent Storage Pond 22,400,000 gallon earthen pond
I
$554,195
_
450 gpm pump station
$67,500
Aerobic Digester 750,000 gallon concrete basin
$112,500
Two 75 hp blowers
$36, 000
_ 84 coarse bubble diffusers
$16,80011
Building
$10,800
Belt Filter Press 1.5 meter belt filter press
$175,000 i
Polymer feed system I
$10,000
Pumps and controls
$15,000
Conveyors
$10,000 `
Building I
$27,000
New Activated Sludge System 140 ft diameter aeration basin !
$370,000 i
70 ft diameter clarifier basin I
$115,000 1
-
Schreiber Simultech Equipment ;
$650,000
Screw pump structure
I
$75,000
-
Lime Feed System 80,000 lb lime silo
i
$80,000
4 ton per day feed system
$10,000 i
-
Subtotal '
I
$2,552,371
Engineering, Administration, Legal ;
$382,856 f
-
Contingencies i
$255,237
Total !
i
$3,190,464 j

r
n•d
Table No. 16
Estimated Capital Costs
Alt- No. 8 - New Activated Sludge with Direct Discharge
Golden Poultry Company, lnc., Sanford, N.C.
Estimated
Capital
-
Component
Description
Costs, $
Surge Pond Aeration System
!Three 50 hp blowers
1 $54,000
336 diffusers and piping
+ $67,200 If
Earth work
36 j 9fi
$ ,2 1
Pond liner
$49,2801
Building
(
$10,800
Aerobic Digester
750,000 gallon concrete basin
$112,500
Two 75 hp blowers
$36,000
84 coarse bubble diffusers
$16,800
Building
$10,8001
Belt Filter Press
1.5 meter belt filter press
$175,000 1
Polymer feed system
$10,000 i
Pumps and controls
$15,000 1
Conveyors
$10,000
Building
$27,000;
New Activated Sludge System
140 ft diameter aeration basin
$370,000
70 ft diameter clarifier basin
$115,000
Schreiber Simultech Equipment
$650,000 1
Screw pump structure
$75,000 1
Lime Feed System
80,000 lb lime silo
$80 0001
4 ton per day feed system
$10,000
Effluent Filters
Four 60 ft diameter filters !
$200,000 i
Pumps and controls
$30, 000
Building
$18,000
-
Chlorination System
142,000 concrete basin
$21,000
250 lb per day feed system
$15,000
Building
$10, 800 I
_
Dechlorination System
250 lb per day sulfur dioxide feed
$15,000 1
system
_
Building
$10,800
Modification of Existing Pump Station Convert to 1,400 gpm i
$25,000 i
i
_
Subtotal
$2,276,2761
Engineering, Administration, Legal
I
I
I
$341,441
_
Contingencies
$227,628
Total
{
'
$2,845,345
71

S
Rk
A
E1
Table No. 17
Estimated Capital Costs
Alt. No. 9 - Discharge to City of Sanford System
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Estimated
Component
Capital
Description Costs$ $
Surge Pond Aeration System
Three 50 hp blowers
$54,000
i
336 diffusers and piping
$67,20011
Earth work
$36,296
Pond liner
$49,280
Building
$10,800 !
Modification of Existing Pump Station
Convert to 1,400 gpm
f
$25,000
Force Main
1.5 mile 12 inch ductile iron pipeline
$380,160
Subtotal
i
$622,73b
Engineering, Administration, Legal
$93,410
Contingencies
$62,274
Total
$778,420
72

V"
O'
Table No. IS
Esdmza ed Capital Costs
Alt. No. 10 - Cyclic Reactor and Slow Bate Land Application
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Surge Pond Converted to Cyclic Reactor
AM
AM
AR
Aerobic Digester
Am
Fin Belt Filter Press
l�
foR
PM
1-4
1-4
I.,
Lime Feed System
Modification of Existing Pump Station
Modifications to Existing Overland Flow System
Land Application System Storage Lagoon
New Slow Rate Land Application System
Subtotal
I
Engineering, Administration, Legal !I
,,ontingencies 1
total
Estimated
Capital
Description
Costs, $
Earth work
$59,378
pond liner
$53,760
=our 100 hp blowers
$120,000
1,208 diffusers and piping
$241,600
i,500 gpm decanter
$30,000
Vlotor control center and control panel
$50,000
3uilding
$27,0001
r50, 000 gallon concrete basin
$112, 500 1
Fwo 75 hp blowers
$36,0001
W coarse bubble diffusers
$16,800
3uilding
$10,800 I
1.5 meter belt filter press
$175,000
)olymer feed system
$10,000 !
Jumps and controls
$15,000 j
',onveyors
$10,0001
Wilding
$27,000
10,000 lb lime silo
$80,000
i ton per day feed system
$10,000
,onvert to 1,400 gpm
$25,000
,onvert 160 acres
$16,000 `
,0,000,000 gallon storage lagoon !
I
$742,2251
00 acres with center pivot units
$1,400,000;
1
i
$3,268,0631
f
$490,2091
$326,806 I
$4,085,079
--- - - - - ---
73

M
T
Table No. 19
Estimated Capital Costs
Alt. No. 11 - New Activated Sludge and Low Flow
Slow Bate Land Application
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
r
Description
Surge Pond Aeration System
!Three 50 hp blowers
1 336 diffusers and piping
Earth work
Pond liner
Building
Aerobic Digester
750,000 gallon concrete basin
Two 75 hp blowers
84 coarse bubble diffusers
Building
Belt Filter Press
1.5 meter belt filter press
Polymer feed system
Pumps and controls
Conveyors
Building
New Activated Sludge System
140 ft diameter aeration basin
70 ft diameter clarifier basin
Schreiber Simultech Equipment
Screw pump structure
Lime Feed System
80,000 lb lime silo
4 ton per day feed system
Effluent Filters
Four 60 ft diameter filters
Pumps and controls
Building
Chlorination System
42,000 concrete basin
f250 lb per day feed system
Building
Oechlorination System
l250
lb per day sulfur dioxide feed
system
Building
Modification of Existing Pump Station
;Convert to 1,400 gpm
Modifications to Existing Overland Flow System Convert 160 acres
noubtotal
ngineering, Administration, Legal
;ontingencies
total
Estimated
Capital
$54,000
$67,200
$36, 296 l
$49, 280
$10,800
$112,500
$36,000
$16,800
$10,8001
$175, 000 !
$10,000 !
$15,000 i
$10,0001
$27,000
$370, 000 1
$115, 000 1
$650,000
$75,000
$80,000
$10, 000
$200, 000
$30, 000
$18,000 !
$21,000
$15,000
$10,800 j
$15,000!
$10,800 i
$25, 0001
$16,000
$2,292,276
$3431841 1
$229,228 !
$2,865,3451
74

Table No. 20
Projected Operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 1 - Overland flow w/ Effluent Storage
and Controlled Release
s Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
F
1W
M(
FIJ
A
A
A
A
Item
ExmstUMg Costs To Coataadae
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Sewer Use Charge
Sewer Surcharge
Total New O&M Costs, $/year
rotad Costs, $/year
Total
$250,559
$111,348
$17,043
$161950
$32,147
$19,525
$59,109
$411933
$29810551
$5489614 {
1
$26, 000
$16,000 I
$53,200
$0E
$0
$0
$0
$9,520
$0
$0'
$104,720
$653,334
i
75

76
Table No. 21
Projected operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 2 - Influent Equalization and overland Flow
Wastewater Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
Ddsting Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Sewer Use Charge
Sewer Surcharge
Total
Total Costs, $/year
Total, $/year
$2501559
$111,348
$171043
$16,950
$32,147
$19,525
$59,1091
$41933
$298:055
$548,614 11
$261000
$16,000
$851120
$0'
$0
$0,
$0
$12,712
$pi
$0
$139,832 E
$688,446

Am
A,
s
6
Table No. 22
Protected operation and Ma$ntenance Costs
Alt No. 3 - Influent Equalization and Overland rlow
w/ Anent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
g Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Sewer Use Charge
Sewer Surcharge
Total
TOW Costs, $/year
Total, $lvear
$250, 559
$1111348
$17043
$16:950
$32,147
$19,525'
$59,109
41 933
$29890551
$548,614
$2018001
$16,000 -
$95,760
$0
$01
$0
$pi
$13,256 :
$0,
$0'
$145,81611
$694,430
77

78
Table No. 23
- Pro$ected Operation and Maintenance Costs
lilt No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and overland glow
Wastewater Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
Dds-ting Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/Year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Use Charge
Sewer Surcharge
Total
Total Costs, $/Year
Total
r
$250, 559
$1111348
$17, 043
$16, 950
$321147
$190525
$59,109
$419933
$2981055
$548,614
$26, 000
$321000
$146,300
$0
$251550
$01
$0
$2693671
$33,823 i
i
$0!
$0
$290,041 '
$838,655
I, 1

rw1
Table No. 23
Projected Operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland ]now
Wastewater `i'reatment System
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
Ddsting Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Mlscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/Year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
MI
Tota
$250, 559
$111,348
$17,043
$16, 950
$32,147
$195525
$59,109
$419933
$2981055
$548,614
$261000
$321000 I
$146,300
$0
$25, 550
$0
$01
scellaneous $26,367 I
Sludge Disposal ! $33,823
i
Sewer Use Charge $0
Sewer Surcharge $0
Total
� $290,041
• i
total Costs, $/Year $838,6551
1 (
78

79
P R
RA -
A
A
A
PA
Table No. 24
Prof ected Operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. S - Cyclic Reactor and Overland flow w/
Fsffluent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Samford, N.C.
Item j Total, $/year I
ist1 . Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Use Charge
Sewer Surcharge
Total
rota/ Costs, $/year
$250,559
$111,348
$179043
$16,950
$32,147
$19,525
$59,109
$411933
$298,055
$5489614
$261000
$32,000
$156,940
$0
$251550
$0;
$o!
$27,431
i
i $33,823
i $o,
$0
$301,745
$85093591

fm
Table No. 25
Projected Operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 6 - New Activated Sludge and Overland now
Wastewater Treatment System
Golden Poultry Company, Enc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
Estang Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Mlscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Use Charge
Sewer Surcharge
Total
total Costs, $/year
Total
$250,559
$111,348
$17,043I
$16,950
$32,147
$19,525
$59,109 ,
$411933 j
$298,055
i
$548l61411
$269000
$32, 000
$119,700
$0
$25,550
$0
$0
$231707 f
$33, 823 j
$01
$0
$2601781 1
$809,1395
80

81
M
MA
El
MA
u�
04
FIM
A
Table No. 26
Projected operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 7 - New Activated Sludge and overland glow
w/ Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
Existing Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Use Charge
Sewer Surcharge
Total
Total Costs, $/year
$2500559
$111,348
$17,043
$16950
$32:147
$19,525
$591109
$41,933 `E
$29810551
$548,614 i
$26,000
$32,000 i
$130,340 1
$o
$25,550
$pi
$Oi
$241771 1
$33, 823
$0'
$0'
$2721485
$821,099

82
'
A
A
A
06
A
X,
4
FM
Table No. 27
Projected operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 8 - New Activated Sludge with Direct Discharge
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
Total, $/ ear
E-Astaog Costs To Continue
I
Total Pretreatment System Costs
1
1
$250,559 i
j
-Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
$0 i
Repairs and Maintenance
$17,043 !
Utilities
$0 f
Supplies
$0
Transportation and Rentals
$0
Laboratory
$0'
i
Miscellaneous
$0
Total
$171043
Total Existing Costs to Continue
$2679602
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
' Salaries and Benefits
$1041000
Repairs and Maintenance
32 0 ' $ , oo,
Utilities
$119,700
Supplies
$321000
Chemicals
$45,998
Transportation and Rentals
so!
Laboratory
$603000
Miscellaneous
$429752'
Sludge Disposal
$33,823
Sewer Use Charge
$0!
Sewer Surcharge
$0
Total
$470,273 !
Total Costs, $/year '
$737,875

Table No. 28
Protected Operation and Maintenance Costs
Apt No. 9 - Discharge to City of Sanford System
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item Total, $I ear
w
g Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs $2501559 I
1
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance $17,043
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous l
Total $1710431
►
Total Existing Costs to Continue $267 602
I
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
i ►
Salaries and Benefits $20,800
Repairs and Maintenance $16,000 ,
Utilities I $791800
Supplies $5,830
Chemicals $0
Transportation and Rentals $0
Laboratory $12,000
Miscellaneous $131443
Sludge Disposal $0
Sewer Use Charge $831 678
f
Sewer Surcharge ; $21,187
Total $1,000,7381
j
dotal Costs, $/year $1,268,340
83
o6

Im
Table No. 29
Pro$ected Operations and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 10 - Cyclic Reactor and
Slow Rate Land Application
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
!� Item
Total, $/year
ExistingCosts To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
$250,559
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits f
$111,34
Repairs and Maintenance
$17,0431
Utilities
$16,950 1
Supplies
$32,147
Transportation and Rentals
$19,525
Laboratory
$59,109
Miscellaneous
$41,933
Total
$298,055
Total Existing Costs to Continue
M
$5489614
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
$521000
Repairs and Maintenance
$32,000
Utilities
$172,900
Supplies
$8,037
Chemicals
$22,995
Transportation and Rentals
$0 1
Laboratory
$0
Miscellaneous !
$281793
Sludge Disposal
$33,823 11
Sewer Use Charge
$0
Sewer Surcharge
$0
Total i
$350,548
total Costs, $/year
$899,162
84

85
Table No. 30
Projected Operations and Maintenance Costs
Alt No. 11 - New Activated Sludge and Low Flow
Slow Nate Land ApplIcationi
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
fall
Item
Exastaag Costs To Continue
Total Pretreatment System Costs
Overland Flow System Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
�^
Total
Total Existing Costs to Continue
(does not include interest or depreciation)
New Costs, $/year
Salaries and Benefits
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
Supplies
,6,
Chemicals
Transportation and Rentals
Laboratory
AM
Miscellaneous
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Use Charge
rim
Sewer Surcharge
Total
FW
Total Costs, $/year
Am
Total,
$250,559
$111,3481
$177043
$16,950
$321147
$19, 525 7
$59,1091
$411933
$2981055
$5489614 i
$52,000
$32,000
$146,300
$8,037
$22,9951
$0!
$01
$26,133
$33,823
$0
$0.
$321,288
i
$869,902
s
00

f 1" F V T 11 1" r 14 r '--T -- ''r _ T ]' 11 J 11 II
Table No. 31
Estimated Annual Costs
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company. Inc.. Sanford, N.C.
Y
Existing
Alt. No.1
Alt. No. 2
Alt. No. 3
Alt. No. 4
Alt. No. 5
Alt. No. 6
Alt. No. 7
Alt. No. 8
Alt. No. 9
Alt. No. 10
Alt. No.11
System
Influent
Cyclic
Now Act.
Cyclic
New Act.
Costs
Overland
Equalization
Reactor
Sludge
New
Discharge
Reactor
Sludge
Flow w/
Influent
and
Cyclic
and
New Act.
and
Activated
to City
and
and Low
Effluent
Equalization
Overland
Reactor
Overland
Sludge
Overland
Sludge
of Sanford
Slow
Flow Slow
Storage &
and
Flow 3
and
Flow &
and
Flow &
with
Wastewater
Rate
Rate
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Direct
Treatment
Land
Land
Item
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Discharge
System
Application
Application
Capital Cosh
New Capital Costs, $
$1,049,089
$431,831
$1,208,950
$1,356,048
$2.133,166
$2,413,345
$3,190.464
$2,845,345
$778,420
$4.085.079
$2,865,345
Now Amortization. $/year (10 yrs/9%)
$163.469
$67,288
$188,379
$211.299
$332,390
$376,047
$497,138
$443.362
$121.293
$636,537
$446,478
E6dstlnp Costs to Continue
Interest and Depreciation, $/year
$457.247
$457,247
$457,247
$457,247
$457,247
$457.247
$457,247
$457,247
$457.247
$457,247
$457.247
$457,247
Operation and Maintenance, $/year
$548.614
$548.614
$548.614
$548,614
$548,614
$548,614
$548.614
$548,614
$267,602
$267.602
$548,614
$548.614
INew Operation and Nialntenance
I/Annual O&M, $/year
$104,720
$139,832
$145,816
$290.041
$301,745
$260,781
$272,485
$470,273
$1,000,738
$350,548
$321,288
New Total Annual Costs, $/Tear
$1,005,861
$1 274,050
,
$1 212 981
$1 340 056
,
$1 507 201
$1,639,996
$1,642,688
$1,775,484
$1,638,484
$1,846,880
$1,982,946
$1,773,627
t
00
O�

�1
87
Alternative No.
Description
Annual Costs, $/year
2
Influent Equalization and Overland Flow
$1,212,981
1
Overland Flow and Effluent Storage
S1,274,050
Influent Equalization, Overland Flow,
$1,340,056
4
Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow
$1, 507,201
8
New Activated Sludge w/ Direct Discharge
$1,638,484
5
Cyclic Reactor, Overland Flow, and
$1,639,996
Effluent Storage
6
New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow
$1,642,689
and Effluent Storage
11
New Activated Sludge w/ Low Flow Slow
$1,773,627
Rate Land Application
7
New Activated Sludge, Overland Flow,
$1, 775,484
and Controlled Release
9
Discharge to City of Sanford System
$1,846,880
10
Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land
$1,992,946
�+
Application
The least annual cost alternative is Alternative No. 1 - Influent Equalization and Overland Flow.
The highest annual cost alternative is Alternative No. 10 - Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land
Application.
A
6.b.4. Present Worth Costs
Table No. 32 provides the estimated present worth costs for the eleven alternatives being,
evaluated. The present worth costs listed from the least cost system
to the highest cost system
are summarized as follows:
Alternative No.
Description
PW Costs, $/year
2
Influent Equalization and Overland Flow
$7,814,127
1
Overland Flow and Effluent Storage
$8,109,548
3
Influent Equalization, Overland Flow,
$8,646,095
and Effluent Storage
_
4
Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow
$10,115,160
8
New Activated Sludge w/ Direct Discharge
$10,680,707
6
New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow
$10,904,260
_
5
Cyclic Reactor, Overland Flow, and
$10,999,557
Effluent Storage
7
New Activated Sludge, Overland Flow,
$11,788,657
_
and Effluent Storage
11
New Activated Sludge w/ Low Flow Slow
S11,910,867
Rate Land Application
_
10
Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land App.
$13.398,798
9
Discharge to City of Sanford System
$13,476,024

I. 1. F
Table No. 32
Estimated Present Worth Costs
/ Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Companyt Inc„ Sanford, N.C.
�111t-� zc,
;Present Worth Factor (9°/./20 rsJ
9, 68
Ve frif
ry
Item
System
Costs ,
Alt. No. 1
Overland
Flow w/
Effluent
Storage d
Controlled
Release
AIL No. 2
Influent
Equalization
antl
Overland
Flow
AIL No. 3
Influent
Equalization
and
Overland
Flow 3
Controlled
Release
Alt No.4
Cyclic
Reactor
and
Overland
Flow
AIL No. 5
Cyclic
Reactor
and
Overland
Flow 6
Controlled
Release
AIL No. 6
New AoL
Sludge'
and
Overland
Flow
Alt No. 7
New Act
Sludge
antl
Overland
Flow d
Controlled
Release
Alt No. a7M.No.
New
Activated
Slutlge
with
Direct
Discharge
yem
'Alt. No. 1
Cyclic
Reactor
and
Slow
Rate
Land
Ap llcation
Alt. No. 11
New Act.
Slutlge
and Low
Flow Slow
Rate
Land
Capital Coate
Nan Capital Cats, $
Capital Cost, E i
Velue of Existing System, $
Prese ofExisting System, S
ICdatinO Operation and 8falnt
O,Oppere ion and Maintenance, $/year --"--
`
$0
$0
$1.072.000
$1,072,000
$1.049,089
$1.049.089
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
L8.596
$431.831
$431,831
$1.072,000
$1,072.000
V ' �
,14
$1,208,950
$1,208,950
$1.072.000
$1,072.000
r
$548,814$,8,614
$1,356.048
$1,356,048
$1,072.006
$1,072.000
G .- 11
$2,133,166
$Z133,166
$1.072,000
$1,072,000
$548,,614
$2,413.345
$2,413,345
$1,072,000
$1,072,0D0
$548.,614
$5.028596
$3.190.464
$3,190,464
$1.072.000
$1,072,000
$548,614
,
$2,845,345
$2.845.345
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
E778,420
5778,420
$1,072,D00
$1.072,000
$4.085,079ofNew
E4,OB5,079ndepreciat
$1.072.000f
$1,072,000
8 614
jAn
$548,614
$548.614
287 82
$261,6D2
can
502 ,
$558
E5,028,59
596
§,02859
$f 0
5,028.596
$5,028,596
Now Operation sand Maintenance
New Annual OSM,$/year
Present Worth of New Annual OBM_$
$0
$0
$104,720
$959,864
$139,832
$1.281,700
$145.816
$1,336,549
$290.041
$2,658.516
$301,745
$2.765,795
$260,781
$2,390,319
$272,485
$2,497,598
$470,273
$4,310.522
$1,000,738
$9,172,765
$350,548
$3,213,123
$321,288
$2,944,926
Total Present Worth, S
$6,100,596
$8,109,548
$7,814,127
$8.646,095
$10,115,160
$10,999,557
$10,904,260
$11,788,857
$10,680,707
$13,476,024
$1$,096,798
$11,910,867
✓t_ j�
4 f,�
�' I
1j'�L
i
I
i
7
00
00

89
The least cost alternative on a present worth basis is Alternative No. 2 - Equalization and
Overland Flow. The highest cost alternative on a present worth basis is Alternative No. 9 -
Discharge to City of Sanford wastewater system.
G.C. Comparison of Coss
Table No. 33 provides a summary of the capital, operation and maintenance, annual, and present
worth costs for the eleven alternatives being evaluated.
Ej
5
MA
14

Table No. 33
Comparison of Estimated Costs
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Existing
System
Alt. No. 1
Alt. No. 2
Aft. No. 3
Alt. No. 4
Alt. No. 5
Alt. No. 6
Alt. No. 7
Alt No. 8
Alt. No. 9
Alt. No.10
Alt. No.11
Costs
Overland
Influent
Equalization
Cyclic
Reactor
New Act.
Sludge
New
Discharge
Cyclic
New Act.
Flow wl
Influent
and
Cyclic
and
New Act
and
Activated
to City
Reactor
and
Sludge
and Low
Effluent
Equalization
Overland
Reactor
Overland
Sludge
Overland
Sludge
of Sanford
Slow
Flow Slow
Storage &
and
Flow &
and
Flow &
and
Flow &
with
Wastewater
Rate
Rate
Item
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Direct
Treatment
I Land
Land
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Discharge
System
Application
Application
Caplttsl Costs
I
,New Capital Costs, $
�Undepreciated Value Existing
$0
$1,049.089
$431.831
$1,208,950
$1.356.048
$2.133,166
$2,413,345
$3,190,464
$2,845,345
$778,420
$4,085,079
$2,865,345(
of System, $
$1.072.000
$1,072.000
$1.072,000
$1,072,000
$1,072.000
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
$1,072,000
IOperation and 1Malntenance
jExisting Operation and Maintenance, $/year
llNew
$548.614
$548,614
$548.614
$648,614
$548.614
$548,614
$548,614
$548,614
$267,602
$267,602
$648,614
$548,614
Operation and Maintenance, $/year
Total Operation and Maintenance, $/year
$0
$104,720
$139.832
$145,816
$290,041
$301,745
$260.781
$272,485
$470,273
$1,000,738
$350.548
$321,288
$548,614
$653,334
$688.446
$694,430
$838,855
$850,359
$809,395
$821.099
$737,875
$1.268,340
$899,162
$869,902
Annual Costs
New Amortization. $/year (10 yrs/9%)
Existing Interest and Depreciation, $/year
$0
$163.469
$67,288
$188,379
$211.299
$332,390
$376,047
$497,138
$443.362
$121.293
$636,537
$446,478
Existing Operation and Maintenance, $/year
$457,247
$548,614
$457.247
$548,614
$457,247
$548,614
$457.247
$548,614
$457.247
$457,247
$457,247
$457,247
$457.247
$457.247)
$457,247
$457.247
New Operation and Maintenance, $/year
$0
$104,720
$139,832
$145,816
$548.614
$290.041
$548.614
$301,745
$548,614
$260.781
$548.614
$267.602
$267,602 (
$548,614
$548.614
Total Annual Costs, $/year
$1,005.861
$1.274,050
$1.212,981
$1,340,056
$1,507,201
$1,639.996
$1,642,689
$272.485
$1,775,484
$470.273
$1,638,484
$1.000,738
$1,846,880
$350,548
$1,992,946
$321.288
$1,773,6271
Present Worth Costs
Present Worth Factor (20 rs/9%)
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166
9.166 t
Present Worth -of New Capital Costs, $
PFM
$0
$1,049.089
$431.831
$1,208.950
$1,356,048
$2,133.166
$2,413,345
$3,190,464
$2,845,345
$778,420
$4,085,079
$2,865,345 11
orth of Existing ystem.
Pros
$1.072.000
$1,072,000
$1,072.000
$1,072.000
$1.072.000
$1.072,000
$1.072,000
$1.072.000
$1.072.000
$1,072,000
$1.072.000
$1.072.000'
h of Existing 08M, $
Present Worth o
$5.028,596
$5.028.596
$5.028.596
$5.028.596
$5.028.596
$5.028.596
$5,028.596
$5,028.596
$2.452.840
$2,452,840
$5.028,598
$5,028,5961
r-60 Present worth, $
$0
$6.100.596
$959,864
$8,109,548
$1,281,700
$7.814.127
$1,336,549
$8,646.095
$2.658.516
$10,115.160
$2,765,795
$10,999.557
$2,390.319
$10.904,260
$2,497.598
$4.310.522
$9,172,765
$3,213,123
$2,944,926'
$11.788,657
$10.680,707,
$13.476,024
$13.398,798
$11,910.8671
1r
f
1

M4
SECTION 7oo
ENVIRONMENTAI
AITERNATIVES
ROWENVIRONMENTAI

91
SECTION 7
'N ENVUtONMENTAL ]IMPACTS
or
ALTIERNATI%ES
?.a. Introduction
Each of the alternatives being evaluated will improve the performance of the Golden Poultry
MR Company, Inc. treatment system to varying degrees as relates to compliance with average and
peak permit limitations for discharge to Deep River and real environmental impact on the river.
FNA Discussion of these permit compliance and environmental impact issues follow.
7.b. Cowith Average Liasitations
a
able No. 34 summarizes the projected average discharge quantities for each alternative. Two
values for the loading on Deep River are shown. The direct discharge impact is the loading from
rA the Golden Poultry Company, Inc. wastewater discharge. The indirect discharge impact is the
natgraLLoading which c m the existin ovarian ea ow aror ose o tio.Lwhi,,, i do
not-uWjze the overland fl w s stem. The combined direct and indirect impact is the real loading
FA t�iat„.?ee River will see u s r d in assessing the real environmental impact o
ac o Figures No. 28 and s:- -
c o gu camp he avera a BOD and NH3N--
rischar ed�y each alternative. II of the alternatives with the exception o`�Alt. No. 2 - Influent
�+ qualization` and Overlan ow can meet the average BOD limitation. Alt. Nq,'s 1; 2, and 3 can
not meet the average NH3N limitation. All other alternatives can meet the NH-N limitation.
g ^
It is noted that when the direct and indirect loadings from each alternative are considered, they
systems which continue use of the existing overland flow system with modifications result in ,,;
e,
lower loadings to the Deep River than the discharge alternatives which do not utilize the '
overland flow system, i.e. Alt. No. 8 - New Activated Sludge with Direct Discharge and Alt.` "
No. 9 - Discharge to City of Sanford Wastewater Treatment System. For example, Alt. No. 4 - I
j
Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow would result in the following direct plus indirect loadings
� p to
the river compared to Alt. No. 8 and Alt. No. 9:
Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Alt. No. 8 and
Parameter Reactor + Overland Flow Alt. No. 9
BOD, Ibs/day (Average) 21.0 40.0
NH3N, lbs/day (Average) 2.6 4.0
s
This advantage results from the fact that significant qualities of wastewater are absorbed and
lip evaporated with the use of the overland flow system, thus reducing the flow and mass pollutant
• Ioadings during critical stream flow periods.
�e

Item
SOD, average --�
(Permit Limitations
Existing Average Permit Limitation. lbs/day
jEwsimg Peak Permit limitation, lbslday
Direct Flows to Deep River
:Avg Flaw from Overland Flow. mod
!Avg Flow from Dnrect Discharge. mgd
!Indirect Flows to Deep River
jPigected Avg Flow from Overland Flow Area
Not Receiving Wastewater, mgd
Direct Flow BOD Concentrations
AM from Overland Flow Treatment, mgA
�BOD from D,rect Discharge. moll
+indirect Flow SOD Concentrations
BOO from Overland Flow Area Not Recemng
Wastewater. mg/1
'Total SOD Loading to Deep River
ROD from Overland Flow Troatmeni Itmoday
'BOO from Died Discharge lbs/day
(BOO from Overland Flow Area Not Receiving
Wastewater.lbarday
;Total BOD Loading Ibs/day
,Compliance with Average Permit?
Table No. 34
Projected Discharge Quality and Quantities to Deep River
April - October Critical now Period
Wastevtrater Treatment Miletfnatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Santord, N.C.
ExlsUng
System
Average
Montt►
Average
Month
Existing
System
Peak
Month
Alt. No.1
Overland
Flow w!
Effluent
Storage 6
Controlled
Rakes*
Average
Month
AIL No. 2 Att.No. 2
Influent Influent
Equalization Equalization
and and
Overland Overland
Flow Flow
Average Peak
Month Month
Alt. No. 3
Influent
Equalization
and
Overland
Flow 6
Controlled
Release
Average
Month
AIL No. 4
Cyclic
Reactor end
Overland
Flow
Average
Month
Average
Month
AIL No. 4
Cyclic
Reactor and
Overland
Flow
Peak
Month
Alt. No. 5
Cyclic
Reactor
and
Overland
Flow 3
Controlled
Release
Average
Month
Alt No. a
New Act.
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow
Average
Average
Month
Alt. No. a
New Act
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow
Peak Avg.
Peak
Month
Alt. No. 7
Now Act.
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow 3
Controlled
Release
Average
Month
AIL No. 8
New
Activated
Sludge
with
Direct
Discharge
Average
Month
Alt. No. 9
Discharge
to City
of Sanford
Wastewater
Treatment
System
Average
Month
AIL No. 10
Cyclic
Reactor
and
i Slow
Rate
1 Land
Application
Average
Month
AIL No.11
New Act.
Sludge
and Low
Flow Slow
Rate
Land
Application
Average
Month
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
0
I
0 40�
60
80
80
60
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
0
0 80I
063
100
063
0.63
100
0.63
063
1.00
063
0.63
100
0.63
000
0.00
000 030
0 00
000
000
000
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
000
0.00
090
090
0.00 0 60
000
000
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0 30
0.00 0.00
70
70
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
00
0.0
0.0 40
0.0
00
00
0.0
00
00
00
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
40
4.0
00 4.0
00
00
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
00
00
40
40
00 00
368
00
584
283
263
417
26.3
21.0
334
210
21.0
334
21.0
00
00i
00 100
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
00
00
00
00
00
300
300
00 200
00
001
00
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
00
00
00
00
100
100
001 00
368
584
263
263
41.7
263
210
334
210
21.0
334
210
400
400
001 300
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes i Yes
Note Average Mooith is the amage monthly discharge qualty and quantity. Peak Month is the peak month average discharge quality and quantity

l' 10 . 11 i k k k IF 1 194 1 & V � 3,1111 #'� 11 tI
Table No. 34 (continued)
Projected Discharge Quality and Quantities to Deep diver
April - October Critical now Period
Watstrewrater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Item
Existing
System
Average
Month
Average
Month
Existing
System
Peak
Month
Alt No. 1
Overland
Flow w/
Effluent
Storage 3
Controlled
Release
Average
Month
1 Alt. No. 2
Influent
Equalization
and
Overland
Flow
Avenge
Month
Alt No. 2
Influent
Equalization
and
Overland
Flow
Peak
Month
Alt No. 3
Influent
Equalization
and
Overland
Flow &
Controlled
Release
Average
Month
Alt No. 4
Cyclic
Reactor and
Overland
Flow
Average
Month
!
Average
Month
Alt No. 4
Cyclic
Reactor and
Overland
Flow
Peak
Month
Alt No. S
Cyclic
Reactor
and
Overland
Flow 5
Controlled
Release
Average
Month
Alt No. 8
New Act.
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow
Average
Average
Month
Alt No. 6
New Act.
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow
Peak Avg.
Peak
Month
Alt No. 7
New Act
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow &
Controlled
Release
Average
Month
Alt No. a
New
Active!
Sludge
with
Direct
Discharge
Average
Month
Alt. No. g
Discharge
to City
of Sanford
Wastewater
Treatment
System
Average
Month
AIt ko.10
Cyclic
Reactor
and
Slow
Rate
Lend
Appllcatlon
-Average
Month
Att No. 11
New Act
Sludge
and Low
Flow Slow
Rate
Land
Application
Average
Month
NH3N, average
Permit Limitations
Existing Average Permit Limitation. lbs/day
42
4.2
42
42
42
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
Existing Peak Permit Limitation. nWday
84
84
84
84
84
8-4
84
84
8.4
84
4.2
4.2
0
0
42
84
84
84
0
0
84
Direct Flows to Deep River
1Avg Fkrw from Overland Flow. rngd
Flow from Daect Discharge.
063
100
063
063
100
063
0.63
1.00
063
063
100
063
000
0.00
000
030
!Avg mgd
000
0 00
0.00
000
000
0,00
0.00
O.OD
000
0.00
0.00
000
0.90
0.90
000
060
Indirect Flows to Deep River
Prgected Avg Flow from Overland Flow Area
0.00
000
000
0.00
000
0,00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
Not Receiving Wastewater mgd
0.00
0.30
0 30
0 00
000
Direct Flow NH3N Concentrations
NH3N from Overlord Flow Treatment, mg/l
1.20
1.20
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
05
0.5
NH3N from Direct Discharge. mgn
00
00
0.0
00
00
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
00
0-5
00
00
0.0
05
0.0
0.0
04
0.4
00
04
Indirect Flaw NH3N Concentrations
NH3N from Overland Flow Area Not Receiving
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
QO
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
00
00
Wastewater. mgn
0.0
OA
0.4
0 0
0. 0
Total NH3N Loading to Deep River
NH3N from 0mrland Flow Treatment. tbs/day
63
100
53
5.3
8.3
5.3
2.6
4.2
2.6
2.6
42
26
WN from Deect Discharge Ebslday
00
00
00
0 0
0 0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
00
00
00
00
1 3
NH3N from Overland Flow Area Not Receiving
00
00
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
0, 0
00
00
3.0
30
00
20
Wastewater Ibe/day
00
0 0
1-0
1 0
00
00
rota) NH3N Loading tb flay
63
100
53
53
83
53
26
42
26
26
42
26
40
40
00
33
compliance with Average Permit?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
I
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note Average Month is the average monthly discharge quality and quantity. Peak Month is the peak month average discharge quality and quantity

Figure No. 28 - Comparison of Average BOD Discharges
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives - Golden Poultry Co., Inc.,
I
Sanford, N.C.
80
T
y
L
N
60
- 58.4
L
V
to
O
O
CO
41.7
40
36.8
40.0 40.0 40.0
33.4 33.4
S
30.0
.O
26.3 26.3
26.3
c
m
21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
N
20
❑
N
(9
N
Q
0
0.0
Ext Avg Alt 1 Alt 2 Peak Alt 4 Avg Alt 5 Alt 6 Peak Alt 8 Alt 10 Permit
Ext Peak All 2 Avg Alt 3 Alt 4 Peak Alt 6 Avg Alt 7 Alt 9 Alt 11
Wastewater Treatment Alternative No.
Note Values inclutle direct plus indirect loadings !or each alternative
For al;ernai ves wah "avqand' peak'values shown 'av is the average annual value peak is the peak month value
4-

1.. 1.1 1.. V V V V y. 1 1 1 1, 1
Figure No. 29 - Comparison of Average NH3N Discharges
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives - Golden Poultry Co., Inc.. Sanford. N.C.
1z

96
7.c. Compliance with
Peak Limitations
Table No. 35 summarizes the projected peak discharge quantities for each alternative. Two
values for the loading on Deep River are shown. The direct discharge impact is the loading from
the Golden Poultry Company, Inc. wastewater discharge. The indirect discharge impact is the
natural loading which will occur from the existing overland flow area for those options which do
not utilize the overland flow system. The combined direct and indirect impact is the real loading
g
that Deep River will see and must be considered in assessing the real environmental impact of
each option.
Figures No. 30 and No. 31 compare the p peak BOD and NH3N quantities discharged by each
alternative. The following Alternatives can comply with the peak limitations:
Alternative No. Description
Overland Flow with Effluent Storage
and Controlled Release
3 Influent Equalization and Overland Flow
with Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
5 Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow with
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
7 New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow with
Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
10 Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land Application
The following alternatives can comply with the peak limitations if the natural background
loadings from the existing overland flow area are not considered:
Alternative No. Description
i
8 New Activated Sludge with Direct Discharge
9 Discharge to the City of Sanford Wastewater System
The following alternatives can not comply with the p y peak limitations due to the inherent impact V �
that rainfall induced high flow rates have n v►�� � g o daily discharge quantities:
Alter tiv Description
4 Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow
6 New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow
f l i New Activated Sludge and Low Flow Slow �
Rate Land Application
VVJ - f Of L/

I
Table No. 3S
Projected Diinicbarge Quality and Quantities to Deep River
April - October Critical Flow Period
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
r Existing Existing Alt No.1 AIL No. 2 AIL No. 2 AIL No. 3 AIL No. 4 Alt No. 4 Alt. No. 5 AIL No. 6 Alt. No. 6 Alt No. 7 AIL No. 8 Alt No. 9 ltA No. 10 Alt No. 11
system System Influent Influent Influent Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic New Act. New Act. New Act. Cyclic New Act.
Average Overland Equalization Equalization Equalization Reactor and Reactor and Reactor Sludge sludge Sludge New Discharge Reactor Sludge
Month Flow w/ and and and Overland Overland and and and and Activated to City and and Low
Effluent Overland Overland Overland Flow Flow Overland Overland Overland Overland Sludge of Sanford Slow Flow Slow
Storage a Flow Flow Flow a Average Flow a Flow Flow Flow a with Wastewater Rate Rate
Controlled Controlled Month Controlled Average Peak Avg. Controlled Direct Treatment Land Land
Release Release I Release Release Discharge I System Application Application
Average Peak Average Average Peak Average Average Peak Average Average Peak Average Average Avenge Average Average
turn Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak bay
BOD, peals - ---__ _^
Permit Limitations
Existing Average Permit Limitation, Ibs/day 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 0 0 40
�Enshna Peak Pernw! Limitation, lbs/day 80 80 80 80 60 80 so 80 80 80 80 80 80 0 0 80
Direct Flows to Deep River
Peak Flow from Overland Flow. mad 2.30 500 063 2 30 5.00 063 2.30 500 063 230 500 0.63 000 0 00 0.00 300
Peak Flow from Dhrect Discharge, mgd 000 000 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 1.50 150 0 00 1.00
Ilndirect Flows to Deep River
;Protected Peak Flow from Overland Flow Area 000 000 000 000 0.00 0.00 000 000 000 M0.00 000 0 00 3 00 3 00 p pp 0
Not Receng Wastewater mad
!Direct Flow BOD Concentrations
I800 from Overland Flow Treatment mgn 7 0 7 0 5.0 50 5.0 so 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 4 0 4 0 00
00 00 qQ
BOD hom Dirt Oiachatae mpll ( 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0.0 0 0 4 0 4.0 00 40
i
:Indirect Flow BOD Concentrations
!BOD from Owrtand Flow Area Not Receiving 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.0 00 00 0.0 00 00 4 0 4 0 00 00
Wastewater mgn
Total BOD Loading to Deep River
jBOU from Overland Flaw Treatment, thvday 134 3 2919 263 959 2085 26 3 76.7 1668 21.0 767 1668 2L0 00 0 0 00 100 1
iBOD
ham Direct Discharge Ibs/day 001 00 00 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 00 500 500 0 0 334
BOD from Overland Flow Area Not Receiving I 0 0! 00 00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 100.1 100 1 0 0 0 0
Wastewater Ibs/day
Total Peak BOD Loading. IbaJdaY I 1343 2910 263 95.9 2085 263 767 1668 21.0 76.7 166 8 21.0 1501 150 1 0 0 133 4
I
;Compliance with Peak Permit? I No No Yea No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yet No No Yes No
i
I
Nate Average Peak Day it the average murrthly peak day discharge quality and quantity. Peak Peak Day is the peak daily discharge quality and quanady for all months
1�
r

Table No. 3S (continued)
Projected Discharge Quality and Quantities to Deep River
April - October Critical now Period
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
-
MGM
Existing
System
Average
Month
Average
Peak Day
Existing
system
Peak
Peak Day
Alt. No. t
Overland
Flow wl
Effluent
Storage a
Controlled
Release
Avenge
Peak Day
Alt No. 2
Influent
Equalization
and
Overland
Flow
Average
Peak Day
Alt No. 2
Influent
Equalization
and
Overland
Flow
Peak
Peak Day
Alt No. 3 Alt No. 4
Influent Cyclic
Equalization Reactor and
and Overland
Overland Flow
Flow a Average
Controlled I Month
Release
Average
Peak Day Peak Day
AIL No. 4
Cyclic
Reactor and
Overland
Row
Peak
Peak Day
Alt No. 3
Cyclic
Reactor
and
Overland
Flow a
Controlled
Release
Average
Peak Day
Aft No. 6
Now Act.
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow
Average
Average
Peak Day
Alt No. 6
New Act.
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow
Peak Avg.
Peak
Peak Day
AIL No. 7
Now Act.
Sludge
and
Overland
Flow a
Controlled
Release
Average
Peak Day
Alt No. 8
New
Activated
Sludge
with
Direct
Discharge
Average
Peak Day
Att. No. 8 A�i 0
I Cyclic
Discharge i Reactor
to City I and
of 8snford Slow
Wastewater Rate
Treatment Land
System Application
Avenge Average
Peak Day Peak Day
. AID No. 11
New Act.
Sludge
and Low
Flow Slow
Rate
Land
Application
Average
Peak Day ,
NH3N, posit
Permit Limitations
Existing Avenge Permit Limitation, lbs/day
42
42
42
42
4.2
4.2 4.2
42
4 2
4 2
42
4 2
4.2
Exist -rig Peak Permit Limitation. Ibalday
8 4
8 4
8 4
8 4
84
84 SA
8.4
8 4
64
8 4
0 C
4 2
8.4
8.4
0 0
8 4
1Direct Flows to Deep River
(Peak Flow from Overland Flow, mgd
2.30
5.00
0.63
2 30
5.00
0.63 2.30
5.00
0.63
2.30
5.00
063
0.00
0 00
Flow from Direct Discharge, mgd
000
000
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
000
000
000
0.00
0 00
300
(Peak
1.50
150 000
100 j
Indirect Flows to Deep River
(Projected Peak Flow from Overland Flow Area
000
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
000
000
000
0.00
3.00
3 00
Receiving
Not Receng Wastewater. mgd
0 00
0 00
;Direct Flow NH3N Concentrations
iNH3N from Overland Flow Treatment, mgrl
NH3N from Direct Dacharge,
1.20
1.20
100
1.00
1.00
1.00 0.5
05
0.5
0 5
0, 5
0. 5
00
00 00
0 5
marl
00
0.0
0.0
0 0
0.0
0.0 0-0
00
0.0
0 0
00
00
04
0 4 00
0 4
Indirect Flow NH3N Concentrations
63N from Overland Flow Area Na Receiving
wa
Wastewater, mgR
001
00
00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
00
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0 4
0 4 0 0
0 0
Total NH3N Loading to Deep River
NH3N from Overland Flow Treatment. Ibdday
230
Soo
5.3
19.2
41.7
53 96
209
2.6
9.6
209
2 e
00
NH3N from Direct Discharge, Ibs/day
00
00
00
00
0.0
00 00
00
0.0
0.0
00
00
00 00
125
NH3N from Overland Flow Area Not Receiving
00,
00
00
00
00
00 00
00
00
00
00
0.0
50
50 00
33
Wastewater Ibs/day
100
10 0 0 0
0 0
Total Peak NH3N Loading Ibslday
230
500
5 3
192
41 7
53 9 6
209
2.6
96
209
2
6
15 0
150 00
150
Compliance with Peak Permit?
p
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes No
No
Yet
No
No
Yes
No
i
No Yes
No
Note Average Peak Day is the average monthly peak day discharge quality end quantity. Peak Peak Day is the peak daily discharge quality and quantity for all months
00

I.. 1 1 I" 1-1 1" 1- 1.. I.. L_ V I... F-
Figure No. 30 - Comparison of Peak SOD Discharges
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives - Golden Poultry Co., Inc., Sanford. N.C.
>1 aoo
�a
N
a
ai
c`a 300
L
U
N
0
0
O
m 200
U
d
_C
D
C
Cal 100
U
U
d)
0
Y
0
d
a o
Ext Avg Alt i Alt 2 Peak Alt 4 Avg Alt 5 Alt 6 Peak Alt 8 Alt 10 Permit
Ext Peak Alt 2 Avg Alt 3 Alt 4 Peak Alt 6 Avg Alt 7 Alt 9 Alt 11
Wastewater Treatment Alternative No.
Note: Values include direct and indirect loadings for each alternative.
For alternatives with "avg" and peak" values shown, "avg' is the average annual peak daily value- peak' is the peak daily value for the year

I F. 1.. 1. V 1., V I- t- r 1- 1
I 1. 1- #•'
Figure No. 31 - Comparison of Peak NH3N Discharges
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives - Golden Poultry Co., Inc., Sanford, N.C.

r
FM
M
r�
4
A
V
91
�u
4
L
rin
f
MR
101
Z.d. Sntnanas�r
Table No. 36 summarizes the permit compliance capabilities and direct plus indirect loadings for
each of the alternatives being evaluated. The projected average direct plus indirect BOD and
NH3N discharges from each alternative are as follows:
Alt. No.
Description
BOD, lbs/day NH3N, lbs/day
Permit Limitation
40.0
4.2
Existing System
36.8
6.3
10
New Activated Sludge w/ Slow
0.0
0.0
Rate Land Application
4
Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow
21.0
2.6
5
Cyclic Reactor, Overland Flow, and
21.0
2.6
Effluent Storage
6
New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow
21.0
2.6
7
New Activated Sludge, Overland Flow,
21.0
2.6
and Effluent Storage
11
Cyclic Reactor and Low Flow Slow
30.0
3.3
Rate Land Application
8
New Activated Sludge w/ Direct Discharge
40.0
4.0 ,
9
Discharge to City of Sanford System
40.0
4.0
1
Overland Flow and Effluent Storage
26.3
5.3
2
Influent Equalization and Overland Flow
26.3
5.3
3
Influent Equalization, Overland Flow
26.3
5.3
and Effluent Storage
Alt. No. 10 - Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land Application would be the best system from an
environmental perspective due to the fact that it would have zero discharge. However, it is
questionable that land is available to implement the alternative and the alternative is considered
to be economically prohibitive. Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow will produce the
lowest average discharge quantities by making optimum use of the existing overland flow system
to blend naturally with the flows in the receiving stream. Alt. No. 5 - Cyclic Reactor and
Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and Controlled Release would potentially reduce the
probability of peak day noncompliance caused by rainfall induced high flows. However, there
are major uncertainties regarding the operation and performance of an effluent storage pond in
this application, i.e. the potential for algae growth and increased BOD levels, the further
conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonia nitrogen, and the reduction in dissolved oxygen, that
raise serious technical doubts as to the real benefits of effluent storage. Alt. No. 6 and No. 7
offer the same benefits as Alt. No. 4 and No. 55 with the major difference being the type of
biological treatment used upstream of the overland flow system. Alt. No. 8 - New Activated
Sludge with Direct Discharge and AIt. No. 9 - Discharge to City of Sanford System will comply
with permit limitations for direct discharge. However, the "real" benefits of the alternatives are
clouded by the natural background pollutant issue as relates to runoff from an abandoned
overland flow site and the alternatives are not considered to be as environmentally friendly as
alternatives which utilize a modified overland flow system.

Table No. 36
Summary of Permit Compliance Capabilities and Real Loadings to Deep River
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.. Sanford, N.C.
Existing
System
Alt. No.1
Alt. No. 2
Aft. No. 3
Influent
Aft. No. 4
Aft. No. 5
Alt. No. 6
Alt. No. 7
Alt. No. 8
Alt. No. 9
Alt. No,10
!Alt. No. 11
Cyclic
New Act.
Cyclic
New Act.
Overland
Equalization
Reactor
Sludge
New
Discharge
Reactor
Sludge
Flow wl
Influent
and
Cyclic
and
New Act.
and
Activated
to City
and
and Low
Effluent
Equalization
Overland
Reactor
Overland
Sludge
Overland
Sludge
of Sanford
Slow
Flow Slow
Storage &
and
Flow &
and
Flow S
and
Flow &
with
Wastewater
Rate
Rate
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Direct
Treatment
Land
Land
Item
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Discharge
3 stem
_Appllcatlon
Application
Compliance with Average Permit Umltatlons
SOD
NH3N
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ranking
No
2
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Compliance with Peak Permit Limitations
BOD
NH3N
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Ranking
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
Average "Real" Loadings to Deep River
BOO
36.8
26.3
26.3
26.3
21
21
21
21
40
40
0
30
NH3N
Ranking
6.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
4
4
0
3.3,
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
'
4
4
1
3
"Real" Loadings to Deep River
'
fPeak
SOD
4H3N
1343
26.3
95.9
26.3
76.7
21
76.7
21
150.1
150.1
0
133.1
Ranking
23
5.3
19.2
5.3
9.6
2.6
9.6
2.6
15
15
0
15.8
3
5
3
4
2
4
2
6
6
1I
6
rechnlcalllmplementation Questions
Yes - Past
Yes - Storage
Yes - EQ
Yes - Storage
No
Yes - Storage
No
Yes - Storage
I
Yes - Very
Yes -
Yes
I
Remaining?
Performance
Pond
Basin
Pond
Pond
Pond
Stringent
Reliability of
-
Availability of
No
Performance
conversion of
Performance
Performance
Performance
Treatment
Long Term
Land
tanking
TKN to NH3N
Requirements
Service
i
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
'ombtned Ranking I
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
I
2
2
1
1
I

ROWENViRONMENTAI

103
SECTION 8
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
or
ALTERNATIVES
Table No. 37 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative being evaluated.
A discussion of each alternative follows:
Alt. No.
Description
Comments
1
Overland Flow w/ Effluent
This alternative will meet permit
Storage and Controlled
limitations. However, the
Release
alternative will not deal with other
environmental issues and is not
considered to be viable.
2
Influent Equalization and
This alternative will not meet peak
Overland Flow
permit limitations and will not deal
with other environmental issues.
O-Yeral l-,--this. is_the _least desii- b e._
-" alternative and it considered viable:--�
r
3
Influent Equalization and
'[Vmeet""permit
Overland Flow with
limitations. However, the alternative
Storage and Controlled
will not deal with other
Release
environmental issues and is not
considered viable.
4
Cyclic Reactor and
This alternative will meet average
Overland Flow
permit limitations and will
address all other environmental
issues. The alternative will not
meet peak permit limitations due to
background pollutant levels which
_
occur during rainfall induced high
discharge flows. The overall
benefits of this alternative versus the
_
costs make it potentially the best
overall alternative if the inherent _
ti .

I , t # . I . # , t -V . k , I I I I I 1 3; I, 11 11 �
f
L
Table No. 37
Advantages and Disadvantages
Wastewater Treabnent Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company, inc., Sanford, N.C.
Existing
Aft. No.1
Alt. No. 2
Att. No. 3
Alt. No. 4
Alt. No. S
Aft. No. 6
Alt. No. 7
Alt. No. 8
All. No. 8
Alt. —No. 10
i Alt. No. 11
System
Influent
Cyclic
New Act.
Cyclic
New Act.
Overland
Equalization
Reactor
Sludge
New
Discharge
Reactor
Sludge
Flow w/
Influent
and
Cyclic
and
New Act.
and
Activated
to City
and
and Low
Effluent
Equalization
Overland
Reactor
Overland
Sludge
Overland
Sludge
of Sanford
Slow
Flow Slow
Storage &
and
Flow &
and
Flow &
and
Flow &
with
Wastewater
Rate
Rate
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Direct
Treatment
Land
Land
Item
Release
Flow
i Release
Flow
Release
, Flow
Release
Discharge
S stem
A Ilcatlon
A Iicatlon
Costs
Capital Costs
Operation
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Low
Extreme
High
and Maintenance Costs
Low
Low
Law
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Extreme
High
Moderate
Annual Costs
Present Worth Costs
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Law
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Extreme
Extreme
High
Constructablilty
n/a
Good
Excellent
Good
Superior
Good
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Poor
Good
Operation and Maintenance
Reliability of Operation
Flexibility of Operation
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Weather Impacts on Operation
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Moderate
Remaining Technical/Implementation Issues?
Yes - Peak
Yes - Storage
Yes - Peak
Yes - Storage
Yes - Peak
Yes -
Yes - Peak
Yes -
Yes -
Yes - Long
Yes - Land
Yes - Peak
Flows
Pond
Flows
Pond
Flows
Storage Pond
Flows
Storage Pond
Compliance
term service
Availability
Flows
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
with stringent
reliability
I
treatment
.nvironmental Impacts
levels
)ermit Compliance
teal Impact on Deep River
No
Good
Yes
Excellent
No
Good
Yes
Excellent
Yes (')
Superior
Yes
Superior
Yes (')
Superior
Yes
Yes (•)
Yes (')
Yes
Yes (')
Superior
Excellent
Excellent
Superior
Excellent
') Alternatives will not comply with peak permit
miations due to high rainfall induced background
Dadings which cause violations of peak day
nass permit limits or contribute natural loadings
rhich must be factored into the total "real' loadings
caching Deep River.
O

OCR
44
FAM
An
Am
�n
AM
4.4
on
AM
AM
Alt. No. Description
5 Cyclic Reactor and Overland
Flow with Storage and
Controlled Release
6 New Activated Sludge and
Overland flow
7 New Activated S 1 udge and
Overland Flow with Storage
and Controlled Release
8 New Activated Sludge and
Direct Discharge
105
Comments
natural flow features of overland
flow are recognized.
This alternative will meet average
and peak permit limitations and
will address all other environmental
issues. This would appear to be the
best alternative considering costs and
environmental benefits. However,
the benefits over Alt. No. 4 are
marginal due to technical
uncertainties regarding the operation
and performance of the effluent
storage pond. The potential for
algae growth and resultant BOD
contribution, conversion of organic
nitrogen to ammonia nitrogen, and
reduction in dissolved oxygen raise
doubts as to the true benefits of
effluent storage.
This alternative is very similar to
Alt. No. 4 and offers the same
advantages and disadvantages. This
alternative should only be selected if
it is believed that the overland flow
system may be abandoned at some
time in the future.
This alternative is very similar to
Alt. No. 6 and offers the same
advantages and disadvantages. This
alternative should only be selected
if it is believed that the overland
flow system may be abandoned at
some time in the future.
This alternative will comply with all
permit limitations for a direct
discharge and will address all other
environmental issues. However, the
positive impacts as relates to
loadings on Deep River are
4"

rA
im
Alt. No.
WA
A
U
r*
E
44
rim
r6
rLq
pin
E
AM
106
Description Comments
potentially misleading due to the
fact that natural background loadings
will still occur from the abandoned
overland flow system. When the
background loadings are added to
the direct discharge loadings, the
"real" peak loadings will exceed the
permit limitations. The total
"real" benefits of this alternative
should be carefully evaluated before
being selected over Alt. No. 4 or
Alt. No. 5. In addition to this issue
related to indirect discharges, the
treatment requirements for this
alternative are extremely stringent
and numerous experienced process
vendors have indicated that the
limitations can not be guaranteed. '
Discharge to City of Sanford This alternative will indirectly meet
Wastewater System permit limitations by transferring the
loadings to the City's discharge
point. However, the alternative
has the same background level issue
as Alt. No. 8 - Activated Sludge
and Direct Discharge. Thus, the
"real" benefits to the receiving
stream may not be as high as would
otherwise be assumed if the
background levels are ignored.
Additionally, this alternative would
use a major portion of the City of
Sanford's reserve capacity, thus
limiting the City's future growth
capabilities. This issue, coupled
with the fact that this is the most
expensive alternative on an annual
cost and present worth basis, makes
the feasibility and reliability of this
option very questionable.
Cyclic Reactor and Slow This alternative will eliminate
Rate Land Application direct discharge to Deep River and

f�l
OW
Alt. No. Description
11 New Activated Sludge and
Low Flow Slow Rate Land
Application
A
rA
107
Comments
is the best overall alternative from
an environmental perspective.
However, the cost of the alternative
is extremely high and it is very
questionable that adequate land
close enough to the plant can be
acquired.
This alternative is a combination
of Alt. No. 8 - New Activated
Sludge with Direct Discharge and
Alt. No. 10 -Cyclic Reactor and
Slow Rate Land Application. The
alternative can comply with average
permit limitations and will address
all other environmental issues.
The alternative will not comply with
peak permit limitations during
rainfall induced high flow periods.

fin
064
An
AM
On
On
Am
ROWENVIRONMENTAt

108
SECTION 9
� COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table No. 38 provides a summary and overall ranking of the costs, environmental impacts, and
advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.
9.a. No. 1. Ranked Alternative
Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow ranks as the best alternative. This alternative is
the same as Alt. No. 52 with the exception that effluent storage and controlled release are not
included. The alternative will comply with the average permit limitations, but will be subject to
violation of the peak limitations during rainfall induced high flow periods. This is a, situation
that is inherent to overland flow systems which have strict mass based permit limits such as
Golden Poultry Company, Inc.. Generally, the situation is addressed by designing a permit
which acknowledges the higher mass loadings during high flows by switching to concentration
based limitations above certain flows. This type of permit is generally considered to be -
,�, advantageous from an environmental perspective due to the fact that the overland flow system '
naturally blends with the environment by discharging significantly lower flows during critical
low flow periods and higher flows when stream flows are up and impacts are minimal.
9.b. No. 2 Ranked Alte 1 ative
FL4 Alt. No. 6 - New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow ranks as the second b4st alternative. This
alternative is the same as Alt. No. 4, with the exception that a new activated sludge system
would be constructed in lieu of converting the existing surge pond to a Cyclic Reactor. The
�" alternative will comply with the average permit limitations, but will be subject to violation of the
peak limitations during rainfall induced high flow periods. This is a situation that is inherent to
overland flow systems which have strict mass based permit limits such as Golden Poultry
Company, Inc. Generally, the situation is addressed by designing a permit which acknowledges
the higher mass Ioadings during high flows by switching to concentration based limitations
above certain flows. This type of permit is generally considered to be advantageous from an
environmental perspective due to the fact that the overland flow system naturally blends with the
environment by discharging significantly lower flows during critical low flow periods and higher
flows when stream flows are up and impacts are minimal. This alternative should be considered
if it is felt that the overland flow system will be abandoned at some point in the future to install a
direct discharge alternative.
AM
9.c. No. 3 Ranked Alternative
Alt. No. 8 - New Activated Sludge with Direct Discharge ranks as the 3rd best alternative. This
alternative will meet average and peak permit limitations for direct discharge. However, it
should be noted that with this alternative the total loading on Deep River will be the direct

Table No. 38
Comparison and Ranking
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Golden Poultry Company. Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Existing
Alt. No.1
Aft. No. 2
Alt. No. 3
Alt. No. 4
Alt. No. 5
Alt. No. 6
Alt. No. 7
Alt. No. 8
Alt. No. 8
Alt. No.10
Alt. No. 11
System
Influent
Cyclic
New Act.
Cyclic
I New Act.
Overland
Equalization
Reactor
Sludge
New
Discharge
Reactor
i Sludge
Flow wl
Influent
and
Cyclic
and
New Act.
and
Activated
to City
and
and Low
Effluent
Equalization
Overland
Reactor
Overland
Sludge
Overland
Sludge
of Sanford
Slow
I Flow Slow
Storage &
and
Flow S
and
Flow &
and
Flow 3
with
Wastewater
Rate
Rate
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Overland
Controlled
Direct
Treatment
Land
Land
Item ,
!—�
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Flow
Release
Discharge
S stem
Application
Applicatlon
Comparison
Costs
Capital Costs
SO
$1.019,089
$431,831
$1.208.950
$1.356.048
$2.133,166
$2,413.345
$3.190,464
$2,845,345
$778,420
$4,085,079
$2,865,345
Operation and Maintenance Costs
$548,614
$653,334
$688,446
$694,430
$838,655
$850.359
$809,395
$821,099
$737,875
$1,268,340
$899,162
$869,902
Annual Costs
$1,005,861
$1,274,050
$1,212,981
$1,340,056
$1,507,201
$1,639,996
$1.642,689
$1,775,484
$1,638,484
$1,846.880
$1.992,946
$1,618,990j
Present Worth Costs
$6,100.596
$8,109,548
$7,814.127
$8,646,095
$10,115,160
$10.999,557
$10,904.260
$11,788,657
$10.680,707
$13,476,024
$13,398,798
$12,478,043I,
Constructablllty
n/a
Good
Excellent
Good
Superior
Good
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Poor
Good
(Operation and Maintenance
Reliability of Operation
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
God
Flexibility of Operation
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Weather Impacts on Operation
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Remaining Technlcalllmplementatlon Issues?
Major
Major
Major
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Major
Major
Major
Minor
Environmental Impacts
Permit Compliance
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes (')
Yes
Yes (')
Yes
Yes (')
Yes (•)
Yes
Yes (')
Real Impact on Deep River
Good
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
Excellent
Excellent
Superior
Excellent
Ranking
'
posts (20% of weight)
I
2
1
3
4
7
6
8
5
11
Ii
I
10
g�
�onstructaMlity (10%)
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
21
3peration and Maintenance (10%)
4
4
4
2
3
2
3
2
4
3
Remaining Technicafflmplementation Issues? (10%)
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
3
Environmental Impacts (50%)
4
4
3
1
1
1
11
2
2
2
2
2
1
3verall Ranking Points
330
300
300
170
2
290(
260
370
1
360
1
300
Overall Rankiln�� — -- -
6
�1
q
a
s l
8
_.
due to
Vote- O Alternatives will not comply with peak permit limitations
- _
high rainfall induced
_
backcround
_ __6
loadings which
-
cause violations
of peak day
_
maw& mrmH limp■
no e%,nr.th, e.
_3
9
^—
6
natural loadings which must be factored into the "real' loadings reaching Deep River.
O

Mc
Ito
.9-
loading from the treatment plant plus the natural background loadings which will runoff from
the abandoned overland flow site. When this situation is taken into consider, while the treatment
system will be able to meet the peak daily permit limitation of 80 Ibs/dav BOD and
8.4 lbs/day NH3N, the total loads to the river from the discharge plus the natural background
runoff will potentially exceed these levels. Additionally, the treatment requirements for this
�► alternative are very stringent and can not be guaranteed.
9-d. No. 4 Ranked Alternative
Alt. No. 5 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and Controlled Release
ranks as the fourth best alternative. This alternative will meet both average and peak effluent
limitations and addresses all other environmental issues. The alternative keeps the discharge
into Deep River at the same location, with additional treatment and controls to eliminate the
issues that have resulted in past noncompliances. The alternative is not subject to the natural
background loading issue previously discussed as discharge occurs from the same site currently
being used. However, there are major technical issues related to the performance and operation
of the effluent storage pond which could potentially negate some apparent benefits:
pecifically, the potential for algae growt a -resultant BOD increase, the possibility o
accelerated organic nitrogen conversion to ammonia nitrogen,/nd .the likelihood of dissolved
oxygen reduction in the pond must be addressed. _
Alt. No. 7 - New Activated Sludge and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and Controlled
Release is the 5th ranked alternative. This alternative is essentially the same as Alt. No. 5, with
the difference being that a new activated sludge system would be constructed in I ieu of
converting the existing surge pond to a Cyclic Reactor. This alternative will meet both average
and peak effluent limitations and addresses all other environmental issues. The alternative keeps
'+ the discharge into Deep River at the same located, with additional treatment and controls to
eliminate the issues that have resulted in past noncompliances. The alternative is not subject to
the natural background loading issue previously discussed as discharge occurs from the same site
currently being used. This alternative should be considered if it is felt that the overland flow
system will be abandoned at some point in the future to install a direct discharge alternative.
However, there are major technical issues related to the performance and operation of the
effluent storage�pond which could po� tentlalLnegate some or all of the apparent benefits.
_..
Specifically, the potential for algae growth and resultant-B0� increase, the posst i ity of
accelerated organic nitrogen conversion to ammonia nitrogen, and the likelihood of dissolved
oxygen reduction in the pond must be addressed.
46
Alt. No. 21 3, and 1 I tied as the 6th ranked alternatives. Alt. No. 2 - Influent Equalization and
I'm Overland Flow will not address all environmental issues and is not believed to be a good system
for further consideration.
I
00

J- 11l
Alt. No. 3 - Influent Equalization and Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and Controlled
Release will not address all environmental issues and is not believed to be a good system for
further consideration.
Alt. No. 11 - New Activated Sludge and Low Flow Slow Rate Land Application is a combination
of Alt. No. 8 and AIt. No. 10 with the capability of minimize loadings during low rainfall periods
by applying treated wastewater to the existing overland flow system. The alternative will meet
the average permit limitations, but would be subject to noncompliances during rainfall induced
high flow periods due to natural background pollutant concentrations. This alternative should be
pursued further if a decision is made to construct a new activated sludge system with direct
discharge.
9.g. No. 7 Raasked Mtertsative
Alt. No. 1 - Overland Flow with Effluent Storage and Controlled Release is the 7th ranked
alternative. This alternative will not address all environmental issues and is not believed to be a
good system for further consideration.
9MAL No. 8 Ranked MtersaUve -- - _-- _ — - ---- _
Alt. No. 10 - Cyclic Reactor and Slow Rate Land Application is the next best alternative from an
overall perspective. The alternative would eliminate discharge to Deep River, thus offering the
greatest environmental benefit. However, this alternative would cost almost $2,700.000 more
than Alt. No. 4 to construct and approximately $490,000 per year more for operation,
maintenance, interest, and depreciation. Additionally, there are serious questions as to whether
�► adequate land is available to implement the project. This alternative would require more
detailed study to determine absolute feasibility.00
9.L No. 9 !tanked Men a -a0m411
�
Alt. No. 9 - Discharge to City of Sanford Wastewater Treatment System is the next highest
ranked alternative. This alternative would be subject to the same background runoff loading
issue as discussed for Alt. No. 8. Additionally, the cost analysis has been based on the City
applying the "In City" rates to Golden Poultry Company, Inc.'s discharge. If "Out of City" rates
are imposed, the costs will be significantly higher and make this alternative extremely expensive.
Another issue with this alternative is that the City's plant is currently running at over 50 percent
capacity. Addition of the Golden Poultry Company, Inc. loading would push the system at or
near 70 percent capacity. it is questionable that the City of Sanford will easily use up this
capacity as it will greatly reduce growth capacity in the future. In an_v event, this alternative is
extremely expensive and should be pursued only as a last resort.
9.j. SU�nmary
A
In summary, the eleven alternatives that were evaluated are believed to represent essentially all
of the viable approaches which can be used to upgrade or replace the existing system.
i
MR

4
112
Alternatives No. 4, 511 61) 71, 8, and 11 represent the best overall systems and deserve further
consideration. Alternatives No. 9 and 10 are technically sound alternatives but are very
expensive and have numerous issues relating to implementation that must be addressed. These
alternatives should be considered further only as a last resort. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will not
address all of the environmental issues associated with the existing facility and do not deserve
further consideration.
Overall, Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow is believed to offer the best opportunity
to provide maximum environmental benefits. While it is recognized that the alternative retains
the issue of compliance with peak permit limitations during rainfall induced high flow periods,
the ability of the system to operate in natural harmony with the flows in the receiving stream
gives the best opportunity to minimize loads when flow levels in the receiving stream are at the
most critical conditions. Figures No. 32 and 33 provide projections of the average BOD and
NH3N discharge quantities for Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow versus Alt. No. 8 -
New Activated Sludge and Direct Discharge for the period of July, 1993 thru November, 1994.
Alt. No. 4 average discharge levels are well below those of the direct discharge alternative,
particularly when the indirect contribution from natural background runoff levels is considered.
The lower discharge levels are primarily due to the fact that during a major portion of the year,
particularly during the critical stream conditions, a significant percentage of the wastewater
applied to the overland flow system evaporates or percolates, thus offering lower discharge flows
when flows in the receiving stream are reduced.
2
46
4
a
4
A
$M
�"

40
30
10
0t
Figure No. 32 = BOD Discharges - Overland Flow vs. Direct Discharge
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Date (July, 1993 thru November, 1994)
-- 30-day Avg Overland Flow BOD, Ibs/day — 30-day Avg Direct Discharge BOD, Ibs/day
— 30-day Avg Direct Discharge + Indirect Discharge BOD, lbs/day
w

5
n
M1
IL
Figure No. 33 = NH3N Discharges = overland Flow vs Direct Discharge
Golden Poultry Company, Inc., Sanford, N.C.
Date (July,1993 thru November,1994)
— 30-day Avg Overland Flow NH3N, Ibs/day — 30-day Avg Direct Discharge NH3N, Ibs/day
— 30-day Avg Direct Discharge + Indirect Discharge NH3N, Ibs/day

r SECTION 1000
04
A
131
04
A
F°
�, ROWENViRONMENTA[

115
SECTION 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.a. Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn based on the evaluation of the information presented in
Sections 1 thru 9:
The Golden Poultry Company, Inc. overland flow system can be upgraded to
comply with average permit limitations by providing biological treatment
upstream that will reduce loadings and allow maximum use of the spray fields as
needed. This -approach effluent limitations...-
to address thejj§Ve of rainfall induce ws which can lead to igg„�,..z��
mass b ��'`:���'�
imiAti vRecog� this inherent feature of a��
overland flow, systeinjs. more than offset by the reduced loadings during
U�51?`t1�''R....:.�;..r,.t. -. :n.� s_;:aq,,.y,..,,�„ras--.y+)v,..-.aia,�•a ..-•c;._
critical stream .gondi ionv�= �,,. '
46
2. The system can potentially be upgraded to comply with average and peak permit
limitations by providing biological treatment upstream and by storing and
controlling the release of the effluent during rainfall periods. However, there
are technical issues related to the operation and performance of a storage pond
which must be addressed before it can be certain that a storage pond would
provide real benefits to the receiving stream.
3. The average and peak permit limitations can be met by abandoning the overland
flow system and constructing a new activated sludge system with filtration and
direct discharge to Deep River. However, the alternative has to be evaluated in
light of the real total loadings on the receiving stream, including the natural
background levels which will runoff from the abandoned overland flow site_
When this issue is considered, the apparent benefits of this alternative are
questionable. Additionally, the treatment requirements for direct discharge at
design flow are very stringent and can not be guaranteed.
4. The direct discharge to Deep River can be eliminated by tying on to the City of
Sanford's wastewater system if allowed by the City. However, the alternative
has to be evaluated in light of the real total loadings on the receiving stream,
Pin including the natural background levels which will runoff from the abandoned
overland flow site. When this issue is considered, the apparent benefits of this
alternative are questionable. Additionally, the reliability of long term service Is
questionable due to the fact that the City's plant does not have significant excess
capacity for future growth and the City does not appear to be readily willing to
give up the capacity which exists.
4M

4,
n
5. The direct discharge to Deep River can be eliminated by constructing a slow
rate land application system if adequate land can be purchased. However, it is
questionable that the land is available. Additionally, this alternative is
extremely expensive and not believed to be economically feasible even if the
land is available.
10.b. Recommendations
116
A The following recommendations are made to make a final decision regarding the preferred
system improvement to be implemented:
A I . Propose Implementation of Alt. No. 4 - Cyclic Reactor and Overland Flow. This
alternative offers the fastest and most economical approach to optimize the
water quality in the Deep River.
2. Prior to implementation of Alt. No. 42 meet with State of North Carolina
46 Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources to discuss the
alternatives, costs, and benefits, with emphasis on the following issues:
o Upgraded overland flow system advantages as relates to reduced
loadings during low flow periods weighed against inherent
increased mass loadings during heavy rainfall. Are the reduced
rMn critical period loadings worth the infrequent increased peak
loadings?
o Real benefits of effluent storage and controlled release in
conjunction with overland flow. Are there any real benefits or is
it better to let the overland flow system discharges increase and
decrease in natural harmony with the stream flows?
o Real loadings on Deep River. If the overland flow system is
abandoned, are the natural background loadings that will come
from the undisturbed overland flow site to be considered in
assessing the "real" loadings to Deep River?
o Real benefits of continued use of a modified and upgraded
overland flow system versus a new activated sludge system with
filtration and direct discharge. Does a modified and upgraded
overland flow system provide an overall more environmentally
44 friendly system than treatment and direct discharge?
• 3. Based on the results of the above meeting, make a final decision as to the best
approach to take to comply with applicable permit limitations.
E 4. Design and implement the selected improvements.
e
ow

A
U
I
i•
mm
i
FM
4
ROWENVIRONMENTAI

A
04
Appendix A
Comments
from
Wastewater Process Vendors
regarding
Meeting Stringent Permit I -imitations
Compliance with permit limitations for direct discharge at the design flow of 1.2 m d will
g 1� g
require attainment of the following wastewater quality:
Parameter Value
BOD, mg/l < 4
NH3N, mg/1 < 0.4
These treatment levels are very stringent and, while they are routinely met by many wastewater
treatment systems, they are seldom guaranteed.
During the completion of the project, proposals were received from the following process
vendors:
Vendor
Process
Envirex
Orbal Process
Austgen Biojet
ICEAS-Nit Process
Aqua -Aerobics
SBR
Fluidyne
SBR
Jet Tech
SBR
Eimco
Carrousel denit/R Process
Schreiber
Simultech Process
The attached letter from Envirex states the general consensus of all of the vendors regarding
compliance with the very stringent permit limitations. Specifically, great concern was expressed
regarding compliance with the ammonia nitrogen requirement, particularly during the Spring
transition period when "summer" limitations begin to apply. All vendors indicated that filtration
would be required and several mentioned that the capability for breakpoint chlorination should
be provided as a backup.
Regarding the issuance of a process guarantee, all of the vendors indicated that while they felt
• the limitations can be met, they would be reluctant to provide a written process guarantee
without numerous conditions regarding specific wastewater treatability, wastewater
characteristics, weather, etc. and that the cost of such a guarantee would be very high because of
the risk being taken.
9

i
4
Envirex Inc.
Phone: 414 / 547-0141
Foz: 414 / 547-4120
Telex: 201312 ENWA UR
August 12, 1994
Mr. Vernon D. Rowe, P.E.
ROWEnvironmental
15 Sun Hala
Pittsburg, Texas 75686
Subject: Poultry Wastewater Treatment Project.
Dear Mr. Rowe:
P.O. Box 1604
Woukesho, Wl 53187-1604
1901 S. Proirie Avenue
Woukesho, W153186-7360
On the basis of the design criteria presented in your fax to
Envirex, August 2, 1994, we have prepared an Orbal System design.
The Orbal provides the most reliable design to consistently
maintain effluent quality near the levels shown in your fax. As
with any biological process, it is impossible to guarantee effluent
ammonia-N values of 0.4 mg/1 summer and 0.8 mg/1 winter. However,
the Orbal will consistently get you closer to these values than
other processes.
For your review, I have enclosed a package of information on the
Orbal System. If the Orbal receives a somewhat equalized flow with
ANOrbal
peaks in carbonaceous and nitrogenous load, we would be in
position to offer a process warranty to achieve a 10 mg/1 BOD, 10
mg/1 TSS and 3 mg/1 NH3-N. To achieve greater removal efficiency,
,m it would be necessary to implement a tertiary filtration and
possibly breakpoint chlorination step.
Presented on page 5 of the enclosed Orbal design, is the equipment
price summary sheet. The Orbal equipment would sell for
approximately $195,000. The concrete basin and installation would
bring the total price of the Orbal to $437,900. The approximate
i9•, sell price for the two (2) 45-foot diameter Tow-Bro clarifiers
installed is $217,000. The total price for the Orbal system is
therefore $655,600.
If you have an questions on this material Y Y qu , please contact your
area Envirex sales representative, Fred Willms, Environmental
Improvements Inc. at 214-436-2536, or me at 414-521-8208.
Sincerely,
4 'IVDDe
ne
Sr. Process Engineer
Solutions Group
cc: Fred Willms/EIZ
Tom Schultz/Envirex
MR
OR I// and ���1 water and wos►ewoter treotment equipment