EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water
Mail Code 4303T
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-B-01-007
January 2002
Development Document for the
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Industry Point
Source Category (40 CFR 432)
-------
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry
Point Source Category (40 CFR 432)
EPA-821-B-01-007
Christine T. Whitman
Adminstrator
G. Tracy Mehan, HI
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Geoffrey H. Grubbs
Director, Office of Science and Technology
Sheila E. Frace
Director, Engineering and Analysis Division
Marvin Rubin
Chief, Environmental Engineering Branch
Janet Goodwin
Technical Coordinator
Samantha Lewis
Project Manager
Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
Project Engineer
William Wheeler
Project Economist
Jade Lee-Freeman
Project Statistician
January 2002
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of Marvin Rubin, Janet
Goodwin, Samantha Lewis, Carey A. Johnston, William Wheeler, Jade Lee-Freeman, and
Beverly Randolph for the development of this technical document. In addition, EPA
acknowledges the contribution of TetraTech Inc., Eastern Research Group, Westat, and Science
Applications International Corporation.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors,
subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of such use of, any
information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by
such a third party would not infringe on privately owned rights. References to proprietary
technologies are not intended to be an endorsement by the Agency.
Questions or comments regarding this report should be addressed to:
Ms. Samantha Lewis
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7149
lewis, samantha @ epa.gov
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION 1-1
1.1 Purpose of this Rulemaking 1-1
1.2 Overview of the Mpp Point Source Category 1-1
1.3 Summary of the Proposed Mpp Effluent Limitations and Guidelines 1-3
SECTION 2. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Legal Authority 2-1
2.2 Regulatory Background 2-1
2.2.1 Clean Water Act 2-1
2.2.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT)—Section 304(b)(l) of the CWA 2-2
2.2.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)—Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA 2-2
2.2.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT)—Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA 2-3
2.2.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Section 306 of
the CWA 2-3
2.2.1.5 Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources (PSES)—Section
307(b) of the CWA 2-4
2.2.1.6 Pretreatment Standards For New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(b)
of the CWA 2-4
2.2.1.7 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 2-4
2.2.2 Section 304(m) Requirements 2-5
2.2.3 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program 2-6
2.2.4 Pollution Prevention Act 2-7
2.2.5 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) 2-8
2.2.6 Regulatory History of the MPP Industry 2-10
2.2.6.1 Meat Facilities 2-10
2.2.6.2 Poultry Facilities 2-12
2.3 Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation 2-12
2.3.1 Meat Facilities 2-13
2.3.1.1 Meat Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities 2-13
2.3.1.2 Independent Rendering Facilities 2-15
2.3.2 Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities 2-15
-------
Contents
SECTION 3. DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES 3-1
3.1 Summary of Epa's Site Visit and Sampling Program 3-1
3.1.1 EPA Site Visits 3-1
3.1.2 EPA Sampling 3-2
3.1.2.1 Overview 3-2
3.1.1.2 Description of Sampling Episodes 3-3
3.1.2.3 Sampling Episode Reports 3-4
3.1.2.4 Pollutants Sampled 3-5
3.2 EPA MPP Industry Surveys 3-6
3.2.1 Overview of Industry Surveys 3-6
3.2.2 Description of the Survey Instruments 3-7
3.2.3 Development of Survey Mailing List 3-9
3.2.4 Sample Selection 3-9
3.2.5 Survey Response 3-11
3.3 Other Information Collection Activities 3-11
3.3.1 Literature Search on Environmental Impacts 3-12
3.3.2 Current NPDES Permits 3-12
3.3.3 Discharge Monitoring Reports 3-13
3.4 Stakeholder Meetings 3-14
SECTION 4. MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Meat Products Industry Description 4-2
4.2.1 Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) 4-2
4.2.2 Meat Processed from Carcasses 4-3
4.3 Description of Meat First and Further Processing Operations 4-5
4.3.1 Meat Slaughter and Packing Operations 4-7
4.3.1.1 Live Animal Receiving and Holding 4-7
4.3.1.2 Methods Used to Stun Animals 4-9
4.3.1.3 Killing and Bleeding 4-9
4.3.1.4 Hide Removal from Cattle and Sheep and Hair Removal from
Hogs 4-11
4.3.1.5 Evisceration 4-11
4.3.1.6 Washing 4-12
4.3.1.7 Chilling 4-13
4.3.1.8 Packaging and Refrigeration or Freezing 4-13
4.3.1.9 Cleaning Operations 4-14
4.3.2 Meat Further Processing 4-14
4.3.2.1 Raw Material Thawing 4-15
n
-------
Contents
4.3.2.2 Carcass/Meat Handling and Preparation 4-16
SECTION 5. SUBCATEGORIZATION 5-1
5.1 Subcategorization Process 5-1
5.2 Proposed Subcategories 5-4
5.2.1 Meat Slaughterhouses and Packinghouses—Subparts A, B, C and D 5-5
5.2.2 Meat Further Processing—Subparts F, G, H and I 5-6
5.2.3 Renderer—Subpart J 5-7
5.2.4 Poultry First Processing—Subpart K 5-7
5.2.5 Poultry Further Processing—Subpart L 5-7
5.3 References 5-8
SECTION 6. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION 6-1
6.1 Meat Processing Wastes 6-1
6.1.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated 6-1
6.1.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations 6-3
6.2 Poultry Processing Wastes 6-7
6.2.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated 6-7
6.2.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations 6-8
6.3 Rendering Wastewater Generation and Characteristics 6-12
6.3.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated 6-12
6.3.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations 6-15
6.5 References 6-19
SECTION 7. SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS AND POLLUTANT PARAMETERS FOR REGULATION ... 7-1
7.1 Introduction 7-1
7.2 Pollutants Considered for Regulation 7-2
7.2.1 Classical and Biological Pollutants 7-6
7.2.2 Non-conventional Pollutants 7-15
7.3 Selection of Pollutants of Concern 7-17
7.4 Selection of Pollutants for Regulation 7-19
7.4.1 Methodology for Selection of Regulated Pollutants 7-19
7.4.2 Selection of Regulated Pollutants for Existing and New Direct
Dischargers 7-21
7.5 References 7-24
in
-------
Contents
SECTION 8. WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
PRACTICES 8-1
8.1 Introduction 8-1
8.2 Primary Treatment 8-2
8.2.1 Screening 8-2
8.2.1.1 Static Screens 8-3
8.2.1.2 Rotary Drum Screens 8-4
8.2.1.3 Brushed Screens 8-5
8.2.1.4 Vibrating Screens 8-5
8.2.2 Catch Basins 8-6
8.2.3 Dissolved Air Flotation 8-7
8.2.4 Flow Equalization 8-8
8.2.5 Chemical Addition 8-9
8.3 Secondary Biological Treatment 8-10
8.3.1 Anaerobic Treatment 8-10
8.3.1.1 Anaerobic Lagoons 8-12
8.3.1.2 Alternate Anaerobic Treatment Technologies 8-13
8.3.2 Aerobic Treatment 8-15
8.3.2.1 Activated Sludge 8-16
8.3.2.2 Lagoons 8-20
8.3.2.3 Alternate Aerobic Treatment Technologies 8-22
8.4 Tertiary Treatment 8-25
8.4.1 Nutrient Removal 8-26
8.4.1.1 Nitrogen Removal 8-26
8.4.1.2 Phosphorus Removal 8-30
8.4.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal 8-32
8.4.3 Alternate Tertiary Treatment Technologies 8-35
8.4.3.1 Nitrogen Removal 8-35
8.4.3.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal 8-37
8.4.3.3 Removal of Organic Compounds and Specific Ions 8-38
8.5 Disinfection 8-41
8.5.1 Chlorination 8-41
8.5.2 Ozonation 8-42
8.5.3 Ultraviolet Light 8-42
8.6 Effluent Disposal 8-43
8.7 Solids Disposal 8-46
8.8 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Reduction Practices 8-47
8.8.1 Wastewater Minimization and Waste Load Reduction Practices at MPP
Facilities 8-47
8.8.2 General Water Conservation and Waste Load Reduction Techniques 8-48
iv
-------
Contents
8.8.3 Multiple Use and Reuse of Water 8-50
8.8.4 Specific Pollution Control Practices Identified by EPA in Previous
Regulatory Proposals 8-51
8.8.5 Non-Regulatory Approaches to Pollution Prevention 8-54
8.6 References 8-55
SECTION 9. POLLUTANT LOADINGS 9-1
9.1 Baseline Pollutant Loadings 9-2
9.1.1 Sources and Use of Available Data 9-2
9.1.2 Calculation of Average Concentrations from Analytical Data 9-3
9.1.3 Establishment of Baseline Concentration Data 9-3
9.1.4 Calculation of Pollutant Loadings 9-9
9.2 Technology Options Loadings 9-15
9.2.1 Sources and Use of Available Data 9-15
9.2.2 Calculation of Average Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for
First Processing, Further Processing and Rendering Wastewaters 9-16
9.2.3 Development of Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations for each Model
Facility Group 9-33
9.2.4 Development of Post-Compliance Pollutant Loadings for each Technology
Option and each Model Facility Grouping 9-35
9.3 Pollutant Removals 9-36
SECTION 10. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10-1
10.1 Energy Requirements 10-1
10.2 Air Emissions Impacts 10-3
10.3 Solid Waste Generation 10-4
10.4 References 10-8
SECTION 11. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR THE
PROPOSED REGULATION 11-1
11.1 Overview of Methodology 11-1
11.2 Identification of Technology Options 11-1
11.3 Development of MPP Model Facilities 11-7
11.4 Selection of a Cost Model 11-9
11.5 Description of Cost Components 11-10
11.5.1 Capital Costs 11-11
11.5.1.1 Construction Cost 11-11
11.5.1.2 Total Capital Costs 11-14
-------
Contents
11.5.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 11-15
11.5.2.1 Energy 11-15
11.5.2.2 Labor Costs 11-16
11.5.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Material and Supply Costs 11-16
11.5.2.4 Chemical Costs 11-17
11.5.2.5 Sludge Disposal Costs 11-17
11.5.2.6 Total Operation and Maintenance 11-17
11.6 Description of the Treatment Units and Selected Design Specifications 11-17
11.6.1 Preliminary Treatment 11-17
11.6.2 Dissolved Air Flotation 11-18
11.6.3 Equalization 11-19
11.6.4 Lagoon 11-19
11.6.5 Intermediate Pumping 11-20
11.6.6 Nitrification—Suspended Growth 11-20
11.6.7 Biological Nitrogen Removal 11-21
11.6.8 Biological Nutrient Removal—3/5 Stage 11-22
11.6.9 Secondary Clarification 11-23
11.6.10 Filtration 11-23
11.6.11 Drying Beds 11-24
11.6.12 Disinfection 11-24
11.7 Capdet Model Input 11-25
11.7.1 Influent Concentrations 11-25
11.7.2 Effluent Concentrations 11-26
11.7.3 Flow 11-29
11.8 Other Cost Modeling Parameters 11-29
11.8.1 Number of Facilities 11-31
11.8.2 Frequency of Occurrence 11-31
11.8.3 Number of Treatment Units Required 11-32
11.8.4 Performance Cost 11-33
11.9 Derivation of Cost Estimates 11-34
11.9.1 Model Facility Costs Without Consideration To Retrofit Costs 11-36
11.9.2 Model Facility Category Costs With Consideration to Retrofit Costs 11-37
11.10 Estimated Costs 11-39
11.10.1 Model Facility Costs 11-39
11.10.2 Regulatory Subcategory Costs 11-40
11.11 Comparison of Model Predicted Cost with Actual Cost 11-41
11.12 References 11-51
VI
-------
Contents
SECTION 12. SELECTED TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 12-1
12.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 12-1
12.1.1 BPT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories 12-2
12.1.1.1 BPT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering
Facilities) 12-3
12.1.1.2 BPT for Subpart E—Small Processors 12-4
12.1.1.3 BPT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing
Facilities) 12-4
12.1.2 BPT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories 12-5
12.1.2.1 BPT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K) 12-5
12.1.2.2 BPT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L) 12-7
12.1.3 BPT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J) ... 12-8
12.2 Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT) 12-9
12.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) 12-10
12.3.1 BAT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories 12-11
12.3.1.1 BAT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering
Facilities) 12-11
12.3.1.2 BAT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing
Facilities) 12-12
12.3.2 BAT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories 12-14
12.3.2.1 BAT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K) 12-14
12.3.2.2 BAT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L) ... 12-15
12.3.3 BAT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J) .. 12-17
12.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 12-18
12.4.1 NSPS Requirements for Meat Subcategories 12-19
12.4.1.1 NSPS for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering
Facilities) 12-19
12.4.1.2 NSPS for Subpart E—Small Processors 12-19
12.4.1.3 NSPS for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing
Facilities) 12-19
12.4.2 NSPS Requirements for Poultry Subcategories 12-20
12.4.2.1 NSPS for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K) 12-20
12.4.2.2 NSPS for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L) .. 12-21
12.4.3 NSPS Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities
(Subcategory J) 12-22
12.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and New Sources (PSNS) ... 12-23
12.5.1 POTW Interference 12-24
12.5.2 POTW Pass Through 12-28
12.5.3 MPP Pretreatment Options Considered 12-30
vn
-------
Contents
SECTION 13. LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS: DATA SELECTION AND CALCULATION 13-1
13.1 Overview of Data and Episode Selection 13-1
13.2 Data Aggregation 13-3
13.2.1 Aggregation of Field Duplicates 13-4
13.2.2 Aggregation of Grab Samples 13-5
13.3 Derivation of Total Nitrogen Concentrations 13-5
13.4 Derivation of Effluent Concentration Data 13-6
13.4.1 Calculation of Daily Effluent Concentrations 13-6
13.4.2 Censoring Type of Calculated Effluent Concentrations 13-11
13.5 Data Adjustment 13-12
13.6 Overview of Limitations 13-13
13.6.1 Objective 13-13
13.6.2 Selection of Percentiles 13-14
13.6.3 Compliance with Limitations 13-15
13.6.4 Summary of Proposed Limitations 13-16
13.7 Estimation of Concentration-based Limitations 13-17
13.8 Estimation of Long-term Average Concentrations 13-18
13.8.1 Episode-specific Long-Term Average Concentrations 13-19
13.8.2 Option Long-Term Averages 13-19
13.8.3 Substitution of LTAs 13-20
13.8.4 Calculation of Poultry BAT-3 Option-Level Long-Term Averages 13-21
13.8.5 Calculation of Independent Rendering BAT-2 Option-Level Long-Term
Averages 13-22
13.8.6 Adjustments to Option Long-Term Averages 13-22
13.9 Calculation of Option Variability Factors 13-23
13.9.1 Transfers of Option Variability Factors 13-24
13.10 Summary of Steps Used to Derive Concentration-based Limitations 13-25
13.11 Conversion to Production-normalized Limitations 13-26
13.11.1 Calculation of Production Normalized Limitations 13-26
13.11.2 Significant Digits for Production-Normalized Limitations 13-28
SECTION 14. REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION 14-1
14.1 Implementation of Part 432 Through the NPDES Permit Program and the National
Pretreatment Program 14-1
14.1.1 NPDES Permit Program 14-2
14.1.2 New Source Performance Standards 14-3
14.1.3 National Pretreatment Standards 14-3
vin
-------
Contents
14.2 Upset and Bypass Provisions 14-4
14.3 Variances and Modifications 14-5
14.3.1 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances 14-5
14.3.2 Economic Variances 14-7
14.3.3 Water Quality Variances 14-7
14.4 Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations 14-7
14.4.1 Background 14-7
14.4.2 Mass-Based Limitations and Standards 14-8
14.5 Best Management Practices 14-10
SECTION 15. GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS 15-1
APPENDIX A. ANALYTICAL METHODS AND BASELINE VALUES A-l
APPENDIX B. SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESTIMATES B-l
APPENDIX C. TABLES TO SECTION 9 C-l
APPENDIX D. INPUT VALUES TO ESTIMATE ENERGY USAGE AND SLUDGE GENERATION D-1
APPENDIX E. ATTACHMENTS FOR COST ESTIMATION (CHAPTER 11) E-l
APPENDIX F. AGGREGATED DAILY DATA FOR PROPOSED POLLUTANTS AND
SUBCATEGORIES F-l
APPENDIX G. MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION G-l
APPENDIX H. ATTACHMENTS TO SECTION 13 H-l
APPENDIX!. 40CFRPART432 1-1
APPENDIX J. EXAMPLES OF CALCULATING MPP LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS J-l
IX
-------
Contents
Tables
Table 1-1. Profile and Subcategorization of MPP Facilities 1-2
Table 1-2. Summary of Technologies for Proposed Options for MPP Facilities 1-4
Table 2-1. Summary of Regulatory Levels of Control 2-5
Table 3-1. MPP Sampled Parameters 3-6
Table 3-2. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Strata 3-10
Table 4-1. Composition of Raw Materials for Inedible Rendering 4-62
Table 6-1. Wastewater Generated in Meat Processing 6-2
Table 6-2. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Meat Facilities per Unit of Production 6-3
Table 6-3. Typical Characteristics of Hog and Cattle Processing Wastewaters 6-6
Table 6-4. Typical Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Hog and Cattle Processing 6-6
Table 6-5. Wastewater Generation in Poultry First and Further Processing 6-8
Table 6-6. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Poultry Facilities per Unit of Production ... 6-8
Table 6-7. Typical Characteristics of Broiler First and Further Processing and Turkey First
Processing Wastewaters 6-11
Table 6-8. Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler First and Further
Processing 6-11
Table 6-9. Wastewater Generation in Broiler Rendering 6-14
Table 6-10. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Rendering Operations per Unit of
Production 6-15
Table 6-11. Pollutant Concentrations for a Dry Continuous Rendering Plant 6-17
Table 6-12. Typical Characteristics of Broiler Rendering Wastewater 6-18
Table 6-13. Wastewater Characterization of "Typical" National Rendering Association (NRA)
Member Render Plant 6-18
Table 6-14. Typical Wastewater and Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler
Rendering 6-18
Table 7-1. Priority Pollutant List 7-2
Table 7-2. Pollutants of Concern for Meat Processing Facilities 7-18
Table 7-3. Pollutants of Concern for Poultry Processing Facilities 7-19
Table 8-1. Distribution of Wastewater Treatment Units In MPP Industry 8-2
Table 9-1. Summary of Imputation Methods Used for Derivation of Baseline
Concentrations 9-7
Table 9-2. Median Flow for Direct and Indirect Dischargers by Model Facility
Grouping and Size 9-9
Table 9-3. Number of Direct Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size .. 9-11
Table 9-4. Number of Indirect Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size .9-12
Table 9-5. Baseline Loadings for Direct Dischargers 9-13
-------
Contents
Table 9-6. Baseline Loadings for Indirect Dischargers 9-14
Table 9-7. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling 9-21
Table 9-8. Data Substitutions for BAT-3 Technology Option Sampling 9-23
Table 9-9. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling 9-25
Table 9-10. Data Substitutions for BAT-4 Technology Option Sampling 9-26
Table 9-11. Data Substitutions for BAT-5 Technology Option Sampling 9-27
Table 9-12. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling 9-28
Table 9-13. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling 9-31
Table 9-14. Flow Fractions Used to Derive Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations 9-34
Table 9-15. Technology Option Loading for Direct Dischargers 9-37
Table 9-16. Technology Option Loading for Indirect Dischargers 9-39
Table 10-1. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct
Dischargers 10-2
Table 10-2. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect
Dischargers 10-2
Table 10-3. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct
Dischargers 10-7
Table 10-4. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect
Dischargers 10-7
Table 11-1. Proposed Technology Options for the MPP Industry 11-2
Table 11-2. Definition of 19 MPP Facility Groupings 11-8
Table 11-3. Cost Factors Used to Estimate Capital Costs 11-15
Table 11-4. Influent Concentrations Used as Model Input 11-27
Table 11-5. Target Effluent Concentrations Used as Model Input 11-28
Table 11-6. Model Facility Median Flows for 76 Model Facility Categories 11-30
Table 11-7. Number of Facilities in 19 MPP Facility Groupings by Size 11-31
Table 11-8. Technology Options by Size and Discharge Type Costed for the Proposed
Regulation 11-34
Table 11-9. Estimated Retrofit Costs (As Percent of Nitrification Costs) to Upgrade a
Nitrification System 11-38
Table 11-10. Definition of 10 MPP Regulatory Groupings 11-40
Table 11-11. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small Direct
Discharging Facilities 11-42
Table 11-12. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small Indirect
Discharging Facilities 11-43
Table 11-13. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Small Direct Discharging
Facilities 11-44
Table 11-14. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs of Small Indirect Discharging
Facilities for the Various TechnologyOptions 11-44
xi
-------
Contents
Table 11-15. Comparison of CAPDET Model Prediction of Capital (and Construction) and
Annual Costs with Actual Costs 11-45
Table 11-16. Retrofit Capital Costs of Nitrification/Denitrification by Category for the
Proposed Regulation 11-47
Table 11-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Nitrogen Removal .. 11-48
Table 11-18. Retrofit Capital Costs Of Nitrification/Denitrification/Phosphorous
Removal 11-50
Table 11-19. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Phosphorus Removal 11-51
Table 12-1. Removal Efficiencies for Meat Pollutants of Concern 12-28
Table 12-2. Removal Efficiencies for Poultry Pollutants of Concern 12-28
Table 12-3. Economic Impacts and Toxic Cost-Effectiveness Summary Table for PSES
Option 1, Non-Small Facilities 12-30
Table 13-1. Method for Aggregation of Field Duplicates 13-5
Table 13-2. Procedure for Aggregation of Grab Samples 13-6
Table 13-3. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations
for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering Operations
Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-2 Technology
Option) 13-8
Table 13-4. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations
for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering Operations
Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-3 Technology
Option) 13-8
Table 13-5. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing,
Further Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Direct
Discharging Poultry Facilities (BAT-2 Technology Option) 13-9
Table 13-6. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing,
Further Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Indirect
Discharging Meat Facilities (PSES-1 Technology Option) 13-9
Table 13-7. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing,
Further Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Indirect
Discharging Poultry Facilities (PSES-1 Technology Option) 13-10
Table 13-8. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 1 13-11
Table 13-9. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 2 13-12
Table 13-10. Substitution Values for Option-Level LTA 13-21
Table 13-11. Formulas for Calculating BAT-3 Technology Option Level LTA for
Poultry Facilities 13-22
Table 13-12. BAT-2 Option LTA Substitutions 13-23
Table 13-13. Cases where Option Variability Factors Could Not be Calculated 13-25
Table 14-1. Types of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards 14-1
xn
-------
Contents
Figures
Figure 4-1. Location of Small Meat Facilities in the United States 4-4
Figure 4-2. Location of Non Small Meat Facilities in the United States 4-4
Figure 4-3. Process Flow in a Meat Slaughtering and Packing Facility 4-8
Figure 4-4. General Process for Meat Cuts and Process Control 4-17
Figure 4-5. General Process for Comminuted Meat Products (Sausage, Wieners, Luncheon
Meats, etc.) 4-20
Figure 4-6. General Process for Hams and Bacon 4-23
Figure 4-7. General Process for Canned Meat Products 4-28
Figure 4-8. Location of Small Poultry Facilities in the United States 4-38
Figure 4-9. Location of Non Small Poultry Facilities in the United States 4-38
Figure 4-10. General Process for Poultry First Processing Operations 4-40
Figure 4-11. General Process for Poultry Further Processing Operations 4-49
Figure 4-12. Location of Small Rendering Facilities in the United States 4-59
Figure 4-13. Location of Non Small Rendering Facilities in the United States 4-59
Figure 4-14. General Process for Edible Rendering 4-61
Figure 4-15. General Process for Inedible Batch Cooking Rendering 4-64
Figure 4-16. General Process for Inedible Continuous Rendering 4-65
Figure 8-1. General schematic of a static screen 8-4
Figure 8-2. General schematic of a rotary drum screen 8-5
Figure 8-3. Activated Sludge Process 8-17
Figure 8-4. Spray/Flood Irrigation System 8-44
Figure 11-1. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 1 (assuming
incomplete nitrification) 1-3
Figure 11-2. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 2 11-3
Figure 11-3. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 3 11-4
Figure 11-4. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 4 11-4
Figure 11-5. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 5 11-5
Figure 11-6. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 1 11-5
Figure 11-7. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 2 11-6
Figure 11-8. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 3 11-6
Figure 11-9. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 4 11-7
xin
-------
SECTION 1
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION
This section describes the purpose of the regulation and summarizes proposed
requirements. Section 1.1 describes the purpose of the rulemaking. Section 1.2 presents an
overview of the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) Point Source Category. Section 1.3
summarizes the proposed MPP rulemaking.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS RULEMAKING
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines
and standards (ELGs) for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR 432).
These proposed ELGs apply to existing and new meat and poultry products (MPP) facilities that
are direct dischargers. Direct discharging facilities directly discharge wastewater to surface
waters of the United States (e.g., lake, river, ocean). This document and the administrative record
for this rulemaking provide the technical basis for these proposed limitations and standards.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MPP POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
The meat and poultry products industry includes facilities that slaughter livestock and/or
poultry or that process meat and/or poultry into products for further processing or sale to
consumers1. The industry is often divided into three categories: (1) meat slaughtering and
processing; (2) poultry slaughtering and processing; and (3) rendering. Facilities may perform
slaughtering operations, processing operations from carcasses slaughtered at other or their own
facilities, or both. Companies that own meat or poultry product facilities may also own facilities
that raise the animals. These other enterprises (e.g., feedlots) are not covered by the MPP ELGs.
The meat and poultry products industry encompasses primarily four North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes which are developed by the Department of
'Meat products include all animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs, and any meat that is
not listed under the definition of poultry. Poultry includes broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature
chickens, turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches), and smallgame such as quail, pheasants, and
rabbits. This category may include species not classified as "poultry" by USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) and that may or may not be under USDA FSIS voluntary inspection.
-------
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation
Commerce. These NAICS codes include: Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) (NAICS
311611); Meat Processed from Carcasses (NAICS 311612); Poultry Processing (NAICS
311615); and Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing (NAICS 311613).
The MPP industry includes almost 6,770 facilities, of which an estimated 5,657 discharge
process wastewater. (See Table 1-1.) Of these facilities discharging process wastewater, EPA
estimates that 94 percent are indirect dischargers and 6 percent are direct dischargers. The
Agency estimates that approximately 1,113 facilities either discharge no process wastewater or
use contract haulers. See Section 5 for a description of how EPA subcategorized MPP facilities.
EPA estimated engineering compliance costs for each of the technology options for a set
of model sites, and then used these sites to estimate compliance costs for the entire MPP
industry. The Agency also estimated pollutant loadings and removals associated with each of the
technology options. EPA then used the loadings and removals to assess the effectiveness of each
technology option. The Agency used the costs to estimate the financial impact on the industry of
implementing the various technology options. (See "Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source
Category" [EPA-821-B-01-006].) Details on the cost-effectiveness analysis can be found in the
same document. EPA also estimated the water quality impacts and potential benefits for each
technology option. (See "Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category"
[EPA-821-B-01-008].)
Table 1-1. Profile and Subcategorization of MPP Facilities
40 CFR 432
Category
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Description
Meat First Processors
Meat Further Processors
Independent Renderers
Poultry First Processors
Poultry Further Processors
Facility Size
Small
Direct
59 t
48 t
6t
0
4
Indirect
1,003
2,940
17
39
568
M, L, VL
Direct
82 t
19 t
21 t
104
16
Indirect
70
234
75
143
209
Source: EPA Screener Survey
t Covered under current MPP ELGs (40 CFR 432)
1-2
-------
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation
1.3 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED MPP EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND
GUIDELINES
EPA is proposing regulations for the MPP direct dischargers based on the "best
practicable control technology currently available" (BPT), the "best conventional pollutant
control technology" (BCT), the "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT), and
the best available demonstrated control technology for new source performance standards
(NSPS).
The Agency is proposing revised ELGs for nine of the ten existing subcategories of the
meat products industry, including: simple slaughterhouse, complex slaughterhouse, low
processing packinghouse, high processing packinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and luncheon
meats processor, ham processor, canned meats processor, and Tenderer. The Agency is also
proposing two new MPP subcategories with effluent guidelines and source performance
standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slaughtering) and further processing categories.
EPA is not proposing any new or revised effluent limitations guidelines or pretreatment standards
for the small processor category.
Table 1-2 summarizes the proposed technology options that serve as the basis for the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards being proposed today for the meat and poultry
products industry. For descriptions and discussion of the subcategories, see Section 5; for the
technologies, Section 8; for a discussion of the process wastewater generated by these
subcategories see Section 6; and for a discussion of the proposed limits, see Section 13.
1-3
-------
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation
Table 1-2. Summary of Technologies for Proposed Options for MPP Facilities
Subcategory
Subpart A:
Simple Slaughterhouse;
Subpart B:
Complex Slaughterhouse;
Subpart C:
Low-Processing
Packinghouse; and
Subpart D:
High-Processing
Packinghouse
Subpart E:
Small Processors
Subpart F:
Meat Cutter;
Subpart G:
Sausage and Luncheon
Meats Processor;
Subpart H:
Ham Processor; and
Subpart I:
Canned Meats Processor
Subpart J:
Renderer
Subpart K:
Poultry First Processing
(facilities which
slaughter up to 10
million pounds per year);
and,
Subpart L:
Poultry Further
Processing (facilities
which produce up to
7, 000 pounds per year of
finished product)
Regulatory
Level
BPT
BAT; NSPS
BCT
PSES; PSNS
BPT; BCT; BAT;
NSPS
PSES; PSNS
BPT
BAT; NSPS
BCT
PSES; PSNS
BPT; BCT
BAT; NSPS
PSES; PSNS
BPT; BCT
BAT; NSPS
PSES; PSNS
Technology
Option
2
3
No Action
No Action
No Action
No Action
2
3
No Action
No Action
2
2
No Action
1
1
No Action
Technical Components
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification and
denitrification.
No revised limitations are proposed.
No pretreatment standards are proposed.
No revised limitations or standards are
proposed.
No pretreatment standards are proposed.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification and
denitrification.
No revised limitations are proposed.
No pretreatment standards are proposed.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification.
No pretreatment standards are proposed.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with less efficient
nitrification.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with less efficient
nitrification.
No pretreatment standards are proposed.
1-4
-------
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation
Subcategory
Subpart K:
Poultry First Processing
(facilities which
slaughter more than 10
million pounds per year);
and,
Subpart L:
Poultry Further
Processing (facilities
which produce more than
7, 000 pounds per year of
finished product)
Regulatory
Level
BPT; BCT
BAT; NSPS
PSES; PSNS
Technology
Option
3
3
No Action
Technical Components
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification and
denitrification.
Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary
biological treatment with nitrification and
denitrification.
No pretreatment standards are proposed.
1-5
-------
SECTION 2
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND
This section presents background information supporting the development of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) Point Source
Category. Section 2.1 presents the legal authority to regulate the MPP industry. Section 2.2
discusses the Clean Water Act, the Pollution Prevention Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), and prior
regulation of the MPP industry. Section 2.3 discusses the scope and applicability of the MPP
proposal.
2.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Agency proposes these regulations under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306,
307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342,
and 1361.
2.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
2.2.1 Clean Water Act
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To
achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except in
compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act addresses the problem of water pollution on a
number of different fronts. It relies primarily, however, on establishing restrictions on the types
and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public sources of
wastewater.
Direct dischargers (i.e., those that discharge effluent directly into navigable waters) must
comply with effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standards in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; indirect dischargers (i.e., those that
discharge to publicly owned treatment works must comply with pretreatment standards. These
2A
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers
based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control
technology. The limitations and standards are summarized below.
2.2.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)—Section 304(b)(l)
of the CWA
EPA defines BPT limitations for discharges of conventional, toxic, and non-conventional
pollutants2 from existing sources. In specifying BPT, EPA considers the cost of achieving
effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits, the age of equipment and
facilities, the processes employed, process changes required, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and
other factors the EPA Administrator deems appropriate (CWA §304(b)(l)(B)). Traditionally,
EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of
facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes or other common
characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may
establish BPT limitations based on higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial
category if the Agency determines that the technology is available in another category or
subcategory and can be practically applied.
2.2.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of the
CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA established BCT as an additional level of control for
discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that BCT limitations be established
in light of a two-part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA published a methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July. (51 FR 24974, July 9, 1986).
2 Conventional pollutants are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal
coliform, pH, and oil and grease; toxic pollutants are those pollutants listed by the Administrator under CWA
Section 307(a); nonconventional pollutants are those that are neither toxic nor listed as conventional.
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical
oxygen demanding pollutants (measured as BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform,
pH and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutants on July 30, 1979
(44 FR 44501).
2.2.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)—Section 304(b)(2)(B) of
the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitation guidelines represent the best existing economically
achievable performance of direct discharging facilities in the industrial subcategory or category.
The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions,
the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the
control technology, potential process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.
The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded to these
factors. An additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability.
Generally, the achievability is determined on the basis of the total cost to the industry and the
effect of compliance with the BAT limitations on overall industry and subcategory financial
conditions. Unlike BPT, BAT limitations may be based upon effluent reductions attainable
through changes in a facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT limitations may be based upon technology transferred
from a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial category. BAT also
may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not
common industry practice.
2.2.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available
demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most
efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best
2-3
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-
conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
2.2.1.5 Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with,
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTW. The CWA authorizes EPA to
establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass though POTWs or interfere with
treatment processes or sludge disposal methods. The pretreatment standards are to be
technology-based and analogous to the BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing
categorical pretreatment standards, are found in 40 CFR Part 403. These regulations provide a
definition of pass-through that addresses local rather than national instances of pass-through and
establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic dischargers (52 FR 1586, January
14, 1987).
2.2.1.6 Pretreatment Standards For New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(b) of the CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be
issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate
into their facilities the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same
factors in promulgating PSNS as in promulgating NSPS.
2.2.1.7 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize the Administrator to
prescribe BMPs as part of effluent limitations guidelines and standards or as part of a permit.
EPA's BMP regulations are found at 40 CFR 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes
EPA to include BMPs in effluent limitations guidelines for certain toxic or hazardous pollutants
for the purpose of controlling "plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
drainage from raw material storage." Section 402(a)(l) and NPDES regulations (40 CFR
122.44(k)) also provide for best management practices to control or abate the discharge of
pollutants when numeric limitations and standards are infeasible. In addition, Section 402(a)(2),
read in concert with Section 501 (a), authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a range of permit
conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to ensure compliance with applicable
effluent limitation and standards and such other requirements as the Administrator deems
appropriate. Table 2-1 summarizes these regulatory levels of control and the pollutants
controlled.
Table 2-1. Summary of Regulatory Levels of Control
Type of Site Regulated
Existing Direct Dischargers
New Direct Dischargers
Existing Indirect Dischargers
New Indirect Dischargers
Type of Pollutant Regulated
Priority Toxic Pollutants
Nonconventional Pollutants
Conventional Pollutants
BPT
X
BPT
X
X
X
BAT
X
BAT
X
X
BCT
X
BCT
X
NSPS
X
NSPS
X
X
X
PSES
X
PSES
X
X
X
PSNS
X
PSNS
X
X
X
Source: Clean Water Act
2.2.2 Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304(m) requires EPA to establish schedules for; reviewing and revising existing
effluent limitations guidelines and standards; promulgates new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. Section 304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers,
which EPA promulgates pursuant to Sections 307(b) and 307(c) of the Clean Water Act.
On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc.,
filed an action against EPA in which they alleged, among other things, that EPA had failed to
comply with CWA section 304(m) (see NRDC v. Browner, civ. no. 89-2980(D.DC.)). Plaintiffs
and EPA agreed to a settlement of that action in a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992.
The consent decree, which has been modified several times, established a schedule by which
EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point source categories identified by name in
2-5
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
the decree and for eight other point source categories identified only as new or revised rules,
numbered five through 12. EPA selected the meat and poultry products industry as the subject for
New or Revised Rule #11. Under the decree, as modified, the Administrator was required to sign
a proposed rule for the meat and poultry products industry no later than January 30, 2002, and
must take final action on that proposal no later than December 31, 2003.
2.2.3 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program
The CWA requires states to identify waters not meeting water quality standards and to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waters (Section 303(d) of the CWA). A
TMDL is essentially a prescription designed to restore the health of the polluted body of water by
indicating the amount of pollutants that may be present in the water and still meet water quality
standards. More than 20,000 bodies of water across America have been identified as impaired .
These waters include more than 300,000 river and shoreline miles and five million acres of lakes.
EPA estimates that more than 40,000 TMDLs must be established.
EPA promulgated a final rule in July 2000 to amend and clarify existing regulations at 40
CFR 130.7 implementing Section 303(d) of the CWA. Those rules require States to identify
waters that are not meeting State water quality standards and to establish TMDLs to restore the
quality of those waters. The July 2000 revisions of the rule established specific time frames
under which EPA will assure TMDLs are completed, and that necessary point and nonpoint
source controls are implemented to meet TMDLs.
On October 18, 2001 (66 FR 53044), EPA established April 30, 2003 as the new effective
date of the July 2000 TMDL rule revisions. EPA believes that this delay of the effective date is
necessary for the Agency to be able to conduct a meaningful consultation with the public, analyze
recommendations of various stakeholders, reconcile concerns about the scope, complexity, and
cost of the TMDL program, and structure a flexible yet effective TMDL program, including a
revised TMDL rule, to meet Clean Water Act goals of restoring the nation's impaired waters.
During this delay, the program will continue to operate under the 1985 TMDL regulations, as
amended in 1992 at 40 CFR Part 130, and EPA and the States and Territories will continue to
develop TMDLs to work towards cleaning up the nation's waters and meeting water quality
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
standards. The Agency plans to propose a new, revised TMDL rule during the summer of 2002
and issue a new final rule sometime in 2003.
A TMDL must be developed for waters that do not attain water quality standards. A
TMDL identifies the loading capacity of a waterbody for the applicable pollutant, which is the
greatest amount of a pollutant that a water can receive without exceeding water quality standards.
The TMDL also identifies the load reduction needed to attain standards and allocates such
reductions to point source dischargers (a wasteload allocation(s)) and nonpoint sources (a load
allocation(s)). Thus, the TMDL is actually a "pollution budget" or water-quality based approach
that will allow the waterbody to achieve water quality standards. Wasteload allocations are
reflected in the NPDES permits written for point sources discharging into the waterbody.
Effluent guidelines are technology-based controls for point source dischargers and are
part of the NPDES permits that point sources must obtain prior to discharging pollutants to
waters of the U.S. EPA is not required to demonstrate environmental benefits of its
technology-based effluent guidelines. It is well established that EPA is not required to consider
receiving water quality in setting technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F. 2nd 1011, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("The Senate Committee
declared that '[t]he use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system is
unacceptable"- regardless of the measurable impact of the waste on the body of water in
question. Legislative History at 1425 (Senate Report). The Conference Report states that the Act
'specifically bans pollution dilution as an alternative to treatment.'" Id. at 284."). The purpose of
such technology-based limits is to "result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal
of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants." See NRDC, 863 F.2d at 1433 (9th Cir. 1988). In
short, the CWA set up both TMDLs and effluent guidelines as complementary regulatory
programs as both are necessary for restoring the quality of the Nation's waters and for striving
towards the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants.
2.2.4 Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub.L. 101-508,
November 5, 1990), makes pollution prevention the national policy of the United States. This act
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
identifies an environmental management hierarchy in which pollution "should be prevented or
reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be reused in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release
into the environment should be employed only as a last resort..." (Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13103).
According to the Pollution Prevention Act, source reduction reduces the generation and
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants, or residuals at the source,
usually within a process. The term source reduction "includes equipment or technology
modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or
inventory control. The term source reduction does not include any practice which alters the
physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral to or necessary
for the production of a product or the providing of a service." In effect, source reduction means
reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is otherwise released into the
environment prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal. The Pollution Prevention
Act directs the Agency to, among other things, "review regulations of the Agency prior and
subsequent to their proposal to determine their effect on source reduction" (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C.
13103). This proposed regulation for the MPP industry was reviewed for its incorporation of
pollution prevention as part of the Agency effort. Chapter 8 outlines pollution prevention
practices applicable to the MPP industry.
2.2.5 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
2-8
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
For the purpose of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is
defined as: (1) a small business based on full time employees (FTEs) or annual revenues
established by SB A; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
The definitions of small business for the meat products industries are in SBA's
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards were updated effective October 1, 2000.
SB A size standards for the meat and poultry products industry (that is, for NAICS codes 311611,
311612, 311613, and 311615) define a "small business" as one with 500 or fewer employees.
EPA estimates that small businesses own 71 out of 246 facilities that would be regulated
under the rule as proposed. The EPA based this estimate on information from screener survey
and SB A. The Agency assumes that it is unlikely that any small business owns more than one
facility. EPA has fully evaluated the economic impact of the proposed rule on the affected small
companies. None of the facilities owned by small companies have a cost/sales ratio greater than
one percent. For this proposal, EPA is using the ratio of annualized compliance costs to net
income as its central measure of economic achievability. (See Section IV.E of the MPP
Preamble for a definition of this measure.) EPA estimates that, based on its model facilities, 38
of the 71 facilities owned by small companies have cost/net income ratios between five and nine
percent, eight facilities have cost/net income ratios between two and three percent, while the
other 25 facilities owned by small companies have cost/net income ratios less than one percent.
EPA also calculated the ratio of cost to sales as a supplement to the cost/net income ration. None
of the facilities owned by small companies has a cost/sales ratio greater than 0.52 percent. More
detail on these estimates is provided in the MPP Economic Analysis (EPA-821-B-01-006). After
considering the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, including consideration
of alternative regulatory approaches being proposed, EPA is certifying that this action will not
have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No small
governments are regulated by this action.
2-9
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on them.
EPA is not proposing any new requirements on 5,411 facilities (the vast majority of facilities).
Most of these are owned by small businesses, and many of the smallest could likely experience
serious economic impacts if requirements were imposed. EPA considered regulating the 731
largest indirect discharging facilities in this group of 5,411 facilities (462 of which are owned by
small businesses). If the costs of Option 1 for PSES standards were imposed on these indirect
discharging facilities, EPA estimates that 235 of the 462 facilities owned by small companies
would have a cost/net income ratio between 1 and 2 percent while the other 227 facilities owned
by small companies would have a cost/net income ratio of less than 1 percent. Thus, even if EPA
had proposed Option 1 PSES standards for the 731 largest indirect dischargers the combined
proposal would not have had a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA has held several teleconferences with representatives of the American Association of
Meat Processors (AAMP) which has almost a third of its association members with less than 10
FTE at the company level. EPA will continue to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and issues related to such impacts.
2.2.6 Regulatory History of the MPP Industry
In 1974, EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for meat slaughterhouses and
packinghouse facilities (40 CFR 432 Subcategories A through D), and in 1975, EPA promulgated
effluent guidelines for meat further processing facilities (40 CFR 432 Subcategories E through I)
and independent rendering facilities (40 CFR 432 Subcategory J) in 1975. The Agency proposed
regulations for the poultry industry in 1974, but the rule was never finalized. The following
describes the current regulatory framework for the MPP industry.
2.2.6.1 Meat Facilities
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat products industry were
developed and promulgated in the 1970's. As described above, there are existing regulations for
the meat slaughtering and processing Subcategories and for independent rendering. These
2-10
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
regulations were issued in phases and are grouped together under 40 CFR 432. Although there is
no definition of "red meat" or "meat" in the existing MPP effluent guidelines, EPA defined these
terms in the previous technical development documents associated with these prior rules as all
animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs, and from any meat that is not listed
under the definition of poultry. EPA is using the term "meat" as synonymous with the term "red
meat." EPA proposes to include the same definition in the revised regulations. The current
regulations for meat cover all aspects of producing meat products from the slaughter of the
animal to the production of final consumer products (e.g., cooked, seasoned, or smoked products,
such as luncheon meat or hams.)
EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS limitations and standards for existing and new meat
slaughterhouses and packinghouses on February 28, 1974 (39 FR 7894). EPA established
separate effluent limitations and standards for existing and new sources for various types of meat
slaughterhouses and packinghouses: Simple Slaughterhouse, Complex Slaughterhouse, Low
Processing Packinghouse, and High Processing Packinghouse (40 CFR 432, Subcategories A
through D).
The Agency promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS limitations and standards for existing and
new meat further processing subcategories and the independent rendering subcategory on January
3, 1975 (40 FR 902). EPA promulgated no PSNS for this segment of the industry in the January
3, 1975 notice. EPA established separate effluent limitations and standards for existing and new
sources for various types of meat further processors and independent Tenderers: Small Processor,
Meat Cutter, Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor, Ham Processor, Canned Meats Processor,
and Independent Renderer (40 CFR 432, Subcategories E through J).
EPA did not establish any pretreatment standards in the 1974 or 1975 regulations.
The BPT and BAT limitations established in the February 28, 1974 notice were the
subject of litigation in American Meat Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975). The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the effluent limitations and remanded selected
portions of those regulations. The BPT and BAT regulations remanded by the court were
2-11
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
subsequently revised or withdrawn. (See 44 FR 50732, August 29, 1979; 45 FR 82253,
December 15, 1980.)
The regulations in the independent rendering subcategory were also the subject of
litigation in National Renderers Association et al., v. EPA, et al., 541 F. 2d 1281 (8th Cir. 1976).
The Court remanded the regulations to the Agency to reconsider the economic impact of the
costs associated with these requirements. The BAT limitations for independent Tenderers were
not remanded, but EPA reevaluated these limitations nonetheless. On October 6, 1977 (42 FR
54417), EPA promulgated a final rule which revised the BAT limitations and new source
performance standards for this subcategory. In that final rule, the BAT limitations for ammonia,
BOD5, and TSS are less stringent than the original BAT limitations; however, the October 6,
1977 NSPS are more stringent than the original NSPS standards. In the final rule, EPA retained
an exclusion for small facilities (less than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day) from BPT,
BAT, and NSPS
2.2.6.2 Poultry Facilities
EPA proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS limitations and standards for existing and new
poultry slaughterers and processors on April 24, 1975 (40 FR 18150). EPA proposed to
subcategorize the poultry processing sector into five subcategories, distinguished by the animal
or bird being processed and an additional subcategory which applied to further processing. These
regulations were never finalized, since the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act refocused
the Agency's attention on establishing effluent limitations guidelines for industry sectors with
effluents containing toxic metals and organics.
2.3 SCOPE/APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSED REGULATION
EPA is proposing new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards for nine of
the ten subcategories of the (MPP) point source category (40 CFR 432) including: simple
slaughterhouse, complex slaughterhouse, low processing packinghouse, high processing
packinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and luncheon meats processor, ham processor, canned meats
processor, and Tenderer. The Agency is proposing no new or revised effluent limitations
2-12
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
guidelines or pretreatment standards for the small processor category. EPA is also proposing two
new MPP subcategories with effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance
standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slaughtering) and further processing subcategories.
Section 1, table 1-2 summarizes the proposed technology options which serve as the basis
for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards being proposed for the meat and poultry
products industry. For descriptions and discussion of the subcategories, see Section 5; for the
technologies, Section 8; and for a discussion of the process wastewater generated by these
subcategories, Section 6.
2.3.1 Meat Facilities
2.3.1.1 Meat Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities
In 1974, EPA established regulations that apply to the meat slaughterhouses and
packinghouses (40 CFR 432, Subcategories A through D). EPA established regulations in 1975
which apply to meat further processing facilities (40 CFR 432, Subcategories E through I). The
current regulations for meat cover all aspects of producing meat products from slaughtering the
animal to producing final consumer products (e.g., cooked, seasoned or smoked products, such as
luncheon meat or hams). For Subparts F, G, H and I of the existing regulations, EPA established
a production rate threshold of greater than 6,000 pounds of finished product per day, below
which the regulations do not apply. Subpart E of the existing regulations applies to meat further
processors that produce up to 6,000 pounds of finished product per day.
EPA is not proposing to change the existing production rate thresholds in Subparts E
through I in this proposed rule for existing limitations and standards. Also, EPA is proposing
new production rate thresholds in Subparts A through D and F through I for the proposed
limitations and standards based on current data collected for this rulemaking (see Section 3).
These new production rate thresholds do not affect Subpart E (Small Processors) meat facilities,
as these proposed new production rate thresholds are all higher than the Subpart E production
rate threshold (i.e., 6,000 pounds of finished product per day).
2-13
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
Based on current survey data, EPA defines small facilities based on their annual
production. EPA defines the following facilities which are currently covered under 40 CFR 432
as small:
• Facilities in Subcategories A, B, C and D that slaughter less than 50 million
pounds (LWK) per year;
• All facilities in Subcategory E;
• Facilities in Subcategories F, G, H and I that produce less than 50 million pounds
of finished product per year; and
• Facilities in Subcategory J that render less than 10 million pounds per year of raw
material.
Most smaller MPP facilities are excluded from the scope of today's proposal for a number
of reasons: (1) small MPP facilities as a group discharge less than 3 percent of the conventional
pollutants (or 35 million pounds/year), 1 percent of the toxic pollutants (or 1.3 million
pounds/year), 4 percent of the nutrients (or 7.5 million pounds/per year), and less than 1.5
percent of the pathogens (or 47 x 109CFU/year) as compared to all discharges from the entire
MPP industry;(2) EPA determined that only a limited amount of loadings removal would be
accomplished by improved treatment and small facilities; and (3) EPA determined that "small"
MPP facilities would discharge a very small portion of the total industry discharge. Therefore,
EPA is not revising current limitations and standards for small meat facilities. The existing
regulations, however, will continue to apply to those facilities. EPA is, however, setting
limitations and standards for small poultry direct discharging facilities (for whom there are no
existing standards) based on current performance.
The existing regulations apply to all sizes of meat direct dischargers (except for Tenderers
processing less than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day). The proposed revisions to 40 CFR
432 apply to meat facilities above the new production based thresholds and all poultry facilities
that discharge directly to a receiving stream or other waters of the United States.
2-14
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
2.3.1.2 Independent Rendering Facilities
In 1975, EPA established regulations (40 CFR 432, Subcategory J) that apply to
independent Tenderers, defined as independent or off-site operations that manufacture meat meal,
dried animal by-product residues (tankage), animal fats or oils, grease, and tallow, perhaps
including hide curing, by a Tenderer. The existing regulations establish a size threshold of 75,000
pounds of raw material per day processed. Facilities that process less than this amount are not
subject to the existing regulations.
EPA is proposing to lower this production threshold in these revisions to include all
facilities that render more than 10 million pounds per year of raw material (or approximately
27,000 pounds per day for a facility that operates 365 days per year). EPA is lowering this
production threshold based on data collected for this rulemaking. See the "Economic Analysis of
Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the meat and Poultry Products
Industry Point Source Category" (EPA-821-B-01-006) for a description of EPA's reasons for
setting production thresholds and exempting most small MPP facilities (including all small
rendering facilities that render less than 10 million pounds per year of raw material) from the
proposed revisions to 40 CFR 432. Subpart J applies to the rendering of any meat or poultry raw
material. When rendering is done in conjunction with a meat slaughterhouse or packinghouse,
the rendering wastewater generated is regulated under the limitations for the appropriate meat
slaughtering or packinghouse subcategory (i.e., under Subparts A, B, C, or D).
2.3.2 Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance
standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slaughtering) and further processing subcategories.
Poultry includes broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons,
geese, ducks, and small game such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits.
EPA proposed regulations for this segment of the meat and poultry products industry in
1975, but did not finalize them. EPA has reanalyzed this segment of the meat and poultry
2-15
-------
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background
products industry and is proposing today to establish BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations and
standards for existing facilities and new source performance standards for direct dischargers.
EPA proposes to create two new subcategories which would apply to poultry processing
facilities. The first new poultry subcategory is the "poultry first processing" subcategory which
includes the slaughtering and evisceration of the bird or animal and dressing the carcass for
shipment either whole or in parts, such as leg, quarters, breasts, and boneless pieces. These
facilities are commonly known as "ice pack facilities." The second new poultry subcategory is
the "poultry further processing" subcategory which includes additional preparation of the meat
including further cutting, cooking, seasoning, and smoking to produce ready-to-be eaten or
reheated servings. The additions to 40 CFR 432 for poultry being proposed apply to facilities
that discharge directly to a receiving stream and to other waters of the United States.
EPA is proposing to set less stringent effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers
slaughtering up to 10 million pounds of poultry per year and for further processors producing up
to 7 million pounds of poultry per year. See the "Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source
Category" (EPA-821-B-01-006) for a description of EPA's reasons for setting production
thresholds. The treatment options proposed for larger poultry slaughtering and further processing
facilities are economically unachievable for small poultry slaughtering and further processing
facilities. Rendering performed in conjunction with a poultry first processing facility would be
subject to the appropriate regulations under the poultry slaughtering (Subpart K).
2-16
-------
SECTION 3
DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
EPA conducted a number of data collection activities in support of these proposed
regulations. Section 3.1 describes EPA's site visit and sampling program. Section 3.2 describes
EPA's industry surveys. Section 3.3 describes other information collection activities, including:
literature searches, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and
NPDES discharge monitoring report (DMR) reports. Section 3.4 describes EPA stakeholder
meetings.
3.1 SUMMARY OF EPA'S SITE VISIT AND SAMPLING PROGRAM
3.1.1 EPA Site Visits
During 2000 and 2001, EPA conducted site visits at 15 meat and poultry products (MPP)
processing facilities. Six of these site visits were conducted at meat facilities, seven at poultry
facilities, and two at rendering-only facilities. The purposes of these site visits were to:
(1) collect information on meat and poultry processing operations; (2) collect information on
wastewater generation and waste management practices used by the MPP facilities; and
(3) evaluate each facility as a candidate for multi-day sampling. In addition, EPA conducted
limited sampling during several of the site visits to screen for potential contaminants that may be
found in wastewaters from the different types of meat and poultry processing operations.
In selecting candidates for site visits, EPA attempted to identify facilities representative
of various MPP processing operations, as well as of both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA
specifically considered the type of meat and poultry processing operations, age of the facility,
size of facility (in terms of production), wastewater treatment processes employed, and best
management practices/pollution prevention techniques used. EPA also solicited
recommendations for good-performing facilities (e.g., facilities with advanced wastewater
treatment technologies) from EPA Regional offices and State agencies. The site-specific
3-1
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
selection criteria are discussed in site visit reports prepared for each site visited by EPA (and can
be found in Section 6.1.4.2 of the Administrative Record for the proposed rule).
During each site visit, EPA collected information on the facility and its operations,
including: (1) general production data and information; (2) the types of meat and poultry
processing wastewaters generated and treated on-site; (3) water source and use; (4) wastewater
treatment and disposal operations; (5) potential sampling locations for wastewater (raw influent,
within the treatment system, and final effluent); and (6) other information necessary for
developing a sampling plan for possible multi-day sampling episodes. EPA also collected
wastewater samples of influent and effluent at seven of the 15 facilities for screening purposes
only.
3.1.2 EPA Sampling
3.1.2.1 Overview
Based on data collected from the site visits, EPA selected 11 facilities for multi-day
sampling. The purpose of the multi-day sampling was to characterize pollutants in raw
wastewaters prior to treatment, as well as to document wastewater treatment plant performance
(including selected unit processes). Selection of facilities for multi-day sampling was based on
an analysis of information collected during the site visits, as well as the following criteria:
• The facility performed meat and/or poultry slaughtering and/or further processing
operations representative of MPP facilities.
• The facility utilized in-process treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment
technologies that EPA was considering for technology option selection.
• Compliance monitoring data for the facility indicated that it was among the better
performing treatment systems, or that it employed wastewater treatment process
for which EPA sought data for option selection.
Multi-day sampling occurred at six meat facilities and five poultry facilities. EPA
performed multi-day sampling at two facilities, and nine facilities performed the multi-day
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
sampling on behalf of EPA. For the nine facilities that performed the sampling, EPA developed
sampling plans that detailed the procedures for sample collection, including the pollutants to be
sampled, location of sampling points, and sample collection, preservation, and shipment
techniques. EPA assisted the nine facilities as necessary (e.g., provided sample bottle labels,
provided assistance in shipping, and in one instance, provided on-site contractor support during
the sampling event).
3.1.1.2 Description of Sampling Episodes
During each multi-day sampling episode, EPA sampled facility influent and effluent
wastestreams. EPA did not collect source water information but will collect additional source
water data after proposal. EPA will use the post-proposal source water data to better characterize
wastewater characteristics for each of the facilities sampled. At some facilities, the Agency also
collected samples at intermediate points throughout the wastewater treatment system to assess
the performance of individual treatment units. Some of the facilities chosen for sampling
perform rendering and/or further processing operations in addition to meat and/or poultry
processing. For facilities that also performed rendering operations or further processing, EPA
sampled wastewater from the rendering and/or further processing operations separately, when
possible.
Sampling episodes were conducted over either a 3-day or 5-day period. EPA obtained
samples using a combination of 24-hour composite and grab samples, depending upon the
pollutant parameter to be analyzed. Depending on the type of wastewater processed and the
treatment technology being evaluated, EPA analyzed wastewater for up to 53 parameters
including conventional (BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH), toxic (selected
metals and pesticides), and nonconventional (e.g., nutrients, microbiologicals) pollutants. When
possible for a given parameter, EPA collected 24-hour composite samples in order to capture the
variability in the waste streams generated throughout the day (e.g., production wastewater versus
clean-up wastewater).
Data collected from the influent samples contributed to characterization of the industry,
development of the list of pollutants of concern and of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA used
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent points to analyze the efficacy of
treatment at the facilities, and to develop current discharge concentrations, loadings, and the
treatment technology options for the meat and poultry products industry. EPA used effluent data
to calculate the long-term averages (LTAs) and limitations for each of the proposed regulatory
options. EPA also used industry-provided data from the MPP detailed survey to complement the
sampling data for these calculations. During each sampling episode, EPA also collected flow
rate data corresponding to each sample collected and production information from each
associated manufacturing operation for use in calculating pollutant loadings and
production-normalized flow rates. EPA has included in the public record all information
collected for which the facility has not asserted a claim of Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or which would indirectly reveal information claimed to be CBI.
3.1.2.3 Sampling Episode Reports
EPA used the site visit reports to prepare multi-day sampling and analysis plans (SAPs)
for each facility that would undergo multi-day sampling. The Agency collected the following
types of information during each sampling episode:
• Dates and times of sample collection.
• Flow data corresponding to each sample.
• Production data corresponding to each sample.
• Design and operating parameters for source reduction, recycling, and treatment
technologies characterized during sampling.
• Information about site operations that had changed since the site visit or that were
not included in the site visit report.
• Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) of the sampled wastestreams.
After the conclusion of the sampling episodes, EPA prepared sampling episode reports
for each facility which included descriptions of the wastewater treatment processes, sampling
3-4
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
procedures, and analytical results. EPA documented all data collected during sampling episodes
in the sampling episode report for each sampled site and has included them in the MPP
Administrative Record. Non-confidential business information from these reports is available in
the public record for this proposal. For detailed information on sampling and preservation
procedures, analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control procedures, see the various
sampling episode reports in the rulemaking record (see Section 6 of the Administrative Record).
3.1.2.4 Pollutants Sampled
The Agency (or facilities, as directed by the Agency) collected, preserved, and transported
all samples according to EPA protocols, as specified in EPA's "Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants" and in the MPP Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
EPA collected composite samples for most parameters, because the Agency expected the
wastewater composition to vary over the course of a day. The Agency collected grab samples
from unit operations for oil and grease and microbiologicals. EPA gathered composite samples
either manually or by using an automated sampler. The Agency collected individual aliquots for
the composite samples at a minimum of once every 4 hours over each 24-hour period. Oil and
grease samples were collected every 4 hours, and microbiologicals were collected once a day.
Table 3-1 lists the parameters sampled at the majority of the facilities, some of which
have not been identified as pollutants of concern.
EPA contract laboratories completed all wastewater sample analyses, except for the field
measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. EPA or facility staff collected field
measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH at the sampling site. The analytical
chemistry methods used, as well as the sample volume requirements, detection limits, and
holding times, were consistent with the individual laboratory's quality assurance and quality
control plan. Laboratories contracted for MPP sample analysis followed EPA approved analysis
methods for all parameters.
3-5
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
The EPA contract laboratories reported data on their standard report sheet and submitted
them to EPA's sample control center (SCC). The SCC reviewed the report sheets for
completeness and reasonableness. EPA reviewed all reports from the laboratory to verify that the
data were consistent with requirements, reported in the proper units, and that the data were in
compliance with the applicable protocol. Appendix A provides brief descriptions of each of the
analytical methods.
Table 3-1. MPP Sampled Parameters
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5)
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand (DBOD5)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total volatile solids (TVS)
Chloride
Total residual chlorine (TRC)
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate/nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total dissolved phosphorus (TOP)
Orthophosphate
Oil and grease
Metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium,
copper, mercury, zinc)
Carbamate pesticide (carbaryl)
Permethrin (cis- and trans-)
Malathion
Stirofos
Dichlorvos
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Escherichia coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium (meat facilities only)
Quality control measures used in performing all analyses complied with the guidelines
specified in the analytical methods and in the MPP QAPP. EPA reviewed all analytical data to
ensure that these measures were followed and that the resulting data were within the
QAPP-specified acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision. SCC's review is summarized in
Data Review Narratives that are available in Section 6.1.4.2 of the Administrative Record.
3.2 EPA MPP INDUSTRY SURVEYS
3.2.1 Overview of Industry Surveys
EPA did not have the site-specific technical and economic information required for the
development of technologically achievable regulatory options for the meat and poultry products
3-6
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
industry. Therefore, EPA used two survey questionnaires to collect site-specific technical and
economic information.
EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25325)
announcing the Agency's intent to submit the meat and poultry products industry survey
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
May 1, 2000 notice requested comment on the draft ICR and the survey questionnaires. EPA
received five sets of comments during the 60 day public comment period. Commentors on the
ICR included: National Chicken Council, National Renderers Association, American Meat
Institute, BCR Foods, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. EPA made minor clarifying
revisions to the survey methodology and questionnaires as a result of public comments.
EPA made every reasonable attempt to ensure that the meat and poultry products industry
ICR did not request data and information currently available through less burdensome
mechanisms. Prior to publishing the May 1, 2000 notice, EPA met with and distributed draft
copies of the survey questionnaires to three trade associations representing the meat and poultry
products industry (American Meat Institute, National Chicken Council, and National Renderers
Association). EPA obtained approval from OMB for the use and distribution of two survey
questionnaires: a short screener survey and a more detailed survey.
3.2.2 Description of the Survey Instruments
In February 2001, EPA mailed a short screener survey entitled "2001 Meat Products
Industry Screener Survey" to 1,650 meat and poultry products facilities. The screener survey
consisted of seven questions that elicited site-specific information such as type of animal
processed and processing operation, wastewater disposal method, and the number of full-time
employees at the site and company. EPA used the information collected from the screener survey
to describe industry operations, wastewater generation rates, and wastewater disposal practices.
EPA also used the responses to the site employment question for classifying each facility as small
or not-small according to the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR Part 121.
3-7
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
EPA designed the second survey to collect detailed site-specific technical and financial
information. In March 2001, EPA mailed the second survey, entitled "2001 Meat Products
Industry Survey," to 350 meat and poultry products facilities. The detailed survey is divided into
five parts. The first four parts collect general facility and technical data. The first set of questions
request general facility site information. The general facility information questions asked the site
to identify itself, characterize itself by certain parameters (including meat and poultry products
operations, age, and location), and confirm that it was engaged in meat and/or poultry processing
operations. Respondents also indicated whether they use trisodium phosphate (TSP) as a
biocide. Substituting other non-phosphorus based biocides with TSP has the potential to lower
overall phosphorus concentrations in the raw wastewater and treated effluent. The second set of
questions requested analytical and production data including: (1) detailed daily analytical and
flow rate data for selected sampling points; (2) monthly production data; and (3) operating hours
for selected manufacturing operations. Survey respondents were required to provide existing
sampling data and information. The Agency used the analytical data to estimate baseline
pollutant loadings and pollutant removals from facilities with treatment-in-place resembling
projected regulatory options and to evaluate the variability associated with meat and poultry
products industry discharges. The Agency used the production data collected to evaluate the
production basis for applying the MPP proposal in NPDES permits.
The next two sections of the survey focused on wastewater characteristics and current
treatment practices, respectively. Questions regarding wastewater and treatment were designed to
gather: (1) information on the wastewater treatment systems (including diagrams) and discharge
flow rates; (2) analytical monitoring data; and (3) operating and maintenance cost data (including
treatment chemical usage). The outfall information questions covered permit information such
as: (1) discharge location; (2) wastewater sources to the outfall; (3) flow rates; (4) regulated
parameters and limits; and (5) permit monitoring data. The Agency used this information to
calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and standards and pollutant loadings associated with
the regulatory options that EPA considered for this proposal. The Agency also used data
received in response to these questions to identify treatment technologies in place, to determine
the feasibility of regulatory options and potential revision of the subcategorization scheme of the
3-8
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
meat and poultry products industry, and to estimate compliance costs, the pollutant reductions
associated with the likely technology-based options, and potential environmental impacts
associated with the regulatory options EPA considered for this proposal.
The fifth part of the detailed survey elicited site-specific financial and economic data.
EPA used this information to characterize the economic status of the industry and to estimate
potential economic impacts of wastewater regulations. The financial and economic information
collected in the survey was necessary to complete the economic analysis of the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the meat and poultry products industry. EPA requested
financial and economic information for the fiscal years ending 1997, 1998, and 1999, the most
recent years for which data are available.
3.2.3 Development of Survey Mailing List
EPA sent the two meat and poultry products industry survey questionnaires to a random
sample of facilities included in the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) database, and a list of Tenderers provided by the
National Renderers Association (NRA). The HACCP database provided a list of 7,891 federally-
and state-inspected meat and poultry processing facilities. The HACCP database is dated March
9, 2000 for the federally inspected facilities and May 10, 2000 for the state-inspected facilities.
The entire HACCP database is classified into Large, Small, and Very Small facilities,
corresponding to more than 500 employees, 10-500 employees, and fewer than 10 employees at
the facility level, respectively. The 231 Tenderers from the NRA list were not classified by size.
The Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 identified production information (i.e.,
whether a facility was a slaughterer or further processor) for at least 242 of the 292 large facilities
(82 percent) and 1,236 of the 2,381 small facilities (52 percent). No such information was
available for the remaining large and small facilities or for any of the 5,308 very small facilities.
3.2.4 Sample Selection
EPA grouped the facilities into seven strata by the size and the type of meat and poultry
processing operation that takes place in each facility, so that each stratum would encompass
3-9
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
facilities with similar operations. This grouping (also known as stratification) increases precision
(reducing one source of uncertainty) for estimates of costs, benefits and other quantities. Table
3-2 lists the stratification of the meat and poultry products industry based on employment and
other information from USDA's HACCP program, the Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory
2000, and the National Renders Association.
Various meat and poultry processors were randomly selected within each grouping. EPA
weighted each survey response to account for facilities not surveyed and to develop national
estimates from the survey responses. EPA deliberately selected the 65 "certainty" facilities to
obtain site-specific information on the top producers for all types of meat and poultry products as
well as facilities identified as good performers by state and regional environmental personnel.
Table 3-2. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Strata
Stratum
(No. of Employees)
Certainty
Large Processor
(>500)
Large Slaughterer
(>500)
Small Processor
(10-499)
Small Slaughterer
(10-499)
Very Small Processor
(<10)
Renderer
Total
Number of Facilities in
Stratum
65
43
190
1,878
498
5,308
235
8,217
Screener Survey
Sample Size
0
31
100
688
130
649
52
1,650
Detailed Survey
Sample Size
65
3
52
62
69
57
42
350
EPA focused much of its analysis on the characteristics of larger facilities since small
facilities as a group discharge fewer than 3 percent of the conventional pollutants, 1 percent of
the toxic pollutants, 4 percent of the nutrients, and less than 1.5 percent of the pathogens as
compared to all discharges from the entire MPP industry. Moreover, most of these small
facilities are discharging small volumes of wastewater into large urban publicly owned treatment
3-10
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
works (POTW) systems, which helps minimize impacts. Thus there is minimal impact on
POTW operations or the passing of MPP pollutants of concern through POTWs into waters of
the United States. Consequently, larger facilities were oversampled in the sample design. The
oversampling rate is approximately 6:3:1, meaning that the large facilities were sampled at six
times the rate of the very small facilities, and the small facilities at three times the rate of the very
small. In addition, many of the very small facilities were not eligible for the survey, as they were
no longer in operation. Appendix B provides additional information on how the Agency designed
the survey, developed sample size and extrapolated survey results
3.2.5 Survey Response
Of the 8,217 meat and poultry products industry facilities generating wastewater, 2,000
facilities were mailed either a detailed survey or a screener survey questionnaire. As of October
4, 2001, 1,365 of the 1,650 screener surveys and 300 of the 350 detailed surveys were returned to
EPA. EPA used 962 of the screener surveys and 241 of the detailed surveys which were received
before April 24, 2001 for screener survey and May 29, 2001 for detailed survey, for the
development of various regulatory options. EPA used the cut-off dates in order to process,
synthesize, and analyze the collected data and to develop regulatory options in a timely fashion.
EPA will use all surveys collected after the deadlines in upcoming analyses for the forthcoming
Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and final rule.
3.3 OTHER INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
EPA conducted a number of other data collection efforts to supplement information
gathered through the survey process, facility sampling activities, site visits, and meetings with
industry experts and the general public. The main purpose of these other data collection efforts
was to obtain information on documented environmental impacts of meat and poultry processing
industry facilities, additional data on animal processing waste characteristics, pollution
prevention practices, wastewater treatment technology innovation, and facility management
practices. These other data collection activities included a literature search, a review of current
NPDES permits, and NPDES DMRs.
3-11
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
3.3.1 Literature Search on Environmental Impacts
EPA conducted a literature search to obtain information on various aspects of the animal
processing industry, including documented environmental impacts, wastewater treatment
technologies, waste generation and facility management, and pollution prevention. EPA
performed extensive internet and library searches for applicable information. The Agency used
the resources of its own environmental library and of the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) National Research Library to obtain technical articles on environmental
issues relating to the animal processing industry. Researchers also consulted several university
libraries and industry experts during the literature search. As a result, EPA was able to compile a
list environmental impacts associated with the meat and poultry processing industry. The scope
of the literature search included government reports of permit violations and any associated
environmental impacts. EPA has included a summary of the case studies in the Administrative
Record associated with the MPP proposal. The primary sources for the case studies include
newspaper and technical journal articles, government reports, and papers included in industry and
academic conference proceedings.
3.3.2 Current NPDES Permits
EPA extracted information from the Agency's Permit Compliance System (PCS) to
identify meat and poultry processing industry point source dischargers with NPDES permits.
This initial extraction was performed by searching the PCS using reported Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes used to describe the primary activities occurring at the site.
Specifically, the following SIC Codes were used:
• 2011—Meat Packing Facilities
• 2013—Sausages and Other Prepared Meats
• 2015—Poultry Slaughtering and Processing
• 2077—Animal and Marine Fats and Oils.
EPA identified 359 active meat and poultry product facilities with NPDES permits in the
PCS database. The PCS estimate of MPP direct dischargers is approximately equivalent to the
3-12
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
screener survey estimate of direct dischargers. For the final rule, EPA will refine its estimates of
direct dischargers to incorporate information from both the PCS database and the screener
survey.
EPA selected a sample from this universe of direct dischargers in the PCS database. The
Agency then reviewed NPDES permits and permit applications to obtain information on
treatment technologies and wastewater characteristics for each of the respective animal
processing and rendering sectors. EPA used this information as part of its initial screening
process to identify the universe of processing facilities that would be covered under the proposal.
In addition, the Agency used this information to better define the scope of the information
collection requests and to supplement other information collected on meat and poultry processing
waste management practices.
3.3.3 Discharge Monitoring Reports
In addition, the Agency collected long-term effluent data from facility DMRs via the PCS
database in an effort to perform a "real world" check on the achievability of the MPP proposal
limits. DMRs summarize the quality and volume of wastewater discharged from a facility under
a NPDES permit. DMRs are critical for monitoring compliance with NPDES permit provisions
and for generating national trends on Clean Water Act compliance. DMRs may be submitted
monthly, quarterly, or annually depending on the requirements of the NPDES permit.
EPA extracted discharge data and permit limits from these DMRs (via the PCS database)
to help identify pollutants of concern (i.e., which pollutants are currently being regulated) and to
identify better performing facilities. Specifically, EPA identified the amount of discharged
ammonia in relation to the respective permit limits. EPA conducted this analysis in part to
identify potential facilities for future sampling, as well as to assist in identifying a selection of
facilities for the certainty component of the detailed survey exercise.
EPA was able to collect DMR information on a total of 176 facilities from four MPP
sectors: 77 meat packing facilities; 17 facilities producing sausages and other prepared meat
3-13
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
products; 65 poultry slaughtering and processing facilities; and 17 animal and marine fat and oils
facilities. EPA collected 31,311 data points on 83 separate pollutant parameters.
Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with their control authority (e.g.,
POTW) at least twice per year as required under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR
403), while direct dischargers file discharge monitoring reports with their permitting authority at
least once per year. EPA did not collect compliance monitoring reports for MPP facilities that
are indirect dischargers, as: (1) a vast majority of MPP indirect dischargers are small facilities
(i.e., small volumes of wastewater); and (2) this information is less centralized and harder to
collect.
Because DMR and indirect discharger compliance monitoring reports do not provide
information about processes and production, EPA was not able to use these data directly in
calculating the limitations and standards Instead, in the detailed survey, EPA requested that
facilities provide the individual daily measurements from their monitoring (for DMR or the
control authority) with detailed information about their treatment systems and processes. After
further evaluation of the detailed surveys, EPA intends to use the self-monitoring data
corresponding to the proposed treatment options to calculate the final limits and to reassess the
achievability of the limits by well-operated BAT systems. In cases where EPA determines that
improved system operation will allow the limits to be consistently achieved, it will include
additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost estimations for the final rule where it has not
already done so. In following the approach described above, EPA concludes that it will address
issues related to the achievability of the numerical limits by well-operated and economically
achievable treatment systems.
3.4 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
EPA encouraged the participation of all interested parties throughout the development of
the MPP proposal. EPA conducted outreach to the following trade associations (which represent
the vast majority of the facilities that will be affected by this guideline): American Meat Institute
(AMI), American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), National Renderers Association
(NRA), U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, and the National Chicken Council. EPA met on
-------
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
several occasions with various industry representatives to discuss aspects of the regulation
development. EPA also participated in industry meetings and gave presentations on the status of
the regulation development. Summaries of these meetings are in the rulemaking Administrative
Record.
In the development of the surveys used to gather facility specific information on this
industry, EPA consulted with the industry groups and several of their members to ensure that the
information was being requested in an intelligible manner, and that they would provide it in the
form requested.
EPA also met with representatives from USDA to discuss this regulation and how it
might either be affected by or affect requirements on the meat and poultry processing industry
implemented by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA. EPA has met with
representatives from state and local governments to discuss their concerns with meat and poultry
processing facilities and how EPA should approach these facilities in regulation. Summaries of
these meetings are in the Administrative Record. Additionally, EPA Regional and State
pretreatment coordinators were contacted to identify MPP indirect dischargers that were causing
POTW interference or pass through. The results of this limited search is summarized in Section
13 and in the rulemaking Administrative Record. EPA plans to conduct a more systematic and
thorough study of POTWs accepting MPP indirect discharges to better characterize interference
and pass through issues. EPA will present the results of the findings in the forthcoming NOD A.
3-15
-------
SECTION 4
MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the meat and poultry products (MPP) industry.
Section 4.2 provides a general overview of the MPP industry. Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 provide
more detailed information related meat, poultry, and rendering operations, respectively.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The meat and poultry products industry includes facilities that slaughter livestock (e.g.,
cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, and lambs) and/or poultry or process meat and/or poultry into
products for further processing or sale to consumers. In some facilities, slaughter and further
processing activities are combined. The industry is often described in terms of three categories:
(1) meat slaughtering and processing; (2) poultry slaughtering and processing; and (3) rendering.
A facility may perform slaughtering operations, processing operations from carcasses slaughtered
at the facility or other facilities, or both. Companies that own meat or poultry product facilities
may also own facilities that raise the animals or further process the meat or poultry products into
final consumer goods. Raising of animals, however, is not covered by the meat and poultry
products industry effluent limitations guidelines.
Since the 1970s when EPA issued the existing regulations for the meat and rendering
industry sectors, the meat and poultry products industry has become increasingly concentrated
and vertically integrated through alliances, acquisitions, mergers, and other relationships. This
vertical integration is particularly pronounced in the broiler sector of the poultry industry. Most
of the broiler and other chicken products that reach the consumer have been under the control of
the same company from the hatching through the processing of the birds. Vertical integration is
not seen to the same extent in the meat sector, although there is increasing vertical integration,
particularly in the hog sector.
The meat and poultry products industry encompasses four North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes developed by the Department of Commerce. These
4-1
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
NAICS codes include Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry), NAICS 311611; Meat Processed
from Carcasses, NAICS 311612; Poultry Processing, NAICS 311615; and Rendering and Meat
Byproduct Processing, NAICS 311613.
4.2 MEAT PRODUCTS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
4.2.1 Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry)
Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) (NAICS 311611) includes meat first processing
facilities that slaughter cattle, hogs, sheep, lambs, calves, horses, goats, and exotic livestock (e.g.,
elk, deer, buffalo) for human consumption. Slaughtering (first processing) is the first step in the
processing of meat animals into consumer products. Slaughterhouse operations typically
encompass the following steps: (1) receiving and holding of live animals for slaughter;
(2) stunning prior to slaughter; (3) slaughter (bleeding); and (4) initial processing of animals.
Slaughterhouse facilities are designed to accommodate this multistep process of first processing.
In most slaughterhouses, the major steps are carried out in separate rooms.
In addition, many first processing facilities further process carcasses on-site to produce
products such as hams, sausages, and canned meat. Otherwise, carcasses may be shipped to
other facilities for further processing. Also, many first processing facilities include rendering
operations that produce edible products, such as lard, and inedible products, including
ingredients for animal feeds and products for industrial use.
Based on the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers, the animal first processing industry
sector includes 1,300 companies, which operate approximately 1,400 facilities. The industry
sector employs 142,000 people and generates a total value of shipments of $54 billion. Twelve
states reported shipments in excess of $1 billion; Texas, California, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin
contain the largest number of first processing establishments (at least 60 establishments in each
state). Nebraska ranks seventh in the number of facilities located in the state, but it has the
highest number of employees engaged in animal first processing of any state. Nebraska accounts
for almost 17 percent of the value added and 16 percent of total shipments in this industry sector.
Industry activity is most heavily concentrated in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas.
4-2
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
The Animal First Processing sector comprises a large number of facilities (72 percent of
the sector) that have fewer than 20 employees. These facilities employ less than 5 percent of the
sector workforce and contribute an even smaller percentage of value added and value of
shipments to this sector. Thirty-nine facilities employ between 1,000 and 2,500 employees and
while constituting 3 percent of the total number of establishments, provide 43 percent of the
industry employment and 46 percent of the value of shipments.
Revised production rate thresholds exclude most smaller meat product processing
facilities from the January 31, 2002, proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 432. Based on the
current screener survey data, EPA is defining small meat facilities as those that produce fewer
than 50 million pounds live weight kill (LWK) per year. See Figures 4-1 and 4-2 for the
distribution of small and non-small (facilities producing more than 50 million pounds (LWK) per
year) meat first and further processing facilities, also, categorized by discharge type, throughout
the United States.
4.2.2 Meat Processed from Carcasses
Meat Processed from Carcasses (NAICS 311612) includes facilities engaged in
processing or preserving meat and meat by-products (but not poultry or small game) from
purchased meats. These facilities do not slaughter animals or perform any initial processing
(e.g., defleshing, defeathering).
The meat further processing industry sector includes 1,164 companies, which own and
operate about 1,300 facilities. This sector employs about 88,000 people, and the value of
shipments is more than $25 billion, of which $9 billion is value added by manufacture.
California, Illinois, New York, and Texas have the highest concentration of meat further
processing facilities, each with more than 90 meat further processing facilities. The highest
levels of employment, however, are found in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, which
together generate one-third of the meat further processing employment. In Wisconsin more than
half of the meat further processing facilities employ more than 20 workers, and the state also
accounts for the largest share of both total shipments and value added in the industry.
4-3
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
m Direct
* Indirect
+ Other
• None or Unknown
Data Source: MPP Screener Smvev
Figure 4-1. Location of Small Meat Facilities in the United States
(Based on MPP Screener Survey Data).
Reclmeat Non-Small
• Direct
* Indirect
+ Other
• None or Unknown
Figure 4-2. Location of Non-Small Meat Facilities in the United
States (Based on MPP Screener Survey Data).
4-4
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
As with the animal first processing sector, more than half of the meat further processing
facilities employ fewer than 20 workers. The bulk of the employment (54 percent), value added
(55 percent), and total shipments (57 percent) is accounted for by meat further processing
facilities employing between 100 and 500 workers. The difference between the animal first
processing sector and the meat further processing sector is that while the value of shipments in
the animal first processing industry sector is heavily concentrated in the largest facilities, the
value of shipments in the meat further processing sector is more evenly distributed across meat
further processing facilities of all different sizes.
See Figures 4-1 and 4-2 for the locations of small and non-small meat and mixed meat
first and further processing facilities throughout the United States that have been further
classified by discharge type. EPA defines small meat facilities as those producing fewer than 50
million pounds per year (LWK).
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF MEAT FIRST AND FURTHER PROCESSING
OPERATIONS
The meat processing industry produces meat products and by-products from cattle, calves,
hogs, sheep, lambs, horses, and all other animal species except poultry, other birds, rabbits, and
small game. Equine meat production has declined in the United States in the past 5 years. Total
annual production of equine meat was 47,134 head in the year 2000 (USDA, 2001). Most horse
meat is exported to Europe for consumption because of the cultural aversion to horse meat
consumption in the United States. It is not known whether European demand for horse meat will
increase in the future, given concerns about transmissible bovine spongiform encephalopathy in
cattle.
The processing of animal species other than cattle and hogs accounts for only a small
fraction of total production. The live weight of cattle and hogs slaughtered annually is
consistently more than 90 percent of the total live weight of meat animals slaughtered for the
production of meat products and by-products. Given that there is little difference in the
processing of cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, and horses, only the processing of cattle is described in
4-5
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
the sections that follow; parallel discussions are provided where cattle and hog processing
procedures differ.
Meat processing begins with the assembly and slaughter of live animals and may end with
the shipping of dressed carcasses or continue with a variety of additional activities. Meat
processing operations are classified as slaughter (first processing) or further processing
operations or an integrated combination of both. First processing operations include those
operations which receive live meat animals and produce a raw or dressed meat product, either
whole or in parts. In this classification system, first processing operations simply produce
dressed whole or split carcasses or smaller segments for sale to wholesale meat distributors or
directly to retailers. These operations are often prerequisites to further processing activities such
as cutting, deboning, grinding, sausage production, curing, pickling, smoking, cooking, or
canning. Demand for whole or split carcasses gradually has declined since the mid-1970s with a
concurrent increase in demand for a greater degree of carcass cut-up ranging from separation of
whole or split carcasses into front and hind quarters or smaller sections (e.g., "boxed beef), to
the preparation of packaged, case-ready, fresh cuts of meat. Most first processing operations
today perform some cutting, deboning, and grinding operations. Further processing operations
such as sausage production, curing, pickling, smoking, cooking, and canning can occur on-site or
at off-site facilities.
Therefore, EPA considers the reduction of whole or split carcasses into quarters or
smaller segments (including case-ready cuts, which may be with or without bone and may be
ground) to be part of first processing operations when performed at first processing facilities.
Conversely, EPA considers the cutting, boning, and grinding operations to be further processing
operations when performed at facilities not also engaged in first processing activities. The
reduction of whole or split carcasses or smaller carcass segments (e.g., "boxed beef) into case-
ready cuts at the retail level is an example of a case in which cutting, boning, or grinding would
be further processing.
4-6
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.1 Meat Slaughter and Packing Operations
Common to all meat first processing operations are the series of steps necessary to
transform live animals into either whole or split carcasses. These steps include the assembly and
holding of animals for slaughter; killing, which involves stunning before and bleeding after
killing; hide or hair removal in the case of hogs, evisceration and variety meat (organ) harvest;
carcass washing; trimming; and carcass cooling. Depending on the market served, cutting,
deboning, and grinding and other further processing operations may occur at the same location.
Most meat facilities for which site visits were conducted slaughtered animals 5 days per
week, Monday through Friday. Slaughtering may also be performed on Saturdays during peak
production periods. Employees of meat facilities generally work 8 to 9.5 hours per day, Monday
through Friday, and when necessary 4 to 5 hours on Saturday. Meat facilities generally have two
slaughter shifts per day, one starting at approximately 6 a.m. and the other starting at
approximately 3 p.m.
Generally, larger meat first processing operations specialize in the processing of one type
of animal (e.g., cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, hogs, or horses). Differences in animal size and
some processing steps preclude the design of processing equipment for multiple animal types. If
a single facility does slaughter different types of meat animals, separate lines, if not buildings, are
used (Warriss, 2000). However, very small meat first processing operations may process several
types of meat animals in a single building. Figure 4-3 shows the general sequence of steps in the
process of transforming live meat animals into carcasses. Detailed descriptions of each of these
steps are given in the following sections.
4.3.1.1 Live Animal Receiving and Holding
Meat processors schedule receipt of live animals for slaughter from producers not only to
provide a continuous supply of animals for processing but also to minimize holding time to no
more than 1 day. This practice eliminates the need for feeding and reduces manure accumulation
in holding pens. However, processors provide water to minimize weight loss. With the
4-7
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Animals
Further Processing
*Note: These operations may be performed by other off-site
MPP facilities
Wet or Dried
Blood
Hides & Hair
^. Edible Organ
Meats
By-products
Edible Lard &
Tallow
Carcasses &
> Smaller Meat
Cuts
Figure 4-3: Process Flow in a Meat Slaughtering and Packing Facility.
(USEPA, 1974)
4-8
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
relocation of first processing operations to areas of animal production, movement by track has
replaced rail transportation of live animals.
Holding pens, which allow recovery from shipping-related stress, may be covered or
totally enclosed, especially in cold climates, to provide some protection from extreme weather
conditions but primarily to reduce contaminated runoff from precipitation events. Holding pens
are, however, sources of wastewater resulting from pen washing and drinking water spillage.
Water pollutant concentrations depend on whether pens are scraped (dry cleaned) prior to wash-
down to remove accumulated manure. Animals are herded from the holding pens to the killing
area of the processing plant through connecting alleys. These alleys also are sources of
wastewater generated during precipitation events (if uncovered) as well as from cleaning.
4.3.1.2 Methods Used to Stun Animals
Humane slaughter legislation requires that animals be stunned to produce an unconscious
state before killing to reduce pain and suffering. Some exemptions are made for religious meat
processing (e.g., kosher, halal). Cattle typically are stunned by mechanical means using a captive
bolt pistol, percussion stunner, or free bullet to inflict brain trauma and the immediate loss of
consciousness. Electric shock is most commonly used to stun hogs because mechanical stunning
can result in convulsions, making subsequent shackling difficult. Electric shock also is
commonly used to stun sheep, lambs, and calves before killing.
A less commonly used alternative to electric shock for stunning hogs is exposure to a 70
to 90 percent carbon dioxide environment in a pit or tunnel. Inhalation of a high concentration of
carbon dioxide causes a drop in brain fluid pH and loss of consciousness. Current research is
being performed to evaluate argon as a substitute for carbon dioxide. While stunning with argon
is believed to be less stressful to the animal than using carbon dioxide, use of argon requires
longer exposure periods to achieve unconsciousness (Warriss, 2000).
4.3.1.3 Killing and Bleeding
Immediately after stunning, shackles are attached to the animal's rear legs for suspension
from an overhead rail conveyor used to move the carcass through the processing plant. After
4-9
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
hanging the animals, processors kill them within seconds by severing main arteries and veins in
the neck region to cause death by massive and rapid blood loss (exsanguination). This process is
generally known as "sticking," and somewhat different techniques are used for cattle, hogs,
sheep, and horses.
Troughs or gutters collect blood lost following sticking for recovery in the form of
various by-products. If blood is collected for subsequent human consumption in products such as
blood sausage, a hollow knife connected to a special tank under partial vacuum is used. While
approximately 40 to 60 percent of the blood exits the body during bleeding, about 3 to 5 percent
remains in the muscles and the remainder is in held in the viscera (Wilson, 1998).
Certain religious practices require an alternative slaughter process for cattle. In these
cases, the animal is not stunned prior to slaughter. Instead, the animal is restrained while the
slaughterer makes a transverse cut that severs the major vessels in the throat (Warriss, 2000).
The Jewish slaughter practice, called Shechita, requires a single cut without pause, pressure,
stabbing, slanting, or tearing. The cut severs the skin, muscles, trachea, esophagus, jugular veins,
and carotid arteries. After bleeding ceases, the slaughterer searches for lung adhesions. The
meat is unfit for consumption if the sores are believed to have been detrimental to the animal
while alive. Next, the removal of blood vessels and sinews, called porging, completes the
slaughter ritual. Halal, the Muslim slaughter practice, is similar to Shechita; the main difference
is that searching and porging do not take place (Wilson, 1998).
Although not common, the slaughtering process may include electric stimulation of the
carcasses to improve meat quality and to facilitate removal of the hide. Typically, this process
calls for a skull probe, which is inserted into the skull of the carcass through the hole from the
captive bolt for 30 seconds (Wilson, 1998). One of the primary goals of electric stimulation is to
prevent cold shortening, which makes the meat less tender. Plants use both high-voltage (>500
volts) and low-voltage (30 to 90 volts) electric stimulation systems (USEPA, 1997).
4-10
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.1.4 Hide Removal from Cattle and Sheep and Hair Removal from Hogs
Before evisceration, slaughterers remove hides from cattle and sheep, and hair from hog
carcasses to reduce the potential for contamination of the carcasses after evisceration from hair,
dirt, and manure. Hides usually are removed from cattle and sheep mechanically after the
removal of the head, tail, and hooves. The process of hide removal begins with some initial
separation from the carcass manually, using either conventional or air-driven knives, to enable
attachment of mechanical pullers. The pullers then remove the hide by either pulling up from the
neck to the tail or pulling in the reverse direction, which is less common.
On-site hide processing can consist of salting for preservation before shipment to leather
tanning operations, or it can involve washing, defleshing, and salting before shipment. However,
on-site hide processing options also may include curing before shipment for off-site tanning or
complete processing followed by the marketing of tanned hides.
Hogs typically are not skinned. Rather, they are scalded by immersion for about 4 to 5
minutes in hot water having a temperature of about 54 to 60 °C (130 to 140 °F). The objective of
scalding to relax hair follicles is to facilitate subsequent mechanical hair removal by passing the
carcass between rotating drums with rubber fins or fingers. A constant flow of water washes
away the hair removed from the carcass. Any remaining hair is removed by singeing by passing
the carcass through a gas flame followed by passing the carcass through a water spray for cooling
and washing, and then by manual shaving.
Meat processing facilities usually collect hog hair and other particulate matter from
processing wastewater by screening for rendering before any subsequent on-site or off-site
wastewater treatment. Hog hair also may be recovered, washed, and baled for sale for various
uses, but demand for this material has become quite limited. Also limited is the demand for
pigskin leather, which is why most hogs are not skinned.
4.3.1.5 Evisceration
After hide or hair removal from hogs, the carcasses are washed with water sprays to
remove any manure, soil, and hair present to retard microbial growth and spoilage. This step is
4-11
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
followed by evisceration to remove internal organs. Evisceration begins with a ventral incision
made manually that spans the length of the carcass, followed by removal of the gastrointestinal
tract (stomach, intestines, and rectum). Then, an incision is made through the diaphragm to
allow removal of the remaining organs (trachea, lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, and spleen).
After evisceration, carcasses are federally or state-inspected for indicators of disease and
suitability for human consumption. Condemned carcasses are segregated with salvage of usable
parts when possible. Following evisceration and inspection, with the possible exception of calf
and lamb carcasses, carcasses usually are split into two halves by sawing them down the middle
of the spinal column.
After evisceration, different organs may be separated for sale as variety meats or pet food
ingredients prior to the removal of viscera from the processing plant; otherwise, viscera are
generally disposed of through rendering. Liver and kidneys are the organs most commonly
harvested from cattle, calf, and lamb viscera; some stomach tissue is harvested from cattle for
sale as tripe. Less common is the harvesting of the thymus from calves for sale as sweet breads.
Lung tissue also may be harvested for sale as food for mink.
Variety meat harvesting from hogs is more extensive than from cattle and sheep and
includes not only liver and kidneys, but also the small and large intestine. The former is sold as
chitterlings while the latter is sold as natural casing for sausage. In addition, hog ears and feet,
jowls, and the sphincter muscle may be harvested for sale.
4.3.1.6 Washing
After carcass inspection and splitting, a second washing takes place to remove blood
released during evisceration, bone dust from carcass splitting, and any other foreign matter
present. Processors may add bactericide such as an organic acid, chlorine, or potassium chloride
to the wash water to reduce microbial populations and the potential for growth and spoilage.
Acetic and lactic acids in very dilute concentrations (2 to 3 percent) are the organic acids used as
bactericides. Large operations often use automated carcass washing equipment to maintain
4-12
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
appropriate pressure to maximize efficiency of water use (USEPA, 1997). The time from
stunning to the second and final carcass wash varies to some degree, but it is less than 1 hour.
Before refrigeration or freezing, all variety meats are washed to remove blood and any
other contaminants. The washing of the small and large intestines of hogs is a very labor-
intensive process requiring substantial amounts of water to completely removal fecal material.
4.3.1.7 Chilling
The next step in the meat slaughtering process is carcass chilling to remove residual body
heat to inhibit microbial growth and reduce evaporative weight loss. Carcasses are chilled for at
least a 24-hour period but are chilled for 48 hours over weekends and during weeks with
holidays. Typically, carcass chilling is a two-step process beginning with snap (flash) chilling at
temperatures substantially below freezing to effect a rapid initial rate of reduction in carcass
temperature (USEPA, 1997). After snap chilling, carcasses are moved into chill rooms for the
remainder of the chilling process. Chill room temperatures are maintained at a temperature of
1 °C (34 °F) to reduce carcass temperature to no higher than 7 °C (45 °F) before further handling
(Warriss, 2000). Chilling facilities separate the "dirty" and "clean" sides of meat processing
plants.
4.3.1.8 Packaging and Refrigeration or Freezing
Larger carcass sections usually are packaged in heavy plastic bags, which then may be
placed in cardboard boxes (e.g., "boxed beef) for shipping. Large quantities of ground meat
also are packaged in heavy plastic bags. Smaller cuts sold as case-ready are placed on Styrofoam
trays, wrapped with thin plastic film, and boxed for shipment. Case-ready cuts also may be
weighed and labeled showing weight and price. The packaging of case-ready cuts usually is a
completely automated process.
Packaged meats then are refrigerated until and during shipment. Freezing of meats that
have not been further processed is rare given consumer food safety concerns about refreezing
previously frozen meats. However, some meat is frozen before shipment, especially for
commercial use and export markets.
4-13
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.1.9 Cleaning Operations
Federal and state regulations require that equipment and facilities used for the first
processing of all animals for human consumption be completely cleaned at least after every 8
hours of operation to maintain sanitary conditions. Therefore, the daily schedule for meat
processing facilities consists of one or two 8-hour production shifts followed by a 6- to 8-hour
cleanup shift. During cleanup, first all equipment, walls, and floors are rinsed to remove easily
detachable particulate matter. Then they are scrubbed and rinsed again to remove detached
particulate matter, detergents, and sanitizing agents used during the scrubbing phase of cleanup
activities. In states where phosphorus-based detergents are banned, phosphorus-based detergent
use in food processing plants is generally exempted, so phosphorus-based detergents are
commonly used. Chlorine solutions and other bactericidal compounds are also commonly used.
4.3.2 Meat Further Processing
As previously discussed, EPA considers the reduction of whole or split carcasses into
quarter or smaller segments as further processing operations when they do not occur in
conjunction with first processing operations. The segments produced include case-ready cuts
with or without bone and ground meat. Other activities, including sausage production, curing,
pickling, smoking, marinating, cooking, and canning, also are considered further processing
operations.
In the meat industry, further processing activities may be combined with first processing
activities at the same site or they may be stand-alone operations. Where first and further
processing activities occur at the same site, usually some fraction of the carcasses produced is
marketed as fresh meat and the remainder is transformed into processed products. Stand-alone
further processing operations may receive carcasses, or more commonly carcass parts, from first
processing operations for further processing.
4-14
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.2.1 Raw Material Thawing
The frozen raw materials received by a meat processing plant are handled in one of three
different ways:
• Wet thawing
• Dry thawing
• Chipping
Materials that are wet thawed are submerged in tanks or vats containing warm water for
the time required to thaw the particular pieces of meat. The devices used for wet thawing include
simple carts with water covering the meat, vats with water flowing in and out with the exit
temperature of the water controlled at 10 to 16 °C (50 to 60 °F) to avoid heating the outer
surfaces of the meat, and equipment where the meat pieces are suspended in a tank of water and
moved by some conveyance through that tank for a time sufficient to thaw the meat (USEPA,
1974).
Dry thawing involves placing the frozen meat pieces in a refrigerated room at a
temperature above freezing and allowing sufficient time for the particular pieces of meat to fully
thaw (USEPA, 1974).
Chipping involves size-reduction equipment designed to handle frozen pieces of meat and
to produce small particles of meat that readily thaw and can be used directly in subsequent
mixing or grinding operations. This type of thawing is usually associated with the production of
comminuted (flaked) meat products (USEPA, 1974).
Both wet and dry thawing generally are used when the entire piece of meat, or a
substantial portion of it, is required for a finished product, such as hams or bacon (USEPA,
1974).
Wet thawing of raw materials generates the largest quantity of contaminated wastewater.
The water used to thaw the materials is in contact with the meat and thereby extracts water-
soluble salts and accumulates particles of meat and fat. The water used in thawing is dumped
4-15
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
into the sewer after thawing is complete. The waste load generated in dry thawing is from the
thawing materials dripping onto the floor and from the washing of these drippings into the sewer.
The waste from the chipping of frozen meat materials includes the meat and fat particles
remaining on the chipping equipment that are washed into the sewer during cleanup. Juices
extruded from the meat product in the chipping process are wasted to the sewer, although it is not
a large wasteload (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.2 Carcass/Meat Handling and Preparation
This operation includes seven different operations that may be involved in handling and
preparing meat materials for subsequent processing, depending on the processing plant. Each of
the seven operations is described separately. All seven operations are usually not required to
produce a processed meat product (USEPA, 1974). These operations are also illustrated in
Figure 4-4.
4.3.2.2.1 Breaking
Beef is frequently received by meat processors as carcass halves or quarters. Breaking
involves the cutting of these half and quarter carcasses into more manageable sizes for further
handling and preparation following this operation. The waste load originates from the cutting
and sawing and includes small meat and fat particles and relatively little liquid, all of which fall
to the floor and are washed into the sewer during cleanup (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.2.2 Trimming
The removal of excess or unwanted fat and of specific cuts from larger pieces of meat is
done in the trimming operation. The unwanted fat trimmed from meat products is usually
disposed of through rendering. The materials for disposal are collected and stored in drums,
which are picked up by Tenderers. The waste load generated in trimming might be greater than
that generated by the breaking operation. Trimming requires a greater number of cuts on a
specific piece of meat to obtain the required quality or particular cut desired from the raw
4-16
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
ANIMAL
CARCASSES
FINISHED PRODUCT
PREPARATION
RECEIVING AND
STORAGE
BREAKING,
TRIMMING
BONING,
CUTTING
PACKAGING
FINISHED PRODUCT
STORAGE,
SHIPPING
THAWING
GRINDING,
MIXING
PRODUCT
FORMING
Figure 4-4. General Process for Meat Cuts and Portion Control
Procedures (USEPA, 1974).
material. The wastewater generated by this operation results from the use of water by the
personnel involved in the operation during the operating day and water required to clean the
equipment and floor of the trimming operation (USEPA, 1974).
4-17
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.2.2.3 Cutting
In the cutting operation, the larger pieces of meat are cut or sawed for the direct
marketing of the smaller sections or individual cuts, or for further processing in the production of
processed meat products. The solid waste materials generated in cutting are similar to those
produced in trimming, plus the bone dust from sawing the bones. The large pieces are useful in
sausages or canned meats or can be rendered for edible fats and tallows. The waste materials
from the equipment and floor washdown contribute to the waste load of the meat processing
plant (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.2.4 Deboning
Some raw materials are prepared for the consumer by the removal of internal bones prior
to manufacturing particular products such as hams and Canadian bacon. Deboning might also be
performed at the same location as trimming, prior to the production of various meat cuts. The
bones removed in this operation are disposed of through rendering channels. Meat and fat
particles produced from this operation are normally washed into the sewer of a meat processing
plant (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.2.5 Skinning
The removal of the pork skin from a piece of meat can be done by machine or by hand.
Skinning is most frequently used in the preparation of pork bellies for processing into bacon and
in ham production. The common practice in the industry is to use machines for the skinning
process. The skins removed are disposed of through rendering channels. Other products that
require skinning, such as picnic hams, are manually skinned, frequently at the same time that the
raw hams are deboned. In either type of skinning operation, meat and fat particles are generated
and wasted by falling on the floor or by becoming attached to the skinning equipment. The
subsequent cleanup washes these particles into the sewer. In addition, tempering frequently
precedes pork belly skinning, generating a waste load comparable to that generated by wet
thawing of frozen meat materials by direct meat contact with water (USEPA, 1974).
4-18
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.2.2.6 Comminution (Mincing, Bowl Chopping, Flaking)
Comminution is the process of reducing large pieces of meat into small pieces for
products such as sausage and hamburger patties. There are three general methods of
comminution: mincing, bowl chopping, and flaking. Each method affects the size and shape of
meat differently, influencing other meat properties. The general processes for comminuted meat
products are illustrated in Figure 4-5.
Meat is minced by being pushed through a perforated plate positioned against a rotating
knife with a screw auger. The size of perforation varies, depending on the desired meat particle
size. The meat is then broken into very small pieces through bowl chopping. Meat is bowl
chopped by being placed into a rotating bowl and carried by conveyor belt through a set of
vertically rotating knives. Comminuted (flaked) meat is produced when a sharp blade cuts frozen
meat blocks into small flakes.
Hamburger patties are formed of minced or flaked beef traditionally, although other
meats can be used. Reformed steaks are made from comminuted meat that is shaped to resemble
a natural steak. Sausages are made from chopped or comminuted meat and additional
ingredients, which are filled into a casing. The casing can be made from the collagen layer of
animal intestines or from the reconstituted collagen from other animal parts (Warriss, 2000).
4.3.2.2.7 Grinding, Mixing, and Emulsifying
All processed meat products that are not marketed as cuts or as specific items such as
bacon or ham, or used in large pieces, are processed at least through a grinding step to produce a
finished product. Grinding is the first step in reducing the size of meat pieces for use in
processed meat products such as hamburger, or in preparation for further mixing, blending, or
additional size reduction. Grinders are frequently equipped with plates through which meat is
forced or extruded. Grinder plates with holes measuring 1/8 to 3/8 inch are most commonly
used. In addition to size reduction, grinding equipment may be used to prepare a mixture of
various ingredients such as meat products from different types of animals or lean and fatty meat
products. The particle size of the meat ingredients in a product is critical. Larger particle size is
4-19
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
CARCASSES
MEAT PARTS
RECEIVING AND STORAGE
_L
THAWING
(IF FROZEN)
BREAKING, CUTTING,
TRIMMING
SALT
WATER
BRINE
PREPARATION
HOLDING
WEIGHING,
BATCHING
COOKING,
SMOKING
PRODUCT
COOLING
PACKAGING
FROZEN MEAT
CHIPPING
SPICES
WATER
«ii«^w, ^
, ETC.
OR ICE .
GRINDING,
MIXING
EMULSIFICATION
EXTRUDING,
STUFFING
LINKING
PEELING
FINISHED PRODUCT
STORAGE, SHIPPING
Figure 4-5. General Process for Comminuted Meat Products (Sausage,
Wieners, Luncheon Meats, etc.) USEPA, 1974).
required for hamburger or fresh pork sausage products. A slightly smaller particle size is
required for manufacturing dry or semi-dry sausages. Various sausages, including wieners and
some luncheon meats, are prepared by a substantial size reduction or comminution of the meat
raw materials. These products involve a stable sausage emulsion whereby the fat droplets or
4-20
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
globules are uniformly dispersed throughout the mixture so that it will take on a homogenous
appearance (USEPA, 1974).
Equipment is available to the meat processor that blends or mixes the various ingredients,
including the meat materials, to produce stable emulsions. One type of equipment—the "silent
cutter"— uses numerous knife blades spinning at a high velocity to reduce the particle size and to
produce a stable emulsion. The other type of equipment used to produce an emulsion has the
appearance of a common type of dry blender comparable to the ribbon blender (USEPA, 1974).
Control of the type of raw materials used, the sequence of addition, and the time and
intensity of grinding, blending, or emulsifying are all critical to the quality of the finished
product. Some movement of materials is usually involved in these operations because stepwise
processing is required for each batch. This movement is accomplished by pumping or manually
using portable containers (USEPA, 1974).
Solid waste materials are generated from these operations by spillage in handling and
movement of materials and in cleanup and preparation of equipment for different types of
products (USEPA, 1974).
These manufacturing operations are among the major contributors to the waste load in a
meat processing plant as a result of equipment cleanup. Because the processing step involves
size reduction of lean and fatty materials and the preparation of stable mixtures of meat and other
ingredients, these materials tend to coat equipment surfaces and collect in crevices, recesses, and
dead spaces in equipment. All of these materials are removed in cleanup and washed into the
sewer. This is in contrast to larger particles that can be readily dry-cleaned off a floor prior to
washdown, thereby reducing the raw waste load in the wastewater stream. Any piece of
equipment that is used in any of these operations is cleaned at least once per processing day and
may be rinsed off periodically throughout the day, thereby generating a fairly substantial quantity
of wastewater and contributing to the raw waste load (USEPA, 1974).
4-21
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.2.3 Tenderizing and Tempering
Meat can be tenderized either by marinating or by being injected with salt solutions or
acids. Meats have been traditionally marinated in vinegar or wine because their acidic properties
break down the muscle structure. Also, the myofibrils swell and hold water, improving
tenderness and juiciness. More recently, solutions, especially calcium chloride solutions, have
been injected into the meat to achieve the same results (Warriss, 2000).
The processing of some meat products can be enhanced by adjusting the temperature or
moisture content prior to a specific processing step. This is particularly true in the production of
bacon from pork bellies. If the pork bellies are to be skinned, tempering in a water-filled vat is
frequently used to improve skin removal. Hams and bacon are frequently tempered following
cooking and smoking by being kept in refrigerated storage long enough for the desired
temperature to develop within the particular product. See Figure 4-6 for the general processes for
hams and bacon. Some meat processors also find it advantageous to allow the cooked bacon slab
to temper in refrigerated storage, following pressing and forming of the slab into the rectangular
shape used in the bacon-slicing machines. The holding of essentially finished products generates
very little, if any, waste load. However, the water-soaking tempering technique employed prior
to skinning pork bellies does generate a waste load comparable to that generated by wet thawing
of frozen meat materials by the direct meat contact and subsequent dumping of this water into the
sewer (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.4 Curing
Curing employs salt compounds to preserve meat and develop a characteristic appearance
and flavor. There are two methods of curing meats—dry curing, which entails rubbing solid salts
into the meat surface, and immersion, a much more common method wherein meat is submersed
into a liquid solution of salts. Injecting brine into the meat and tumbling the meat with rotating
drums often aid in distribution. Other salts, such as potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate, and
sodium nitrite, often substitute for common table salt (sodium chloride) in the brine solution.
The curing brine typically contains additional substances, including sugars to enhance flavor,
4-22
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
HAMS
PORK BELLIES
RECEIVING AND STORAGE
T
FROZEN MATERIALS
UNFROZEN
MATERIALS
THAWING IN WATER
THAWING IN AIR
TEMPER IN WATER
SKINNING, TRIMMING, BONING
PICKLE APPLICATION, INJECTION
HOLDING
COOKING, SMOKING
T
COOLING, HOLDING
BACON PRESS
SLICING
PACKAGING
FINISHED PRODUCT
STORAGE, SHIPPING
Figure 4-6. General Process for Hams and Bacon. (USEPA, 1974).
ascorbic acid to prevent discoloration, and polyphosphates to improve the water-holding capacity
of the meat (Warriss, 2000).
4.3.2.5 Pickle Application/Injection
A pickle or curing solution is prepared with sugar, sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate, and salt
as the main ingredients in water. The pickle solution preparation area frequently is separated
physically within the plant from the actual point of use. Various types of injection are used to
introduce the pickle solution into the interior of a meat product. Pickle solution may also be
4-23
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
applied by holding the meat product in a curing brine long enough for the pickle to be absorbed.
Or the pickle may be injected or pumped into hams or similar products by introducing the brine
through an artery or the vascular system, if it is relatively intact. The product may be injected
through numerous needles that penetrate the ham over a large area. Hams, for example, are
usually pumped to 110 or 120 percent of their green (or starting) weight. The injection may also
be done on both sides to ensure thorough and uniform pickling. Following the pickle injection or
application, it is common practice to store the product in tubs with a covering of pickle solution
for some time (USEPA, 1974).
Pickling solutions are high in sugar and salt content, particularly the latter. The large
amount of spillage in this operation comes from runoff from the pickle injection, from pickle
oozing out of the meat after injection, from dumping of cover pickle, and from dumping of
residual pickle from the injection machine at the end of each operating day. These practices
contribute substantially to the wastewater and waste load from a meat processing plant. Many of
the ingredients of pickle solutions represent pollutional material in high concentrations and add
significantly to the raw waste load from the pickle operation. Cleanup of the tubs or vats holding
the product in brine solutions and cleanup of the pickle injection machines is required at least
once per day, or after each use in the case of the vats. This necessity generates additional waste
load and wastewater from a meat processing plant (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.6 Cooking, Smoking, and Cooling
Although smoking has traditionally functioned as a method of preservation by drying the
meat and preventing fat oxidation, it now primarily serves to flavor the meat. Liquid smokes that
contain liquid extract of smoke commonly substitute for real smoke (Warriss, 2000).
Most of the meat products are cooked as part of the standard manufacturing procedure.
Notable exceptions are fresh pork sausage, bratwurst, and bockwurst. Processed meat products
may be cooked with moist or dry heat. Cooking sausages coagulates the proteins and reduces the
moisture content, thereby firming up the product and fixing the desired color of the finished
product. Large walk-in ovens or smokehouses are in general use throughout the industry. These
4-24
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
smokehouses are equipped with temperature controls, humidity controls, water showers, and
facilities to provide smoke for smoking products (USEPA, 1974).
The smoking of meat products gives the finished meat product a characteristic and
desirable flavor, some protection against oxidation, and an inhibiting effect on bacterial growth
in the finished product. Smoke is most commonly generated from hardwood sawdust or small-
size wood chips. Smoke is generated outside the oven and is carried into the oven through
ductwork. A small stream of water quenches the burned hardwood sawdust before dumping the
sawdust to waste. Water overflow from this quenching section is commonly wasted into the
sewer. One plant slurried the char from the smoke generator, piped it to a static screen for
separation of the char from the water, and then wasted the water (USEPA, 1974).
The actual cooking operation generates wastewater when steam or hot water is used as the
cooking medium, such as in cooking luncheon meats in stainless steel molds. The steam
condensate and hot water are wasted to the sewer from the cooking equipment. It is standard
practice to shower the finished product immediately after cooking to cool it. This practice also
generates a wastewater stream containing a waste load primarily of grease (USEPA, 1974).
Cleanup of the cooking ovens is not done every day, but at the discretion of the plant
management. The typical practice is to clean each oven and the ductwork for the heated air and
smoke circulation at least once a week. This cleaning includes the use of highly caustic cleaning
solutions to cut grease and deposits from the smoking operation that have been deposited on the
walls, ceiling, and ductwork in the ovens. The effluent from such a cleaning operation is
noticeably dark-colored. This color is thought to be the result of creosote-type deposits and fatty
acids from the smoke. The other waste load generated in oven cleanup is the grease from the
walls and floors resulting from cooking the various products (USEPA, 1974).
In total quantity, the waste load and wastewater generated in this cleanup is not
particularly significant. However, there is the noticeable coloration of the wastewater during
cleanup and, depending on the extent of the use of caustic, an increase in the pH of the waste-
water (USEPA, 1974).
4-25
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Facilities cool processed meat products in different ways, depending on the type of
product. Sausage products may be cooled while still in the oven or smokehouse with a spray of
cold water or brine solution. Alternatively, they may be cooled in the aisle immediately outside
the smokehouse to save heat and increase productivity. The brine solution is used to achieve a
lower spray temperature and thereby a more rapid cooling of the product. The brine is
recirculated until it is judged to be excessively contaminated to permit efficient use, at which
point it is usually discharged into the sewer (USEPA, 1974).
Hams and bacon products (Figure 4-8) are not exposed to water but instead are moved
quickly from the smokehouse to a refrigerated room with a very low temperature (-35 °C, or
-31 °F) and higher-than-normal air circulation to achieve rapid cool-down. The hams and bacon
may drip a small quantity of juice or grease onto the floor of the cold room before the surface
temperature of the product reaches a point that precludes any further dripping. Cleanup of the
floor results in wasting of these drippings into the sewer (USEPA, 1974).
Canned meat products and products prepared in stainless steel molds are usually cooled
by submersion in cold water. The water is usually contained in a tank or raceway, where it may
flow at a very low speed in a direction countercurrent to the movement of the cans or molds.
Depending on the type of installation and product, it was found that the water used in cooling
need not be dumped and in fact can be continually recirculated with only a nominal amount of
blow-down to remove accumulated solids, just as would be done in operating a boiler. In other
situations, usually where smaller quantities of water are involved and luncheon meat molds are
being cooled, the water is dumped more frequently (up to once a day). This dumping is
necessary because the seal on the molds is not tight enough to prevent leakage of juices and
grease to the exterior of the molds (USEPA, 1974).
The only cleanup of cooling equipment that would generate a waste load is cleanup of the
floors in the cold rooms where hams and bacon are cooled. This load is small in comparison to
others from the plants (USEPA, 1974).
4-26
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.2.7 Mechanically Recovered Meat
Mechanically recovered meat (MRM) is meat separated from bone by first grinding it to
produce a paste. The paste is then forced through a perforated stainless steel drum to separate
meat and bone particles. High-pressure air also can be used to remove meat from bone (Warriss,
2000).
4.3.2.8 Canning and Retorting
Canning is another method of preserving and packaging meat for convenient
consumption. After meat is sealed in a container, it is heated using steam under pressure at a
temperatures of at least 116 °C (240 °F) to achieve adequate sterilization. However, lower
temperatures are used in the canning of cured ham because sterilization by heat is not necessary
because of the bactericidal effect of curing agents. Containers used for meat canning usually are
steel, which may be coated with tin or a temperature-resistant plastic polymer (Warriss, 2000).
See Figure 4-7 for the general processes used for canning meat products.
The containers used to hold the canned meat products must be prepared before filling and
covering. The cans are thoroughly cleaned and sterilized. The wet cans are transported from the
preparation area to the processing area for filling and covering. Water is present all along the can
lines from preparation to filling and covering. The cans go through one last steaming just before
they enter the can filling machine (USEPA, 1974).
Can filling is a highly mechanized high-speed operation. It requires moving the meat
product to the canning equipment and delivering that product into a container. The high speed
and the design of the equipment result in an appreciable amount of spillage of the meat product
as the cans are filled and conveyed to the covering equipment. At the can covering station, a
small amount of steam is introduced under the cover just before the cover is sealed to create a
vacuum within the can when it cools. This steam use also generates a quantity of condensate,
which drains off the cans and equipment onto the floor.
The operation of the filling and covering equipment results in a substantial quantity of
wastewater containing product spills that is wasted to the sewer. Canning plants that have more
4-27
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
MISCELLANEOUS
RAW MATERIALS
RECEIVING AND STORAGE
MEAT HANDLING
& PREPARATION
T
MEAT
COOKING
CAN PREPARATION
& STERILIZATION
SAUCE
PREPARATION
BATCHING
CAN FILLING
RETORTING
COOLING
LABELING,
PACKAGING
FINISHED PRODUCT
STORAGE, SHIPPING
SPICE & SEASONING
PREPARATION
Figure 4-7. General Process for Canned Meat Products (USEPA, 1974).
than one filling and covering line have a waste load that is roughly proportional to the number of
such lines in use (USEPA, 1974).
All of the equipment is washed at least once per day at the end of the processing period.
If a can filling machine is to be used for different products during the day, it is usually cleaned
between product runs. Meat products are frequently canned with gravy-type sauces, or the meat
4-28
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
product itself has been comminuted to a small particle size and mixed to produce a flowable
mixture. This type of canned product results in a greater contamination of equipment wash water
because of the tendency of the product mixture to coat surfaces it comes in contact with and to
fill all dead spaces and crevices in the equipment. The equipment is highly mechanized with
many moving parts and is designed to be cleaned intact rather than being dismantled first, as is
grinding and mixing equipment. Cleaning the equipment while it is intact requires a high-
velocity water stream or steam to remove all food particles from the equipment. The tendency of
operating personnel is to use greater quantities of water than necessary to clean the equipment.
This practice results in large quantities of wastewater with substantial waste loads from canning
operations (USEPA, 1974).
The equipment used in transporting the meat product to the can filling equipment also
must be cleaned after it has been used on a specific product, and it is always cleaned at the end of
the processing day. This equipment is usually broken down, and the product characteristics that
contribute to large waste loads, as described above, also generate large waste loads in cleanup of
the transport equipment (USEPA, 1974).
Some ham products are canned by manually placing ham pieces in cans. Manpower is
used in place of mechanical equipment because the pieces are randomly sized and the packer is
able to create a full, uniform appearance for the canned product. A small amount of gelatin is
added to provide moisture to the product. The quantity of waste generated from this type of
operation probably is somewhat less than that from high-speed canning equipment (USEPA,
1974).
4.3.2.9 Freezing
Blast, belt, plate, and cryogenic freezers are used for freezing meat. The specific type
used depends on the type of product being frozen. Blast freezers blow frigid air (-40 °C, or
-40 °F) over the meats in a tunnel. Belt freezers freeze small meats such as burgers that are
carried on a conveyor belt. Plate freezers consist of cold metal plates that are pressed onto the
meat surface. Finally, cryogenic freezing freezes items through immersion into liquid nitrogen
(-196 °C, or -321 °F) (Warriss, 2000).
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.2.10 Packaging
Packaging for transport, distribution, and sale is the final step in further meat processing.
Appropriate packaging fulfills three purposes. The first is to protect meat from contamination
and inhibit microbial growth, the second is to reduce evaporative weight loss and surface drying,
and the last is to enhance the appearance of the meat. Plastic film and antioxidants play an
important role in successful packaging (Warriss, 2000).
Various packaging techniques are used in the meat processing industry. These techniques
include use of the standard treated cardboard package, the Cry-O-Vac (plastic film sealed under
vacuum) type of package, and the bubble enclosure package used for sliced luncheon meats and
wieners, and the boxing of smaller containers of pieces of finished product for shipment. In
some packaging techniques a substantial amount of product handling is involved, which may
result in some wasted product. The size of the pieces of wasted finished product, however, are
such that there is little reason for it to be wasted to the sewer. Instead, it should be returned for
subsequent use in another processed product or directed to a rendering channel (USEPA, 1974).
The only time water is generated by the packaging operation is during cleanup of the
equipment. Small quantities of water are adequate for cleanup of this equipment, and only small
quantities of wastewater are generated (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.11 Seasonings, Spices, and Sauce Preparation
A wide variety of chemicals is used by meat processing to improve product characteristics
such as taste, color, texture, appearance, shelf-life, and other characteristics important to the
industry. These chemicals include salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, sodium nitrite, sodium erythrobate,
ascorbic acid, and spices like pepper, mustard, and paprika. Other common materials added in
the preparation of processed meat products are dry milk solids, corn syrup, and water, either as a
liquid or as ice (USEPA, 1974).
Other than water, most of these materials are solids and are handled in the solid state.
The product formulations for the various finished products produced by a meat processor call for
specific quantities of chemicals and seasonings. These spices and chemicals are preweighed and
4-30
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
prepared for use in a specific batch in a dry spice preparation area. They are weighed into
containers and added to batches in the grinding or mixing operation. Very little waste of either a
dry or wet nature is generated by the specific operation of seasoning and spice formulation.
Sauces are prepared for use in canned meat products particularly. Sauces are wet mixtures of
seasonings, spices, and other additives described above, as well as meat extracts and juices, and
are used to prepare a gravy-type of product. Significant quantities of waste are generated in the
preparation and handling of sauces and in kettle cleaning. The residual materials are washed out
of the kettles directly into the sewer and contribute significantly to the raw waste load of a meat
processor that prepares a canned meat product (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.12 Weighing and Batching
The meat processing industry uses batch-type manufacturing operations in all but a few
instances. The type and quantity of materials that go into each unit of production, or batch, are
controlled according to specifications established by the individual meat processing companies in
accordance with government standards for the finished product. The lean and raw materials that
go into each batch are weighed and placed in portable tubs. The portable tubs of weighed raw
material are identified for a specific product and moved to the next manufacturing operation
(USEPA, 1974).
The weighing and batching area is frequently located in one of the refrigerated raw
material storage areas. The operation involves considerable manual handling of meat products
and pieces of trim fat. Liquids, including meat juices and water, frequently drip from the raw
materials onto the floor of the batching area. Particles also drop off in the handling process. The
tubs used to hold the raw materials and the batches of raw material contain liquids and solids that
are wasted to the sewer after batches have been dumped into subsequent processing equipment.
The tubs and handling equipment are cleaned as needed during the production period and at least
once a day (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.13 Extrusion, Stuffing, and Molding
Following the preparation of a stable emulsion or mixture of ingredients for a processed
meat product such as wieners or sausage, the mixture is again transported by pump or in a
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
container to a manufacturing operation where the mixtures are formed or molded into the
finished product. Sausage casings and stainless steel molds are commonly used as containers in
this operation. Either natural casings, which are the intestines from some types of animals, or
synthetic casings, which are used only in the formation of the products and then peeled and
disposed of before the product goes to the consumer, may be used in producing sausages and
wieners and in some kinds of luncheon meats. The stainless steel molds are most commonly
used to obtain the square shape characteristic of some luncheon meats (USEPA, 1974).
In the casing, stuffing, or mold-filling operation a product mixture is placed in a piece of
equipment from which the product mixture is either forced by air pressure or pumped into the
container to form a uniform, completely filled container resembling the shape of the finished
product (USEPA, 1974).
Water is used to prepare the natural casings for use in the stuffing operation, and the
stainless steel molds are cleaned and sterilized after every use. The primary source of waste load
and wastewater is the cleanup of the equipment used in this operation. As in the previous
operation, the residual emulsions and mixtures contribute significantly to the waste load because
of their propensity to stick to most surfaces with which they come in contact and to fill crevices
and voids. All equipment used in this operation is broken down at least once a day for a
thorough cleaning. This cleanup is designed to remove all remnants of the mixtures handled by
the equipment, and this material is wasted with the wastewater into the sewer, thereby
contributing to the waste load (USEPA, 1974).
Some spillage of material occurs in this operation. Spillage occurs during transport of the
material from grinding and emulsifying to the extrusion operation, and particularly in the
extrusion or stuffing of the container and overflows (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.14 Linking
This manufacturing operation is simply the formation of links or specific-sized lengths of
product in a casing. Linking is done by twisting or pinching the casing at the desired length for
the specific finished product, mechanically or manually. A small stream of water is used to
4-32
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
lubricate the casing to avoid breakage or splitting. When the full length of each casing has been
linked, the product is hung on a rail hanger, called a "tree," in preparation for the next
manufacturing operation (usually cooking and smoking) (USEPA, 1974).
Unless a casing splits or breaks, no significant amount of raw waste load should be
contributed by this operation. The equipment used is thoroughly washed after use. The hangers
that hold the products through the cooking and smoking step become coated with greasy
substances, which are washed off and into the sewer after each use. In addition, a standard
maintenance practice is to coat the hangers with a thin film of edible oil to protect them from
rusting. This oil is ultimately washed off in the overshowering or in the washing of the hangers
following each use. Some large operations use automated spray cabinets for "tree" washing
(USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.15 Casing Peeling
Synthetic casings made from a plastic material are used in the production of a large
number of wieners in the meat processing industry. These casings are not edible and therefore
must be removed from the wieners after cooking and cooling but prior to packaging for sale to
the consumer. The peeling equipment includes a sharp knife that slits the casing material, a
small spray of steam to part the casing from the finished wiener, and a mechanism to peel the
casing away from the wiener. Casing material is solid waste that results from this operation; it is
collected and disposed of as part of the plant refuse. The slitting mechanism occasionally
penetrates the wiener in addition to the casing and cuts the wiener, rendering it useless as a
finished product. However, these pieces of wiener are not wasted but are used in other products
prepared in the plant. The steam used in the casing peeling results in a small water stream from
this operation, but it is so small that it is of no real consequence (USEPA, 1974).
The equipment is cleaned at the end of every processing day and may contribute a small
quantity of waste load as a result of wiener particles that may be attached to various parts of the
mechanism and are subsequently washed into the sewer during cleanup. The volume of waste-
water and the waste load are relatively insignificant in comparison with other waste sources
(USEPA, 1974).
4^33
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.3.2.16 Product Holding/Aging
Some processed meat products require holding or aging as part of the production process.
Hams, dry sausage, and some bacon, for example, require intermediate or finished holding
periods before the product is shipped out of the meat processing plant. The holding operation
requires space and some means of storing the particular meat product in the holding area. These
holding areas are refrigerated, and some drippings accumulate on the floor. The floor area, like
other processing floors, is cleaned once every processing day. The quantity of wastewater and
the waste load from the cleanup of these holding areas is minimal compared to that of many other
sources within meat processing plants (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.17 Bacon Pressing and Slicing
After the bacon has been smoked, cooled, and held for the required time, two processing
steps are required before the product is ready for packaging (Figure 4-6). Bacon slabs are
irregular in shape after smoking and cooling, and bacon slicing equipment is designed to handle a
slab with a fairly rectangular shape. This design facilitates the production of the typical uniform
bacon slice expected by the consumer. The bacon slabs are placed in a molding press, which
forms the slabs into the desired rectangular shape (USEPA, 1974).
Two different slicing procedures are used in the processing industry after the slabs have
been made rectangular. Some plants slice the bacon slabs immediately after pressing. Others
prefer to return the molded bacon slabs to a refrigerated holding area to allow the temperature of
the slab to cool down. Each approach is successful, and the method actually used appears to
depend only on individual preference for a given operation (USEPA, 1974).
Bacon slicing is usually a high-speed operation in which slabs are rapidly cut, the strips of
bacon are placed on a cardboard or similar receptacle until a specified weight is reached, and
then the bacon is fed onto a conveying system that delivers the bacon to packaging (USEPA,
1974).
There is little waste generated in bacon pressing and slicing except for random pieces of
bacon that fall on the floor. These pieces are of sufficient size to be readily picked up by dry
4-34
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
cleaning the floors before washdown. The equipment is cleaned at the end of every processing
day. There are some particles, as well as a fairly complete covering of grease, on all parts of the
equipment that come in contact with the bacon slabs. All of this material is washed off in the
cleanup operation. The quantity of wastewater generated in cleanup and the waste load from this
cleanup is again relatively small in comparison to other sources (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.18 Receiving, Storage, and Shipping
The meat-type raw materials and virtually all the finished product in a meat processing
plant require refrigerated storage. Some of the raw materials and finished products are frozen
and require freezer storage. The meat-type raw materials are brought into meat processing plants
as carcasses, quarters, primal cuts, and specific cuts or parts packaged in boxes. The seasonings,
spices, and chemicals are usually purchased in the dry form and are stored in dry areas
convenient to the sauce and spice formulation area (USEPA, 1974).
The meat processing plants of companies with nationwide sales and plants located
throughout the country also use the storage facilities of meat processing plants as distribution
centers for products not manufactured at each plant (USEPA, 1974).
The cleaning of freezers is always a dry process and only on rare occasions does it
generate a wastewater load. Refrigerated storage space does require daily washdown,
particularly of the floors, where juices and particles have accumulated from the materials stored
in the refrigerated area. The general policy of the industry is to encourage dry cleaning of all
floors, including storage areas, before the final washdown of the floors. Frequently, actual
practices do not include dry cleaning of the floors before washdown (USEPA, 1974).
Shipping and receiving always involve truck transportation. The primary source of waste
material in this operation is the transport of carcasses, quarters, and large cuts of meat from the
trucks to the storage area within the meat processing plant (USEPA, 1974).
Meat and fat particles falling from the raw material are the primary source of waste
material in this operation. The receipt and transport of other raw materials and finished products
essentially generate no waste load (USEPA, 1974).
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.4 POULTRY PROCESSING INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
Poultry Processing (NAICS 311615) includes the slaughter of poultry and small game
animals (e.g., quails, pheasants, and rabbits) and exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches) and the
processing and preparing of these products and their by-products. Slaughtering is the first step in
processing poultry into consumer products. Poultry slaughtering (first processing) operations
typically encompass the following steps:
• Receiving and holding of live animals
• Stunning prior to slaughter
• Slaughter
• Initial processing
Poultry first processing facilities are designed to accommodate this multistep process. In
most facilities, the major steps are carried out in separate rooms.
In addition, many first processing facilities further process carcasses, producing products
that may be breaded, marinated, or partially or fully cooked. Also, many first processing
facilities include rendering operations that produce edible products such as fat and inedible
products, primarily ingredients for animal feeds, including pet foods.
The 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers reported 260 companies engaged in poultry
slaughtering. These companies own or operate 470 facilities, employ 224,000 employees, and
produce about $32 billion in value of shipments. The poultry slaughtering sector has relatively
few facilities with fewer than 20 employees; as in the meat sectors, however, a few very large
facilities dominate the sector. Almost 50 percent of the sector employment and over 40 percent
of the value of shipments were accounted for by 75 facilities, which employ more than 1,000
workers each. Eighty percent of employment and 74 percent of total shipments are produced by
facilities that employ more than 500 workers. Yet these facilities compose only 36 percent of the
poultry processing industry.
4-36
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Products of the poultry processing sector can be divided into two major categories:
broilers and turkeys. Broilers account for more than half of the industry's shipments; processed
poultry accounts for about 30 percent of the shipments; and turkeys account for about 12 percent.
Poultry processing is largely concentrated in the southeastern states. Arkansas and
Georgia have the largest number of facilities, employment, and value of shipments. Alabama
and North Carolina rank third and fourth in all of these measures. California is the only state in
the top 10 poultry-producing states that is not in the Southeast. California ranks 10th in terms of
employment and value of shipments and 8th in number of facilities.
EPA is using revised production rate thresholds to exclude most smaller poultry product
processing facilities from the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 432 because the technologies on
which the options were based are not cost-effective for facilities with the lowest production
threshold. Based on the current screener survey data, EPA defines small poultry first and further
processing facilities as those that produce fewer than 10 million pounds (LWK) and 7 million
pounds (LWK) per year, respectively. See to Figures 4-8 and 4-9 for the distribution of small
and non-small (facilities producing more than 50 million pounds (LWK) per year) poultry first
and further processing facilities, also categorized by discharge type, throughout the United States.
4.5 DESCRIPTION OF POULTRY FIRST AND FURTHER PROCESSING
OPERATIONS
Poultry processing plants are highly automated facilities designed for the slaughter of live
birds with whole carcasses as the end product. The operations of these plants differ significantly
from their meat counterparts in several respects. For example, poultry slaughtering (first
processing) operations typically involve more steps than do meat first processing operations. A
poultry processing plant can encompass up to 10 steps, including unloading, stunning, killing,
bleeding, scalding, defeathering, eviscerating, chilling, freezing, and packaging (Sams, 2001).
Each of these operations occurs in a separate section of the processing plant and involves the use
of different types of equipment. Because broiler chickens constitute most of the poultry
industry's annual production, and the same sequence of operations is used in the processing of
4-37
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Di charge Type
Direct
Indirect
Other
None or Unknown
Data Source: MPP Screener Survey
Figure 4-8. Location of Small Poultry Facilities in the United States
(Based on Screener Survey Data).
Discharge Type
m Direct
A Indirect
+ Other
• None or Unknown
Data Source: MPP Screener Suivev
Figure 4-9. Location of Non-Small Poultry Facilities in the United
States (Based on Screener Survey Data).
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
turkeys and other birds, the following sections describe only broiler processing operations unless
otherwise noted.
Poultry processing begins with the assembly and slaughter of live birds and may end with
the shipment of dressed carcasses or continue with a variety of additional activities. Poultry
processing operations are also classified as first or further processing operations or as an
integrated combination. First processing operations include those operations which receive live
poultry and produce a dressed carcass, either whole or in parts. In this classifications system,
first processing operations simply produce dressed whole or split carcasses or smaller segments
for sale to wholesale distributors or directly to retailers. First processing operations offer supply
products for further processing activities such as breading, marinating, and partial or complete
cooking, which may occur on- or off-site.
Following the same logic applied to the meat processing industry, EPA considers the
reduction of whole poultry carcasses into halves, quarters, or smaller pieces, which may be with
or without bone and may be ground as part of first processing when performed at first processing
facilities. Consequently, EPA also considers cutting, boning, and grinding operations to be
further processing operations when performed at facilities not also engaged in first processing
activities.
4.5.1 Poultry First Processing Operations
Common to all poultry first processing operations is a series of operations necessary to
transform live birds into dressed carcasses. Figure 4-10 illustrates this series of operations, and
the following sections describe these operations.
4.5.1.1 Receiving Areas
Birds are transported to processing plants with delivery scheduled so that all birds are
processed on the day they are received. Live bird holding areas are usually covered and have
cooling fans to reduce bird weight loss and mortality during hot weather conditions (Sams,
2001).
4-39
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Weighing, Grading,
and Packaging
Figure 4-10. General Process for Poultry First Processing Operations
(USEPA, 1975).
Broiler chickens are typically transported to processing plants in cage modules stacked on
flatbed trailers. These cage modules can hold about 20 average-size broiler chickens. The cage
modules are removed from the transport trailer and tilted using a folklift truck to empty the cage.
Alternatively, tilting platforms can be used to empty the cage modules after they have been
removed from the transport trailer. When the cage module tilts, the lower side of the cage opens
and the birds slide onto a conveyor belt, which moves them into the hanging area inside the plant.
In the hanging area, the live birds are hung by their feet on shackles attached to an overhead
conveyer system, commonly referred to as the killing line, that moves the birds into the killing
area. The killing-line moves at a constant speed, and up to 8,000 birds per hour (133 birds per
minute) can be shackled in a modern plant, although in practice this number is much lower
because workers cannot unload broilers fast enough to fill every shackle (Wilson, 1998). Cage
modules also are used to transport ducks, geese, and fowl.
4-40
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Turkeys are generally transported in cages permanently attached to flatbed trailers. The
cages are emptied manually into a live bird receiving area located outside the confines of the
processing plant. Turkeys are unloaded manually to minimize bruising. They are more
susceptible than broilers to bruising from automatic unloading because of their heavier weight
and irregular body shape. Turkeys are then immediately hung on shackles attached to an
overhead conveyer system that passes from the unloading area into the processing plant (Sams,
2001).
Following the unloading process, cages and transport trucks may be washed and sanitized
to prevent disease transmission among grower operations. The washing and sanitizing of cages
and trucks is common in the turkey industry but not in the broiler chicken industry (USEPA,
1975).
4.5.1.2 Killing and Bleeding
Almost all birds are rendered unconscious through stunning just prior to killing. Some
exemptions are made for religious meat processing (e.g., kosher, halal). Stunning immobilizes
the birds to increase killing efficiency, cause greater blood loss, and increase defeathering
efficiency. Stunning is performed by applying a current of 10 to 20 milliamps (mA) per broiler
and 20 to 40 mA per turkey for approximately 10 to 12 seconds (Sams, 2001). Poultry are killed
by severing the jugular vein and carotid artery or less typically by debraining. Usually a rotating
circular blade is used to kill broilers, while manual killing is often required for turkeys because of
their varying size and body shape. Decapitation is not performed, because it decreases blood loss
following death (Stadelman, 1988).
Immediately after being killed, broilers are bled as they pass through a "blood tunnel"
designed to collect blood to reduce wastewater biochemical oxygen demand and total nitrogen
concentrations. The blood tunnel is a walled area designed to confine and capture blood
splattered by muscle contractions following the severing of the jugular vein and corotid artery.
The blood collected is processed with recovered feathers in the production of feather meal, a by-
product feedstuff used in livestock and poultry feeds as a source of protein. On average, broilers
are held in the tunnel from 45 to 125 seconds for bleeding, with an average time of 80 seconds;
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
turkeys are held in the tunnel from 90 to 210 seconds, with an average time of 131 seconds.
Blood loss approaches 70 percent in some plants, but generally speaking only 30 to 50 percent of
a broiler's blood is lost in the killing area. Depending on plant operating conditions, blood is
collected in troughs and transported to a rendering facility by vacuum, gravity, or pump systems,
or it is allowed to congeal on the plant floor and collected manually. Virtually all plants collect
blood for rendering either on- or off-site and thereby limit the amount of blood present in their
wastewater (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.1.3 Scalding and Defeathering
After killing and bleeding, birds are scalded by immersion in a scalding tank or by
spraying with scalding water. Scalding is performed to relax feather follicles prior to
defeathering. Virtually all plants use scald tanks because of the high water usage and
inconsistent feather removal associated with spray scalding. Scalding tanks are relatively long
troughs of hot water into which the bled birds are immersed to loosen their feathers. Depending
on the intended market of the broilers, either soft (semi-scald) or hard scalding is used. Soft
scalding is used for the fresh, chilled market, whereas hard scalding is preferred for the frozen
sector (Mead, 1989). The difference between these two types of scalding techniques lies in the
scalding temperature used. Soft scalding is performed at about 53 °C (127 °F) for 120 seconds; it
loosens feathers without subsequent skin damage. Hard scalding is performed at 62 to 64 °C
(144 to 147 °F) for 45 seconds; it loosens both feathers and the first layer of skin. Sometimes
chemicals are added to scald tanks to aid in defeathering by reducing surface tension and
increasing feather wetting. The USDA requires that all scald tanks have a minimum overflow of
1 liter (0.26 gallon) per bird (FSIS, 2001) to reduce the potential for microbial contamination
(Sams, 2001).
Because scalding and mechanical defeathering do not completely remove duck and goose
feathers, immersion in a mixture of hot wax and rosin follows. After this mixture partially
solidifies, it is removed with the remaining feathers (Stadelman et al., 1988).
The next stage is automated defeathering, which is done by machines with multiple rows
of flexible, ribbed, rubber fingers on cylinders that rotate rapidly across the birds. The abrasion
4^42
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
caused by this contact removes the feathers and occasionally the heads of the birds. At the same
time, a continuous spray of warm water is used to lubricate the bird and flush away feathers as
they are removed. Feathers are flumed to a screening area using scalding overflow for
dewatering prior to processing for feather meal production. Different defeathering machines may
be used for different types of birds (USEPA, 1975).
Following defeathering, pinfeathers may be removed manually because they are still
encased within the feather shaft and thus are resistant to mechanical abrasion. After pinfeather
removal, birds pass through a gas flame that singes the remaining feathers and fine hairs. Next,
feet and heads are removed. Feet are removed by passing them through a cutting blade, and
heads are removed by clamps that pull upward on the necks. Removing the head from a bird is
advantageous because the esophagus and trachea are removed with it. Removing the head also
loosens the crop and lungs for easier automatic removal during evisceration (Mead, 1989). At
this point, blood, feathers, feet, and the heads of broilers are collected and sent to a rendering
facility, where they are transformed into by-product meal (Sams, 2001). Chicken feet also may
be collected for sale primarily in export markets.
After removal of the feet, the carcasses are rehung on shackles attached to an overhead
conveyer, known as an evisceration line, and washed in enclosures using high-pressure cold
water sprays prior to evisceration. The purpose of this washing step is to sanitize the outside of
the bird before evisceration to reduce microbial contamination of the body cavity. This transfer
point is often referred to as the point separating the "dirty" and "clean" sections of the processing
plant (Wilson, 1998). The killing-line conveyor then circles back, and the shackles are cleaned
before returning to the unloading bay (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.1.4 Evisceration
Evisceration is a multistep process that begins with removing the neck and opening the
body cavity. Then, the viscera are extracted but remain attached to the birds until they are
inspected for evidence of disease. Next, the viscera are separated from the bird, and edible
components (hearts, livers, and gizzards) are harvested. The inedible viscera, known as offal, are
collected and combined with heads and feet for subsequent rendering. Entrails are sometimes
4^43
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
left attached for religious meat processing (e.g., Buddhist, Confucius). Depending on the plant
design, a wet or dry collection system is used. Wet systems use water to transport the offal by
fluming it to a screening area for dewatering before rendering. Dry systems, which are not
common, may use a series of conveyor belts or vacuum or compressed air stations for offal
transport (USEPA, 1975).
Automation of the evisceration process varies depending on plant size and operation. A
fully automated line can eviscerate approximately 6,000 broilers per hour (Mead, 1989). The
type of equipment available for plant use varies by location and manufacturer. Many parts of the
process can be performed manually, especially for turkeys. Though a fully automated
evisceration line may be used for broilers, the variation in size among turkeys makes automation
more difficult. Female turkeys (hens) are significantly smaller than male turkeys (toms)
(USEPA, 1975).
When broilers first enter the evisceration area, they are rehung on shackles by their hocks
to a conveyor line that runs directly above a wet or dry offal collection system (Wilson, 1998).
The birds' necks are disconnected by breaking the spine with a blade that applies force just above
the shoulders. As the blade retracts the neck falls downward and hangs by the remaining skin
while another blade removes the preen gland from the tail. The preen gland produces oil that is
used by birds for grooming and has an unpleasant taste to humans (Sams, 2001). Next, a venting
machine cuts a hole with a circular blade around the anus for extraction of the viscera. Great
care must be taken not to penetrate the intestinal lining of a broiler because the resulting fecal
contamination will result in condemnation during inspection (USEPA, 1975).
Following venting, the opening of the abdominal wall is enlarged to aid in viscera
removal. At this point all viscera are drawn out of the broiler by hand, with the aid of scooping
spoons, or more commonly by an evisceration machine. The evisceration machine immobilizes
the broiler and passes a clamp through the abdominal opening to grip the visceral package. Once
removed, this package is allowed to hang freely to aid in the inspection process. Every bird must
be inspected by a USDA inspector or a USDA-supervised plant worker for evidence of disease or
contamination before being packaged and sold. The inspector checks the carcass, viscera, and
4-44
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
body cavity to determine wholesomeness with three possible outcomes: pass, conditional, and
fail. If the bird is deemed conditional, it is hung on a different line for further inspection or to be
trimmed of unwholesome portions. Failed birds are removed from the line and disposed of,
usually by rendering (Stadelman, 1988).
The viscera are removed from the birds that have passed inspection and are pumped to a
harvesting area where edible viscera are separated from inedible viscera. A giblet harvester is
used to collect the edible viscera, including heart, liver, neck, and gizzard, and to prepare each
appropriately. The heart and liver are stripped of connective tissue and washed. The gizzard is
split, its contents are washed away, its hard lining is peeled off, and it is given a final wash. The
minimum giblet washer flow rate required by USDA is 1 gallon of water for every 20 birds
processed (25 CFR 61.144). Meanwhile, the inedible viscera, including intestines,
proventriculus, lower esophagus, spleen, and reproductive organs, are extracted and sent to a
rendering facility. Finally, the crop and lungs are mechanically removed from each bird. The
crop is pushed up through the neck by a probe, and the lungs are removed by vacuum. A final
inspection is required to ensure the carcass is not heavily bruised or contaminated, and then the
carcass is cleaned (USEPA, 1975). Bruised birds are diverted to salvage lines for recovery of
parts.
The second carcass washing of the broilers is very thorough. Nozzles are used to spray
water both inside and outside the carcass. These high-pressure nozzles are designed to eliminate
the majority of remaining contaminants on both carcass and conveyor line, and the water is often
mixed with chlorine or other antimicrobiological chemicals. From here, the conveyor system
travels to the chilling area (USEPA, 1975).
Kosher and halal poultry producers pack the birds (inside and out) in salt for 1 hour to
absorb any residual blood or juices. The birds are then rinsed and shipped to kosher/halal meat
distributers. On an average day a typical kosher poultry facility (generating approximately 2
million gallons wastewater per day) would use approximately 80,000 pounds of salt in its
operations (Thorne, 2001). Industry has stated that most kosher operations (meat and poultry)
are located in urban areas with sewer connections.
4-45
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.5.1.5 Chilling
After birds have been eviscerated and washed, they are chilled rapidly to slow the growth
of any microorganisms present to extend shelf life and to protect quality (Sams, 2001). USD A
regulations require that broilers be chilled to 4 °C (40 °F) within 4 hours of death and turkeys
within 8 hours of death (9 CFR 381.66). Most poultry processing plants use large chilling tanks
containing ice water; very few use air chilling. Several types of chilling tanks are used, including
(1) a large enclosed drum that rotates about a central axis, (2) a perforated cylinder mounted
within a chilling vat, and (3) a large open chilling tank containing a mechanical rocker to provide
agitation. In all cases, birds are cascaded forward with the flow of water at a minimum overflow
rate per bird specified by the USDA (FSIS, 2001).
Most poultry plants use two chilling tanks in series, a pre-chiller and a main chiller. The
direction of water flow is from the main chiller to the pre-chiller, which is opposite to the
direction of carcass movement. Because water and ice are added to only the main chiller, the
water in the pre-chiller is somewhat warmer than that in the main chiller. Most plants chlorinate
chiller makeup water to reduce potential carcass microbial contamination. The USDA requires
0.5 gallon (2 liters) of overflow per bird in the chillers (FSIS, 2001); the flow typically is about
0.75 gallon (3 liters) per bird (Sams, 2001). The effluent from the first chiller usually is used for
fluming offal to the offal screening area (USEPA, 1975).
USDA requires pre-chiller water temperature to be less than 18.3 °C (65 °F) (9 CFR
381.66), and temperature values typically range between 7 and 12 °C (45 and 54 °F) (Stadelman,
1988). Agitation makes the water a very effective washer, and the pre-chiller often cleans off any
remaining contaminants. Most broiler carcasses enter the pre-chiller at about 38 °C (100 °F) and
leave at a temperature between 30 and 35 °C (86 and 95 °F). The cycle lasts 10 to 15 minutes,
and water rapidly penetrates the carcass skin during this time period (Sams, 2001). Water weight
gained in the pre-chiller is strictly regulated and monitored according to poultry classification and
final destination of the product by the USDA. Cut-up and ice-packed products are allowed to
retain more water than their whole carcass pack or whole frozen counterparts (FSIS, 2001).
4-46
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
The main chill tank's water temperature is approximately 4 °C (39 °F) at the entrance and
1 °C (34 °F) at the exit because of the countercurrent flow system. Broiler carcasses stay in this
chiller between 45 and 60 minutes and leave the chill tank at about 2 to 4 °C (36 to 39 °F). Air
bubbles are added to the main chill tanks to enhance heat exchange. The bubbles agitate the
water and prevent a thermal layer from forming around the carcass. If not agitated, water around
the carcass would reach thermal equilibrium with the carcass and retard heat transfer (Sams,
2001).
If air chilling is used, it normally involves passing the conveyor of carcasses through
rooms of air circulating at between -7 and 2 °C for 1 to 3 hours. In some cases water is sprayed
on the carcasses, increasing heat transfer by evaporative cooling (Sams, 2001). Giblets,
consisting of hearts, livers, gizzards, and necks, are chilled similarly to carcasses, though the
chilling systems are separate and smaller (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.1.6 Packaging and Freezing
After the birds are chilled, they are either packed as whole birds or processed further.
Whole birds are sold in both fresh and frozen forms. Chickens are primarily sold as fresh birds
and turkeys are primarily sold as frozen birds. Fresh birds not sold in case-ready packaging are
packed in ice for shipment to maintain a temperature of 0 °C (32 °F). Poultry sold frozen is
cooled to approximately -18 °C (0 °F) (Wilson, 1998).
4.5.2 Poultry Further Processing Operations
Further processing can be as simple as splitting a carcass into two halves or as complex as
producing a breaded or marinated, partially or fully cooked product. Therefore, further
processing may involve receiving, storage, thawing, cutting, deboning, dicing, grinding,
chopping, canning, and final product preparation. Final product preparation includes freezing,
packaging, and shipping. Further processing may be performed after first processing in an
integrated operation, or it may be performed at a separate facility. Further processing is a highly
automated process designed to transform eviscerated broiler carcasses into a wide variety of
consumer products. Depending on the type of product being produced, plant production lines
4-47
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
may overlap, especially for producing cooked, finished products (USEPA, 1975). The following
sections describe poultry first processing operations. Figure 4-11 illustrates these series of
operations.
4.5.2.1 Receiving and Storage
If further processing takes place at a location separate from first processing, carcasses,
cut-up parts, and deboned meat are usually transported by truck. The vast majority of first
processing products received for further processing are whole carcasses. Further processing
operations separate from first processing or killing operations may receive poultry that already
has been further processed to some degree, typically cut-up or deboned. Further processing
plants that are separate from killing operations usually process poultry received packed in ice or
frozen, whereas further processing operations combined with killing operations usually process
whole carcasses directly following chilling. Thus, further processing plants separate from killing
operations require refrigerated or freezer storage facilities before further processing, whereas
further processing operations combined with killing operations do not require these facilities
except for the preservation of final products. Seasonings, spices, and chemicals are usually
received in dry form and stored in dry areas conveniently located near sauce, spice, butter, and
breading formulation areas (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.2 Thawing
Frozen poultry carcasses and components thereof received by further processing plants
can be thawed by immersing in water, by spraying with water, or by thawing in air with adequate
protection against contamination. In immersion, poultry is submerged in tanks or vats of
lukewarm potable water for the time required to thaw the poultry throughout. To prevent
spoilage, the USDA does not permit the continuous running tap water temperature to exceed
21 °C (70 °F) (9 CFR 381.65). Ice or other cooling agents may be used to keep the thawing
water within the acceptable temperature range. The vats used for thawing range from pushcarts
of 10 to 20 cubic feet in volume to substantially larger permanently installed tanks. Agitation
may be induced to enhance thawing by adding water continuously or by pumping filtered air
through flexible hoses into the immersion tank (USEPA, 1975). In thawing units that have no
4-48
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
POULTRY
CARCASSES
CUT-UP
OPERATIONS
COOKING
BATTER AND
BREADING
COOKING
RECEIVING AND
STORAGE
FROZEN;
FRESH
THAWING
STUFFING
COOKING
FINAL PRODUCT
PREPARATION
FREEZING AND
PACKAGING
COLD
STORAGE
BONING
DICING,
GRINDING,
CHOPPING
MIXING,
BLENDING
SPICES
CANNING
STORAGE
Figure 4-11. General Process Flowsheet for Poultry Further Processing Operations
(USEPA, 1975)
4-49
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
freshwater added (no overflow) or where the thawing water leaves the unit for reconditioning
prior to returning to the thawing unit, the water is not allowed to exceed 10 °C (50 °F), as
required by the USDA (9 CFR 381.65).
Complete thawing is necessary to permit thorough examination of poultry prior to any
further processing. When the poultry has adequately thawed for reinspection, the product is
removed from the water and drained. Some plants prefer to place frozen poultry directly into
cooking kettles prior to thawing. This practice is permitted only when representative samples of
the entire lot have been thawed and found to be in sound and wholesome condition. In this case,
cookers filled with water are heated to enable the cooking process to begin immediately
following completion of thawing. USDA requires that thawing practices and procedures result in
no net gain in weight over the frozen weight (9 CFR 381.65).
If the only further processing operation is repackaging whole carcasses or parts for
shipment to market, USDA regulations prohibit recooling the thawed parts in slush ice.
Mechanical refrigeration is required; however, the whole carcasses or parts may be held in tanks
of crushed ice with open drains, pending further processing or packaging (9 CFR 381.65).
4.5.2.3 Cutting
Cutting of poultry is normally the first further processing step for fresh ice-packed and
just-thawed poultry. Cutting involves disjointing and sawing of poultry into various parts. The
specifics of these parts became regulated by the government in 1986, when the Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA published guidelines for cuts of poultry (FSIS, 2001).
Using these guidelines as the standard, further processing plants cut poultry into parts manually
or automatically. Mechanized equipment that processes entire carcasses into various cut portions
is available. The following parts are removed in descending order: neck skin, wings, breasts,
backbone, and finally thighs (which can be separated from the drumsticks, if desired). Manual
cuts can be made or a machine can be used to make horizontal and vertical cuts, if further portion
uniformity is desired. Up to 2,000 birds an hour can be processed this way. The only manual
labor required is feeding carcasses into the machine (Mead, 1989).
4-50
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.5.2.4 Deboning
After poultry has been cut into parts, the parts may be deboned (separation of meat from
bone). Both raw and cooked poultry can be deboned. Frequently turkeys, because of their size,
are deboned raw, while chickens and similarly sized poultry can be deboned either raw or cooked
(USEPA, 1995). Chicken cooked before deboning will retain its characteristic chicken flavor,
while chicken cooked after deboning tastes like meat; therefore, cooked chicken is deboned for
products for which chicken flavor is desired, and raw chicken is deboned for products for which
a meat flavor is desired. Additional seasonings can be added to the raw chicken after it has been
deboned to further enhance its flavor (Mead, 1995). Deboning is usually performed with
specially designed machines, but it may be done manually. Bones are collected for rendering
(USEPA, 1975).
When deboning is mechanized, the meat either retains its original shape or is ground into
a thick paste. If the original shape is desired, the portions are fed into machines where a specially
designed mold fits over the poultry cut. As the mold compresses the portions, the meat slides
away from the bone. If cooked meat is to be used in other food products, it is placed into a
machine that acts much like a hydraulic press, compacting the meat and bone against several
different screens. The meat passes through these screens while the bone remains behind, creating
a thick paste of condensed poultry meat (Mead, 1989).
4.5.2.5 Grinding, Chopping, and Dicing
Many poultry products such as patties, rolls, and luncheon meats require size reduction of
boned meat. Grinding, chopping, and dicing vary the degree of size reduction, with grinding
producing the greatest degree of size reduction, chopping the next, and dicing the least. Each of
these operations is accomplished by mechanical equipment. In grinding, the meat is forced past a
cutting blade and then extruded through orifice plates with holes between 1/8 and 3/8 inch.
Chopping likewise is usually accomplished by forcing the meat past a cutter and through an
orifice plate; however, the holes are greater than 3/8 inch in diameter (the specific orifice size is
chosen based on the desired nature of the final product). Dicing is more like a cutting operation
in that it makes distinct cuts in the meat to produce square-shaped chunks (USEPA, 1975).
4-51
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.5.2.6 Cooking
Some further processed poultry products are cooked at some point in processing. This
step is done in preparation of a final product or in preparing whole birds for subsequent
deboning, the latter applying particularly to processing chickens. Partially and fully cooked
poultry products are frequently prepared in further processing operations, especially for the hotel,
restaurant, institutional and fast-food markets (USEPA, 1975).
Most poultry products are cooked by immersion in water in steam-jacketed open vats.
Gas-fired ovens are used for some products, such as breasts that are not breaded. A small
number of microwave ovens are used in place of immersion cookers, and deep fat frying is used
for breaded products (USEPA, 1975).
Chicken parts, whole birds, and products such as rolls and loaves may be cooked by
immersion in hot water cookers. Overflow wires are used in these cookers to collect edible
chicken or turkey fat during the actual cooking operation. At the end of the processing day, the
contents of cooking vats are dumped into the wastewater collection system (USEPA, 1975).
Gas-fired ovens require essentially no water for operation. A small quantity of steam may
be added for humidity control, but it is usually vented through the facility's stack system
(USEPA, 1975).
The use of microwave ovens frequently requires a preliminary injection of spices and
preservatives using multiple-needle injection equipment similar to the equipment used in ham
and bacon processing. The solution remaining at the end of the operating day is discarded into
the into the wastewater collection system (USEPA, 1975).
All cooked products are cooled before any further processing. The most common cooling
technique for cooked products is immersion into a cold-water tank with continuous overflow
(USEPA, 1975).
4-52
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.5.2.7 Batter and Breading
Fully cooked poultry parts or fresh fabricated products may be battered and breaded to
produce a desired finished product. The batter is a water-based pumpable mixture, usually
containing milk and egg solids, flour, spices, and preservatives. A new batch of batter is
prepared each operating day. The batter is pumped through the application equipment, and the
excess flows back to the small holding tank. Some of the batter clings to the application
equipment; this is cleaned off during the day (USEPA, 1975).
The breading is a mixture of solids deposited on the poultry product after the batter is
applied. There is no liquid used in breading the products, and the residual solids are not disposed
of into the wastewater collection system. The breading is "set," "browned," or cooked by deep
fat frying in vegetable oil. Breaded products are conveyed through a deep-fat fryer that is heated
directly by gas flame or is heated by the circulation of hot oil from a heater separate from the
fryer. The vegetable oil in the fryer is reused repeatedly. When vegetable oil disposal is
necessary (after the end of each production shift), it is shipped to a Tenderer (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.8 Mixing and Blending
Some of the further processed products require mixing of several ingredients, including
ground or chopped meat, dry solids, spices, and water. The required intermixing speed and
intensity of these ingredients varies, depending on the product, from a gentle blending action to
an intense high-shear mixing action. Gravies and sauces are prepared in mixers that usually are
steam jacketed for heating. The ingredients are pumped or manually transported to the mixing
equipment for the preparation of batches of the product mix (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.9 Stuffing and Injecting
Following the preparation of a mixture of ingredients for a processed poultry product, the
mixture is pumped or transported manually in a container to a manufacturing operation, where
the mixtures are formed into the finished products. Either natural or synthetic sausage casings
are commonly used as containers in this operation (USEPA, 1975).
4-53
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
To stuff cases, a product mixture is placed in a piece of equipment from which the
product mixture is either forced by air pressure or pumped to fill the casing uniformly and
completely to form the finished product. Water is used to lubricate casings for use in the stuffing
operation (USEPA, 1975).
Whole bird stuffing, which is performed primarily with turkeys, involves pumping a
stuffing mixture into the body cavity of a dressed bird at a stuffing station, followed by trussing
and freezing of the stuffed bird (USEPA, 1975).
Whole birds are often injected with edible fats and oils, such as butter, margarine, corn
oil, and cottonseed oil, to enhance their palatability. Again, this is primarily done with turkey
carcasses. This step is normally accomplished by inserting small, perforated needles into the
carcass in such a manner as to direct the injected fat or oil between the tissue fibers. The
preferred method is to inject longitudinally into the carcass without penetrating the skin of the
carcass, so the intact overlying skin will retard escape of the injected materials. The injection
material can be used for 1 day after preparation, but it must be discarded at the end of the second
processing day. Most plants minimize or avoid any disposal of this high-cost material by
preparing only the quantity needed (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.10 Canning
The containers used to hold canned poultry products must be prepared before filling and
covering. The cans must be cleaned and sterilized before being filled. The sterilized cans are
transported from the preparation area to the processing area for filling and closure. Water is
frequently present all along the can lines from preparation to filling and covering to remove any
spilled product from equipment used, from outer can surfaces, and from condensed steam. The
cans go through one last steaming just before entering the can filling area. Can filling can be
done by hand or mechanically. However, canning of whole birds or disjointed parts necessitates
hand filling (USEPA, 1975).
Can filling by machine is a high-speed operation. It requires moving the poultry food
products to the canning equipment, and it provides the automated delivery of those products into
4-54
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
a container. The high speed and the design of the equipment result in an appreciable amount of
spillage of product as the cans are filled and conveyed to the closure equipment. At the can
closure station, a small amount of steam is introduced under the cover just before the cover is
sealed to create a vacuum in the can when it cools. Steam use also generates a quantity of
condensate that drains off the cans and equipment onto the floor. The operation of the filling and
covering equipment results in a substantial quantity of wastewater containing product spills,
which is wasted to the wastewater collection system. Filling cans by hand does not appear to
generate as much spillage. Canning plants that have more than one filling and covering line have
a waste load that is generally proportional to the number of such lines in use (USEPA, 1975).
Canned poultry food products are preserved by heating to destroy any bacteria present.
This is accomplished by cooking or by retorting (the pressurized cooking of canned products).
Steam is used as the heating medium in retorting, and it is common practice to bleed or vent
steam from the retort vessels to maintain a constant cooking pressure. Cooking without pressure
is used for cured boneless canned poultry products; the products are considered perishable and
must be kept refrigerated. Virtually no wastewater or solid waste is generated by retorting or
cooking operations unless a can in a particular batch accidentally opens and spills its contents.
This event requires wasting of the contents of that can and cleanup of the cooking vessel. Such
accidents rarely happen; thus the retorts or cooking vessels, as a matter of normal practice, are
not cleaned (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.11 Final Product Preparation
Many of the final products from a poultry plant are ready to serve after heating and are
prepared for the hotel, restaurant, and institutional markets. These products are portion-
controlled, may have gravy or a sauce added, and are packaged in containers of an appropriate
size and design for immediate heating and serving. Poultry meat patties, slices of turkey loaf,
and chicken parts are examples of the types of poultry products prepared in this manner.
Equipment is used to convey and slice the meat product and deposit it into containers. The same
equipment delivers and adds the sauce or gravy to the meat in the container, as required for
4-55
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
specific products. As the final operation, this equipment closes the individual containers
(USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.12 Freezing
The first step in the freezing of further processed poultry products is usually
accomplished by blast freezing, in which the product is frozen by high-velocity air within the
range of -40 to -29 °C (-40 to -20 °F) or by first passing the product through a carbon dioxide or
nitrogen tunnel in which the change in phase of carbon dioxide or nitrogen from liquid to gas
causes rapid surface freezing. The products are then placed in holding freezers in which the
temperature is maintained at between -29 and -18 °C (-20 and 0 °F) (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.13 Packaging
Packing protects products against damage, contamination, and dessication. Packaging
also can extend the shelf-life of fresh poultry and improves product presentation (Mead, 1995).
A variety of packaging techniques are used for further processed poultry products. These
techniques include the use of plastic film sealed under vacuum (Cry-O-Vac packaging), the
bubble enclosure packages used for sliced luncheon meats, and the boxing of smaller containers
or pieces of finished product for shipment (USEPA, 1975).
In some techniques of packaging, a substantial amount of product handling is involved,
which may result in some wasted finished product. However, pieces of wasted finished product
are usually returned for subsequent use in another processed product or directed to a renderer
(USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.14 Shipping
Shipping involves the transportation of finished products and material collected for
rendering. Truck transportation is the primary mode of shipping, and products are distributed
according to market orders (USEPA, 1975).
Trucks must be pre-chilled prior to loading to maintain the shelf-life of fresh poultry
products. Fresh poultry must be maintained at temperatures near freezing with 90 to 100 percent
4-56
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
humidity during transport to maintain a shelf-life of 1 to 4 weeks (USDA, 1997). Trucks are
loaded through overhead doors leading directly from inside the facility into the truck. Therefore,
there typically is no loading dock exposed to the elements, so that pollutants in any runoff from
truck loading areas are only those commonly associated with vehicle parking areas. The
pollutant load is wastewater concentrated by cleanup of inside loading areas, and it is variable
depending on the method of packaging. Ice pack products generate a higher pollutant load from
icemelt than do packaged products. However, loading areas are not a significant source of
wastewater pollutant loads.
4.6 DESCRIPTION OF RENDERING OPERATIONS
This section provides an overview of the U.S. rendering industry for the preparation of
edible and inedible rendered products. This section is divided into three subsections: industry
characterization, process description, and emerging technologies.
4.6.1 Industry Characterization
The Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing (NAICS 311613) sector includes facilities
engaged in the rendering of inedible (i.e., not suitable for human consumption) stearin, grease,
and tallow from animal fat bones and meat scraps, and the manufacturing of animal oils,
including fish oil, and fish and animal meal. The edible (i.e., suitable for human consumption)
rendering industry is included in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 2011. Many
facilities not classified as rendering facilities perform rendering operations but are not classified
as such because they are also engaged in slaughtering (first processing). These facilities are often
on-site (or "integrated") rendering facilities that are part of an animal or poultry slaughtering
facility. Integrated rendering plants normally process only one type of raw material, whereas
independent rendering plants often handle several types of raw material that require either
multiple rendering systems or significant modifications in the operating conditions for a single
system.
The rendering sector consists of 137 companies that own or operate 240 facilities. The
sector employs 8,800 workers and generates $2.6 billion in shipments. Texas and California
4-57
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
have the largest number of rendering facilities. Unlike the meat or poultry industry sectors, the
rendering industry sector includes few large facilities; only 11 rendering facilities employed more
than 100 workers per facility in 1997. Rendering facilities tend to collect most of their raw
material from farms, animal feeding operations, first processors, further processors, and
restaurants (e.g., grease from traps and fryers). Rendering collection areas for raw material are
limited by cost of transportation and travel time for the raw material to reach the rendering
facility. Many rendering facilities have limited overlap of collection areas with other rendering
facilities. The 132 rendering facilities that employ between 20 and 99 workers account for the
largest share of the industry shipments (66 percent).
As with the meat and mixed meat animal first and further processing sectors, EPA is
using revised production rate thresholds to exclude most smaller rendering facilities from the
January 31, 2002, proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 432. Based on the current screener survey
data, EPA is defining small rendering facilities as those which produce less than 10 million
pounds of rendered product per year. See to Figures 4-12 and 4-13 for the distribution of small
and non-small rendering facilities further categorized by discharge type throughout the United
States.
4.6.2 Rendering (Meat and Poultry By-product Processing) Description
Rendering processes are processes used to convert the by-products of meat and poultry
processing into marketable products, including edible and inedible fats and proteins for
agricultural and industrial use. Materials rendered include viscera, meat scraps including fat,
bone, blood, feathers, hatchery by-products (infertile eggs, dead embryos, etc.), and dead
animals. Lard and foodgrade tallow are examples of edible rendering products. Inedible
rendering products include industrial and animal feedgrade fats, meat and poultry by-product
meals, feather meal, dried blood, and hydrolyzed hair.
Rendering plants that operate in conjunction with animal slaughterhouses or poultry
processing plants are called integrated rendering plants. Plants that collect their raw materials
from a variety of off-site sources are called independent rendering plants. Independent plants
4-58
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Di charge Type
Direct
Indirect
Other
None or Unknown
Data Source: MPP Screener Suivev
Figure 4-12. Location of Small Rendering Facilities in the
United States (Based on Screener Survey Data).
r\
Di charge Type
Direct
Indirect
Other
None or Unknown
Data Source: MPP Screener Suivev
Figure 4-13. Location of Non-Small Rendering Facilities in the
United States (Based on Screener Survey Data).
4-59
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
obtain animal by-product materials from a variety of sources, including butcher shops,
supermarkets, restaurants, fast-food chains, poultry processors, slaughterhouses, farms, ranches,
feedlots, and animal shelters (USEPA, 1995).
Edible rendering plants separate fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The
edible rendering plants are normally operated in conjunction with meat packing plants. The
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for regulating and inspecting
meat and poultry first and further processing facilities and facilities engaged in edible rendering
(i.e., suitable for human consumption) to ensure food safety. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) covers inedible rendering operations. Inedible rendering plants are
operated by independent Tenderers or are part of integrated rendering operations. These plants
produce inedible tallow and grease, which are used in livestock and poultry feed, pet food, soap,
chemical products such as fatty acids, and fuel blending agents.
4.6.2.1 Edible Rendering
A typical edible rendering process is shown in Figure 4-14. Fat trimmings, usually
consisting of 14 to 16 percent fat, 60 to 64 percent moisture, and 22 to 24 percent protein, are
ground and then belt conveyed to a melt tank. The melt tank heats the materials to about 43 °C
(110 °F), and the melted fatty tissue is pumped to a disintegrator, which ruptures the fat cells.
The proteinaceous solids are separated from the melted fat and water by a centrifuge. The
melted fat and water are then heated with steam to about 93 °C (200 °F) by a shell and tube heat
exchanger. A second-stage centrifuge then separates the edible fat from the water, which also
contains any remaining protein fines. The water is discharged as sludge, and the "polished" fat is
pumped to storage. Throughout the process, direct heat contact with the edible fat is minimal,
and no cooking vapors are directly emitted (USEPA, 1995).
Edible lard and tallow are the main foodstuffs produced from continuous edible rendering
of animal fatty tissue. Either the low temperature option or the high temperature option edible
rendering processes may be used to render edible fat. The low temperature option uses
temperatures below 49 °C (120 °F) and the high temperature option uses temperatures between
4-60
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Fat Trimmings
Grinder
Melt Tank
Disintegrator
Fat Tank
Centrifuge
Feed Tank
Centrifuge
Steam
Sludge Tank
Storage or
Disposal
To Inedible Rendering or
Wastewater Treatment
Figure 4-14. General Process for Edible Rendering (USEPA, 1995).
82 and 100 °C (180 and 210 °F) to melt animal fatty tissue and to separate the fat from the
protein. A better separation of fat from protein can be achieved with the high temperature
option; however, the protein obtained from the low temperature option is of acceptable quality,
wheras the protein obtained from the high temperature option cannot be sold as an edible product
(Prokop, 1985).
4.6.2.2 Inedible Rendering
Table 4-1 shows the fat, protein, and moisture contents for several raw materials
processed by inedible rendering plants. There are two processes for inedible rendering: the wet
process and the dry process. Wet rendering separates fat from raw material by boiling in water.
The process involves adding water to the raw material and using live steam to cook the raw
material and separate the fat. Dry rendering is a batch or continuous process in which the
material being rendered is cooked in its own moisture and grease with dry heat in open steam-
jacketed drums until the moisture has evaporated. Following dehydration, as much fat as
possible is removed by draining, and the residue is passed through a screw press to remove some
4-61
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Table 4-1. Composition of Raw Materials for Inedible Rendering
Source
Packing house offala and bone
Steers
Cows
Calves
Sheep
Hogs
Poultry offal
Poultry feathers
Dead stock (whole animals)
Calves
Sheep
Hogs
Butcher shop fat and bone
Blood
Restaurant grease
Tallow/grease
Wt%
30-35
10-20
10-15
25-30
25-30
10
None
10
22
30
31
None
65
Protein Solids
Wt %
15-20
20-30
15-20
20-25
10-15
25
33
22
25
28
32
16-18
10
Moisture
Wt%
45-55
50-70
65-75
45-55
55-65
65
67
68
53
42
37
82-84
25
a Waste parts; especially the viscera and similar parts from a butchered animal.
Source: USEPA, 1995.
of the remaining fat and moisture. Then the residue is granulated or ground into a meal. At
present, only dry rendering is used in the United States. The wet rendering process is no longer
used because of the high cost of energy and because of its adverse effect on the fat quality
(USEPA, 1995).
Inedible rendering can be divided into two subcategories: feed grade and pet food grade
rendering. In addition, the poultry industry uses a third subcategory of inedible rendering called
glomerate rendering. Glomerate rendering is the oldest rendering process, dating back to the
beginnings of slaughterhouses when all animal by-products were rendered and fed back to
animals as a feed. The glomerate process involves combining meat and feathers and cooking
them together to produce feed for poultry. Because more plants further process poultry than they
did in the past, a greater amount of bones, backs, and necks are included in the rendering process.
The ratio of meat to feathers varies throughout the day, generally resulting in increased protein
4-62
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
concentrations toward the end of the day. Glomerate rendering is not widely used today because
of the highly variable protein concentrations of the final products (Christensen, 1996).
Feed grade rendering has the largest market because livestock and poultry feed
manufacturers purchase the products produced in bulk to use as feed ingredients. This process
requires that fat and protein and hog hair or poultry feathers be separated, though crude
techniques are used. The meat is cooked down into meal and the feathers or hair are hydrolyzed
before they are sold to the livestock and poultry feed manufacturers (Christensen, 1996).
Pet food grade rendering is the most profitable type of rendering and has an $8 billion
market worldwide each year. Strict separation of materials is required because purchasers are
very concerned with texture, color, ash content, and quality of the final product. Blood and
feathers or hair cannot be included in pet food (Christensen, 1996).
The following sections describe the two typical inedible rendering processes, batch
rendering and continuous rendering. Both can be used to produce either feed grade or pet food
grade protein meal and fat. As discussed previously, the grade of the rendered products depends
on the types of raw materials included and excluded. Since the 1960s continuous rendering
systems have been installed to replace batch systems at most plants. Currently, only a few batch
cooker plants remain in operation in North America (Lehmann, 2001).
4.6.2.2.1 Batch Rendering Process
Figure 4-15 shows the basic inedible rendering process using multiple batch cookers. In
the batch process, the raw material from the receiving bin is screw conveyed to a crusher, where
it is reduced to 2.5 to 5 centimeters (1 to 2 inches) in size to improve cooking efficiency.
Cooking normally requires 1.5 to 2.5 hours, but adjustments in the cooking time and temperature
may be required to process the various materials. A typical batch cooker is a horizontal,
cylindrical vessel equipped with a steam jacket and an agitator. To initiate the cooking process,
the cooker is charged with raw material and the material is heated to a final temperature ranging
from 121 to 135 °C (250 to 275 °F). Following the cooking cycle, the contents are discharged to
4-63
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Water
Condenser
Receiving Bin
Crusher
Protein
Solids .
Protein
Screen
Grinder
Oversize
Figure 4-15. General Process for Inedible Batch Cooking Rendering (USEPA, 1995).
the percolator drain pan. Vapor emissions from the cooker pass through a condenser, which
condenses the water vapor and emits the noncondensibles as volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions (USEPA, 1995).
The percolator drain pan contains a screen that separates the liquid fat from the protein
solids. From the percolator drain pan, the protein solids, which still contain about 25 percent fat,
are conveyed to a screw press. The screw press completes the separation of fat from solids and
yields protein solids that have a residual fat content of about 10 percent. These solids, called
cracklings, are then ground and screened to produce protein meal. The fat from both the screw
press and the percolator drain pan is pumped to the crude animal fat tank, centrifuged or filtered
to remove any remaining protein solids, and stored in the animal fat storage tank (USEPA, 1995).
4.6.2.2.2 Continuous Rendering Process
A typical continuous rendering process is shown in Figure 4-16. The system is similar to
a batch system, except that a single, continuous cooker is used rather than several parallel batch
cookers. A typical continuous cooker is a horizontal, steam-jacketed cylindrical vessel equipped
with a mechanism that continuously moves the material horizontally through the cooker.
4-64
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Water
Condenser
Receiving Bin
Crusher
Continuous
Cooker
Protein
Solids .
Protein
Screen
Grinder
Oversize
Figure 4-16. General Process for Inedible Continuous Rendering (USEPA, 1995).
Continuous cookers process the material faster than batch cookers and typically produce a higher
quality fat product. From the cooker, the material is discharged to the drainer, which serves the
same function as the percolator drain pan in the batch process. The remaining operations are
generally the same as the batch process operations (USEPA, 1995).
In the 1980s newer continuous rendering systems were developed to precook the raw
material and to remove moisture from the liquid fat prior to the cooker/drier stage. These
systems use an evaporator operated under vacuum and heated by the vapors from the
cooker/drier. One system, termed waste-heat dewatering (WHD), consists of treating the raw
material in a preheater followed by a twin-screw press. The solids from the press are directed to
the cooker/drier. The liquid fat is sent to an evaporator operated under a vacuum and heated by
the hot vapors from the cooker/drier to a temperature of 70 to 90 °C (160 to 200 °F). In the
evaporator, the moisture evaporates from the liquid fat and passes to a water-cooled condenser.
The dewatered fat is recombined with the solids from the screw press prior to entry into the
cooker/drier. These pretreatment systems may reduce fuel costs by 30 to 40 percent and increase
production throughput by up to 75 percent (USEPA, 1995). Several inedible continuous
4-65
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
rendering systems exist, including the Duke System, the Anderson C-G (Carver-Greenfield)
System, and the Atlas Stord Waste Heat Dewatering System.
Duke Continuous Rendering System (Inedible Rendering)
The process of the Duke system is similar to that of the batch cooker described earlier.
The main difference is that it operates on a continuous basis. The cooker portion of the system,
called the Equacooker, is a horizontal steam-jacketed cylindrical vessel equipped with a rotating
shaft. Paddles, which are attached to the rotating shaft, lift the material and move it horizontally
through the cooker. The rotating shaft also has steam-heated coils to provide increased heat
transfer. The Equacooker is divided into three separate compartments that are equipped with
baffles to restrict and control the flow of materials through the cooker. Adjusting the speed of
the variable-speed drive for the twin-screw feeder controls the feed rate to the Equacooker, while
the discharge rate is controlled by the control wheel rotation speed. The control wheel has
buckets that collect the cooked material from the Equacooker and discharge it into the Drainor.
A site glass column, located adjacent to the control wheel, shows the operating level in the
cooker; a photoelectric cell unit shuts off the twin-screw feeder when the upper level limit is
reached. The Drainor is an enclosed screw conveyor that contains a section of perforated
troughs, which allow the free melted fat to drain through as the solids are conveyed to the Pressor
or screw press for additional separation of tallow. Similar to any other screw press used with a
batch cooker, the Pressor reduces the grease level of the crackling (Prokop, 1985).
The central control panel, which consolidates the process controls for the system, houses
a temperature recorder, stream pressure indicators, equipment speed settings, motor load gauges,
and stop and start buttons. This design facilitates operation of the controls so that only one
person is needed to operate the Equacooker portion of the Duke system (Prokop, 1985).
Anderson C-G (Carver-Greenfield) System (Inedible Rendering)
The Anderson C-G system differs from most other systems in several aspects. Instead of
using screw conveyors, recycled fat carries the raw material as a pumpable slurry. An additional
grinding step is included to further reduce the size of the particles. Also, the conventional
4-66
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
evaporator system with a vacuum is powered by an electrical motor, rather than by steam
injectors, to remove moisture from the slurry (Prokop, 1985).
The process begins with a triple-screw feeder that feeds the partially ground raw material
continuously, and at a controlled rate, to a fluidizing tank. In the tank, fat that has been recycled
through the system at a temperature of 104 °C (22 °F) suspends the material and carries it to a
disintegrator to further reduce the particle size. The final particle size ranges from 0.25 to 1 inch.
The slurry is next pumped to an evaporator, which can be either a single or a double-stage unit,
and is held under vacuum. Because the vacuum facilitates moisture removal, the C-G system can
operate at a lower temperature than other processes. The evaporator consists of a vertical shell
and tube heat exchanger connected to a vacuum system. Gravity aids the flow of the slurry
through the tubes of the heat exchanger while steam is injected into the shell. Next, the water
vapor is separated from the slurry in the vapor chamber, which is under a vacuum pressure of 660
to 710 mm (26 to 28 inches) of mercury. Water vapor then travels through a shell and tube
condenser that is connected to a steam-injection vacuum system. Once the vapors are condensed,
they exit the condenser through a barometric leg, allowing the vacuum to be maintained. In a
two-stage evaporator system, the vapor from the second stage functions as a heating medium for
the first stage. Providing steam economy, the two-stage evaporator is especially useful for
materials that have a high moisture content. The remaining dry slurry of fat and cracklings is
then pumped from the evaporator to a centrifuge that separates the solids from the liquid. A
portion of the fat is recycled back to the fluidizing tank, while the remainder is removed from the
system. Discharged solids from the centrifuge are screw-conveyed to expellers (screw presses),
which reduce the fat content of solids from 26 percent by weight to 6 to 10 percent (Prokop,
1985).
As in the Duke process, the central control panel allows a single person to operate the
cooking process. The panel includes level indicators and controls to stabilize the flow through
the fluidizing and other process tanks in addition to the vacuum chamber. It also monitors
evaporator vacuum and temperature measurements. The panel also has equipment speed
settings, motor current readings, and start/stop push buttons (Prokop, 1985).
4-67
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
Atlas Stord Waste Heat Dewatering (WHD) System/(Inedible Rendering)
The Atlas Stord system, formerly called the Stord Bartz WHD System, consists of a
preheater, twin-screw press, and evaporator system. It is typically installed with an existing
rendering system. As with other processes, the raw material is screw-conveyed from the raw
material bin over an electromagnet and is fed to either a prebreaker or hogor for course grinding.
The ground material travels through a preheater to melt the fat and condition the animal fibrous
tissue properly for the subsequent pressing operation. The preheater is a horizontal, steam-
jacketed, cylindrical vessel that has an agitator and rotating shaft to ensure continuous flow and
adequate heat transfer. The temperature of the material is controlled within the preheater at 60 to
82 °C (140 to 180 °F), depending on the type of raw material.
After it is heated, the material is then subjected to the twin-screw press, where it is
separated into a solid phase and a liquid phase. The press consists of intermeshing, counter-
rotating screws that move inside a press cage assembly. A perforated screen, through which the
liquid is pressed, is secured by vertical support plates. The shape of the screen follows the
contour of the rotating flights of the twin screws. The material fills the space between the screws
and the press cage. The twin screws have a lower diameter shaft and deeper flights at the feed
end, providing a larger volume of space. As the screws rotate, the volume of space decreases,
creating an increased pressure to the material to squeeze out the liquid through the perforated
screen.
After the liquid, consisting of melted fat and water, is squeezed out, a presscake of solids
of fat and moisture remains. The solids are screw-conveyed to the existing cooker or dryer,
where the moisture is removed. The screw press completes the final separation of fats from the
solids. The liquid extracted by the screw press is pumped from the feed tank to the evaporator,
which is a tubular heat exchanger that is mounted vertically and is integral with the vapor
chamber. Vapors from the existing cooker or drier serve as the heating medium for evaporation.
The liquid enters the evaporator at the top and flows by gravity downward through the tubes, then
discharges into the vapor chamber maintained under a vacuum of 24 to 26 inches of mercury. A
shell and tube condenser with circulating cooling water condenses the vapor. Because the system
4-68
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
makes use of vapors from the existing cooker, fuel costs are reduced by 30 to 40 percent (Prokop,
1985).
4.5.3 Blood Processing and Drying
Blood processing and drying is an auxiliary process in meat rendering operations. At the
present time, less than 10 percent of the independent rendering plants in the United States
process whole animal blood. Whole blood from animal slaughterhouses, containing 16 to 18
percent total protein solids, is processed and dried to recover protein as blood meal. The blood
meal is a valuable ingredient in animal feed because it has a high lysine content. Continuous
cookers have replaced the batch cookers originally used in the industry because of the improved
energy efficiency and product quality provided by continuous cookers. In the continuous
process, whole blood is introduced into a steam-injected, inclined tubular vessel in which the
blood solids coagulate. The coagulated blood solids and liquid (serum water) are then separated
in a centrifuge, and the blood solids are dried in either a continuous gas-fired, direct-contact ring
dryer or a steam tube, rotary dryer (USEPA, 1995). Blood from poultry processing usually is
processed with feathers to increase the available protein content of feather meal.
4.5.4 Poultry Feathers and Hog Hair Processing.
The raw material is introduced into a batch cooker and is processed for 30 to 45 minutes
at temperatures ranging from 138 to 149 °C (280 to 300 °F) and pressures ranging from 40 to 50
pounds per square inch. This process converts keratin, the principal component of feathers and
hog hair, into amino acids. The moist meal product, containing the amino acids, is passed either
through a hot air, ring-type dryer or over steam-heated tubes to remove the moisture from the
meal. If the hot air dryer is used, the dried product is separated from the exhaust by cyclone
collectors. In the steam-heated tube system, fresh air is passed countercurrent to the flow of the
meal to remove the moisture. The dried meal is then transferred to storage. The exhaust gases
are passed through controls prior to discharge to the atmosphere (USEPA, 1995).
4-69
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.6 REFERENCES
Christensen, H. 2001. Looking at the basics of the "hidden industry." Dec. 1996: 7 pp. On-line.
Internet. Available WWW: http://www.mtgplace.com/articles/p699.asp. (DCN 00120)
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). 2001. "Guidelines for specified cuts of poultry." 26 Feb
1986: 2 pp. On-line. Internet. Available WWW:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/rdad/fsisdirectives/7110%2Dl.pdf. (DCN 00247)
Lehmann, L. 2001. Glancing back: changes in technology over the last 30 years. Render, the
National Magazine of Rendering. 2pp. On-line. Internet. Available WWW:
http://www.rendermagazine.com/February 2001/GlancingBack.html. (DCN 00121)
Mead, G.C., ed. 1989. Processing of poultry. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.,
Inc. Prokop, William H. Rendering systems for processing animal by-product materials.
Papers from the Symposium on Animal Fats presented at the 74th AOCS Annual Meeting
held in Chicago, Illinois, May 8-12, 1983. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society
62(4):805-811. 1985. (DCN 00124)
Prokop, W. 1985. Rendering systems for processing animal by-product materials. Papers From
the Symposium on Animal Fats Presented at the 74th AOCS Annual Meeting Held in
Chicago, Illinois, May 8-12, 1983. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society.
62(4):805-811.
Sams, A.R., ed. 2001. Poultry meat processing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. (DCN 00108 and
00109)
Stadelman, W.J., et al. 1988. Egg and poultry-meat processing. New York, NY: Ellis Horwood
Ltd. (DCN 00111)
Thorne, J. 2001. Personal Communication. (DCN 10028)
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001. Livestock slaughter 2000 summary. National
Agricultural Statistics Service. Mt An 1-2-1 (Ola), Washington, DC. (DCN 00183)
4-70
-------
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Agricultural transportation handbook. On-line.
Internet. Available WWW:http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/export/index.htm.
(DCN 00239)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7997. Emission factor documentation for AP-42
Section 9.5.1. Meat packing plants. Washington, DC. (DCN 00112)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Emission factor documentation for AP-42
Section 9.5.3. Meat rendering plants final report. EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159,
Washington, DC. (DCN 00125)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development document for proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry segment of
the meat product and rendering process, point source category. EPA/440/1-75/031-b,
Washington, DC. (DCN 00140)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the processor segment
of the meat products point source category. EPA/440/1-74/031, Washington, DC.
(DCN 00186)
Wilson, A. Wilson's practical meat inspection. 1998. 6th ed. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Science,
Ltd. (DCN 00106 and 00107)
Warriss, P.D. 2000. Meat science: an introductory text. New York, NY: CABI Publishing.
(DCN 00103, 00104, and 00105)
4-71
-------
SECTION 5
SUBCATEGORIZATION
This section presents the proposed subcategorization for the meat and poultry products
(MPP) effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards. Section 5.1 presents EPA's
subcategorization criteria. Section 5.2 presents each proposed subcategory in detail and
discusses the differences between the existing subcategorization and the proposed
subcategorization.
5.1 SUBCATEGORIZATION PROCESS
Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)) requires EPA to consider a
number of different factors when developing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards. For example, when developing limitations that represent the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) for a particular industry category, EPA must
consider, among other factors:
• Age of the equipment and facilities
• Location
• Manufacturing processes employed
• Types of treatment technology to reduce effluent discharges
• Cost of effluent reductions
• Non-water quality environmental impacts
The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors that the Administrator
deems appropriate. In addition, it requires BAT model technology chosen by EPA to be
economically achievable, which generally involves considering both compliance costs and the
overall financial condition of the industry.
EPA took these factors into account in considering whether different effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards were appropriate for subcategories within the industry.
For this industry, EPA broke down the industry into subcategories with similar characteristics.
This breakdown recognized the major differences among companies within the industr, which
5-1
-------
Section 5. Sub categorization
might reflect, for example, different processes, economies of scale, or other factors. Subdividing
an industry into subcategories results in more tailored regulatory standards, thereby increasing
regulatory predictability and diminishing the need to address variations among facilities through
a variance process. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
For this proposed MPP rulemaking, EPA used industry survey data and EPA sampling
data for the subcategorization analysis. Various subcategorization criteria were analyzed for
trends in discharge flow rates, pollutant concentrations, and treatability to determine where
subcategorization was warranted. Equipment and facility age and facility location were not
found to affect wastewater generation or wastewater characteristics; therefore, age and location
were not used as a basis for subcategorization. An analysis of non-water quality environmental
characteristics (e.g., solid waste and air emission effects) also showed that these characteristics
did not constitute a basis for subcategorization. See Section 10 of this document for more
information on non-water quality environmental impacts.
Even though size (e.g., acreage, number of employees, production rates) of a facility does
not influence production-normalized wastewater flow rates or pollutant loadings, size was used
as a basis for subcategorization because more stringent limitations would not be cost- effective
for smaller meat, poultry, and rendering facilities. In addition, smaller facilities discharge a very
small portion of the total industry discharge. Therefore, this proposal does not revise the
existing limitations and standard for smaller facilities in Subcategories A through J and proposes
less stringent requirements for smaller facilities in Subcategories K and L. See Section 12 of this
document for definition of "small" and "non-small" facilities for each subcategory. See the
"Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category" (EPA 821-B-01-006) for a description of
why EPA established standards for small poultry facilities.
EPA also identified both the types of meat products (e.g., meat or poultry) and the
manufacturing processes (e.g., slaughtering, further processing, rendering) as a determinative
factor for subcategorization because of differences in median production-normalized wastewater
flow rates (PNFs) and estimated pollutant loadings. For meat facilities, the PNF for slaughtering
is 322 gallons per 1000 pounds (gal/1000 Ib) live weight killed, the PNF for further processing is
-------
Section 5. Sub categorization
555 gal/1000 Ib finished product, the PNF for meat cutters in subcategory F only is 130 gal/1000
Ib finished product, and the PNF for rendering is 346 gal/1000 Ib raw material. For poultry
facilities, the PNF for slaughtering is 1,289 gal/1000 Ib live weight killed, the PNF for further
processing is 315 gal/1000 Ib finished product, and the PNF for rendering is 346 gal/1000 Ib raw
material.
Slaughtering operations use substantial amounts of water for initial processing (kill
through carcass shipping or cut-up). Slaughtering or first processing operations generally
involve taking the live animal and producing whole or cut-up meat carcasses (which then may be
further processed). Wastewaters from first processing operations are generated from a variety of
sources that generally include the areas where animals are killed and bled; hides, hair, or feathers
are removed; animals are eviscerated; carcasses are washed and chilled; and carcasses are
trimmed and cut to produce the whole carcasses or carcass parts. As a result of these operations,
wastewaters that contain varying levels of blood, animal parts, viscera, fats, bones, and the like
are generated. In addition, federal food safety concerns require frequent and extensive cleanup
of slaughtering operations, which also contributes to wastewater generation. These cleanup
wastewaters contain not only slaughtering residues and particulate matter but also products used
for cleaning and disinfection (e.g., detergents and sanitizing agents).
Alternatively, most further processing operations generate wastewaters from sources
different from slaughtering operations. These sources, and the resulting wastewater
characteristics, are highly dependent on the type of finished product desired. Further operations
can include, but are not limited to, cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning,
grinding, chopping, dicing, forming, and breading. Unlike slaughtering operations, most further
processing operations do not use significant amounts of water, except for cleanup. Wastewaters
generated from further processing operations contain some soft and hard tissue (e.g., muscle, fat,
and bone), blood, and other substances used in final product preparation (e.g., breading, spices),
as well as products used for cleaning and disinfection (detergents and sanitizing agents).
Rendering operations primarily process slaughtering by-products (e.g., animal fat, bone,
blood, hair, feathers, dead animals). The amount of water used and the characteristics of
wastewater generated by rendering operations are highly dependent on a number of factors,
-------
Section 5. Sub categorization
including the type of product produced (e.g., edible vs. inedible), the rendering process used
(batch vs. continuous, wet process vs. dry process), and the source and type of raw materials
used (e.g., poultry processors, slaughterhouses, butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants, fast-
food chains, farms, ranches, feedlots, animal shelters). In general, rendering operations involve
cooking the raw materials to recover fats, oil, and grease; remaining residue is dried and then
granulated or ground into a meal using a continuous dry rendering process. A significant portion
of wastewater pollutant loadings generated from rendering operations is condensed steam from
cooking operations. Unlike slaughtering and further processing operations, rendering cleanup
operations are generally less rigorous, generating a smaller proportion of the total expected
wastewater flow.
5.2 PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIES
EPA proposes to keep the current subcategorization scheme for small facilities, but for
larger facilities the Agency is proposing new limitations and collapsing the existing
subcategories. Specifically, EPA proposes new limitations and standards that are the same for
larger facilities in the following MPP subcategories: Simple Slaughterhouses (Subpart A),
Complex Slaughterhouses (Subpart B), Low-Processing Packinghouses (Subpart C), and High-
Processing Packinghouses (Subpart D). Also, EPA proposes new limitations and standards that
are the same for facilities in the following MPP subcategories: Meat Cutters (Subpart F),
Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors (Subpart G), Ham Processors (Subpart H), and Canned
Meats Processors (Subpart I).
EPA is also retaining the Renderer (Subpart J) subcategory and proposing new
limitations and standards for facilities in this subcategory. This proposal does not revise the
existing limitations and standards for smaller facilities in Subparts A through J (which would
include by definition all Subpart E [Small Processor] facilities). Finally, EPA proposes adding
two MPP subcategories in 40 CFR Part 432: Poultry First Processing (Subpart K) and Poultry
Further Processing (Subpart L). These two new subcategories will cover both small and large
poultry processing facilities, although the smaller facilities in each of the subcategories are
required to meet less stringent requirements than the larger poultry facilities. EPA chose less
5-4
-------
Section 5. Sub categorization
stringent limitations for smaller poultry processing facilities because more stringent limits would
not be cost-effective for such facilities.
EPA believes that the similarities among Simple Slaughterhouses, Complex
Slaughterhouse, Low-Processing Packinghouses, and Complex Packinghouses (Subcategories A
through D), including but not limited to the commonality of slaughter of live animals, represents
a rational basis for proposing new limitations and standards that are the same for all four
subcategories. This approach allows the use of production-normalized wastewater flow and
pollutant generation on a common live weight killed (LWK) basis for all four subcategories,
with possible additional allowances reflecting the degree of further processing and rendering.
The proposal for new limitations and standards that are the same for meat cutters,
sausage and luncheon meat processors, ham processors, and canned meat processors is also
based on the similarities among these four subcategories. These similarities include, but are not
limited to, the absence of slaughtering and on-site rendering activities and the ability to
characterize wastewater flow and pollutant generation on a finished product basis.
The rationale that EPA used for proposing two new subcategories for poultry, first
processing and further processing, with separate limitations and standards, is essentially the
same as that used for grouping Subcategories A through D and F through I for meat. Included
were the presence (Subcategory K) or absence (Subcategory L) of slaughtering. Immediately
following, each Subcategory is described in more detail in terms of its manufacturing processes
and wastewater characteristics.
5.2.1 Meat Slaughterhouses and Packinghouses—Subparts A, B, C and D
EPA is proposing to retain the existing subcategories. EPA is not proposing to revise the
existing BPT requirements for facilities that slaughter 50 million pounds per year or less.
Because the existing limitations for smaller meat facilities (which EPA believes should be
maintained) are different for each of the subcategories, the subcategories themselves are being
maintained. EPA believes that retaining the existing subcategorization scheme will simplify
implementation for the permit writers, as well as generate appropriate limitations and standards
for the facilities.
5-5
-------
Section 5. Sub categorization
The proposed regulation would require all meat direct dischargers that slaughter more
than 50 million pounds live weight per year to achieve the same production-based effluent
limitations. EPA finds that the slaughtering and initial processing operations used in all four of
these subcategories are the key factors in determining wastewater characteristics and treatability.
Moreover, EPA believes there are no significant differences between these four subcategories in
terms of age, location, and size of facilities. In addition to slaughtering and initial processing,
EPA is proposing to establish allowances to account for the additional processes that might also
occur on-site. The proposed effluent limitations guidelines would provide allowances for
discharges from each of the following processes: slaughtering (which includes initial
processing), further processing, and rendering. These allowances would be the same for all four
subcategories and are related to the volume of production as follows: the amount of live weight
killed for the slaughtering process, the amount of finished product that is further processed
on-site, and the amount of raw material that is rendered on-site.
5.2.2 Meat Further Processing—Subparts F, G, H and I
The proposed subcategorization scheme requires all facilities that generate more than 50
million pounds per year of meat finished products without performing slaughtering to be
regulated by the same production-based effluent limitations guidelines. Subpart E (Small
Processor) facilities are excluded from these new proposed requirements by definition. The
limitations guidelines allow discharges based on the amount of finished product that is further
processed on-site. The wastewater characteristics and treatability for three of the four
subcategories are sufficiently similar to group them together for the purpose of revising or
setting new limitations and standards. However, subpart F limitations will be based on a lower
production-normalized flow than Subpart G, H, and I limitations because Subpart F facilities
generate substantially less water per pound of finished product than the other three subparts.
Moreover, EPA believes there are no significant differences between these four subcategories in
terms of age, location, and size of these MPP facilities. EPA believes that this subcategorization
scheme will simplify implementation for the permit writers, as well as generate appropriate
limitations and standards for the facilities.
5-6
-------
Section 5. Sub categorization
5.2.3 Renderer—Subpart J
Subpart J applies to independent rendering facilities, which are facilities that only render
raw materials and process hides and do no first or further processing. The proposed
subcategorization scheme requires all independent rendering facilities that render more than 10
million pounds per year of raw material to be regulated by the same production-based effluent
limitations guidelines. This scheme is a change from the current guidelines, which apply only to
independent Tenderers that render more than approximately 27.4 million pounds raw material per
year (or 75,000 pounds raw material per day for a facility that operates 365 days per year). The
limitations and standards allow discharges based on the amount of raw material rendered on-site.
5.2.4 Poultry First Processing—Subpart K
EPA divided the poultry first processors into two segments, small and non-small. Small
poultry first processors slaughter 10 million pounds of poultry per year or less; non-small poultry
first processors slaughter more than 10 million pounds of poultry per year. EPA is proposing
that the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for small poultry first processors (both
new and existing) be based on the less efficient nitrification technology option (Option 1). EPA
is proposing that the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for non-small poultry first
processors (both new and existing) be based on the nitrification/denitrification technology option
(Option 3). See Section 11 of this document for a discussion of the technology options, and see
Section 12 of this document for more details on how EPA developed the two segments and
specific requirements for each segment.
The effluent limitations guidelines allow discharges for all activities that may be
performed on-site, including further processing and rendering, based on (1) the amount of live
weight killed, (2) the amount of finished product that is further processed on-site, and (3) the
amount of raw material that is rendered on-site.
5.2.5 Poultry Further Processing—Subpart L
EPA divided the poultry further processors into two segments, small and non-small.
Small poultry further processors generate 7 million pounds of finished product per year or less;
non-small poultry further processors generate more than 7 million pounds of finished product per
-------
Section 5. Sub categorization
year. EPA is proposing that the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for small
poultry further processors (both new and existing) be based on a less efficient nitrification
technology option (Option 1). EPA is proposing that the technology-based effluent limitations
guidelines for non-small poultry further processors (both new and existing) be based on the
nitrification/denitrification technology option (Option 3). See Section 11 of this document for a
discussion of the technology options, and see Section 12 of this document for more details on
how EPA developed the two segments and specific requirements for each segment. The effluent
limitations guidelines allow discharges based on the amount of finished product that is produced
on-site.
5.3 REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for effluent limitation
guidelines and new source performance standards—red meat processing segments of the
meat products point source category. EPA-440/l-74-012a. Effluent Guidelines Division,
Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC. (DCN 00162)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development document for proposed effluent
limitation guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry processing
point source category. EPA-440/l-75-031b. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, DC. (DCN 00140)
5-8
-------
SECTION 6
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
This section describes the characteristics of wastewater generated by meat and poultry
product (MPP) operations. Section 6.1 describes wastewater characteristics of meat processing
wastes, Section 6.2 describes wastewater characteristics of poultry processing wastes, and
Section 6.3 describes wastewater characteristics of rendering wastes.
6.1 MEAT PROCESSING WASTES
6.1.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated
In meat processing, water is used primarily for carcass washing after hide removal from
cattle, calves, and sheep or hair removal from hogs and again after evisceration, for cleaning, and
sanitizing of equipment and facilities, and for cooling of mechanical equipment such as
compressors and pumps. A large quantity of water is used for scalding in the process of hair
removal for hogs. Since most meat-processing facilities operate on a round-the-clock schedule
with the killing cycle followed by processing and cleaning operations, the rate of water use and
wastewater generation varies with both time of day and day of the week. In order to comply with
Federal requirements for complete cleaning and sanitation of equipment after each processing
shift, a regular processing shift, usually of 8- or 10-hour duration, is followed by one 6- to 8-hour
cleanup shift every day. During processing, water use and wastewater generation are relatively
constant and low compared to the cleanup period that follows. Water use and wastewater
generation essentially cease after the cleanup period until processing begins the next day. In
addition, there is little water use or wastewater generation on non-processing days, which usually
are Saturdays and Sundays. Thus, meat processing wastewater flow rates can be highly variable,
especially on an hourly basis.
A number of studies also have shown that the volume of water used and wastewater
generated on a per unit of production basis, such as live weight killed (LWK) or finished product
produced also can vary substantially among processing plants. Some of this variation is a
reflection of different levels of effort among plants to minimize water use to reduce the cost of
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
wastewater treatment. For example, Johns (1995) reported water use ranging from 312 to 601
gallons per 1,000 pounds live weight for processing of beef cattle. In an earlier analysis of data
from 24 simple slaughterhouses (operations producing fresh meat ranging from whole carcasses
to smaller cuts of meat with two or fewer by-product recovery activities, such as rendering and
hide processing), wastewater flows ranged from 160 to 1,755 gallons per 1,000 Ib LWK with a
mean value of 639 gallons per 1,000 Ib LWK (USEPA, 1974). About one-half of these
operations slaughtered beef cattle, with the remainder evenly divided between hogs and mixed
kill. Two facilities were small operations with less than 95,000 Ib LWK per day, and the
remainder were classified as medium size, handling between 95,000 and 758,000 Ib LWK per
day. For 19 medium and large complex slaughterhouses (operations with three or more byproduct
recovery activities), wastewater flows ranged from 435 to 1,500 gallons per 1,000 Ib LWK with a
mean value of 885 gallons per 1,000 Ib LWK.
As part of the data collection for the proposed rule, EPA collected data related to the
volumes of wastewater flow generated at meat processing facilities. Table 6-1 presents typical
wastewater volumes generated per unit of production from meat industries as reported during site
visits by EPA. Table 6-2 presents median wastewater volumes generated per unit of production
as reported in the MPP detailed surveys.
Table 6-1. Wastewater Generated in Meat Processing
Meat Type
Hogs
Cattle (first processing and
rendering)
Cattle (first processing,
rendering and hide
processing)
First Processing and Rendering a
Average
462
390
345
Range
243-613
NA
304-386
n
3
1
2
Further Processing b
Average Range
681 NA
NA
n
1
LWK = Live weight killed; n = number of observations; NA = not available.
a Units are gallons per 1,000 Ib LWK.
b Units are gallons per 1,000 Ib of finished product.
6-2
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
Table 6-2. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Meat Facilities per Unit of Production
Small facilities
Non-small facilities
Process Wastewater Generated
(gallons per 1,000 Ibs of production unit)
First Processing3
348
323
Further Processing15
672
555
a Production unit for first processing operations is 1,000 Ib of live weight killed (LWK). These numbers include
facilities that may also generate wastewater from cutting operations.
b Production unit for further processing operations is 1,000 Ib of finished product.
Data source: MPP detailed surveys
6.1.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations
The principal sources of wastes in meat processing are from live animal holding, killing,
hide or hair removal, eviscerating, carcass washing, trimming, and cleanup operations. When
present, further processing, rendering, and hide processing operations1 also are significant
sources of wastes. Meat processing wastes include blood not collected, viscera, soft tissue
removed during trimming and cutting, bone, urine and feces, soil from hides and hooves, and
various cleaning and sanitizing compounds. Further processing, rendering, and hide processing
produce additional sources of fat and other soft tissues, as well as substances including brines,
cooking oils, and tanning solutions. Wastewater characteristics of rendering operations are
discussed in Section 6.3.
The principal constituents of meat processing wastewaters are a variety of readily
biodegradable organic compounds, primarily fats and proteins, present in both particulate and
dissolved forms. Screening of meat processing wastewaters is usually performed in most
facilities to reduce concentrations of particulate matter before effecting pre-treatment.
Meat processing wastewaters remain high strength wastes, even after screening, in
comparison to domestic wastewaters, based on concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand
'Note that although not part of meat processing operations, hide processing wastewaters are often
commingled with meat processing wastewaters prior to treatment. The existing regulations at 40 CFR Part 432, as
well as the proposed regulations, address wastewaters from hide processing operations when discharged with meat
processing wastewaters.
6-3
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
Blood not collected, solubilized fat, urine, and feces are the primary sources of BOD in
meat processing wastewaters. For example, blood from beef cattle has a reported BOD5 of
156,500 mg/L with an average of 32.5 pounds of blood produced per 1,000 pounds LWK (Grady
and Lim, 1980). Thus, the efficacy of blood collection is a significant factor in determining the
amount of BOD in meat processing wastewater.
Another significant factor in determining the BOD of meat processing wastewaters is the
manner in which manure (urine and feces) is handled at the facility. Generally, manure is
separated from the main waste stream and treated as a solid waste. Beef cattle manure has a
BOD5 of approximately 27,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis, and the BOD5 of swine manure is
approximately 37,000 mg/kg of manure (American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1999).
The efficiency of fat separation and removal from the waste stream is an important factor
in determining the BOD concentration in meat processing wastewaters. Fat removed from
wastewater can be handled as a solid waste or by-product. The high BOD of animal fats is
directly attributable to their rapid biodegradability and high-energy yield for microbial cell
maintenance and growth, especially under aerobic conditions. The significance of fat as a
component of BOD in meat processing wastewaters generally is determined indirectly as the
concentration of oil and grease (Standard Methods APHA 1995). In the determination of oil and
grease, the concentration of a specific substance is not determined. Instead, groups of compounds
with similar physical characteristics are determined quantitatively based on their common
solubility in an organic extracting solvent. Over time, petroleum ether has been replaced by
trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon) and most recently by n-hexane as the preferred extracting
solvent. Thus, oil and grease concentrations in meat processing wastewaters may be reported as
Freon or n-hexane extractable material (HEM).
Blood and manure are also are significant sources of nitrogen in meat processing
wastewaters. The principal form of nitrogen in these wastewaters before treatment is organic
nitrogen with some ammonia nitrogen. During collection of wastewater samples, some ammonia
64
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
nitrogen is produced by the microbially mediated mineralization of organic nitrogen. Nitrite and
nitrate nitrogen generally are present only in trace concentrations (less than 1 mg/L) in meat
processing wastewaters; however, these nitrate and nitrite concentrations are increased when
nitrites are used in processes such as the curing of bacon and ham. The phosphorus in meat
processing wastewaters is primarily from blood, manure, and cleaning and sanitizing compounds,
which can contain trisodium phosphate (sodium phosphate, tribasic).
Due to the presence of manure in meat processing wastewaters, densities of total
coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus groups of bacteria generally are on the order of
several million colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL. Although members of these groups of
microorganisms generally are not pathogenic, they do indicate the possible presence of pathogens
of enteric origin such as Salmonella ssp. and Campylobacter jejuni. They also indicate the
possible presence of gastrointestinal parasites including Ascaris sp., Giardia lamblia, and
Cryptosporidium parvum and enteric viruses.
Meat processing wastewaters also contain a variety of mineral elements, some of which
are present in the water that is used for processing meat. In addition, water supply systems and
mechanical equipment may be significant sources of metals, including copper, chromium,
molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and vanadium. Manure, especially hog manure, may be
significant sources of copper, arsenic, and zinc, because these constituents are commonly added
to hog feed. Although pesticides such as Dichcorvos, malathion, and Carbaryl are commonly
used in the production of meat animals to control external parasites, label-specified withdrawal
periods before slaughter typically should limit concentrations to non-detectable or trace levels.
Failure to observe specified withdrawal periods is an unlawful act (7 U.S.C 136 Et. Seq).
Tables 6-3 and 6-4, respectively, present typical wastewater characteristics and pollutants
generated per unit of production from hog and cattle processing facilities, as reported during
sampling visits by EPA. Average effluent concentrations for all pollutants of concern evaluated
by EPA for potential regulation are provided in Section 9.
6-5
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
Table 6-3. Typical Characteristics of Hog and Cattle Processing Wastewatersa
Parameter
Flow (MOD)
Live weight killed (1,000 Ib/day)
BOD5 (mg/L)
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
Hexane Extractables (mg/L)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)
Total phosphorus (mg/L)
Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/100 mL)
Hog
First Processing
and Rendering
Average
1.95
3,639
2,220
3,314
674
229
72
1.6xl06
Further
Processing11
Average
0.30
435
1,492
363
162
24
82
1.4x1 0s
Cattle
First Processing
and Rendering
Average
1.87
3,942
7,237
1,153
146
306
35
7.3xl05
Further
Processing1"
Average
1.46
4,044
5,038
2,421
1,820
72
44
1.4xl06
MOD = Million gallons per day; CFU = Colony forming units.
a
Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities.
b Finished product, 1,000 Ib/day
Table 6-4. Typical Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Hog and Cattle Processing"
Parameter
BOD5
(lb/l,0001bLWK)
Total suspended solids
(lb/l,0001bLWK)
Hexane extractables (lb/ 1,000
Ib LWK)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(lb/l,0001bLWK)
Total phosphorus
(lb/l,0001bLWK)
Fecal coliform bacteria
(CFU/l,0001bLWK)
Hog
First Processing
and Rendering
Average
8.34
11.20
2.82
1.17
0.25
2.6xl010
Further
Processing
Average15
8.48
2.06
0.92
0.14
0.47
3.6xl010
Cattle
First Processing
and Rendering
Average
23.55
3.75
0.48
1.00
0.11
l.lxlO10
Further
Processing
Average15
14.97
7.28
5.65
0.21
0.12
l.SxlO10
LWK = Live weight killed; CFU = Colony forming units.
a
Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities.
b Per 1,000 lb of finished product
6-6
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
6.2 POULTRY PROCESSING WASTES
6.2.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated
In poultry processing, water is used primarily for scalding in the process of feather
removal, bird washing before and after evisceration, chilling, cleaning and sanitizing of
equipment and facilities, and for cooling of mechanical equipment such as compressors and
pumps. Although water also is typically used to remove feathers and viscera from production
areas, overflow from scalding and chiller tanks is used.
A number of studies also have shown that the volume of water used and wastewater
generated by poultry processing on a per unit of production basis (such as per bird killed) can
vary substantially among processing plants. Again, some of this variation is a reflection of
different levels of effort among plants to reduce their wastewater treatment costs by minimizing
their water use. One study of 88 chicken processing plants found wastewater flows ranged from
4.2 to 23 gallon per bird with a mean value of 9.3 gallon per bird (USEPA, 1975). No standard
deviation values were reported; therefore, the distribution of individual values could not be
determined. Using the reported mean live weight per bird of 3.83 pounds, 9.3 gallon per bird
translates into 2,428 gallon per 1,000 Ib LWK, which is significantly higher than the mean flow
of 639 gallon per 1,000 Ib LWK used for meat processing. For 34 turkey processing plants, the
mean wastewater flow was 31.2 gallon per bird with individual plant values ranging from 9.6 to
71.4 gallon per bird. Again, no standard deviation was reported. Based on the reported mean live
weight per bird of 18.2 pounds, the mean flow of 31.2 gallon per bird translates into 1,714 gallon
per 1,000 Ib LWK. Again, this value is substantially higher than that for meat processing, but
also substantially lower than the value calculated for chickens. Two of the factors that contribute
to the higher rate of wastewater generation for poultry processing are the 1) required continuous
overflow from scalding tanks, and 2) use of carcass immersion in ice bath chillers with a required
continuous overflow for removal of body heat after evisceration. As discussed elsewhere, meat
carcasses are chilled using mechanical refrigeration.
As part of the data collection for the proposed rule, EPA collected data related to the
volumes of wastewater flow generated at poultry processing facilities. Table 6-5 shows typical
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
wastewater volumes generated per unit of production from poultry facilities, as reported during
site visits by EPA. Table 6-6 shows median wastewater volumes generated per unit of production
from poultry facilities as reported in the MPP detailed surveys.
Table 6-5. Wastewater Generation in Poultry First and Further Processing"1
Parameter
Broiler
Turkey
First Processing15
Average
1,075
634
Further Processing'
Average
1,926
NA
NA = not available.
a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities.
b Units in gallons per 1,000 Ib LWK
c Units in gallons per 1,000 Ib of finished product
Table 6-6. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Poultry Facilities per Unit of Production
Small Facilities
Non-small Facilities
Process Wastewater Generated
(gallons per 1,000 Ibs of production unit)
First Processinga
1,167
1,289
Further Processing13
606
316
a Production unit for first processing operations is 1,000 Ib of live weight killed (LWK). These numbers include
facilities that may also generate wastewater from cutting operations.
b Production unit for further processing operations is 1,000 Ib of finished product.
Data source: MPP detailed surveys
6.2.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations
The principal sources of wastes in poultry processing are live bird holding and receiving,
killing, defeathering, eviscerating, carcass washing, chilling, cut-up, and cleanup operations.
Further processing and rendering operations are also major sources of wastes. These wastes
include blood not collected, feathers, viscera, soft tissue removed during trimming and cutting,
bone, soil from feathers, and various cleaning and sanitizing compounds. Further processing and
rendering can produce additional sources of animal fat and other soft tissue, in addition to other
substances such as cooking oils.
6-8
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
Thus, the principal constituents of poultry processing wastewaters are a variety of readily
biodegradable organic compounds, primarily fats and proteins, present in both particulate and
dissolved forms. To reduce wastewater treatment requirements, poultry processing wastewaters
also are screened to reduce concentrations of particulate matter before treatment. An added
benefit of screening is increased collection of materials and subsequent increased production of
rendered by-products. Because feathers are not rendered with soft tissue, wastewater containing
feathers is not commingled with other wastewater. Instead, it is screened separately and then
combined with unscreened wastewater to recover soft tissue before treatment during the
screening process of these mixed wastewaters.
However, poultry processing wastewaters also remain high strength wastes even after
screening in comparison to domestic wastewaters based on concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS,
nitrogen, and phosphorus after screening. Blood not collected, solubilized fat, and feces are
principal sources of BOD in poultry processing wastewaters. As with meat processing
wastewaters, the efficacy of blood collection is a significant factor in determining BOD
concentration in poultry processing wastewaters.
Another significant factor in determining the BOD of poultry processing wastewaters is
the degree to which manure (urine and feces), especially from receiving areas, is handled
separately as a solid waste. Chicken and turkey manures have BOD concentrations in excess of
40,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis (American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1999).
Although the cages and trucks used to transport broilers to processing plants usually are not
washed, cages and trucks used to transport live turkeys to processing plants are washed to
prevent transmission of disease from farm to farm. Thus, manure probably is a more significant
source of wastewater BOD for turkey processing operations than for broiler processing
operations.
Primarily because of immersion chilling, fat is a more significant source of BOD in
poultry processing wastewaters than in meat processing wastewaters. Additional sources of BOD
in poultry processing wastewaters are feather and skin oils desorbed during scalding for feather
6-9
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
removal. Thus, the oil and grease content of poultry processing wastewaters typically is higher
than that in meat processing wastewaters.
Blood not collected, as well as urine and feces, also are significant sources of nitrogen in
poultry processing wastewaters. Again, the principal form of nitrogen in these wastewaters
before treatment is as organic nitrogen with some ammonia nitrogen produced by the microbially
mediated mineralization of organic nitrogen during collection. Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen
generally are present only in trace concentrations, less than 1 mg/L. The phosphorus in poultry
processing wastewaters is primarily from blood, manure, and cleaning and sanitizing compounds
such as trisodium phosphate (trisodium phosphate tribasic), and trisodium phosphate in
detergents.
Due to the presence of manure in poultry processing wastewaters and commingling of
processing and sanitary wastewaters after screening, and dissolved air flotation of the former,
densities of the total and fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus groups of bacteria generally are
on the order of several million cfu/100 mL. As discussed earlier, members of these groups of
microorganisms generally are not pathogenic. They do, however, indicate the possible presence
of pathogens of enteric origin, such as Salmonella sp. and Campylobacter jejuni, gastrointestinal
parasites, and pathogenic enteric viruses. Giardia lamblia, and Cryptosporidium parvum are not
of concern in poultry processing wastewaters.
Poultry processing wastewaters also contain a variety of mineral elements, some of which
are present in the potable water used for processing poultry. Again, water supply systems and
mechanical equipment may be significant sources of metals including copper, chromium,
molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and vanadium. In addition, manure is a significant source of
arsenic and zinc. Although pesticides such as carbaryl, also are commonly used in the production
of poultry to control external parasites, label-specified withdrawal periods before slaughter
typically should limit concentrations to non-detectable or trace levels. Failure to observe
specified withdrawal periods is an unlawful act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
Tables 6-7 and 6-8, respectively, present typical wastewater characteristics and pollutant
generated from broiler and turkey processing facilities as reported during site visits by EPA.
(TlG
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
Average effluent concentrations for all pollutants of concern evaluated by EPA for potential
regulation are provided in Section 9.
Table 6-7. Typical Characteristics of Broiler First and Further Processing and Turkey First
Processing Wastewatersa
Parameter
Flow (MOD)
Live weight kill (1,000 Ib/day)
BOD5 (mg/L)
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
Hexane extractables (mg/L)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)
Total phosphorus (mg/L)
Fecal coliform bacteria
(CFU/100 mL)
Broiler
First Processing
Average
0.89
880
1,662
760
665
54
12
9.8xl05
Further Processing
Average15
1.10
573
3,293
1,657
793
80
72
8.6xl05
Turkey
First Processing
Average
0.58
909
2,192
981
156
90
21
not determined
MOD = Million gallons per day; CFU = colony forming units.
a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities.
Per 1,000 Ib of finished product
Table 6-8. Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler First and Further Processing"
Parameter
BOD5(lb/l,0001bLWK)
Total suspended solids (lb/1,000 Ib LWK)
Hexane Extractables (lb/1,000 Ib LWK)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (lb/1,000 Ib LWK)
Total phosphorus (lb/1,000 Ib LWK)
Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/1,000 Ib LWK)
Broiler
First Processing
Average
13.84
6.69
7.22
0.44
0.10
3.4xl010
Further Processing
Average15
52.94
26.64
12.75
1.29
0.65
6.3xl010
Turkey
First Processing
Average
11.58
5.18
0.82
0.48
0.11
not determined
LWK = Live weight killed; CFU = Colony forming units.
a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities.
b Per 1,000 Ib of finished product
6-11
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
6.3 RENDERING WASTEWATER GENERATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
The slaughter of livestock and poultry produces a considerable amount of inedible viscera
and other solid wastes, including feathers from poultry and hair from hogs. Inedible viscera and
other soft tissue, fat, and bone, which are collected as solid wastes and removed from wastewater
by screening, are converted by rendering into valuable byproducts such as meat meal and meat
and bone meal. In the rendering process, these materials are cooked in their own moisture and fat
in vented steam-jacketed vessels until the moisture has evaporated. Then, as much fat as possible
is removed and the solid residue is passed through a screw press, dried, and granulated or ground
into a meal for sale as a livestock or poultry or pet food ingredient. In some situations, dissolved
air flotation (DAF) solids are disposed of by rendering, although DAF solids reduce the quality
of rendered products, especially if metal salts are used for flocculation/coagulation prior to DAF.
Rendering operations also may include blood drying to produce blood meal for sale as a
feed ingredient or fertilizer. They also may include the hydrolysis of hair or feathers for the
production of livestock and poultry feed ingredients. Typically, blood from poultry processing
operations is combined with feathers to increase the value of the resulting feather meal as a
source of protein.
Rendering may be performed at the same site as other meat or poultry processing
operations or at a separate location, usually by an independent entity. When rendering is
performed in conjunction with other meat or poultry processing operations, wastes from locations
without on-site rendering also may be processed.
6.3.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated
Rendering operations are intensive users of water and significant generators of
wastewater. Water is used throughout the rendering process, including for raw material cooking
and sterilization, condensing cooking vapors, plant cleanup, truck and barrel washing when
materials from off-site locations are being processed, odor control, and steam generation
(USEPA, 1975). Most of these activities also generate wastewater. According to the National
Rendering Association (2000), rendering plants produce approximately one-half ton (120
6-12
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
gallons) of water for each ton of rendered material. Variations in wastewater flow per unit of raw
material processed are largely attributable to the type of condensers used for condensing the
cooking vapors and, to a lesser extent, to the initial moisture content of the raw material.
Based on a survey of National Rendering Association (NRA) members, an average size
rendering plant generates about of 215,000 gallons/day process wastewater and an average of
34,000 gallons/day from other sources (National Rendering Association, 2000). The NRA
estimates that the average plant discharges about 243,300 gallons/day or 169 gallons per minute.
The major sources of wastewater at rendering plants are produced from raw material
receiving operations (especially when materials from off-site locations are being processed),
condensing cooking vapors, drying, plant cleanup, and truck and barrel washing (USEPA, 1975).
Condensates formed during raw material sterilization and drying are the largest contributors to
the total wastewater in terms of volume and pollutant load (Metzner and Temper, 1990). At those
rendering plants where hide curing is also performed as an ancillary operation, additional
volumes of raw waste are generated, although those operations are not covered by this proposal.
(USEPA, 1975). Note, however, that hide processing wastewaters may be commingled with other
wastewaters prior to treatment.
Condensates recovered from cooking and drying processes contain high concentrations of
volatile organic acids, amines, mercaptans, and other odorous compounds. Thus, rendering plant
condensers can be sources of significant emissions of noxious odors to the atmosphere if water
scrubbing is not used for emissions control. There is little increase in final effluent volume when
water scrubbing is used, because recycled final effluent is used for scrubber operation.
Liquid drainage from raw materials receiving areas can contribute significantly to the
total raw waste load (USEPA, 1975). Large amounts of raw materials commonly accumulate in
receiving areas (in bins or on floors). Fluids from these raw materials drain off and enter the
internal plant sewers (USEPA, 1975). At rendering plants that process poultry, drainage of
liquids can be significant because of the use of fluming to transport feathers and viscera in the
processing plant. In such plants, liquid drainage may account for approximately 20 percent of the
original raw material weight.
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
The other important source of wastewater from rendering operations is water used for
cleaning equipment and facilities, the cleanup of spills, and trucks when materials are received
from off-site locations for rendering. Cleanup of rendering equipment and facilities is less
intensive than that in processing facilities and usually occurs only once per day, even though
rendering usually is a 24-hour operation and commonly occurs on a seven day per week schedule.
The wastewater generated during cleanup operations usually accounts for about 30 percent of
total rendering plant wastewater flow (USEPA, 1975).
Approximately 30 percent of the total raw BOD waste load originates in the cooking and
drying process (USEPA, 1975). Factors such as rate of cooking, speed of agitation, cooker
overloading, foaming, and presence of traps can result in volume and composition differences
among different rendering plants.
Although the water used in air scrubbers that are commonly used to control odor can
contribute up to 75 percent of a plant's total effluent volume, they contribute little to the final
effluent discharge, since most of this air scrubber wastewater is recycled (USEPA, 1975). Other
important sources of process wastewater include plant and truck washdown activities, and the
cleanup of spills.
As part of the data collection for the proposed rule, EPA collected data related to the
volumes of wastewater flow generated at rendering operations. Table 6-9 presents typical
wastewater volumes generated per unit of production from broiler rendering facilities as reported
during site visits by EPA. Table 6-10 presents median wastewater volumes generated per unit of
production as reported in the MPP detailed survey.
Table 6-9. Wastewater Generation in Broiler Rendering"
Parameter
Broiler
Average
200
Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. Units are gallons per 1,000 pounds of live weight killed.
6-14
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
Table 6-10. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Rendering Operations per Unit
Small facilities
Non-small facilities
of Production
Process Wastewater Generated
(gallons per 1,000 Ibs of raw material)
Rendering3
134
346
a These estimates reflects wastewater generated by on-site and off-site (independent) Tenderers.
Data source: MPP detailed surveys
6.3.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations
The principal constituents in wastewaters from rendering operations are the same as those
in meat and poultry processing wastewaters. In addition, it appears that there is little difference in
rendering wastewater constituents or concentrations attributable to the source of materials being
processed. A 1975 survey found that the range and average of BOD5 wastewater values for plants
processing more than 50 percent poultry by-products could not be differentiated from those
plants processing less than 50 percent poultry by-products (USEPA, 1975). Additionally, the
study found that plant size does not affect the levels of pollutants in the waste stream. However,
management and operating variables, such as rate of cooking, speed of agitation, cooker
overloading, foaming, and presence or absence of traps, were found to influence both wastewater
volume and the concentrations of various wastewater constituents, as would be expected.
Another factor affecting the composition of rendering process wastewaters is the degree
of decomposition that has occurred before rendering (USEPA, 1975). In warm weather,
significant decomposition can occur, especially with materials from off-site sources. One result is
increased wastewater ammonia nitrogen concentrations during summer months.
Table 6-11 provides a sense of the significance of various sources of wastewater from
rendering operations relative to typical analyte composition before treatment. In this table,
concentrations found in samples collected from a continuous dry rendering plant in Columbus,
Ohio are presented (Hansen and West, 1992). Samples from blood, cooker condensate, and wash-
up water were analyzed. The cooker condensate was mostly composed of condensed volatile fats
and oils with some ammonia. The wash-up water consisted of plant cleanup water mixed with
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
drainage from the raw product storage hopper. (The relative proportions were not measured.)
Although the blood accounted for only a small percentage of the total volume of wastewater, it
clearly is a highly significant source of COD, TKN, ammonia nitrogen, and grease in rendering
plant wastewater.
Table 6-12 shows typical wastewater characteristics generated from broiler rendering
facilities as reported during site visits by EPA. Average effluent concentrations for all pollutants
of concern evaluated by EPA for potential regulation are provided in Section 9.
In 2000, the NRA collected data from its membership to provide a general
characterization of rendering process wastewaters. Table 6-13 presents the results of this survey.
The data are only for wastewater generated and final effluent characteristics, and do not cover
specific sources of generated wastewater. The final effluent data indicate pollutant loads after
treatment has been applied. The NRA did not report data on metals in generated wastewater or on
nutrients in generated or discharged wastewater.
Table 6-14 shows pollutant generated from broiler rendering facilities per unit of
production, as reported during site visits by EPA.
6-16
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
Table 6-11. Pollutant Concentrations for a Dry Continuous Rendering Plant
Parameter
Total COD
Soluble COD
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN-N)
Ammonia nitrogen
*COD: TKN
Total Phosphorus (P)
*COD: P
Freon extractables (FOG)
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Iron
Sodium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Lead
Chromium
Cadmium
Nickel
Cobalt
Sulfate (SO4-S)
Total Chloride
Raw Blood3
(mg/L)
150,000
136,000
16,500
3,500
9.1
183
820
620
793
55
27
164
818
0.7
1.3
0.05
<0.6
0.3
0.05
<0.2
<0.02
300
1700
Condensate Batch
r'b(mg/L)
6,000
6,000
740
740
8.1
<4
>1500
260
<6
<1
<1
2
0.1
<0.2
<0.15
0.05
<3
<0.2
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<2
<2
Condensate Batch
2a'b (mg/L)
2,400
2,400
430
430
5.6
<4
>600
110
<6
<1
<1
2
0.1
<0.2
<0.15
0.05
<3
<0.2
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<2
<2
Wash-up water'
(mg/L)
7,600
3,200
270
40
28.1
15.1
503
35
20.9
26.4
7.3
9.4
37.1
0.1
0.46
0.01
<1.3
0.12
<0.04
<0.4
<0.04
4.6
86
Each value is the mean of three samples analyzed in duplicate.
b The strength of Condensate varied from winter to summer; however, only condensate collected during the summer
was used in these studies. Cold ambient temperatures around the forced air condensers affected the COD strength
of the cooker condensate. The COD strength of the blood and wash-up water was similar for both batches;
therefore, data for each batch is not included separately.
c Each point is the mean of duplicate analyses of one sample.
d
< and > symbols both indicate the limits of the analyses were exceeded.
* These parameters are ratios and have no units.
Source: Hansen and West, 1992
6-17
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
Table 6-12. Typical Characteristics of Broiler Rendering Wastewatersa
Parameter
Flow (MOD)
Raw product rendered (1,000 Ib/day)
BOD5 (mg/L)
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
Hexane extractables (mg/L)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Fecal coliform bacteria CFU/100 mL
Average
0.29
l,442a
1,984
3,248
1,615
180
38
1.2xl06
MGD = million gallons per day; CPU = colony forming units.
a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities.
Table 6-13. Wastewater Characterization of "Typical" National Rendering Association (NRA)
Member Render Plant
Parameter
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Fat and other greases (FOG)
Metals (average zinc)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Generated Wastewater
Concentration (mg/L)
123,000
80,000
8,400
3,200
NA
2.5xl08cfu/mL
Discharged Wastewater
Concentration (mg/L)
8,000
5,100
268
116
0.68
4.5xl04 cfu/mL
CFU = colony forming units; NA = not available.
Source: NRA, 2000
Table 6-14. Typical Wastewater and Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler
Rendering
Parameter
BOD5(lb/l,0001bRPR)
Total suspended solids (lb/1,000 Ib RPR)
Hexane extractables (lb/1,000 Ib RPR)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (lb/1,000 Ib RPR)
Total phosphorus (lb/1,000 Ib RPR)
Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/1,000 Ib RPR)
Average3
3.31
5.42
2.70
0.30
0.06
9.1x10"
RPR = raw product rendered; CFU = colony forming units.
a Per 1,000 Ib of raw product rendered.
6-18
-------
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization
6.5 REFERENCES
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1999. Manure production and characteristics.
Standard ASAE D384.1 Dec 99. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan. (DCN 00160)
Franson, M.A.H., Ed. 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.
American Public Health Association, Washington, DC (DCN 00196)
Grady, C.P.L., Jr. and H.C. Lim. 1980. Biological Wastewater Treatment Theory and
Applications. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. (DCN 00248)
Hansen, C.L., and G.T. West. 1992. Anaerobic digestion of rendering waste in an upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket digester. Bioresource Technology 41:181-185. (DCN 00126)
Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing industry: A
review. Bioresource Technology 54:203-216. (DCN 00128)
Metzner, G., and U. Temper. 1990. Operation and optimization of a full-scale fixed-bed reactor
for anaerobic digestion of animal rendering wastewater. Water Science Technology 22
C/2): 373-384. (DCN 00127)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for effluent limitation
guidelines and new source performance standards for the red meat segment of the meat
product and rendering processing point source category. EPA-440/l-74-012a. Effluent
Guidelines Division, Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC. (DCN 00162)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development document for effluent limitation
guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry segment of the meat
product and rendering processing point source category. £7>A-440/l-75-031b. Effluent
Guidelines Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, DC. (DCN
00140)
6-19
-------
Section 6. Waste-water Characterization
National Rendering Association. 2000. Communication with Engineering and Analysis Division
of USEPA, July 2000. (DCN 00122)
6-20
-------
SECTION 7
SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS AND POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
FOR REGULATION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA conducted a study of meat and poultry products wastewater to determine the
presence of priority, conventional, and nonconventional pollutant parameters. The Agency
defines priority pollutant parameters in Section 307(a)(l) of the CWA. In Table 7-1, EPA lists
the 126 specific priority pollutants listed in 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. Section 301(b)(2) of
the CWA requires EPA to regulate priority pollutants, if EPA determines them to be present at
significant concentrations. Most of the priority pollutants listed in Table 7-1 were not further
considered for regulation, because EPA's technical evaluation of the industry did not identify
them as significant contributors to MPP wastewaters. Section 304(a)(4) of the CWA defines
which conventional pollutant parameters include biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended
solids, oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform bacteria. These pollutant parameters are subject to
regulation, as specified in Sections 304(a)(4), 304(b)(l)(a), 301(b)(2)(e), and 306 of the CWA.
Nonconventional pollutant parameters are those that are neither priority nor conventional
pollutant parameters. This group includes nonconventional metal pollutants, nonconventional
organic pollutants, and other nonconventional pollutant parameters. Sections 301(b)(2)(f) and
301(g) of the CWA give EPA the authority to regulate nonconventional pollutant parameters, as
appropriate, based on technical and economic considerations.
This section identifies and discusses the pollutants in meat and poultry processing
wastewaters considered for regulation by EPA. It then presents the criteria used for the
identification of the pollutants of concern and the selection of the pollutants proposed for
regulation.
7-1
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
7.2 POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION
Table 7-1 identifies, the pollutants considered for regulation in meat and poultry
processing wastewaters by EPA. The rationale for their consideration is summarized in the
discussion that follows. For meat processing wastewaters, EPA considered 52 pollutants (24
classicals and biologicals, 22 metals, and six pesticides) were considered. For poultry processing
wastewaters, the Agency considered 51 pollutants (23 classicals and biologicals, 22 metals, and
six pesticides).
Not included as pollutants considered for regulation are antibiotics and other animal
drugs. Although a number of pharmaceutical agents are used in the production of livestock and
poultry therapeutically and at sub-therapeutic levels to increase rate of weight gain and feed
conversion efficiency, antibiotics and other drugs were not considered as pollutants for possible
regulation based on the following rationale.
Table 7-1. Priority Pollutant Lisf
1 Acenaphthene
2 Acrolein
3 Acrylonitrile
4 Benzene
5 Benzidine
6 Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
7 Chlorobenzene
8 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
9 Hexachlorobenzene
10 1,2-Dichloroethane
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
12 Hexachloroethane
13 1,1-Dichloroethane
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
15 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
16 Chloroethane
17 Removed
18 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
20 2-Chloronaphthalene
21 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
22 Parachlorometa cresol (4-chloro-3-methylphenol)
23 Chloroform (trichloromethane)
24 2-Chlorophenol
25 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
26 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67 Butyl benzyl phthalate
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
70 Diethyl phthalate
71 Dimethyl phthalate
72 Benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)
73 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
74 Benzo(b)fluoranthene (3,4-benzo fluoranthene)
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
76 Chrysene
77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene
79 Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
80 Fluorene
81 Phenanthrene
82 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-
dibenzanthracene)
83 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)
84 Pyrene
85 Tetrachloroethylene (tetrachloroethene)
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene)
88 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89 Aldrin
90 Dieldrin
91 Chiordane (technical mixture & metabolites)
7-2
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
28 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
29 1,1-Dichloroethylene
30 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
31 2,4-Dichlorophenol
32 1,2-Dichloropropane
33 1,3-Dichloropropylene (trans-1,3-dichloropropene)
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
35 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
37 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
38 Ethylbenzene
39 Fluoranthene
40 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
42 Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
43 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
44 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
45 Methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47 Bromoform (tribromomethane)
48 Dichlorobromomethane (bromodichloromethane)
49 Removed
50 Removed
51 Chlorodibromomethane (dibromochloromethane)
52 Hexachlorobutadiene
53 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54 Isophorone
55 Naphthalene
56 Nitrobenzene
57 2-Nitrophenol
58 4-Nitrophenol
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro)
61 N-Nitrosodimethylamine
62 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
63 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (di-n-propylnitrosamine)
64 Pentachlorophenol
65 Phenol
92 4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT)
93 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
94 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
95 Alpha-endosulfan
96 Beta-endosulfan
97 Endosulfan sulfate
98 Endrin
99 Endrin aldehyde
100 Heptachlor
101 Heptachlor epoxide
102 Alpha-BHC
103 Beta-BHC
104 Gamma-BHC (lindane)
105 Delta-BHC
106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113 Toxaphene
114 Antimony (total)
115 Arsenic (total)
116 Asbestos (fibrous)
117 Beryllium (total)
118 Cadmium (total)
119 Chromium (total)
120 Copper (total)
121 Cyanide (total)
122 Lead (total)
123 Mercury (total)
124 Nickel (total)
125 Selenium (total)
126 Silver (total)
127 Thallium (total)
128 Zinc (total)
129 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Source: 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A.
a Priority pollutants are numbered 1 through 129 but include 126 pollutants, since EPA removed three pollutants
from the list (Numbers 17, 49, and 50).
All use of antibiotics and other animal drags in the production of livestock and poultry
for human consumption is regulated under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (9 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. In addition, routine monitoring to ensure that residues or specific
metabolites, when appropriate, in meat and poultry do not exceed established tolerances is part of
7-3
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service's (FSIS) meat and poultry
inspection process. Any meat or poultry found to have drug or pesticide residues exceeding
established tolerance limits is considered to be adulterated and condemned as not fit for human
consumption. Because condemnation results in a significant financial loss, livestock and poultry
producers and processors have a significant incentive to prevent the presence of drug and
pesticide residues at time of slaughter. Monitoring for drug and pesticide residues by the FSIS is
under the authorities of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended by the Wholesome Meat
Act (21U.S.C.601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended by the
Wholesome Poultry Products Act (21 U.S.C 451 et seq.).
In the FDA drug approval process, all new drugs marketed for veterinary use must be
approved. There are two types of approval for veterinary drugs, including those routinely used in
animal feeds (21 CFR 558.3). Category I drugs require no withdrawal period before slaughter at
the lowest use level for each species for which they are approved. Category n drugs require a
special withdrawal period at the lowest use level for each species for which they are approved or
are regulated on a "no residue" basis or with a "zero" tolerance, because of a carcinogenic
concern regardless of whether or not a withdrawal period is required. The basis for establishing
minimum withdrawal periods and tolerances of new animal drugs in edible products of food-
producing animals by FDA is set forth in 21 CFR 556.1. If there is an expectation of, or
uncertainty about, the presence of residues, a withdrawal period or a maximum concentration in
specified tissue will be established. Withdrawal periods and tolerances or the absence thereof for
all animal drugs approved for use in food-producing animals are set forth from 21 CFR 556.20
through 21 CFR 556.770. For example, Bacitracin zinc has no required withdrawal period but a
limit of 0.5 parts per million (ppm) in un-cooked edible tissue of cattle, swine, and poultry (21
CFR 556.70). Virginiamycin also has no required withdrawal period before slaughter but limits
of 0.4 ppm in uncooked edible kidney, skin, and fat; 0.3 ppm in liver, and 0.1 ppm in muscle.
There are no residue tolerance limits for broiler chickens and cattle. Generally residue
concentration limits are no more than 1 ppm.
As noted above, all livestock and poultry slaughtered at federally inspected facilities is
inspected by the FSIS under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act as amended and the
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
Poultry Products Inspection Act as amended. Condemnation, as unfit for human use, of all meat
and poultry found to be adulterated is required. In the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the
definition of the term adulterated includes the presence of any poisonous or deleterious substance
that may render the carcass or any part thereof injurious to health.
Regulations promulgated under the authority of Poultry Products Inspection Act are more
specific and require that all carcasses, organs, or other parts of carcasses be condemned, if it is
determined on the basis of a sound statistical sample that they are adulterated because of the
presence of any biological residue (9 CFR 381.80). Biological residue is defined as any
substance, including metabolites, remaining in poultry at the time of slaughter or in any of its
tissues after slaughter, as the result of treatment or exposure of the live poultry to a pesticide,
organic compound, metallic or inorganic compound, hormone, hormone-like substance, growth
promoter, antibiotic, anthelmintic, tranquilizer, or other agent that leaves a residue (9 CFR
381.1).
Given the statutory and regulatory barriers in place to prevent residues of antibiotics and
other animal drugs, as well as pesticides in food for human consumption above established
tolerance limits, EPA assumes that it is highly improbable that antibiotics, other animal drugs, or
pesticides are present routinely in detectable concentrations in the treated effluent of livestock or
poultry processing plants. Obviously, the possibility of the slaughter of livestock or poultry
containing drug or pesticide residues above tolerance limits exists. However, the financial self-
interest of livestock and poultry producers suggests that such occurrences would be infrequent
and highly random. Thus, the probability of detection would be low especially when pre-
treatment processes, such as anaerobic lagoons with relatively long hydraulic detention time, are
used. Therefore, EPA has concluded that establishing effluent standards for antibiotics and other
animal drugs and pesticides and requiring routine monitoring may impose an unnecessary burden
on livestock and poultry processors.
7-5
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
7.2.1 Classical and Biological Pollutants
Aeromonas
Aeromonas is a member of the family Vibrionaceae, which also includes Vibrios such as
Vibrio cholerae, the cause of cholera in humans. Aeromonas is not a common inhabitant of the
intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and normally is found in aquatic habitants. Its presence
in meat and poultry processing wastewaters probably is the result of colonization in wastewater
collection and treatment systems.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an estimate of the oxygen-consuming
requirements of organic matter decomposition under aerobic conditions. When meat and poultry
processing wastewaters are discharged to surface waters, the microorganisms present in the
naturally occurring microbial ecosystem decompose the organic matter contained therein. This
decomposition of organic matter consumes oxygen and reduces the amount available for aquatic
animals. Severe reductions in dissolved oxygen concentrations can lead to fish kills. Even
moderate decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrations can adversely affect water bodies through
decreases in biodiversity, as manifested by the loss of some species of fish and other aquatic
animals. Loss of biodiversity in aquatic plant communities due to anoxic conditions also can
occur.
BOD is determined by measuring the depletion of dissolved oxygen resulting from
aerobic microbial activity in a suitably diluted sample during incubation at 20 °C over a fixed
period of time. Normally, this fixed period of time is five days and the results are reported as 5-
day BOD or BOD5. If the bacteria responsible for nitrification are present in the sample, BOD5 is
a combined estimate of the oxygen required for organic matter oxidation and the oxidation of
ammonia to nitrate nitrogen (nitrification). Thus, BOD5 includes both carbonaceous oxygen
demand (CBOD5) and nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD). However, CBOD5 can be determined
separately by adding an agent that inhibits nitrification prior to incubation.
7-6
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
BOD5 determinations include estimates of oxygen requirements for the degradation of
both particulate and dissolved organic matter. First filtering the sample to remove particulate
organic matter and then determining the BOD5 of the filtrate, dissolved BOD5, can separate these
estimates. The difference between BOD5 and dissolved BOD5 is an estimate of the contribution
of particulate matter to total BOD.
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is an estimator of the total organic matter content of
both wastewaters and natural waters. It is the measure, using a strong oxidizing agent in an
acidic medium, of the oxygen equivalent of the oxidizable organic matter present. COD
generally is higher than BOD, because COD includes slowly biodegradable and recalcitrant
organic compounds not degraded microbially during the duration of the BOD test. For many
types of wastewaters, the ratio between BOD and COD is relatively constant. When such a
relatively constant ratio exists, COD can be used as a surrogate to estimate the impact of
wastewater discharges on natural wastewaters. However, COD is most useful as a control
parameter for wastewater treatment plant operation, because it can be determined in three hours
as opposed to BOD, which requires a minimum of five days. Thus, COD can be used to rapidly
recognize deterioration in wastewater treatment plant performance and the need for corrective
action.
Chloride
Chloride (Cl~) is a common anion in both wastewaters and natural waters. However,
excessively high chloride concentrations in wastewater discharges can be harmful to both
animals and plants in non-marine surface waters and disrupt ecosystem structure. Also, it can
adversely affect biological waste-water treatment processes. Further, excessively high chloride
concentrations in surface waters can impair their use as source waters for potable water supplies
due to taste, if sodium is the predominant cation present, because of the corrosive action of
chloride ions.
7-7
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
There are numerous sources of chloride in meat and poultry processing wastewaters.
However, salt used in meat curing processes probably is the most significant single source.
Cryptosporidium
Cryptosporidium parvum is an intestinal protozoan parasite responsible for the infectious
disease cryptosporidiosis, which predominantly occurs in ruminants, particularly young calves.
However, other mammals, including pigs and humans, also can be infected. The mechanism of
transmission is via oocysts shed in the feces of infected individuals. Clinical infection is most
common in young animals and usually is self-limiting, with surviving individuals becoming
carriers as adults. Other species of Cryptosporidium are responsible for infection in poultry but
are not causative agents of cryptosporidiosis in mammals, including humans. Thus, consideration
of Cryptosporidium as a pollutant for possible regulation was limited to cattle, and especially
veal processing wastewaters.
Hexane Extractable Materials (Oil and Grease)
In meat and poultry processing wastewaters, oil and grease (primarily) is an estimate of
the concentration of animal fats and oils lost during processing activities, but also may include
lubricating oils and greases. Oil and grease is not a specific substance. Rather, it is a group of
substances determined on the basis of their common solubility in an organic extraction agent.
Although a variety of extraction agents have been used for the estimation of oil and grease
concentrations in wastewaters, including trichlorotrifluoroethane, n-hexane or a mixture of n-
hexane and methyl-tert-butyl ether commonly is used, and oil and grease may be alternatively
described as hexane extractable materials (American Public Health Association, 1995).
Oil and grease in discharges of meat and poultry processing wastewaters are of concern
for several reasons. One is the high BOD of animal fats and oils, which are readily
biodegradable, and the impact on the dissolved oxygen status of receiving waters and related
impacts on aquatic biota. In addition, a film of oil and grease on the surface of receiving waters
can be unsightly and reduce natural re-aeration processes. Furthermore, soluble and emulsified
7-8
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
oil and grease can inhibit oxygen and other gas transport processes necessary for plant and
animal survival, also resulting in aquatic ecosystem disruption.
Indicator Organisms
The total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus groups of bacteria share the
common characteristic of containing species which normally are present in the enteric tract of all
warm-blooded animals, including humans. Thus, these groups of bacteria commonly are used as
indicators of fecal contamination of natural waters and the possible presence of enteric
pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites of enteric origin. They are used as indicators of the
possible presence of enteric pathogens, because of their normal presence in generally high
densities in comparison to enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella and Shigella, and their relative
ease of enumeration.
The total coliform group of bacteria consists of several genera of bacteria belonging to the
family Enterobacteriaceae, but also contains organisms not typical of enteric organisms, such as
the species Enterobacter aerogenes. Thus, the presence of total coliforms only is an indicator of
possible fecal contamination, whereas members of the fecal coliform group are limited to those
genera of the family Enterobacteriaceae limited to the enteric tract of warm-blooded animals with
the species Escherichia coli typically being the principal component of the fecal coliform group.
Because fecal streptococci also are normally present in the enteric tract of warm-blooded animals
in relatively high numbers, the fecal streptococcus group of bacteria also is an indicator of fecal
contamination of natural waters.
Because of the presence of manure and the common combination of processing and
sanitary wastewaters for treatment, total coliforms, fecal coliforms, E. coli, and fecal
streptococcus were considered as pollutants for possible regulation in meat and poultry
processing wastewaters as indicators of inadequate disinfection and the possible presence of
pathogens in discharged effluents. In addition to potential human health impacts through use of
receiving surface waters as source waters for public and private water supplies and contact
recreation, pathogens possibly present in meat and poultry processing wastewaters can be
infectious to wildlife.
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
Nitrogen
Several forms of nitrogen are pollutants of concern in meat and poultry processing
wastewaters. Included are total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N) and nitrite
plus nitrate nitrogen (NO2 + NO3-N). Because protein is the principal component of meat and
blood, meat, and poultry processing, wastewaters can contain relatively high concentrations of
nitrogen. Another source of nitrogen in these wastewaters is in fecal material in the forms
primarily of unabsorbed feed proteins and products of protein degradation.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is an estimate of the sum of organic nitrogen and
ammonia nitrogen and provides an estimate of organic nitrogen by difference when ammonia
nitrogen is concurrently determined. Under both anaerobic and aerobic conditions, the readily
biodegradable fraction of organic nitrogen is mineralized readily by microbial activity with the
nitrogen not used for cell synthesis accumulating as ammonia nitrogen. The water quality
impacts associated with organic nitrogen are related to this process of mineralization to ammonia
nitrogen in natural waters and are discussed below.
As noted above, ammonia nitrogen in meat and poultry processing wastewaters is the
product primarily of organic nitrogen mineralization. However, cleaning and sanitizing agents
also are possible sources. Ammonia nitrogen is present in aqueous solutions in both as ionized
(ammonium) and un-ionized (ammonia) species. Ammonia nitrogen is a pollutant considered for
regulation in meat and poultry processing wastewaters, because its presence in wastewater
discharges to surface waters has several negative environmental impacts. Both ammonia and
ammonium nitrogen can be directly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, with ammonia
nitrogen being more toxic. In addition, discharges of ammonia nitrogen can reduce ambient
dissolved oxygen concentrations in receiving surface waters because of the microbially mediated
oxidation of ammonia nitrogen to nitrite and nitrate nitrogen. This demand is known as
nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD).
Ammonia nitrogen in wastewater discharges also can be responsible for the development
of eutrophic conditions and the associated adverse impacts on ambient dissolved oxygen
concentrations, if nitrogen is the nutrient limiting primary productivity. While phosphorus
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
typically is the nutrient limiting primary productivity in fresh surface waters, nitrogen typically is
the limiting nutrient in marine waters and the more saline segments of estuaries. Eutrophic
conditions, an excess of primary productivity, are characterized by algae blooms, which cause
shifts in ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations from super saturation during sunny days to
substantial deficits at night and on cloudy days, when photo-synthesis is not occurring. The
decay of the biomass generated by excessive primary productivity also exerts a demand on
ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations. With the depression of ambient dissolved oxygen
concentrations, populations of fish and other aquatic organisms are adversely affected, with the
possible change in ecosystem composition and loss of biodiversity.
Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen is rarely present in meat and poultry processing wastewaters
before aerobic biological treatment, due to the lack of oxygen necessary for microbially mediated
nitrification. However, nitrite and nitrate salts used in further processing are potential sources.
Thus, the principal source of nitrite and nitrate nitrogen following treatment is nitrification
during aerobic biological treatment, which often is required, at least seasonally, to satisfy effluent
limitations for the discharge of ammonia nitrogen to surface waters. Usually, nitrate nitrogen is
the predominate form of oxidized nitrogen in these discharges, with nitrite nitrogen present only
in trace amounts. High concentrations of nitrite nitrogen usually are indicative of incomplete
nitrification and are accompanied by more than trace ammonia nitrogen concentrations.
Although nitrite nitrogen will exert an NOD in surface waters, the principal concern
about oxidized forms of nitrogen in wastewater discharges is related to their role in the
development of eutrophic conditions. The impacts of such conditions on fish populations,
biodiversity, recreation, and potable water supply treatment costs were discussed above. An
additional concern is their potential for increasing ambient surface water nitrate nitrogen
concentrations above the national maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg per L in source
waters used for public drinking water supplies.
7-11
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
Phosphorus
Total phosphorus and total orthophosphate phosphorus: phosphorus is a pollutant
considered for regulation in meat and poultry processing wastewaters, because of the role of
phosphorus as the nutrient typically limiting primary productivity in freshwater ecosystems. In
such aquatic ecosystems, an increase in ambient phosphorus concentration due to wastewater
discharges above naturally occurring levels results in the excessive growth of algae and other
phytoplankton, with the development of eutrophic conditions as the consequence. In turn,
eutrophic conditions can cause fish kills, disruption of natural aquatic ecosystem structure, and
loss of biodiversity. Additional impacts of eutrophication in fresh waters include impairment of
recreational use and additional treatment cost for use of these waters as a source of potable water.
In marine waters, phosphorus is not a pollutant of concern due to relatively high naturally
occurring phosphorus concentrations. The impact of phosphorus in wastewater discharges into
estuaries varies with impacts generally decreasing as salinity levels increase.
There are numerous sources of phosphorus in meat and poultry processing wastewaters,
including bone, soft tissue, blood, manure, detergents and sanitizers, and boiler water additives to
control corrosion. Both organic and inorganic forms of phosphorus are present, with inorganic
forms present as both ortho- and polyphosphate phosphorus. Total orthophosphate phosphorus,
also known as total reactive phosphorus, can be directly used by phytoplankton and higher
adequate plants and are immediately available sources of phosphorus. Although polyphosphate
forms of phosphorus undergo hydrolysis in aqueous solutions, hydrolysis usually is quite slow, as
is mineralization of organically bound phosphorus. Thus, orthophosphate phosphorus is a
potential pollutant of concern because of its immediate biological availability, whereas
polyphosphates and organically bound phosphorus, which comprise the difference between total
phosphorus and orthophosphate phosphorus, are pollutants of concern as sources of slowly
released orthophosphate phosphorus.
Dissolved total phosphorus simply is the sum of ortho-and-polyphosphate phosphorus in
solution by excluding suspended forms of phosphorus by filtration.
7-12
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
Salmonella
A number of pathogenic species of Salmonella, including Salmonella enteritidis, are
common inhabitants of the enteric tracts of livestock and poultry and may be present in meat and
poultry processing wastewaters. Because of its potential risk to public health through public and
private water supplies, contact forms of recreation, and wild life exposure to effluents discharged
to natural waters, Salmonella was considered as a pollutant for possible regulation in these
wastewaters.
Solids
Meat and poultry processing wastewaters before and after treatment contain both
suspended and dissolved solids, which also are known as non-filterable and filterable residue.
Suspended and dissolved solids concentrations are determined by filtering the solids with a
standard glass fiber filter, then drying them to a constant weight. Those solids retained on the
filter are considered to be suspended solids, and those solids passing through the filter are
considered to be dissolved solids. Dissolved solids concentrations also can be estimated
indirectly by determining their conductance, the ability to carry an electric current. This ability
depends on the presence and dissociation of inorganic compounds. Organic compounds in
aqueous solutions generally do not dissociate and are poor conductors of electricity.
The principal constituents of suspended solids in treated meat and poultry processing
wastewaters are soft and hard tissue particles not removed during treatment and biomass
synthesized during treatment. Thus, suspended solids have both organic (volatile) and inorganic
fractions. Dissolved solids consist primarily of dissolved inorganic compounds (primarily
calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, sulfur compounds) but also may contain colloidal organic
material. The principal sources of dissolved solids in meat and poultry processing wastewaters
are potable water supplies used for process-ing, salts used in processing such as sodium chloride,
and cleaning and sanitizing agents. Generally, the organic, and therefore potentially
biodegradable, fraction of suspended solids is substantially higher than the inorganic fraction,
with the reverse typically characteristic of dissolved solids. Total solids are the sum of
7-13
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
suspended and dissolved solids with total volatile solids or total volatile residue representing an
estimate of the organic fraction of total solids.
Both suspended and dissolved solids in meat and poultry processing wastewater effluents
were pollutants considered for several reasons. Suspended solids that settle to form bottom
deposits can create anaerobic conditions because of the oxygen demand exerted by microbial
decomposition. They can alter habitat for fish, shellfish, and benthic organisms. Suspended
solids also provide a medium for the transport of other sorbed pollutants including nutrients,
pathogens, metals, and toxic organic compounds, such as pesticides with accumulation and
storage in settled deposits. Settled, suspended solids and other associated pollutants often have
extended interaction with the water column through cycles of deposition, resuspension, and
redeposition.
Suspended solids in wastewater discharges also can clog fish gills, reducing oxygen
transport and increasing turbidity. In severe situations, clogging of fish gills can result in
asphyxiation, and in less severe situations can result in an increase in susceptibility to infection.
In addition, suspended solids increase turbidity in receiving waters and reduce penetration of
light through the water column, thereby limiting the growth of rooted aquatic vegetation that
serves as a critical habitat for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms.
Dissolved solids were considered as pollutants for possible regulation, primarily because
of their potential impact on the subsequent use of receiving waters as source waters for public
and industrial water supplies. Reduction of dissolved solids concentrations in source waters to
acceptable levels for public and industrial water supply use can be a costly process. However,
dissolved solids also have the potential to alter the chemistry of natural waters to a degree that
adversely impacts indigenous aquatic biota, especially in the immediate vicinity of the effluent
discharge. An example is the possible influence on the toxicity of heavy metals and organic
compounds to fish and other aquatic organisms, primarily because of the antagonistic effect of
hardness.
7-14
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
Possible regulation of total volatile residue (total volatile solids) in meat and poultry
processing wastewaters was considered, because this parameter also is an estimator of organic
matter and potentially exerted oxygen demand in receiving waters after treated effluent
discharge.
Total Residual Chlorine
Chlorine in the form of chlorine gas (C12), calcium hypochlorite [Ca(OCl)2], sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl), or chlorine dioxide (C1O2), is commonly used for the disinfection of meat
and poultry processing wastewaters before direct discharge to surface waters. Because free
chlorine is directly toxic to aquatic organisms and can react with naturally occurring organic
compounds in natural waters to form toxic compounds such as trihalomethane, total residual
chlorine in meat and poultry processing wastewater effluents was considered as a pollutant for
possible regulation.
Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of a variety of organic compounds in various
oxidation states in water and wastewater. Some of these compounds can be oxidized further by
biological or chemical processes and are captured in BOD or COD determinations. However,
these tests also may not oxidize some organic carbon compounds. Thus, TOC may provide the
most accurate estimate of organic matter content; it provides no information relative to
potentially exerted oxygen demand. However, TOC can be used to estimate BOD and COD in a
wastewater with a relatively constant composition, once correlations between TOC and BOD and
COD are established. Like COD, TOC can be determined rapidly in contrast to BOD, which
requires a five-day incubation period.
7.2.2 Non-conventional Pollutants
Metals
A number of metals from a range of possible sources have the potential to be present in
meat and poultry processing wastewaters. These possible sources include water supplies and
7-15
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
distribution systems, processing equipment, cleaning and sanitizing agents, and wastewater
collection systems and treatment equipment. In addition, metals including arsenic, copper, and
zinc commonly are added to livestock and poultry feeds as trace mineral supplements or growth
stimulants, and may be present in manures.
The following metals were considered as pollutants for possible regulation in meat and
poultry processing wastewaters: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, tin, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and zinc. These metals were considered as pollutants
for possible regulation in meat and poultry processing wastewaters, because of their potential
toxicity to phytoplankton and zooplankton and to higher aquatic plant and animal species,
including fish. They also are pollutants of concern, given the potential for bioaccumulation and
biomagnification in aquatic food chains and presence downstream in effluent receiving waters
used as source waters for potable water supplies. Although removal of metals from wastewaters
during conventional physicochemical and biological treatment processes occurs through
adsorption to biosolids removed by settling and filtration before discharge, these processes are
not intentionally engineered to remove metals before effluent discharge.
Pesticides
Pesticides, with the exception of rodenticides in enclosed bait stations, are not used in
meat and poultry processing facilities to prevent the risk of product contamination. They are,
however, commonly topically applied to livestock and poultry in animal feeding operations for
the control of ectoparasites. Although withdrawal periods are required before slaughter, residues
may remain on feathers, hair, and skin at slaughter. Thus, the following pesticides were
considered as pollutants for possible regulation in meat processing wastewaters: carbaryl, cis-
permethrin, dichlorvos, Malathion, and tetrachlorvinphos. Transpermithrin and carbaryl were
considered as a pollutant for possible regulation in poultry processing wastewaters.
These pesticides were considered as pollutants for possible regulation because of their
toxicity to aquatic ecosystems and their potential for bioaccumulation and biomagnification in
aquatic food chains and presence downstream in effluent receiving waters used as source waters
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
for potable water supplies. Although removal of pesticides from wastewaters during
conventional physicochemical and biological treatment processes occurs through adsorption to
biosolids removed by settling and filtration before discharge, these processes are not intentionally
engineered to remove metals before effluent discharge. For some pesticides, biodegradation also
may occur during wastewater treatment.
7.3 SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
EPA determined pollutants of concern for the meat and poultry products industry by
assessing Agency sampling data. To establish the pollutants of concern, EPA reviewed the
analytical data from influent wastewater samples to determine the pollutants, which were
detected at treatable levels. EPA set treatable levels at five times the baseline value to ensure
that pollutants detected at only trace amounts would not be selected.
EPA obtained the pollutants of concern by establishing which parameters were detected at
treatable levels in at least 10 percent of all the influent wastewater samples. Tables 7-2 and 7-3
detail the list of meat and poultry products industry pollutants of concern. EPA did not sample at
independent rendering facilities and transferred data from on-site rendering facilities.
Consequently, EPA is using all the pollutants of concern from Tables 7-1 and 7-2 for
independent rendering facilities. EPA is planning further sampling at independent rendering
facilities after proposal to better develop a list of pollutants of concern for this segment of the
industry.
7-17
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
Table 7-2. Pollutants of Concern for Meat Processing Facilities
Pollutant Group
Classicals or
biologicals
Metals
Pesticides
Pollutant
Aeromonas
Ammonia as nitrogen
Biochemical oxygen demand
BOD 5-day (carbonaceous)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Cryptosporidium
Dissolved biochemical
Oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
E. Coli
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococcus
Hexane extractable material
Nitrate/nitrite
Total coliform
Total dissolved solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total orthophosphate
Total phosphorus
Total suspended solids
Volatile residue
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Titanium
Zinc
Carbaryl
Cis-permethrin
Trans-permethrin
CAS Number
C2101
7664417
COOS
C002
C004
16887006
137259508
C003D
14265442D
C050
C2106
C2107
C036
COOS
E10606
C010
C021
C012
C034
14265442
C009
C030
7440473
7440508
7439965
7440326
7440666
63252
61949766
61949777
7-18
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
Table 7-3. Pollutants of Concern for Poultry Processing Facilities
Pollutant Group
Classicals or
Biologicals
Metals
Pesticides
Pollutant
Aeromonas
Ammonia as nitrogen
Biochemical oxygen demand
BOD 5-day (carbonaceous)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical
Oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
E. Coli
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococcus
Hexane extractable material
Nitrate/nitrite
Salmonella
Total coliform
Total dissolved solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total orthophosphate
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Total suspended solids
Volatile residue
Copper
Manganese
Zinc
Carbaryl
CAS Number
C2101
7664417
COOS
C002
C004
16887006
C003D
14265442D
C050
C2106
C2107
C036
COOS
68583357
E10606
C010
C021
C012
C034
14265442
7782505
C009
C030
7440508
7439965
7440666
63252
7.4 SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS FOR REGULATION
7.4.1 Methodology for Selection of Regulated Pollutants
EPA selects the pollutants for regulation based on applicable Clean Water Act provisions
regarding the pollutants subject to each statutory level and the pollutants of concern (POCs)
identified for each subcategory.
As presented above, EPA selected a subset of pollutants for which to establish numerical
effluent limitations from the list of POCs for each regulated subcategory. Generally, a chemical
7-19
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
is considered a POC if it is detected in the untreated process wastewater at five times the
minimum level (ML) in more than 10 percent of samples.
Monitoring for all POCs is not necessary to ensure that meat and poultry products
wastewater pollution is adequately controlled, since many of the pollutants originate from similar
sources, have similar treatabilities, are removed by similar mechanisms, and are treated to similar
levels. Therefore, it may be sufficient to monitor for one pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of
several others.
Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which the EPA would establish numerical effluent
limitations and standards. EPA selected a POC for regulation in a subcategory if it meets all the
following criteria:
• Chemical is not used as a treatment chemical in the selected technology option.
• Chemical is not considered a nonconventional bulk parameter.
• Chemical is not considered a volatile compound.
• Chemical is effectively treated by the selected treatment technology option.
• Chemical is detected in the untreated wastewater at treatable levels in a significant
number of samples, generally five times the minimum level at more than 10
percent of the raw wastewater samples.
• Chemicals whose control through treatment processes would lead to control of a
wide range of pollutants with similar properties; these chemicals are generally
good indicators of overall wastewater treatment performance.
Based on the methodology described above, EPA proposes to regulate pollutants in each
subcategory that will ensure adequate control of a range of pollutants.
7-20
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
7.4.2 Selection of Regulated Pollutants for Existing and New Direct Dischargers
The current regulation requires facilities to maintain the pH between 6.0 and 9.0 at all
times. EPA intends to retain this limitation and proposes to codify identical pH limitations for
previously unregulated subcategories. The pH shall be monitored at the point of discharge from
the wastewater treatment facility to which effluent limitations derived from this part apply.
In addition, EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for MPP facilities for the
following pollutants of concern: BOD, COD, TSS, hexane extractable materials (oil and grease),
fecal coliforms, ammonia, total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitrogen plus nitrite and nitrate nitrogen),
and total phosphorus. The specific justifications for the pollutants to be regulated for each
subcategory are provided below. In general, EPA selected these pollutants because they are
representative of the characteristics of meat processing wastewaters generated in the industry,
and are key indicators of the performance of treatment processes that serve as the basis for the
effluent limitations.
A number of POCs evaluated by EPA are parameters that identify the quantity of material
in an effluent that is likely to consume oxygen as it breaks down in surface waters after it has
been discharged. These parameters include total organic carbon, BOD, carbonaceous BOD,
COD, and dissolved BOD. Values for these POCs in meat poultry processing wastes are
typically very high due to the wastewaters generated from killing, evisceration, further
processing, and rendering processes. EPA is proposing to regulate BOD and COD, which will be
used as indicators of the performance of biological treatment systems to remove all oxygen-
demanding pollutants and impact of treated effluent discharges to surface waters on dissolved
oxygen concentrations.
Total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total volatile residue are
parameters that measure the quantity of solids in a wastewater. Meat processing facilities
typically produce wastewaters high in organic solids, including blood, carcass, feathers, and
feces. These solids cause a high oxygen demand (both chemical and biochemical) and are high
in nitrogen content. Because some nutrients bind to solids, and solids often include oxygen-
demanding organic material, limiting the loading of solids will prevent degradation of surface
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
waters. EPA proposes to regulate TSS as an indicator of performance of biological treatment
systems to remove solids. EPA considered regulation of TDS, however, because as organic
matter is broken down in a biological wastewater treatment system, levels of TDS may increase,
which makes regulation of TDS not feasible.
Wastewaters from meat processing facilities have high concentrations of the nutrients
nitrogen and phosphorus associated primarily with blood, soft tissue, fecal material, and cleaning
and sanitizing agents. In addition, those facilities employing advanced biological treatment
systems to remove ammonia by biological nitrification, convert ammonia nitrogen to nitrite and
nitrate nitrogen through microbially mediated oxidation. Due to the potential degrading impacts
to surface waters associated with the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (e.g., eutrophication),
EPA proposes to regulate total nitrogen and total phosphorus. In regulating total nitrogen and
total phosphorus, EPA will ensure that biological treatment systems used by facilities are
effectively removing all forms of these nutrients, including total Kkjeldahl nitrogen,
nitrate/nitrite, ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and dissolved phosphorus. EPA is also
proposing to specifically regulate ammonia nitrogen, because of the significant oxygen demand it
exerts, as well as its relatively high toxicity to aquatic life.
Oil and grease (as n-hexane-extractable material) is a parameter that measures oil and
grease concentrations in effluents. Oil and grease, primarily in the form of animal fat, is present
in relatively high concentrations in meat and poultry processing wastewaters. EPA is proposing
that the control of oil and grease is necessary to ensure that treatment systems are effective in
removing oil and grease. Excessive oil and grease concentrations can be associated with high
BOD demand in a surface water. They present other nuisance problems, as well.
Chlorides measure the quantity of chloride ion dissolved in solution. In the meat
processing industry, salts may be used in further processing and for cleaning and sanitizing
purposes. The presence of chloride in discharges to surface waters may impact aquatic
organisms, because of their sensitivity to concentrations of salt. Although EPA determined that
chlorides are a pollutant of concern, EPA is not proposing to regulate chlorides because
biological systems are not specifically designed and operated to treat chlorides. In fact, EPA
7-22
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
observed in some instances an increase in chlorides within the biological treatment system (i.e.,
from the influent to the effluent) at several facilities. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will
not be able to manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent limitations
for chlorides.
Total coliforms, fecal coliforms, E. coli, fecal streptococcus, Salmonella, and Aeromonas
were considered POCs, because they provide information on the potential presence bacterial and
other pathogens in meat processing wastewaters. Pathogens typically are present in meat and
poultry processing wastewaters due to the presence of fecal material. The reduction of pathogens
is important to prevent impairment of surface water uses, such as a drinking water source or as a
recreation water. EPA is proposing to regulate fecal coliforms as an indicator of the efficacy of
treatment processes to control pathogens.
In many instances, EPA found meat processing facilities using chlorine to disinfect
treated wastewaters. As a disinfectant, chlorine is highly toxic to aquatic life. Therefore, EPA is
also considering regulating total residual chlorine in the final rule as a means to control the
amount of chlorine that is discharged to surface waters. EPA is requesting comment on this issue
in the preamble for the proposed rule.
Metals may be present in meat processing wastewaters for a variety of reasons. They are
used as feed additives they may be contained in sanitation products or they may result from
deterioration of meat processing machinery and equipment. Many metals are toxic to algae,
aquatic invertebrates, and/or fish. Although metals may serve useful purposes in meat processing
operations, most metals retain their toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters.
Although EPA observed that many of the biological treatment systems used within the meat
processing industry provide substantial reductions of most metals, biological systems are not
specifically engineered to remove metals. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will not be
able to manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent limitations.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate metals.
Pesticides are used for controlling animal ectoparasites and may be present in
wastewaters from initial animal wash and processing operations. Some pesticides are
7^23
-------
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation
bioaccumulative and retain their toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters.
Although EPA observed that many of the biological treatment systems used within the meat
processing industry provide adequate reductions of pesticides, most biological systems are not
specifically engineered to remove pesticides. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will not be
able to manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent limitations for
pesticides. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate pesticides.
7.5 REFERENCES
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater, 19th edition, American Public Health Association, Washington,
DC.
S.E. Aiello, ed., 1998. The Merck veterinary manual, 8th edition, Merck and Company, Inc.,
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.
7-24
-------
SECTION 8
WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND POLLUTION
PREVENTION PRACTICES
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes unit processes that are currently in use or may be used to treat meat
and poultry products (MPP) wastewaters. A variety of unit processes are used to provide primary,
secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment; however, because of the similarities in the physical
and chemical characteristics of meat and poultry products wastewaters, EPA identified no
practical difference in the types of treatment technologies between meat and poultry products
facilities (e.g., primary treatment for removal of solids, biological treatment for removal of
organic and nutrient pollutants). In addition, the unit processes that are used in the treatment of
MPP wastewaters are similar to those normally used in the treatment of domestic wastewaters
(Eremektar et al., 1999; Johnston, 2001). In this section, those unit processes most commonly
used or potentially transferable from other industries for the treatment of MPP wastewaters are
described and typical combinations of unit processes are outlined.
Wastewater treatment falls into three main categories: (1) primary treatment (e.g.,
removal of floating and settleable solids); (2) secondary treatment (e.g., removal of most organic
matter); and (3) tertiary treatment (e.g., removal of nitrogen or phosphorus or suspended solids or
some combination thereof). MPP facilities that discharge to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW), typically employ only primary treatment; however, some facilities may also provide
secondary treatment, as demonstrated in the data provided in the MPP detailed survey. MPP
facilities that discharge directly to navigable waters under the authority of a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) typically both primary and secondary treatment to
generated wastewaters. As also described in the MPP detailed surveys, many direct dischargers
also apply tertiary treatment to wastewater discharged under the NPDES permit system. Table
8-1 identifies the types of wastewater treatment commonly found in the MPP industry.
8-1
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Table 8-1. Distribution of Wastewater Treatment Units In MPP Industry
Treatment Category
Primary treatment
Secondary and tertiary
treatment
Treatment Unit
Screen
Oil and Grease Removal
Dissolved Air Floatation
Flow Equalization
Biological Treatment a
Filtration
Disinfection
Percent of Direct/Indirect Discharging Facilities
Having The Treatment Unit In Place
Direct Discharger
98 percent
83 percent
8 1 percent
75 percent
100 percent
23 percent
92 percent
Indirect Discharger
64 percent
77 percent
46 percent
34 percent
13 percent
0 percent
0 percent
a Biological treatment includes any combination of the following: aerobic lagoon, anaerobic lagoon, facultative
lagoon, any activated sludge process, and/or other biological treatment processes (e.g., trickling filter).
Source: EPA Detailed Survey Data.
8.2 PRIMARY TREATMENT
As noted above, primary treatment involves removal of floating and settleable solids. In
MPP wastewaters, the typical unit processes used for primary treatment are screening, catch
basin, dissolved air flotation (DAF), and flow equalization. Chemicals are often added to
improve the performance of the treatment units (e.g., flocculant or polymer addition to DAF
units). Primary treatment has two objectives in the MPP industry: (1) reduction of suspended
solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loads to subsequent unit processes; and (2) the
recovery of materials that can be converted into marketable products through rendering.
8.2.1 Screening
Screening is typically the first and most inexpensive form of primary treatment. Screening
removes large solid particles from the waste stream that could otherwise damage or interfere with
downstream equipment and treatment processes, including pumps, pump inlets, and pipelines
(Nielsen, 1996). There are several types of screens used in wastewater treatment including:
(1) static or stationary, (2) rotary drum, (3) brushed, and (4) vibrating. Static, vibrating, or rotary
drum screens are most commonly used as primary treatment (USEPA, 1974, 1975). These
8-2
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
screens use stainless steel wedge wire as the screen material and remove medium and coarse
particles between 0.01 to 0.06 inches in diameter. Generally, all wastewater generated in MPP
facilities is screened before discharge to subsequent treatment processes. Use of screens aids in
recovery of valuable by-products that are sometimes used as a raw material for the rendering
industry and subsequent industries (Banks and Adebowale, 1991; USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
The use of secondary screens is becoming more prevalent in the industry. Secondary screening
has the advantage of by-product recovery prior to adulteration by coagulants and reduces the
volume of solids to be recovered in subsequent unit processes, such as the dissolved air flotation
(Starkey and Wright, 1997).
The following describes the main types of screens used at MPP facilities.
8.2.1.1 Static Screens
The primary function of a static screen is to remove large solid particles (USEPA, 1974;
USEPA, 1975). For example, the physical nature of slaughterhouse raw wastewater can include
coarse, suspended matter (larger than 1 mm mesh) which is insoluble, slowly biodegradable, and
40 to 50 percent of the raw wastewater COD (Johns, 1995). Screening can be accomplished in
several ways, and in older versions, only gravity drainage is involved. A concavely curved screen
design using high-velocity pressure feeding originally developed for mineral classification has
been adapted to meet MPP wastewater treatment needs. This design employs bar interference to
the slurry, which knives off thin layers of the flow over the curved surface. The screen material
usually is 316 stainless steel although harder, wear-resistant stainless alloys may also be used for
special purposes. Openings of 0.025 to 0.15 cm (0.01 to 0.06 inch) meet normal screening needs
(USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Figure 8-1 shows a general schematic of a static screen.
In some poultry products facilities, "follow-up" stationary screens, consisting of two,
three, and four units placed vertically in the effluent sewer before discharge to the municipal
sewer, have successfully prevented escape of feathers and solids from the drains in the flow-away
screen room and other drains on the premises. These stationary "channel" screens are framed and
are usually constructed of mesh or perforated stainless steel with 1A- to Vi -inch openings. The
8-3
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
series arrangement permits removal of
a single screen for cleaning and
improves efficiency. The three-slope
static screen is being used in a few
poultry products facilities as primary
treatment (USEPA, 1975). Static
screens can be used in series to remove
of coarse particles first before further
screening by finer mesh screens.
8.2.1.2 Rotary Drum Screens
INRUENT
Figure 8-1. General schematic of a static screen
(U.S. EPA, 1980)
Rotary drum screens typically
are constructed of stainless steel mesh
or wedge wire and are designed in one of two ways. The first, driven by external rollers, receives
the wastewater at one open end and discharges the solids at the other open end. The screen is
inclined toward the exit end to facilitate movement of solids. The liquid passes outward through
the screen (usually stainless steel screen cloth or perforated sheet) to a receiver and then to the
sewer. To prevent clogging, the screen is usually sprayed continuously from a line of external
spray nozzles (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
The second type of rotary screen is driven with an external pinion gear. Raw wastewater
discharges into the interior of the screen, below the center, and solids are removed in a trough
that is mounted lengthwise with a screw conveyor. The liquid exits from the screen into a box
where the screen is partially submerged. The screen itself is typically 40 by 40 mesh, with
openings of 0.4 mm. To assist lifting the solids to the conveyor trough, perforated lift paddles are
mounted lengthwise on the inside surface of the screen. Externally spraying the screen helps
reduce blinding, and teflon coated screens reduce clogging by grease. Solid removals up to 82
percent have been reported (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
Figure 8-2 shows a general schematic of a rotating drum screen.
8-4
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
8.2.1.3 Brushed Screens
Although most commonly
used in sewage treatment, brushed
screens can be adapted to remove
solids from MPP wastewater.
Brushed screens are constructed of
a half-circular drum with a
stainless steel perforated screen.
Mesh size varies according to the
type of solid being screened. As
WATER LEVa
INaUENT
Figure 8-2. General schematic of a rotary drum screen.
(U.S. EPA, 1980)
influent passes through the screen, rotary brushes sweep across, pushing solids off the screen and
into a collection trough. If required, this design can be doubled to dry solid matter further by
pushing solids onto a second screen that is pressed and then brushed into the collection trough
(Nielsen, 1996).
8.2.1.4 Vibrating Screens
The effectiveness of a vibrating screen depends on a rapid motion. Vibrating screens
operate between 99 and 1,800 rpm; the motion can be either circular or straight line, varying
from 0.08 to 1.27 cm (1/32 to l/2 inch) total travel. Speed and motion are selected by the screen
manufacturer for the particular application (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Usually made of
stainless steel, the vibrating action allows effluent to pass through while propelling solids toward
a collection outlet with the aid of gravity (Nielsen, 1996).
Of prime importance in the selection of a proper vibrating screen is the application of the
proper cloth. The liquid capacities of vibrating screens are based on the percent of open area of
the cloth. The cloth is selected with the proper combination of strength of wire and percent of
open area. If the waste solids to be handled are heavy and abrasive, wire of greater thickness
should be used to assure long life. However, if the material is light or sticky in nature, the
durability of the screening surface may be the least important factor. In such a case, a light wire
may be desired to provide an increased percent of open area (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
8-5
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Poultry products facilities may employ two types of vibrating screens. For offal recovery,
vibratory screens usually have 20-mesh screening; for feather removal, as well as for in-plant
primary treatment of combined wastewater, a 36- by 40-mesh screen cloth is used. On most
applications a double-crimped, square-weave cloth is used because of its inherent strength and
resistance to wire shifting. Vibratory screens with straight-line action are largely used for
byproduct recovery, while those with circular motion are frequently used for in-plant primary
treatment (USEPA, 1975).
8.2.2 Catch Basins
Catch basins separate grease and finely suspended solids from wastewater by the process
of gravity separation. The basic setup employs a minimum turbulence flowthrough tank where
solids heavier than water sink to the bottom, and grease and fine solids rise to the surface. Basins
are equipped with a skimmer to remove grease and scum off the top and a scraper to remove
sludge at the bottom. The skimmer moves scum into collecting troughs and the scraper moves
sludge into a hopper from where both are pumped to byproduct recovery systems. Key factors
affecting basin efficiency are detention time and the rate of solid removal from the basin.
Depending on influent concentration, recovery rates between 60 and 70 percent can be achieved
with a detention time of 20 to 40 minutes (Nielsen, 1996).
Typically, catch basins are rectangular in shape and relatively shallow (1.8 meters or 6
feet is the preferred length). The flow rate is the most important criterion for the design, and the
most common sizing factor is determined by measuring the volume of flow during one peak hour
with 30 to 40 minutes of detention. An equalization tank before the catch basin reduces size
requirements significantly (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Depending on the influent
characteristics, treatment costs range from 50 to 500 dollars per million gallons treated
(FMCITT, 2002).
Tanks can be constructed of concrete or steel; usually two tanks with a common wall are
built, in case one becomes unavailable due to maintenance or repairs. Concrete tanks have the
inherent advantages of lower overall maintenance and more permanence of structure. However,
some facilities prefer to be able to modify their operation for future expansion, alterations, or
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
even relocation. All-steel tanks have the advantage of being semi-portable, more easily field-
erected, and more easily modified than concrete tanks. The all-steel tanks, however, require
additional maintenance as a result of wear from abrasion and corrosion (USEPA, 1974; USEPA,
1975).
A tank using all-steel walls and a concrete bottom is the best compromise between the
all-steel tank and the all-concrete tank. The advantages are the same as for steel; however, the all-
steel tank requires a footing underneath and supporting members, whereas the concrete bottom
forms the floor and supporting footings for the steel-wall tank (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
8.2.3 Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved air flotation (DAE) is used extensively in the primary treatment of MPP
wastewaters to remove suspended solids. The principal advantage of DAE over gravity settling is
its ability to remove very small or light particles (including grease) more completely and in a
shorter period of time. Once particles have been to the surface, they are removed by skimming
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
In DAE, either the entire influent, some fraction of the influent, or some fraction of the
recycled DAE effluent is saturated with air at a pressure of 40 to 50 psi (250 to 300 kPa), and
then introduced into the flotation tank (Martin and Martin, 1991). The method of operation may
cause operating costs to differ slightly, but process performances are essentially equal among the
three modes of operation (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). With larger wastewater flows, only a
fraction of the DAE effluent is saturated and recycled by introduction through a pressure control
valve into the influent feed line. From 15 to 120 percent of the influent flow may be recycled in
larger units (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Under atmospheric pressure in the flotation tank, the air
desorbs from solution and forms a cloud of fine bubbles, which transport fine particulate matter
to the surface of the liquid in the tank. A skimmer mechanism continually removes the floating
solids, and a bottom sludge collector removes any solids that settle. Although unit shape is not
important, a more even distribution of air bubbles allows for a shallower flotation tank. Optimum
depth settings are between 4 and 9 feet (1.2 to 2.7 meters) (Martin and Martin, 1991).
8-7
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Chemicals (e.g., polymers and flocculants) are often added prior to the DAF to improve
the DAF performance. Typical removals of suspended solids by DAFs vary between 40 to
65 percent without chemical addition and between 80 to 93 percent with chemical addition.
Likewise, oil and grease removals by DAF improve from 60 to 80 percent without chemical
addition to 85 to 99 percent with chemical addition (Martin and Martin, 1991). There are many
advantages to a DAF system, including its low installation costs, compact design, ability to
accept variable loading rates, and low level of maintenance (Nielsen, 1996). The mechanical
equipment involved in the DAF system is fairly simple, requiring limited maintenance attention
for such things as pumps and mechanical drives (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
Although alternatives to DAF do exist, including electro flotation, reverse osmosis, and
ion exchange, these processes have not been widely adopted by MPP facilities. Cost
considerations and technical difficulties associated with these alternatives have prevented ready
incorporation of such technologies (Johns, 1995). However, Cowan et al., (1992) summarized
treatment and costs for extended trials, using a variety of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis
membranes at a number of slaughterhouses in South Africa. They report that ultrafiltration and
reverse osmosis treatment may be the method of choice for treating slaughterhouse wastewaters,
both as a pretreatment step prior to discharge to POTW and as a means of reclaiming high quality
reusable water from the treated effluent.
8.2.4 Flow Equalization
Since most MPP facilities operate on a five-day per week schedule, weekly variation of
wastewater flow is common. In addition, each facility must be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized
every 24 hours. Although wastewater flow is relatively constant during processing, a significant
difference in flow occurs between processing and cleanup periods, producing a substantial
diurnal variation in flow and organic load on days of processing. To avoid the necessity of sizing
subsequent treatment units to handle peak flows and loads, in-line flow equalization tanks are
installed (Reynolds, 1982; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Flow equalization tanks may also be
installed to store the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant before discharge to a POTW or
8-8
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
other effluent disposal destinations. The end-of-treatment equalization ensures reduced variation
in flow and waste load.
Equalization facilities consist of a holding tank and pumping equipment designed to
reduce the fluctuations of waste stream. They can be economically advantageous, whether the
industry is treating its own wastes or discharging into a city sewer after some pretreatment. The
tank is characterized by a varying flow into the tank and a constant flow out. For MPP facilities,
flow equalization basins usually are sized to provide a constant 24-hour flow rate on processing
days, but also may be sized to provide a constant daily flow rate, including non-processing days.
The major advantages of equalization basins are that the subsequent treatment units are smaller,
since they can be designed for the 24-hour average flow rather than peak flows, and secondary
waste treatment systems operate much better when not subjected to shockloads or variations on
feed (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). To prevent settling of solids and to control odors, aeration
and mixing of flow equalization basins are required. Methods of aeration and mixing include
diffused air, diffused air with mechanical mixing, and mechanical aeration (Reynolds, 1982;
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
8.2.5 Chemical Addition
Chemicals are often added to remove pollutants from wastewater. According to the MPP
detailed survey responses, chemicals (e.g., polymers, coagulants, and flocculants such as
aluminum or iron salts or synthetic organic polymers) are often added to MPP wastewaters prior
to DAE or clarifier to aggregate colloidal particles through destabilization by coagulation and
flocculation to improve process performance. Essentially all of the chemicals added are removed
with the separated solids. When the solids are disposed of by rendering, the use of organic
polymers is preferred to avoid high aluminum or iron concentrations in the rendered product
produced. EPA noted during site visits to two independent rendering operations that sludges from
dissolved air floatation units which use chemical additions to promote solids separation are
rendered; however, the chemical bond between the organic matter and the polymers requires that
the sludges be processed (rendered) at higher temperatures (260 °F) and longer retention times.
Because the efficacy of aluminum and iron salts and organic polymers is pH dependent, pH
8-9
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
adjustment normally precedes the addition of these compounds to minimize chemical use (Ross
et. al., 1992; USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
8.3 SECONDARY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
MPP facilities that discharge directly to navigable waters under the authority of a NPDES
permit at a minimum apply both primary and secondary treatment to generated wastewaters (see
Table 8-1). The objective of secondary treatment is the reduction of BOD through the removal of
organic matter, primarily in the form of soluble organic compounds, remaining after primary
treatment. Although secondary treatment of wastewater can be performed using a combination of
physical and chemical unit processes, use of biological processes has remained the preferred
approach (Peavy, 1986). Greater than 90 percent wastewater pollutant removal efficiencies can
be achieved with biological treatment (Kiepper, 2001). According to responses to the MPP
detailed survey, common systems used for biological treatment of MPP wastewater include
lagoons, activated sludge systems, extended aeration, oxidation ditches, and sequencing batch
reactors. A sequence of anaerobic biological processes followed by aerobic biological processes
is commonly employed by MPP facilities which have biological treatment. Kiepper (2001)
suggests that approximately 25 percent of U.S. poultry facilities use biological treatment systems
consisting of an anaerobic lagoon followed by an activated sludge system.
8.3.1 Anaerobic Treatment
Anaerobic wastewater treatment processes use the microbially-mediated reduction of
complex organic compounds to methane and carbon dioxide as the mechanism for organic matter
and BOD reduction. Because methane and carbon dioxide are essentially insoluble in water, both
desorb rapidly. This combination of gases, predominantly methane, is commonly referred to as
biogas and may be released directly to the atmosphere, collected and flared, or used as a boiler
fuel (Clanton, 1997). EPA (1997) provides estimates of the emission factors (e.g., gram-
CH4/head of cattle) for these gases. The BOD removal efficiency by anaerobic treatment can be
very high. Anaerobic wastewater treatment processes are more sensitive to temperature and
loading rate changes than those of aerobic wastewater treatment processes.
8-10
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
The production of biogas generally occurs as a two-step process. In the first step, complex
organic compounds are reduced microbially to simpler compounds, including hydrogen, short-
chained volatile acids, alcohols, and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is generated from the
reduction of compounds containing oxygen. A wide variety of facultative and anaerobic
microorganisms are responsible for these transformations that occur to obtain energy for
maintenance, growth, and nutrients, including carbon for cell synthesis (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991;
Nielsen, 1996; Peavy, 1986).
In the second step, the short-chained volatile acids, and alcohols are reduced further to
methane and carbon dioxide by a group of obligate anaerobic microorganisms referred to
collectively as methanogens. This group of microorganisms includes a number of species of
methane-forming bacteria with growth rates significantly lower than the facultative and anaerobic
microorganisms responsible for the initial reduction of complex compounds into the substrates
that are reduced to methane. The biogas produced by the microbial activity typically contains
between 30 and 40 percent carbon dioxide and between 60 and 70 percent methane with trace
amounts of hydrogen sulfide and other gases (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Nielsen, 1996; Peavy,
1986; Clanton 1997).
Due to negligible energy requirements, anaerobic wastewater treatment processes are
particularly attractive for the treatment of high strength wastewaters such as MPP wastewaters.
Even though anaerobic processes are not capable of producing dischargeable effluents, they can
significantly reduce energy requirements for subsequent aerobic treatment to produce
dischargeable effluents (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Nielsen, 1996; Peavy, 1986; Clanton 1997).
Anaerobic treatment can also digest organic solid fractions of animal by-products from
slaughterhouse facilities (Banks, 1994; Banks and Wang, 1999).
According to the MPP detailed survey, anaerobic lagoons are the most commonly used
anaerobic unit process for treatment of MPP wastewaters. In addition to secondary treatment,
anaerobic lagoons provide flow equalization. As noted above, MPP operations normally occur on
a 5-day per week schedule, and lagoons reduce variation in daily flows to subsequent secondary
and tertiary treatment processes. However, high rate anaerobic processes have continued to
8-11
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
attract attention as alternatives to anaerobic lagoons. Included are the anaerobic contact (AC), up-
flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), and anaerobic filter processes (AF) (Johns, 1995). These
alternatives are especially appealing in situations where land for lagoon construction or
expansion is not available.
8.3.1.1 Anaerobic Lagoons
A typical anaerobic lagoon is relatively deep, between 10 and 17 feet (3 to 5 meters) with
a detention time of 5 to 10 days. Many treatment systems comprise of at least two lagoons in
parallel or series; typical loading rates are between 15 to 20 pounds BOD5 per 1,000 per cubic
feet. The influent wastewater flow is usually near the bottom of the lagoon and has a pH between
7.0 and 8.5. Anaerobic lagoons are not mixed, although some gas mixing occurs. A scum usually
develops at the surface, serving several purposes: retarding heat loss, ensuring anaerobic
conditions, and reducing emissions of odorous compounds (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
Depending on the operating conditions, the BOD reductions by anaerobic lagoons can vary
widely. Reductions up to 97 percent in BOD5, up to 95 percent of suspended solids, and up to 96
percent of COD from the influent have been reported (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975, John,
1995).
Wastewater organic carbon anaerobic degradation products emitted from anaerobic
lagoons include methane and carbon dioxide. Also, ammonium and hydrogen sulfide are
produced from the degradation of sulfur and nitrogen containing compounds found in meat
products wastewater. Ammonium can be converted to ammonia in wastewater. The pH of the
wastewater determines what emissions are produced in the anaerobic lagoons. A pH of 8 or
greater causes more ammonia to be emitted while a pH of 6 or lower produces more hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide emissions (Zhang, 2001).
Because odors emitted from anaerobic lagoons can be quite offensive, much effort has
been put into maintaining oil and grease caps or developing covers for these ponds. Many
operators maintain a cap of oil and grease on the anaerobic lagoons or anaerobic equalization
tanks to reduce odors and inhibit oxygen transfer (i.e., promoting anaerobic conditions). This oil
and grease cap can be broken up and made ineffective with the influx of storm water or other
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
highly variable flows to the anaerobic lagoons or anaerobic equalization tanks. Synthetic floating
or biogas-inflated covers are used to prevent odors from escaping the lagoons, while
simultaneously trapping biogas for collection and use as a fuel source. Covering lagoons also
reduces heat losses with the result of higher microbial reaction rates. Surface area loading rates
can thus be increased and lagoon volume can be reduced (Morris et al., 1998).
8.3.1.2 Alternate Anaerobic Treatment Technologies
Anaerobic Contact Systems
Anaerobic contact systems are very similar to the activated sludge process in concept.
Mixed liquor solids from the completely mixed anaerobic reactor vessel are separated in a
clarifier and returned to the reactor to maintain a high concentration of biomass (Stebor et al.,
1990). The high biomass enables the system to maintains a long solids residence time (SRT) at a
relatively short hydraulic retention time (HRT). The completely mixed, sealed reactors are
normally heated to maintain a temperature of 35 °C (95 °F).
To provide a relatively short HRT, influent wastewater is mixed with solids removed
from the effluent, usually by gravitational settling. Because of the low growth rates of anaerobic
microorganisms, as much as 90 percent of the effluent solids may be recycled to maintain an
adequate solids residence time. A degasifier that vents methane and carbon dioxide is usually
included to minimize floating solids in the separation step (Eckenfelder, 1989). BOD loadings
and HRTs range from 2.4 to 3.2 kg/m3 and from 3 to 12 hours, respectively (USEPA, 1974).
Anaerobic contact systems are not common because of high capital cost. Nonetheless, these
systems have several advantages over anaerobic lagoons, including the ability to reduce odor
problems and reduced land requirements. Biogas produced may be used to maintain reactor
temperature.
Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge-Blanket (UASB)
The UASB is another anaerobic wastewater treatment process. Influent wastewater flows
upward through a sludge blanket of biologically formed granules, with treatment occurring when
the wastewater comes in contact with the granules. The methane and carbon dioxide produced
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
generate internal circulation and serve to maintain the floating sludge blanket. Biogas collection
in a gas collection dome occurs above the floating sludge blanket. Particles attached to gas
bubbles that rise to the surface of the sludge blanket strike the bottom of degassing baffles, and
the degassed particles drop down to the surface of the sludge blanket (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Residual solids and granules in the effluent are separated using gravity settling and returned to
the sludge blanket. Settling may occur within the reactor or in a separate settling unit. Critical to
this operation is the formation and maintenance of granules. Calcium has been used to promote
granulation and iron to reduce unwanted filamentous growth (Eckenfelder, 1989).
The application of the UASB process to MPP wastewater has been a less successful
endeavor, thus far, compared to other anaerobic processes. For example in treating a
slaughterhouse wastewater, it was difficult to generate the sludge granules, thereby significantly
lowering the level of BOD removal. High fat concentrations led to the loss of sludge (Johns,
1995).
Anaerobic Filters (AF)
The AF is a column filled with various types of media operating as an attached growth or
fixed film reactor. Wastewater flows upward through the column. Because the microbial
population is primarily attached to the media, mean cell residence times on the order of 100 days
are possible. Thus, it provides an ability to treat very high strength wastewaters with COD
concentrations as high as 20,000 mg/L as well as resistance to shock loads. Several studies have
shown that AFs operated at short hydraulic retention times can greatly reduce the organic content
of process wastewater (Harper et al., 1999). Most development work on the AF has involved
high-strength industrial and food-processing wastewaters.
For the MPP industry, removals of COD are reported from 80 to 85 percent when COD
loadings are 2 to 3 kg/m3/day. When loadings are higher, performance suffers. Gas tends to have
a relatively high methane content (72 to 85 percent). One facility reported BOD concentrations
below 500 mg/L, at 33°C, with a COD loading of 2 to 3 kg/m3/day. It is important to have
effective pretreatment to remove oil and grease and suspended solids, as a high oil and grease
concentration can cause unstable operation of the system (Harper et al., 1999; Johns, 1995).
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Based on pilot-scale experiments, anaerobic-packed bed treatment has proven to be an effective
alternative to DAF for pretreatment of poultry processing wastewater (Harper et al., 1999).
Anaerobic Sequence Batch Reactor (ASBR)
The ASBR is a variation of the anaerobic contact process that eliminates the need for
complete mixing. This treatment is particularly applicable for MPP wastewaters, because high
protein concentrations eliminate the need for supplemental alkalinity. In addition, ASBR easily
addresses high levels of solids that are typically found in MPP wastewaters. One study that used
an ASBR system on process wastewater achieved BOD5 removals ranging from 37 to 77 percent
and COD removals ranging from 27 to 63 percent. The resulting biogas was 73 to 81 percent
methane, although the high concentration of hydrogen sulfide (-1,800 ppm) in the biogas may
make at least partial removal of hydrogen sulfide prior to use as a fuel (Morris et al., 1998 ).
8.3.2 Aerobic Treatment
In the treatment of MPP wastewaters, aerobic treatment may directly follow primary
treatment, or more typically follow some form of anaerobic treatment to reduce BOD and
suspended solids concentrations to levels required for discharge. Reduction of ammonia also is a
typical role of aerobic processes in the treatment of MPP wastewaters. Many NPDES permits are
written with seasonal limits for ammonia, because the lower pH and lower temperature of the
receiving waters during winter reduce the toxicity of ammonia by converting it to ammonium
(Ohio EPA, 1999). Advantages of using aerobic wastewater treatment processes include low
odor production, fast biological growth rate, no elevated operation temperature requirements; and
quick adjustments to temperature and loading rate changes. However, the operating costs of
aerobic systems are higher than the costs of anaerobic systems for processing livestock
wastewater, because of the relatively high space, maintenance, management, and energy required
for artificial oxygenation. The microorganisms involved in aerobic treatment process require free
dissolved oxygen to reduce the biomass in the wastewater (Clanton, 1997).
Aerobic wastewater treatment processes can be broadly divided into suspended and
attached growth processes. Aerobic lagoons and various forms of activated sludge process like
8-15
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
conventional, extended aeration, oxidation ditches, and sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) are
examples of suspended growth processes; trickling filters and rotating biological contactors
(RBCs) are examples of attached growth processes. Both utilize a diverse population of
heterotrophic microorganisms using molecular oxygen in the process of obtaining energy for cell
maintenance and growth (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Aerobic wastewater treatment processes have the primary objective of transforming
soluble and colloidal organic compounds into microbial biomass, with subsequent removal of the
biomass formed by settling or mechanical separation as the primary mechanism for organic
matter and BOD removal. Some oxidation of organic carbon to carbon dioxide also occurs to
provide energy for cell maintenance and growth. The degree of carbon oxidation depends on the
solids retention time (SRT), also referred to as the mean cell residence time of the process, which
determines the age of the microbial population. Processes with long SRTs operate in the
endogenous respiration phase of the microbial growth curve and generate less settleable solids
per unit BOD removed. Attached growth processes generally operate at long SRTs (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1991).
At SRTs sufficiently long to maintain an active population of nitrifying bacteria,
oxidation of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen (nitrification) also occurs. However, the rates
of growth of the autotrophic bacteria responsible for nitrification, Nitrosomas and Nitrobacter,
are substantially slower than the growth rates of the microorganisms responsible for BOD
reduction (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Therefore, the amount of nitrification during aerobic
treatment will depend on the type of treatment system used and its operating conditions.
8.3.2.1 Activated Sludge
The activated sludge process (see Figure 8-3) is one of the most commonly used
biological wastewater treatment processes in the United States (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
According to the MPP detailed survey, various forms of activated sludge process used in the
8-16
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Primary
Sedimentation
Secondary
Sedimentation
Raw
Waste
Effluent
Sludge
Sludge
Figure 8-3. Activated Sludge Process (USEPA, 1974).
MPP industry include conventional, complete mix, extended aeration, oxidation ditch, and
sequencing batch reactor. Other forms of activated sludge include tapered aeration, step-feed
aeration, modified aeration, contact stabilization, Kraus process, and high-purity oxygen. All of
these forms share the common characteristics of short HRTs, usually no more than several hours,
and SRTs on the order of 5 to 15 days. This differential is maintained by continually recycling a
fraction of the settleable solids separated after aeration by clarification back to the aeration basin.
These settled solids contain an active, adapted microbial population and are the source of the
term "activated sludge." The microbial population is comprised primarily of bacteria and
protozoa, which aggregate to form floes.
Floe formation is a critical factor in determining the efficacy of settling after aeration,
which is the primary mechanism of BOD and suspended solids reduction. The fraction of
activated sludge returned, known as the recycle ratio, determines the SRT of the process and
serves the basis for controlling process performance. Typically, about 20 percent of the settled
solids are recycled to maintain the desired concentration of mixed liquor suspended solids
(MLSS). The remaining sludge is removed from the system and may be stabilized using aerobic
or anaerobic digestion or by chemical addition (lime stabilization), which may be followed by
dewatering by filtration or centrifugation (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
The activated sludge process is capable of 95 percent reductions in BOD5 and suspended
solids (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). In addition, reductions in ammonia nitrogen in excess of
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
95 percent are possible at temperatures above 10°C and dissolved oxygen concentrations above 2
mg/L (Johns, 1995). Performance depends on maintaining an adequate SRT and mixed liquor
suspended solids with good settling characteristics, which depends on floe formation. Excessive
growth of filamentous organisms can impair activated sludge settleability. Excessive mixing can
lead to the formation of pin floes, which also have poor settling characteristics. Diffused air used
for achieving the required aeration and mechanical systems used for obtaining necessary mixing
result in significant energy use (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Conventional
In the conventional activated sludge process, the aeration tank is a plug flow reactor. Plug
flow regime may be made with baffles in aeration tanks. Settled wastewater and recycled
activated sludge enter the head end of the aeration tank and are mixed by diffused-air or
mechanical aeration. Air application is generally uniform throughout tank length. During the
aeration period, adsorption, flocculation, and oxidation of organic matter occurs. Activated-
sludge solids are separated in a secondary settling tank (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Complete-mix
Complete mix activated sludge process uses a complete mix tank as an aeration basin.
The process is an application of the flow regime of a continuous-flow stirred tank reactor. Settled
wastewater and recycled activated sludge are introduced typically at several at several points in
the aeration tank. The organic load on the aeration tank and the oxygen demand are uniform
throughout the tank length (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Extended Aeration
Extended aeration is another variant of the activated sludge process. The principal
difference between extended aeration and the other variants of the activated sludge process is that
extended aeration operates in the endogenous respiration phase of the microbial growth curve.
Thus, lower organic loading rates and longer HRTs are required. Because of longer HRTs,
typically 18 to 36 hours, extended aeration has the ability to absorb shock loads. Other
advantages include its generation of less excess solids from endogenous respiration and greater
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
overall process stability (USEPA, 1974). However, poor settling characteristics of aeration basin
effluent is a frequently encountered problem with extended aeration. Generally, extended
aeration treatment facilities are prefabricated package unit operations used for treating relatively
low volume wastewater flows for small communities (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Extended
aeration can be designed to provide high degree of nitrification.
Oxidation Ditches
An oxidation ditch system represents a modification of the activated sludge process in
terms of its reactor configuration. The oxidation ditch consists of a ring- or oval-shaped channel
and is equipped with mechanical aeration devices (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Aerators in the form
of brush rotors, disc aerators, surface aerators, draft tune aerators, or fine pore diffusers with
submersible pumps provide oxygen transfer, mixing and circulation in the oxidation ditch.
Wastewater enters the ditch, is aerated, and circulates at about 0.8 to 1.2 ft/s. Oxidation ditches
typically operate in an extended aeration mode with HRT greater than 10 hours and SRT of 10 to
50 days (USEPA, 1993). Oxidation ditches provide high removal of BOD and can be designed
for nitrification and nitrogen and phosphorous removal (Sen et al., 1990).
Sequencing Batch Reactor
The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a fill-and-draw type reactor system using one or
more complete mix tanks in which all steps of activated sludge process occur. SBR systems have
four basic periods: Fill (the receiving of raw wastewater), React (the time to complete desired
reaction), Settle (the time to separate the microorganisms from treated effluent), and Idle (the
time after discharging the tank and before refilling). However, these periods may be modified or
eliminated depending on effluent requirements. The time for a complete cycle is the total time
between the beginning of Fell and the end of Idle (Martin and Martin, 1991). SBR systems
provides high removal of BOD and suspended solids. In addition, SBR systems can be designed
for nitrification and to remove nitrogen and phosphorous. Lo and Liao (1990) report that SBR
technology can be used successfully in the treatment of poultry processing wastewaters for the
removal of BOD5 and nitrogen. SBR offers the advantages of operational and loading flexibility,
8-19
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
high removal efficiency, competitive capital costs, and reduced operator maintenance (Glenn et
al., 1990).
8.3.2.2 Lagoons
Lagoons are widely used in the treatment of MPP wastewater. They are comparatively
cheaper than other treatment processes, although they require larger land area. Lagoons can be
anaerobic, aerobic, aerated, or facultative. Anaerobic lagoons are discussed in Section 8.3.1.1.
Other types of lagoons are discussed in this section.
Aerobic lagoons
Aerobic lagoons, which are also known as aerobic stabilization ponds, are large shallow
earthen basins that use algae in combination with other microorganisms for wastewater
treatment. Low-rate ponds, which are designed to maintain aerobic conditions throughout the
liquid column, may be up to five feet deep. High-rate ponds are usually shallower, with a
maximum depth of no greater than 1.5 feet. They are designed to optimize the production of
algal biomass as a mechanism for nutrient removal. In aerobic stabilization ponds, oxygen is
supplied by a combination of natural surface aeration and photosynthesis. In the symbiotic
relationship between the algae and other microorganisms present, the oxygen released by the
algae during photosynthesis is used by the non photosynthetic microorganisms present in the
aerobic degradation of organic matter, while the nutrients and carbon dioxide released by the
nonphotosynthetic microorganisms are used by the algae (Martin and Martin, 1991).
Loading rates of aerobic stabilization ponds are in the range of 10 to 300 pounds of BOD
per acre per day with an HRT of 3 to 10 days. Soluble BOD5 reductions of up to 95 percent are
possible with aerobic stabilization ponds (Martin and Martin, 1991). Aerobic stabilization ponds
may be operated in parallel or series. To maximize performance, intermittent mixing is
necessary. Without supplemental aeration, dissolved oxygen concentrations will vary from super
saturation due to photosynthesis during day light hours, to values at or approaching zero at night,
especially with high-rate ponds. Also, settled solids will create an anaerobic zone at the bottom
8-20
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
of the pond (Reynolds, 1982). Thus, nitrogen removal is achieved by the combined processes of
nitrification and denitrification.
The low cost of aerobic stabilization ponds is offset, especially in colder climates, by
seasonal variation in performance. In winter, limited sunlight due to shorter day length and cloud
cover limits photosynthetic activity and oxygen release, as well as algae growth. In addition, ice
cover limits natural surface aeration. Thus, aerobic stabilization ponds in colder climates may
become anaerobic lagoons in winter months with a concurrent deterioration in effluent quality
and a source of noxious odors in the following spring before predominately aerobic conditions
become reestablished (Martin and Martin, 1991). Scaief (1975), however, reports no difference
in overall treatment efficiency across all seasons for anaerobic-aerobic lagoon systems or
anaerobic contact process followed by aerobic lagoons.
Aerated Lagoons
Aerated lagoons are earthen basins used in place of concrete or steel tanks for suspended
growth biological treatment of wastewater. Aerated lagoons typically are about 8 feet (2.4 m)
deep, but can be as much as 15 feet (4.6 m) deep and may be lined to prevent seepage of
wastewater to ground water. Although diffused air systems are used for aeration and mixing,
fixed and floating mechanical aerators are more common.
Natural aeration occurs in diffused air systems by air diffusion at the water surface by
wind- or thermal-induced mixing and by photosynthesis. Algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green
algae) are the microorganisms responsible most of the photosynthetic activity in a naturally-
aerated lagoon. Naturally aerated lagoons are approximately 1 to 2 feet deep, so that sunlight can
penetrate the full lagoon depth to maintain photosynthetic activity throughout the day.
Mechanically aerated lagoons do not have a depth requirement, because oxygen is supplied
artificially instead of by algal photosynthesis (Zhang, 2001).
Aerated lagoons can be operated as activated sludge units with the recycle of settled
solids with relatively short HRTs, or as complete mix systems without settled solids recycle.
Systems operated as activated sludge units have a conventional clarifier for recovery of settled
8-21
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
solids for recycle. Aerated lagoons operated as complete mix systems without solids recycle may
use a large, shallow earthen basin in place of a more conventional clarifier for removal of
suspended solids. Typically, these basins also are used for the storage and stabilization of the
settled solids. Usually a detention time of no less than 6 to 12 hours is required.
One of the principal advantages of aerated lagoons is relatively low capital cost.
However, more land is required. With earthen settling basins, algae growth and odors can be
problems, along with consistent effluent quality.
Facultative Lagoons
The facultative lagoons are deeper than aerobic lagoons, varying in depth from 5 to 8 ft.
Waste is treated by bacterial action occurring in an upper aerobic layer, a facultative middle
layer, and a lower anaerobic layer. Aerobic bacteria degrade the waste in the upper layer, where
oxygen is provided by natural surface aeration and algal photosynthesis. Settleable solids are
deposited on the lagoon bottom and degraded by anaerobic bacteria. The facultative bacteria in
the middle layer degrade the waste aerobically, whenever dissolved oxygen is present and
anaerobically otherwise. The facultative lagoons have more depth and smaller surface areas
aerated or aerobic lagoons but still have good odor control capabilities, because of the presence
of the upper aerobic layer, where odorous compounds such as sulfides produced by anaerobic
degradation in the lower layer, are oxidized before emission into the atmosphere. Biochemical
reactions in the facultative lagoons are a combination of aerobic and anaerobic degradation
reactions (Zhang, 2001).
8.3.2.3 Alternate Aerobic Treatment Technologies
Trickling Filters
A trickling filter consists of a bed of highly permeable media to which a microbial flora
becomes attached, a distribution system to spread wastewater uniformly over the bed surface, and
an under-drain system for collection of the treated wastewater and any microbial solids that have
become detached from the media. As the wastewater percolates or trickles down through the
media bed, the organic material present is absorbed onto the film or slime layer of attached
8^22
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
microorganisms. Within 0.1 to 0.2 mm of the surface of the slime layer, the organic matter
absorbed is metabolized aerobically, providing energy and nutrients for cell maintenance and
growth. As cell growth occurs, the thickness of the slime layer increases and oxygen diffusing
into the slime layer is consumed before penetration to the media surface occurs and anaerobic
conditions develop near the media surface. In addition, organic matter and nutrients necessary for
cell maintenance and growth are lacking due to utilization near the surface of the slime layer.
Thus, endogenous conditions develop near the media surface and detachment occurs from
hydraulic shear forces as the microorganisms at and near the media surface die. This process is
known as "sloughing" and may be a periodic or continual process depending on organic and
hydraulic loading rates. Hydraulic loading rate usually is adjusted to maintain continual
sloughing and a constant slime layer thickness (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
The biological community in the trickling filter process includes aerobic, facultative, and
anaerobic bacteria, fungi, and protozoans. The aerobic microbial population may include the
nitrifying bacteria Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter. It also may include algae and higher organisms
such as worms, insect larvae, and snails, unlike activated sludge processes. Variations in these
biological communities occur according to individual filter and operating conditions (Metcalf
and Eddy, 1991).
Trickling filters have been classified as low-rate, intermediate-rate, high-rate, super high-
rate, roughing, and two-stage, based on filter medium, hydraulic and BOD5 loading rates,
recirculation ratio, and depth (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Hydraulic loading rates range from 0.02
to 0.06 gallon per ft2-day for low-rate filters to 0.8 to 3.2 gallon per ft2-day for roughing filters.
Organic loading rates range from 5 to 25 pounds BOD5 per 103 ft2-day to 100 to 500 pounds
BOD5 per 103 ft2-day. Both low-rate and two-stage trickling filters can produce a nitrified effluent
while roughing filters provide no nitrification. Others may provide some degree of nitrification.
Low-rate and intermediate-rate trickling filters traditionally have used rock or blast furnace slag
as filter media while high-rate filters only employ rock. Super high-rate filters use plastic media,
while roughing filters may be constructed using either plastic or redwood media; two-stage filters
may use plastic or rock media (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
8-23
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Trickling filters are secondary wastewater treatment unit processes and require primary
treatment for removal of settleable solids and oil and grease to reduce the organic load and
prevent plugging. Secondary clarification also is necessary. Lower energy requirements make
trickling filters attractive alternatives to activated sludge processes. However, mass-transfer
limitations limit the ability of trickling filters to treat high strength wastewaters. To successfully
treat such wastewaters, a two- or three-stage system is necessary. When staging of filters is used,
a clarifier usually follows each stage. The overall BOD5 removal efficiency of can be as great as
95 percent (USEPA, 1974).
Rotating Biological Contactors
Rotating biological contactors (RBCs) also employ an attached film or slime layer of
microorganisms to adsorb and metabolize wastewater organic matter, providing energy and
nutrients for cell maintenance and growth. RBCs consist of a series of closely spaced circular
disks of polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride mounted on a longitudinal shaft. The disks are rotated
alternately, exposing the attached microbial mass to the wastewater being treated for adsorption
of organic matter and nutrients and then the atmosphere for adsorption of oxygen. The rate of
rotation controls oxygen diffusion into the attached microbial film and provides the sheer force
necessary for continual biomass sloughing (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Mass transfer limitations
limit the ability of RBCs to treat high strength wastewaters, such as MPP wastewaters. RBCs can
be operated in series like multi-stage trickling filter systems, a tapered feed arrangement is
possible. An example of such an arrangement would be three RBCs in parallel in stage one,
followed by two RBCs in parallel in stage two, and one RBC in stage three.
As with trickling filters, hydraulic and organic loading rates are criteria used for design.
Design values may be derived from pilot plant or full-scale performance evaluations or using the
theoretical or empirical approaches (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Typical hydraulic and organic
loading rate design values for secondary treatment are 2 to 4 gallon/ft2-day and 2.0 to 3.5 pounds
total BOD5/103 ft2-day, respectively with effluent BOD5 concentrations ranging from 15 to
30 mg/L. For secondary treatment combined with nitrification, typical hydraulic and organic
loading rate design values for are 0.75 to 2 gallon/ft2-day and 1.5 to 3.0 pounds BOD5/103 ft2-day,
8-24
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
respectively producing effluent BOD5 concentrations between 7 and 15 mg/L and NH3
concentrations of less than 2 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
The major advantages of RBCs are: (1) relatively low installation cost, (2) ability to
combine secondary treatment with ammonia removal by nitrification, especially in multi-stage
systems, and (3) resistance to shock loads. The major disadvantage is the need to enclose them,
especially in cold climates to maintain high removal efficiencies, control odors, and minimize
problems with temperature sensitivities (USEPA, 1974). Early RBC units experienced operating
problems, including shaft and bearing failures, disk breakage, and odors. Design modifications
have been made to address these problems, including increased submergence to reduce shaft and
bearing loads (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Although RBCs are used in both the United States and Canada for secondary treatment of
domestic wastewaters, use for secondary treatment of high strength industrial wastewaters such
as MPP wastewaters has been limited. Energy requirements associated with activated sludge
processes may make RBCs more attractive for treating MPP wastewaters, especially following
physical/chemical and anaerobic pretreatment. A BOD5 reduction of 98 percent is achievable
with a four-stage RBC (USEPA, 1974).
8.4 TERTIARY TREATMENT
Tertiary or advanced wastewater treatment generally is considered to be any treatment
beyond conventional secondary treatment to remove suspended or dissolved substances. Tertiary
wastewater treatment can have one or several objectives. One common objective is further
reduction in suspended solids concentration after secondary clarification. Nitrogen and
phosphorus removal also are common tertiary wastewaters treatment objectives. Existing
wastewater treatment plants may be retrofit without the addition of new tanks or lagoons to
incorporate biological nutrient removal (Randall et al., 1999). In addition, tertiary wastewater
treatment may be used to remove soluble refractory, toxic, and dissolved inorganic substances. In
the treatment of MPP wastewaters, tertiary wastewater treatment most commonly is used for
further reductions in nutrients and suspended solids.
8-25
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
8.4.1 Nutrient Removal
In primary and secondary wastewater treatment processes, some reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus occurs by the separation of particulate matter during settling or cell synthesis.
However, limited assimilative capacity of receiving waters may require additional reductions in
nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations before discharge. Both biological and physicochemical
unit processes can be used to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous concentration in wastewater.
Biological processes are generally more cost effective than physicochemical processes.
Moreover, retrofit existing secondary treatment systems for biological nutrient removal may lead
to reduced costs given their lower requirements for energy use and chemical addition (Randall
and Mitta, 1998; Randall et al., 1999).
8.4.1.1 Nitrogen Removal
The removal of nitrogen from wastewaters biologically is a two-step process, beginning
with nitrification and followed by denitrification. Nitrification, a microbially-mediated process,
also is a two-step process, beginning with the oxidation of ammonia to nitrite and followed by
the oxidation of nitrite to nitrate. Bacteria of the genus Nitrosomonas are responsible for the
oxidation of ammonia to nitrite; bacteria of the genus Nitrobacter are responsible for the
subsequent oxidation of nitrite to nitrate (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Following the nitrification process under anaerobic conditions, nitrite and nitrate are
reduced microbially by denitrification producing nitrogen gas as the principal end product. Small
amounts of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide also may be produced, depending on environmental
conditions. Because nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and nitric oxide are essentially insoluble in water,
desorption occurs immediately. Although nitrification can occur in combination with secondary
biological treatment, denitrification generally is a separate unit process following secondary
clarification. Because the facultative and anaerobic microorganisms responsible for
denitrification are heterotrophs, denitrification after secondary clarification requires the addition
of a source of organic carbon for cell maintenance and growth. Methanol probably is the most
commonly added source of organic carbon for denitrification, although raw wastewater (by-
8-26
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
passed to the denitrification treatment tank), biosolids, and a variety of other substances also can
be used (USEPA, 1993, Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
The chemical transformations that occur during nitrification and denitrification are
outlined below (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991):
Nitrification:
NH4+ + 1.5 O2 > NO2- + 2H+ + H2O (Nitrosomonas)
NO2- + 0.5 O2 > 2NO3- (Nitrobacter)
Denitrification (using methanol as carbon source):
NO3- + 1.08 CH3OH + H+ > 0.065 C5H7O2N + 0.47 N2 + 0.76 CO2 + 3 + 2.44 H2O
Nitrification unit processes can be classified based on the degree of separation of the
oxidation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous compounds respectively to carbon dioxide and nitrate
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Combined carbon oxidation and nitrification can be achieved in all
suspended growth secondary wastewater treatment processes and with all attached growth
processes except roughing filters. Carbon oxidation and nitrification processes may also be
separated, with carbon oxidation occurring first, using both suspended and attached growth
processes in a variety of combinations. Both suspended and attached growth processes are used
for denitrification, following combined carbon oxidation and nitrification.
Nitrification and denitrification can be combined in a single process. With this approach,
wastewater organic matter serves as the source of organic carbon for denitrification. Thus, the
cost of adding a supplemental source of organic carbon and providing re-aeration after
denitrification is eliminated. Also eliminated is the need for intermediate clarifiers and return
sludge systems. The proprietary four-stage Bardenpho process (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991) is a
combined nitrification-denitrification process using both organic carbon in untreated wastewater
and organic carbon released during endogenous respiration for denitrification. Separate aerobic
and anoxic zones provide for nitrification and then denitrification.
8-27
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Other processes include the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process, A2/O, University
of Capetown (UCT) (USEPA, 1993). The A2/O, and University of Capetown (UCT) process was
developed to remove both nitrogen and phosphorous. Sequencing batch reactors (SBR) can also
be used to achieve nitrification and denitrification (USEPA, 1993). Biological nitrogen and
phosphorus removals can be enhanced in oxidation ditch systems by controlling aeration to
maintain reliable aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic volumes. For example, a BNR oxidation ditch
process developed by Virginia Tech for retro-fitting a domestic wastewater treatment facility was
capable of: (1) maintaining less than 0.5 mg/L total phosphorus and between 3 and 4 mg/L for
total nitrogen in the discharged effluent all year round and (2) significantly reducing operational
costs by reducing electrical energy, aeration, and chemical addition (Sen et al., 1990).
Nitrification is easily inhibited by a number of factors including toxic organic and
inorganic compounds, pH, and temperature. In poorly buffered systems, the hydrogen ions
released when ammonia is oxidized to nitrite/nitrate can reduce pH to an inhibitory level without
the addition of a buffering agent.
A pH of at least 7.2 is generally recognized as necessary to maintain a maximum rate of
nitrification (Grady and Lim, 1980). Based on the following theoretical stoichiometric
relationships for the growth of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, the alkalinity (HCO3~) utilized is
8.64 mg HCO3" per mg of ammonia nitrogen oxidized to nitrate nitrogen. For Nitrosomonas, the
equation is:
55 NH4+ + 76 O2 + 109 HCO3 -> C5H7O2N + 54 NO2 + 57 H2O + 104 H2CO3
For Nitrobacter, the equation is:
400 NO,' + NH4+ + 4 H2CO3 + HCO3 + 195 O2 -» C5H7O2N + 3 H2O + 400 NO3
As noted above, one of the advantages of using wastewater organic matter as the source
of organic carbon for denitrification is the elimination of the cost of an organic carbon source
such as methanol. A second advantage is elimination of the need to add a source of bicarbonate
alkalinity in poorly buffered systems to compensate for the utilization of alkalinity resulting from
8-28
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
nitrification and the associated reduction in pH. As shown in the overall energy reaction for
nitrification, two hydrogen ions are released for every ammonium ion oxidized to nitrate.
NH4+ + 2 O2 -» NO3 2 H+ H2O
However, denitrification releases one hydroxyl ion for each nitrate ion reduced to
nitrogen gas, as shown in the following overall energy reaction for denitrification using methanol
as the source of organic carbon.
6 NO3- + 5 CH3OH -» 5 CO2 + 3 N2 + 7 H2O + 6 OH
In addition, hydrogen ions are required for cell synthesis during denitrification, as shown
by the following relationship:
3 NO3 + 14 CH3OH + CO2 + 3 H+ -» 3 C5H7O2N + H2O
Therefore, using wastewater organic matter as the source of organic carbon for
denitrification in a combined nitrification denitrification system generally eliminates the need for
adding a source of alkalinity to prevent pH inhibition of nitrification. Very poorly buffered
systems are the exception.
Using wastewater organic matter as the source of organic carbon for denitrification also
reduces aeration requirements for BOD removal in suspended growth systems. Based on half
reactions for electron acceptors, 1/5 mole of NO3" is equivalent to 1/4 mole of O2. Therefore,
each unit mass of NO3" - N is equivalent to 2.86 units of O2 in its ability to oxidize organic
matter, if cell synthesis is ignored. However, some organic matter must be converted into
cellular material and is not completely oxidized. It does, however, represent the removal of BOD
through removal of excess suspended solids and an additional reduction in aeration requirements
for BOD removal. Therefore, the actual reduction in BOD realized by using wastewater organic
matter as the source of organic carbon for denitrification is marginally higher that 2.86 mass units
of BOD per unit NO3" - N denitrified. The magnitude of this marginal increase depends on the
SRT in the denitrification reactor with the magnitude decreasing as SRT increases. Assuming a
8-29
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
SRT of 7.5 days, a ratio of BOD5 in wastewater used as an organic carbon source for
denitrification to NO3" - N of 3.5 should provide for essentially complete denitrification.
An added positive consequence of using wastewater organic matter as the source of
organic carbon for denitrification is that sludge production per unit BOD removed is lower,
because denitrification is an anoxic process occurring under anaerobic conditions. Typical cell
yield under anaerobic conditions is 0.05 mg volatile suspended solids (VSS) per mg BOD
removed versus 0.6 mg VSS per mg BOD removed under aerobic conditions (Metcalf and Eddy,
1991).
Both Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are autotrophic mesophilic microorganisms with
relatively low growth rates in comparison to heterotrophs, even under optimal conditions. Thus,
maintaining an actively nitrifying microbial population may become harder and require
excessively long SRTs in cold weather (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; USEPA, 1993).
8.4.1.2 Phosphorus Removal
To achieve low effluent discharge limits, phosphorous may be removed from wastewater
biologically and/or by physicochemical methods. Biological treatment is cheaper than
physicochemical methods and is particularly suitable for facilities with high flows.
Biological Treatment
Microorganisms used in secondary wastewater treatment require phosphorus for cell
synthesis and energy transport. In the treatment of typical domestic wastewater, between 10 and
30 percent of influent phosphorus is removed by microbial assimilation, followed by clarification
or filtration. However, phosphorus assimilation in excess of requirements for cell maintenance
and growth, known as luxury uptake, can be induced by a sequence of anaerobic and aerobic
conditions (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Acinetobacter is one of the organisms primarily responsible for the luxury uptake of
phosphorus in wastewater treatment. In response to volatile fatty acids present under anaerobic
conditions, stored phosphorus is released. However, luxury uptake and storage for subsequent
8-30
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
use of phosphorus occurs when anaerobic conditions are followed by aerobic conditions. Thus,
removal of phosphorus by clarification or filtration following secondary treatment is increased,
because biosolids are already wasted (USEPA, 1987, Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy, 1998 ).
Currently, several proprietary processes use luxury uptake for removal of phosphorus
from wastewater during suspended growth secondary treatment. Included are the A/O, PhoStrip,
and Bardenpho processes. In addition, sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) can be operated to
remove phosphorus. In the PhoStrip process, phosphorus is stripped from the biosolids generated
using anaerobic conditions to stimulate release. The soluble phosphorus generated then is
precipitated using lime. Both the A/O and PhoStrip processes are capable of producing final
effluent total phosphorus concentrations of less than 2 mg/L. A modified version of the A/O
process, the A2/O process, along with the Bardnepho process and SBRs are capable of combined
biological removal of nitrogen and phosphorus (USEPA, 1987; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy,
1998 ).
Physicochemical Process
Phosphorus can be removed from wastewater by precipitation using metal salts or lime.
The metal salts most commonly used are aluminum sulfate (alum) and ferric chloride. However,
ferrous sulfate and ferrous chloride also can be used. Use of lime is less common due to
operating and maintenance problems associated with its use and the large volume of sludge
produced. Polymers often are used in conjunction with metal salts to improve the degree of
phosphorus removal. Ion exchange, discussed in Section 8.4.3.3, also is an option for phosphate
phosphorus removal, but is rarely used in wastewater treatment. (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Chemicals can be added to remove phosphorus in: (1) raw wastewater prior to primary
settling, (2) primary clarifier effluent, (3) mixed liquor with suspended growth treatment
processes, (4) effluent from biological treatment processes prior to secondary clarification, or
(5) after secondary clarification (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). In Option 1 (pre-precipitation),
precipitated phosphorus is removed with primary clarifier solids, whereas removal is with
secondary clarifier solids for Options 2 through 4 (co-precipitation). In Option 5, additional
clarification or filtering facilities are required. In the treatment of MPP wastewaters, the addition
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
of chemicals for phosphorus removal prior to dissolved air flotation is a possible option (Metcalf
and Eddy, 1991).
With alum addition, phosphorus is precipitated as aluminum phosphate (A1PO4), and
aluminum hydroxide (A1(OH)3). With the addition of ferric chloride, the chemical species
produced are ferric phosphate (FePO4) and ferric hydroxide (Fe[OH]3). Lime addition produces
calcium phosphate (Ca5[PO4]3[OH]), magnesium hydroxide (Mg[OH]2), and calcium carbonate
(CaCO3). In the case of alum and iron, one mole theoretically will precipitate one mole of
phosphate. However, competing reactions and the effects alkalinity, pH, trace elements, and
ligands found in wastewater make bench-scale or full-scale tests necessary to determine dosage
rates. Due to coagulation and flocculation, removal of suspended solids also occurs with the
precipitated phosphorus species. With the addition of aluminum and iron salts, the addition of a
base to maintain a pH in the range of 5 to 7 to optimize the efficacy of phosphorus precipitation
may be necessary depending on wastewater buffer capacity. (USEPA, 1987; Metcalf and Eddy,
1991;Reddy, 1998).
When lime is used, it usually is calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Due to reaction with
natural bicarbonate alkalinity forming CaCO3 as a precipitate, an increase to a pH of 10 or higher
is necessary for the formation of Ca5(PO4)3(OH). After lime is used to precipitate phosphorus,
recarbonation with carbon dioxide is necessary to lower pH (USEPA, 1987; Metcalf and Eddy,
1991; Reddy, 1998).
When chemical addition is used for phosphorus removal, additional benefits are realized.
Due to coagulation and flocculation, effluent BOD and suspended solids concentrations also are
reduced, especially when chemical addition occurs after secondary clarification (USEPA, 1987;
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy, 1998).
8.4.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal
Simple clarification after secondary wastewater treatment may not reduce the
concentration of suspended solids to the level necessary to comply with concentration or mass
discharge permit limits or both. Granular-medium filtration usually is used to achieve further
8-32
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
reductions in suspended solids concentrations. This practice also provides further reductions in
BOD. Filtration is a solid-liquid separation in which the liquid passes through a porous material
to remove as much fine material as possible (Reynolds, 1982).
Granular Medium Filters
Metcalf and Eddy (1991) lists nine different types of commonly used granular-medium
filters. They are classified as either semi-continuous or continuous, depending on whether back
washing is a batch or a semi continuous or continuous operation. Within each classification, there
are several different types, depending on bed depth, type of filtering medium, and stratification or
lack thereof of the filtering medium. Shallow, conventional, and deep bed filters respectively are
typically about 11 to 16, 30 to 36, and 72 inches in depth. Sand or anthracite is used singularly in
mono-medium filter beds. Dual-medium beds may be comprised of anthracite and sand, activated
carbon and sand, resin beads and sand, or resin beads and anthracite. In multi-medium beds some
combination of anthracites, sand, garnet or ilmenite, activated carbon, and resin beads are used.
In stratified filter beds, the effective size of the filter medium increases with the direction of
wastewater flow. Flow through the filter medium can be either accomplished by gravity alone
under pressure with the sometimes later described as rapid filters.
Several mechanisms are responsible for the removal of suspended solids in granular-
medium filters. Included are straining, sedimentation, impaction, and interception. Chemical
adsorption, physical adsorption, flocculation, and biological growth also may contribute to
suspended solids removal. (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
The operation of granular-medium filters has two phases, filtration and cleaning or re-
generation. The second phase, commonly called backwashing, involves the removal of captured
suspended solids when effluent suspended solids begin to increase or when head loss across the
filter bed reaches an acceptable maximum value. With semi-continuous filtration, filtration and
backwashing occur sequentially, while with continuous filtration, the filtration and backwashing
phases occur simultaneously. Usually backwashing is accomplished by reversing flow through
the filter medium with sufficient velocity to expand or fluidize the medium to dislodge and
transport accumulated suspended solids to the surface of the filter bed. Compressed air may be
8^33
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
used in conjunction with the backwashing water to enhance removal of accumulated suspended
solids. The backwashing water with the removed suspended solids typically is returned to a
primary clarifier or a secondary biological treatment process unit (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Filtration and backwashing occur simultaneously with continuous processes, and there is
no suspended solids breakthrough or terminal head loss value. One type of continuous filter is the
traveling bridge filter, which comprises a series of cells operated in parallel. Backwashing of
individual cells occurs sequentially, while the other cells continue to filter influent. Deep bed
filters, which are upflow filters, are continually backwashed by continually pumping sand from
the bottom of the filter through a sand washing located at the top of the filter with the clean sand
distributed on the top of the filter bed. Thus, sand flow is counter-current to the flow of the
wastewater being filtered (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Generally, all types of granular-medium
filter produce effluent with an average turbidity of two nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) or
less from high quality filter influent having turbidity of seven to nine NTUs. This level translates
into a suspended solids concentration of 16 to 23 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Lower quality
filter influent requires chemical addition to achieve an effluent turbidity of two NTUs or less.
Chemicals commonly used include a variety of organic polymers, alum, and ferric chloride. They
produce removal of specific contaminants, including phosphorous, metal ions, and humic
substances (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Problems with the use of granular-medium filtration include turbidity breakthrough with
semi-continuous filters, even though terminal head loss has not been reached. Problems with
both semi-continuous and continuous filters include: buildup of emulsified grease; loss of filter
medium, agglomeration of biological floe, dirt, and filter medium or media forming mud balls
and reducing the effectiveness of filtration and backwashing, and the development of cracks in
the filter bed (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
8-34
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
8.4.3 Alternate Tertiary Treatment Technologies
8.4.3.1 Nitrogen Removal
Besides the biological treatment discussed in Section 8.4.1.1, various physicochemical
processes are used for nitrogen removal. The principal physical and chemical processes used for
nitrogen removal are air stripping, breakpoint chlorination, and selective ion exchange. However,
all these technologies are reported to have limited use due to cost, inconsistent performance, and
operating and maintenance problems (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Johns, 1995). Air stripping and
breakpoint chlorination is discussed in this section, while ion exchange is discussed in Section
8.4.3.3. Note that these three technologies remove nitrogen when the nitrogen is in the form of
ammonia (air stripping, breakpoint chlorination, and ion exchange) or nitrate ions (ion
exchange). Since, raw meat-processing wastewater contains nitrogen primarily in organic form,
the technologies may require additional upstream treatment to convert the organic nitrogen into
ammonia and/or nitrate.
Air Stripping
Air stripping of ammonia is a physical process of transferring ammonia from wastewater
into air by injection of wastewater into air in a packed tower. To achieve a high degree of
ammonia reduction, elevation of wastewater pH to at least 10.5 usually by the addition of lime, is
necessary. The removal efficiencies of ammonia nitrogen can be as high as 98 percent with
effluent ammonia concentrations of less than 1 mg/L (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Because of
the high operating and maintenance costs associated with air stripping, the practical application
of air stripping of ammonia is limited to special cases, such as the need for a high pH for other
reasons (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
High operation and maintenance costs for air stripping of ammonia can be attributed in
part to the formation of calcium carbonate scale within stripping tower and feed lines.
Absorption of carbon dioxide from the air stream used for stripping leads to calcium carbonate
scale formation, which varies in nature from soft to very hard. Because the solubility of ammonia
increases as temperature decreases, the amount of air required for stripping ammonia increases
8-35
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
significantly as temperature decreases for the same degree of removal. If ice formation occurs in
the stripping tower, a further reduction in removal efficiency occurs (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991,
Johns, 1995).
There are secondary environmental impacts also because air stripping of ammonia
without subsequent scrubbing in an acid solution results in the emission of ammonia to the
atmosphere. This emission may lead to bad odor and air pollution. Particulate matter is also
formed in the atmosphere, following the reaction of ammonia with sulfate. In addition, stripping
towers can be sources of emissions of volatile organic compounds and noise (Peavy, 1986;
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Breakpoint Chlorination
Breakpoint chlorination involves the addition of chlorine to wastewater to oxidize
ammonia to nitrogen gas and other stable compounds. Breakpoint chlorination has been
successfully used as a second, stand-by ammonia removal process for ammonia concentrations
up to 50 mg/L (Green et al., 1981). Before chlorine reacts with ammonia, it first reacts with
oxidizable substances present, such as Fe+2, Mn+2, H2S, and organic matter to produce chloride
ions. After meeting the immediate demand of the oxidizable compounds, excess chlorine react
with ammonia to form chloramines. With increased chlorine dosage, the chloramines formed will
be converted to nitrogen trichloride, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen gas. The destruction of
chloramines occurs until the breakpoint chlorination point is achieved. After this point, free
residual chlorine becomes available (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Therefore, the required chlorine
dosage to destroy ammonia is achieved when breakpoint chlorination is reached. The overall
reaction between chlorine and ammonia can be described by the following equation:
2NH3 + 3HOC1 > N2 + 3H20 + 3HC1
Stoichiometrically, the breakpoint reaction requires a weight ratio of 7.6 CL2 to 1 NH4+-
N, but in actual practice ratios of from 8:1 to 10:1 are common (Green et al., 1981). Process
efficiencies consistently range between 95 and 99 percent. The process is easily adapted to
complete automation, which helps assure quality and operational control (Reynolds, 1982). The
8-36
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
optimal pH for breakpoint chlorination is between 6 and 7. Because chlorine reacts with water,
forming hydrochloric acid, a pH depression to below 6 may occur with poorly buffered
wastewaters. This drop increases chlorine requirements and slows the rate of reaction.
One advantage of breakpoint chlorination for ammonia removal is its relative insensitivity
to temperature. Also, capital costs are small relative to other ammonia removal processes, such
as ammonia stripping and ion exchange (Green et al., 1981). However, many organic compounds
react with chlorine to form toxic compounds, including trihalomethanes and other disinfection
by-products, which can interfere with beneficial uses of receiving waters. Thus, dechlorination is
necessary. Both sulfur dioxide and carbon adsorption are used with dechorination, with sulfur
dioxide being more common due to lower cost. Another disadvantage of breakpoint chlorination
for nitrogen removal may be an undesirable increase in total dissolved solids (Metcalf and Eddy,
1991).
8.4.3.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal
Besides granular-medium filtration systems microscreens may be used to achieve
supplemental removals of suspended solids. This practice also provides further reduction in
BOD. Microscreens involve solid-liquid separation a process in which liquid passes through a
filter fabric to remove as much fine material as possible.
Microscreens
Microscreens are a surface filtration device used to remove a portion of the residual
suspended solids from secondary effluents and from stabilization pond effluents. Microscreens
are low speed, continually backwashed, rotating drum filters operating under gravity conditions.
Typical filtering fabrics have openings of 23 or 35 |im and cover the periphery of the drum.
Wastewater enters the open end of the drum and flows outward through the rotating screening
cloth. The collected solids are backwashed into a trough located at the highest point within the
drum and returned to primary or secondary treatment processes (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Typical suspended solids removal is about 55 percent with a range of 10 to 80 percent.
Some problems with microscreens include incomplete solids removal and an inability to handle
8^37
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
fluctuations in suspended solids concentrations. Reducing dram rotational speed and decreasing
frequency of backwashing can increase removal efficiency, but screening capacity is thereby
reduced. Typical hydraulic loading rates and drams speeds respectively are 75 to 150
gallon/ft2-min and 15 ft/min at 3-in. head loss to 115 to 150 ft/min at a 6-in. head loss (Metcalf
and Eddy, 1991).
8.4.3.3 Removal of Organic Compounds and Specific Ions
Various advanced wastewater treatment processes are used for removing organic
compounds and target ions from wastewater. Carbon adsorption process has been widely used to
remove organic compounds from different types of wastewater. To remove target ions from
wastewater, ion exchange process have been used. To prevent filter plugging and to ensure
proper operation, granular activated carbon columns and ion exchange columns are usually
preceded by filtration units.
Carbon Adsorption
Both granular and powdered activated carbon can be used to further reduce
concentrations of organic compounds, including refractory compounds after secondary biological
treatment. With granulated activated carbon (GAC), the adsorption process occurs in steps.
Initially, organic matter moves from the bulk liquid phase to the liquid-solid interface by
advection and diffusion. Next, diffusion of the organic matter through the macropore system of
the granulated activated carbon occurs at adsorption sites in micropores and submicropores.
Although adsorption also occurs on the surface and in the macro- and mesopores of activated
carbon granules, the surface area of the micro- and submicropores greatly exceeds the surface
areas of the granule and the macro- and mesopores. With powdered activated carbon (PAC),
adsorption occurs primarily on the surface of the carbon particles (Weber, 1972; Metcalf and
Eddy, 1991).
When the rate of adsorption equals the rate of desorption, the adsorptive capacity of the
carbon has been reached and regeneration is necessary. GAC is regenerated easily by oxidizing
the adsorbed organic matter in a furnace. About 5 to 10 percent of GAC is destroyed in the
8-38
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
regeneration process and must be replaced (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Also, the adsorptive
capacity of regenerated GAC is slightly less than that of virgin GAC. A major problem with the
use of PAC is that regeneration methodology is not well defined.
A fixed bed reactor often is used for wastewater treatment using GAC. Flow is downward
through the carbon column, which is supported by an under-drain system. There may be
provision for backwashing and surface washing to limit head-loss due to the accumulation of
particulate matter. Upflow and expanded bed columns also are used (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
With biological wastewater treatment, PAC usually is added either to the basin or to the
secondary clarifier effluent. In the "PACT' process, the PAC is added directly to the aeration
basin (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Tertiary treatment using activated carbon can remove up to 98 percent of colloidal and
dissolved organics measured as BOD5 and COD in a wastewater stream. Effluent BOD5
concentrations may be as low as 2 to 7 mg/L with effluent COD concentrations in the range of 10
to 20 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Use of activated carbon is common in water treatment to remove organic compounds
from raw water supplies responsible for color, taste, and odor problems. In the treatment of MPP
wastewaters, the use of carbon adsorption is generally limited to tertiary treatment prior to
wastewater reuse as potable water.
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a unit process in which ions of a given species are displaced from an
insoluble exchange material (resin) by ions of a different species in solution. This process is most
commonly used to soften water by removing calcium and magnesium ions. It is also used in
industrial wastewater treatment for the recovery of valuable constituents, including precious
metals and radioactive materials. It may be operated in batch or continuous mode. In a batch
process, the resin is stirred with the water to be treated in a the reactor until reaction is complete.
The spent acid is removed by settling, and subsequently is regenerated and reused. In a
continuous process, the exchange material is placed in a bed or a packed column, and the water
8-39
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
to be treated is passed through it. When the resin capacity is exhausted, the column is
backwashed to remove trapped solids and then regenerated (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). To
maintain continuous operation, typically, two or more columns are used, so that when one of the
columns is off-line (backwashing or regenerating) other column(s) are on-line (operational).
Although ion exchange is known to occur with a number of natural materials, there is a
broad spectrum of synthetic exchange resins available. Synthetic resins consist of networks of
hydrocarbon radicals with attached soluble ionic functional groups. The hydrocarbon radicals are
cross-linked in a three dimensional matrix, with the degree of cross-linking imparting the ability
to exclude ions larger than a given size. The nature of the attached functional groups largely
determines resin behavior. There are four major classes of ion exchange resins: strongly acidic
and weakly acidic cation exchange resins, and strongly basic and weakly basic anion resins.
Strongly acidic resins contain functional groups derived from strong acids such as sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) whereas functional groups of weakly acidic resins are derived from weak acids such as
carbonic acid (H2CO3). Similarly, strongly basic resins contain functional groups derived from
quaternary ammonium compounds, whereas functional groups of weekly basic resins are derived
from weak base amines. The exchangeable counter ion of an acidic cation resin may be the
hydrogen ion or some other monovalent cation, such as sodium. For a basic anion resin, the
exchangeable counter ion may be the hydroxide ion or some other monovalent anion. The
regenerant will be the corresponding acid, base, or simple salt (Weber, 1972).
The use of ion exchange in the treatment of MPP wastewaters is less common. The ion
exchange technology may be used to remove ammonium ions from wastewater, nitrate ions from
the nitrified wastewater, phosphorous, and/or to remove total dissolved solids from wastewater.
The functional group to be used depends on the target ions (NH4+, NO3", or other ions) to be
removed.
To minimize head loss through ion exchange columns and possible resin fouling, ion
exchange usually follows granular medium filtration and possibly carbon adsorption. In addition,
special provisions are necessary for regeneration waste. Another waste stream requiring disposal
8-40
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
is exhausted resin. Regeneration efficiency decreases with time and replacement becomes
necessary to maintain process performance.
8.5 DISINFECTION
Disinfection destroys remaining pathogenic microorganisms and is generally required for
all MPP wastewaters being discharged to surface waters. Chlorine injection is the most
commonly used method for wastewater disinfection; however, use of ultraviolet light for
disinfection is not uncommon (USEPA, 2001). Ozone injection and combinations of UV and
ozonation are also attractive alternatives for disinfection.
8.5.1 Chlorination
The chemical reactions that occur when chlorine is added to wastewater have been
described above in the discussion of breakpoint chlorination for ammonia removal. For
disinfection, the objective is to add chlorine at a rate that results in a free chlorine residual to
ensure that pathogen kill occurs. As discussed above, a free chlorine residual occurs only after
reactions with readily oxidizable ions, organic matter, and ammonia are complete. Thus, chlorine
requirements for disinfection depend on wastewater characteristics at the time of disinfection.
The degree of mixing and contact time in a chlorine contact chamber are critical factors in the
process of disinfection using chlorine. The most commonly used chlorine compounds used for
wastewater disinfection are chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and
chlorine dioxide (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Chlorine dioxide is an unstable and explosive gas
that requires special precautions.
As also was noted above in the discussion of breakpoint chlorination for ammonia
removal (Section 8.4.3.1), dechlorination often is necessary to reduce effluent toxicity with sulfur
dioxide addition being the most commonly used approach. Sulfur dioxide reacts with both free
chlorine and chloramines with chloride ions, resulting primarily in the end production of chloride
ions (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
8-41
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
8.5.2 Ozonation
Since ozone is chemically unstable, it decomposes to oxygen very rapidly after
generation, and thus must be generated on site. The most efficient method of producing ozone is
by electrical discharge. Ozone is generated either from air or pure oxygen, when a high voltage is
applied across the gap of narrowly spaced electrodes. It is an extremely reactive oxidant, and it is
generally believed that bacterial kill through ozonation occurs directly because of cell wall
disintegration. Ozone is a more effective virucide than chlorine. Ozone does not produce
dissolved solids and is not affected by ammonia concentrations or pH. In addition, there is no
chemical residue produce from using ozone, because it decomposes rapidly to oxygen and water.
Use of ozone increases the dissolved oxygen concentration, control odor, and provides removal
of soluble refractory organics. One disadvantage to using ozone is that it is necessary to generate
it on site, because of its chemical instability (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
8.5.3 Ultraviolet Light
Suspended or submerged lamps producing ultraviolet (UV) light are another option for
wastewater disinfection, especially for the inactivation of the parasites of Cryptosporidium
parvum and Giardia lamblia. It is known that chlorine does not have an effect on
Cryptosporidium and that ozone requires higher doses to complete inactivation (Stone and
Brooks, 2001). Radiation emitted from the ultraviolet light is an effective bateriocide and
virucide while generating any toxic compound. Low-pressure mercury arc lamps are the principal
means of generating UV energy used for disinfection. Operationally the lamps are either
suspended outside of the liquid to be treated or submerged in the liquid. Where the lamps are
submerged, they are encased in quartz tubes to prevent cooling effects on the lamps. Radiation
from low-pressure lamps with a wavelength of around 254 nm penetrates the cell wall of the
microorganisms and is absorbed by cellular materials a process which either prevents replication
or causes death of the cell to occur (Stone and Brooks, 2001). Since turbidity will absorb UV
energy and shield the microorganism, turbidity in the water should be kept low for better results
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). UV irradiation, whether at low- or medium-pressure, performs
similarly in achieving 4 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium (Stone and Brooks, 2001). UV
8-42
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
irradiation in combination with ozonation can also be applied for the reuse of chiller water in
poultry operations (Diaz and Law, 1997).
8.6 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
The most common disposal methods of treated MPP wastewaters are by discharge to
adjacent surface waters under the authority of a NPDES permit or discharge to POTWs.
However, disposal by land application is an alternative method that can eliminate the need for
tertiary treatment of wastewater (Johns, 1995; Uhlman, 2001).
Land application by sprinkler or flood irrigation can be a feasible alternative to surface
water discharge, if the appropriate land is available and other prerequisites can be satisfied. These
prerequisites include soils with moderately slow to moderately rapid permeability and soils with
the ability to collect any surface runoff that occurs. In addition, the production of a marketable
crop is a necessity to provide a mechanism for the removal of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other
nutrients from soils applied with wastewater by sprinkler or flood irrigation (Uhlman, 2001).
In land application, wastewater disposal is performed using a combination of percolation
and evapotranspiration with microbial degradation of organic compounds occurring in the soil
profile. Both crop uptake and nitrification-denitrification serve as mechanisms for nitrogen
reduction. Crop uptake, chemical precipitation, and adsorption to soil particles are mechanisms
of phosphorus reduction. Water balances are managed to match crop water use and salt leaching
needs with irrigation to maintain water percolation to groundwater within the system design
(Uhlman, 2001). Nitrogen balances are also developed to match estimated nitrogen losses and
crop uptake (removal) to minimize percolate nitrate losses to groundwater. Spray and flood
irrigation systems for wastewater disposal (Figure 8-4) may be designed with the objective of
either wastewater disposal or wastewater reuse. If disposal is the objective, application or
hydraulic loading rate is not controlled by crop requirements, but by the limiting design
parameter, soil permeability or constituent loading. In many situations, nitrogen loading rate is
the limiting design parameter to minimize leaching of nitrate nitrogen to ground water.
Phosphorus loading rate generally is not a limiting design parameter, due to the ability of soils to
8-43
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
immobilize phosphorus. However, the ability of soils to adsorb phosphorus is finite, and
saturation of the upper zone of the soil profile can occur (US EPA, 1974).
Primary,
Secondary
nr Partial >
Tertiary
Treatment
Effluent
Holding
Basin
<^
Pumping
System
N.
Application
Site
1
Grass or
Hay Crop
Figure 8-4. Spray/Flood Irrigation System (USEPA, 1974)
Wastewater can be applied to crops using solid set or center pivot sprinkler or flood
irrigation. With flood irrigation, also known as ridge-and-furrow irrigation, wastewater is
released into furrows between rows of growing crops. Fields irrigated using flood irrigation are
graded to allow uniform irrigation of the entire field by gravity flow, with provision for capture
and containment of any return flow. Intermittent application cycles, usually ranging from every
four to ten days, maintain aerobic conditions in the soil. In arid and semi-arid areas, land
application, as a method for wastewater disposal, is especially attractive, given the low rates of
precipitation allowing higher hydraulic loading rates than in more humid regions. However, the
accumulation of soluble salts (total dissolved solids) in the root zone of the soil profile can be
problematic in arid and semi-arid regions because of the lack of precipitation, resulting in
reduced leaching of these salts from the soil profile. These salt accumulations are toxic to many
plant species. Salt accumulations in the soil profile also occur when conventional irrigation
practices are used in arid and semi-arid climates. The typical approach used to deal with
accumulations of soluble salts from irrigation is periodic hydraulic loadings to leach accumulated
soluble salts from the root zone of the soil. However, some ground water contamination may
result from using periodic hydraulic loadings. Reduction of total dissolved solids concentrations
8-44
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
in MPP wastewaters prior to land application is another option, but the associated cost may make
direct discharge to surface waters a more attractive option in arid and semi-arid climates.
Wastewater treatment systems using sprinkler or flood irrigation as a method for MPP
wastewater disposal should provide a minimum of secondary treatment before use of wastewater
for irrigation. Secondary treatment of wastewater reduces BOD and suspended solids loading
rates and consequently, it reduces the potential of these parameters to act as limiting design
factors. Secondary treatment also reduces the odor and vermin problems associated with flood
irrigation or sprinkler application of lesser treated wastewater. A holding basin is a necessary
element to allow intermittent wastewater applications and to provide storage when climatic or
soil conditions do not allow irrigation. Ideally, storage should be adequate to limit wastewater
application to the active plant growth period of the year. Thus, storage of wastewater for at least
six months in cold climates is desirable (Loehr et al., 1979). For a more complete discussion of
wastewater disposal by land application, Loehr et al. (1979) and Overcash and Pal (1979).
In the absence of proper system design and operation, land application as a method of
wastewater disposal can adversely affect surface and ground water quality. Excessive organic
loading rates can result in reduced soil permeability and the generation of noxious odors due to
the development of anaerobic conditions. Excessive nitrogen application rates can lead to nitrate
leaching to ground water. Excessive phosphorus application rates can lead to surface or ground
water contamination, or both, if the irrigated soils become saturated with phosphorus. (Metcalf
and Eddy, 1991)
Exposure to pathogens also is a concern, especially with spray irrigation systems given
the potential for pathogen transport in aerosols. Virus transmission through aerosols is the most
serious concern, because a single virus can cause infection. In contrast, infectious doses of
bacterial pathogens range from at least 101 for Shigella to as high as 108 organisms for
enteropathogenic E. coli (Loehr et al., 1979). However, using one or more of several
recommended practices can reduce the transmission of pathogens in aerosols. Recommended
practices include: (1) creating buffer zones with or without hedgerows (2) using low pressure
8-45
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
nozzles aimed downward (3) avoiding wastewater spraying windy conditions and (4) restricting
irrigation to daylight hours (Johns, 1995).
Especially in colder climates, wastewater land application systems require storage
facilities to avoid application to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated soil. Wastewater application
under these conditions can result in surface runoff transporting pollutants to adjacent surface
waters. See Loehr et al (1979) for a detailed discussion of storage requirements for wastewater
land application systems in various climates.
8.7 SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Typically, biosolids generated during the treatment of MPP wastewaters are aerobically
digested before disposal by land application. Biosolids may be de-watered prior to land
application. Rendering is a common disposal method for wastewater solids recovered by
dissolved air flotation (DAF) before secondary treatment. Generally, the use of metal salts prior
to DAF is avoided if rendering is used for the disposal of recovered solids, to unacceptably high
concentrations of aluminum or iron in rendering products. Alternatives to rendering for the
disposal of DAF solids are land application and land filling. High quality by-products (e.g.,
blood) are often segregated from DAF solids and other MPP WWTP sludges as some rendering
operations (e.g., pet food manufacturing) require high quality input by-products.
EPA noted during site visits to two independent rendering operations that sludges from
dissolved air floatation units which use chemical additions to promote solids separation are
rendered; however, the chemical bond between the organic matter and the polymers requires that
the sludges be processed (rendered) at higher temperatures (260 °F) and longer retention times.
EPA also observed during site visits that some independent Tenderers reject raw materials that
have (1) a pH below 4 SU (with 3 SU being a general cut-off), (2) ferric chloride due to its
corrosive nature, and (3) other contamination (e.g., pesticides).
8-46
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
8.8 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WASTEWATER REDUCTION
PRACTICES
8.8.1 Wastewater Minimization and Waste Load Reduction Practices at MPP
Facilities
For many MPP facilities, wastewater flow minimization and waste load reduction
practices have been incorporated into normal business practices in order to reduce production
costs and maximize profits. As with other competitive industries, unessential consumption of
water and energy, and the additional costs of waste treatment can mean the difference between
profitability and operational losses. While water reuse and by-products recovery are standard
approaches for wastewater flow minimization and waste load reduction at MPP facilities, the
extent of these practices and their effectiveness, varies widely among individual facilities. Some
large facilities have installed onsite advanced wastewater treatment systems which treat facility
effluent allowing this water to be reused for some applications within the facility. Other facilities
have changed sanitation practices to reduce water use and effluence in general. For example, one
independent Tenderer noted during an EPA site visit that his facility fully converted from a wet
cleaning method to a dry cleaning method in the product shipment area in order to minimize
water pollution.
Industry sources have estimated that the implementation of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service's (USDA FSIS) Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Points (HACCP) program has increased water usage by 20 to 25 percent. USDA FSIS
disagrees with industry's assertion that implementation of HACCP has necessarily required
greater use of water. Furthermore, USDA FSIS asserts that its regulatory performance standards
provide for numerous water reuse opportunities (see 9 CFR 416.2(g)).
The USDA FSIS promulgated the HACCP program on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38806). The
HACCP rule requires all MPP facilities to develop and implement a system of preventative
controls to improve the safety of their products with an emphasis on reducing microbial
contamination from fecal material. The Sanitation Requirements for Official Meat and Poultry
8-47
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Establishments Rule (USDA, 1996; 64 FR 56400) also mandates all MPP facilities to develop
and implement written standard operating procedures for sanitation.
As described below, opportunities remain for reducing potable water use and wastewater
flow in MPP through water conservation techniques and multiple use and reuse of water. In
addition, opportunities exist to reduce waste loads to wastewater treatment facilities by
physically collected solid materials before using water to clean equipment and facilities. Gelman
et al. (1989) and Berthouex et al. (1977) provide case studies for minimizing waste and water use
at poultry processing and hog processing facilities, respectively. Both conclude that facilities can
save costs through readily available process modifications that can significantly reduce water use
and wastewater flow and loadings.
8.8.2 General Water Conservation and Waste Load Reduction Techniques
Reducing water use is important as facilities that institute a water use reduction program
also reduce their raw wastewater load (Scaief, 1975). Numerous studies have demonstrated the
water use in MPP can be reduced significantly. For example, Carawan and Clemens (1994)
reported a reduction in water use of 75 gallons per pig processed, a reduction of 33 percent,
following implementation of a water conservation program at a hog slaughtering and rendering
operation. In addition, it has been demonstrated that substantial reductions in wastewater
pollutant concentrations also can be achieved through implementation of waste load reduction
practices. Reductions in 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) in hog processing
wastewater of 40 percent have been reported (Carawan and Clemens, 1994). However, both goals
can be achieved only when management recognizes that a reduction in processing costs and an
increase in profitability can be realized by reducing the costs of potable water and wastewater
treatment. Thus, a management commitment to water conservation logically depends on the cost
of potable water, and a management commitment to waste load reduction depends on the cost of
wastewater treatment. If potable water is being obtained from private on-site wells, there
obviously is a reduced economic incentive to conserve water than when water is being purchased
from a public utility or private water purveyor. Also, the incentive for waste load reduction
generally is greater for indirect dischargers because wastewater treatment costs are readily
8-48
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
identifiable and surcharges for excessive pollutant concentrations can rapidly escalate wastewater
treatment costs. Conversely, wastewater treatment costs can be less visible for direct dischargers
and less sensitive to pollutant concentrations.
The development of water conservation and waste load reduction programs in the MPP as
well as in other industries begins with the development of general profiles of water use and
wastewater pollutant concentrations over one or preferably several 24 hour periods to determine
the relative significance of processing and cleanup activities. Generally this step is accompanied
or followed by measuring water use in individual phases of the processing process to identify
opportunities for water use reduction. For example, measuring water flow to scalders and chillers
in poultry processing to determine overflow rates can identify overflow rates in excess of FSIS
requirements. Measuring and regulating water pressure for carcass washing to insure that FSIS
requirements are not being exceeded is another example of how water use can be reduced in
MPP operations. Measuring and regulating small flows such as from hand washing operations
also can significantly reduce water use and wastewater volume.
The daily cleanup and sanitation of processing facilities and equipment contributes
substantially to water use and wastewater pollutant load and probably presents the greatest
opportunity for reductions. Typically, both water use and wastewater pollutant load can be
reduced substantially by initially "dry cleaning" processing areas and equipment to collect meat
scraps and other materials for disposal by rendering instead of the common practice of using
"water as a broom." Although subsequent screening before wastewater treatment provides for
recovery of larger particles, fine particulate matter and soluble proteins, fats, and carbohydrates
are not recovered and are manifested as an increased pollutant load to the wastewater treatment
plant. Gelman et al. (1989) have shown that biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in cleanup
wastewater in poultry processing can be reduced from 20 to 50 percent by initially dry cleaning
processing areas and equipment. Concurrently, dry cleaning can increase the production of
inedible rendered products. Dry cleaning of live animal holding areas also can reduce water
required for the cleaning of these facilities and the pollutant load in the wastewater generated.
However, responses to the MPP detailed survey indicate that dry cleaning is a much more
8-49
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
common practice at meat as compared to poultry processing facilities (47 percent for meat
processing respondents versus 17 percent for poultry processing respondents).
To be successful, water conservation and waste load reduction plans must be
implemented and performance monitored. Implementation requires employee training that should
be continual and possibly the installation of new equipment such as hose nozzles and foot valves
at hand wash stations that automatically shut off when not in use. Conversion to high pressure,
low volume systems for carcass washing and general sanitation also can reduce water
consumption. However, continual monitoring of water use and waste loads also is a necessity to
avoid slippage in performance.
8.8.3 Multiple Use and Reuse of Water
USDA FSIS guidelines do not preclude the multiple use and reuse of water in MPP as
practices to reduce potable water consumption and the discharge of treated wastewater. While it
is obvious that acceptable multiple use and reuse strategies must avoid contact with products
intended for human consumption, a significant fraction of the water used in MPP does not
involve such contact.
The multiple use of water most commonly occurs in poultry processing. Witherow et al.
(1978) report that water conservation through multiple reuse in poultry processing will be
rewarded by savings in processing cost and reduced requirements for wastewater treatment.
Examples include the use of scalder overflow to flume feathers from mechanical de-feathering
equipment and the use of chiller overflow to flume inedible viscera to screens for recovery prior
to rendering. Combination UV irradiation and ozonation can be effective treatment for this re-
used poultry chiller overflow (Diaz and Law, 1997). These are examples of countercurrent
recycling where water reuse is countercurrent to product flow.
In contrast to multiple use, water reuse requires treatment as a prerequisite with the
degree of treatment determining how water can be reused. For example, reuse of wastewater after
tertiary treatment to remove suspended solids and double disinfection, such as chlorination
followed by ultraviolet light, is permissible for purposes where no contact with such as
8-50
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
evaporative condenser cooling and holding lot, parking lot, and wastewater treatment plant
cleaning.
With further treatment to meet drinking water standards using unit processes such as
coagulation and flocculation followed by settling and then filtration and disinfection, reuse of
wastewater treatment plant secondary effluent expands the potential for reuse. Examples of
permissible uses in hog processing include use on the kill floor up to the first carcass wash,
flushing of large intestines (chitterlings), cleaning of receiving pens, and rendering facilities.
Other possible uses of wastewater treated to meet drinking water standards include use for
equipment such as pump cooling and as boiler makeup water.
In the poultry processing industry, a number of unit process level reuse strategies also
have been explored. One example is the reuse of final chiller overflow following diatomaceous
earth filtration and disinfection as scalder makeup water or for fluming of harvested giblets. As
noted by Carawan (1994), it also was demonstrated in the late 1970s that poultry processing
wastewater treated to meet primary drinking water standards can be safe, when mixed with an
equal amount of potable water, for use in poultry processing.
Based on data provided by the MPP detailed survey, EPA estimates that reuse of water in
MPP facilities is relatively rare. About 8 percent of the poultry processing respondents to the
survey indicated reuse of water from the wastewater treatment plant to defeathering or
evisceration areas. Other water reuse practices such as reusing effluent for screen washing or
cleanup of outside areas are even less common as indicated by detailed survey response.
8.8.4 Specific Pollution Control Practices Identified by EPA in Previous Regulatory
Proposals
The following relevant Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) in-
plant pollution control practices were listed in EPA's "Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Poultry Segment of the Meat Product and Rendering
Process Point Source Category" (USEPA, 1975):
8-51
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
• Control and minimize flow of freshwater at major outlets by installing properly
sized spray nozzles and by regulating pressure on supply lines. Hand washers
may require installation of press-to-operate valves. This also implies that
screened waste waters are recycled for feather fluming.
• Confine bleeding and provide for sufficient bleed time. Recover all collectable
blood and transport to rendering in tanks rather than by dumping on top of
feathers or offal.
• Use minimum USDA-approved quantities of water in the scalder and chillers.
• Shut off all unnecessary flow during worm breaks.
• Consider the reuse of chiller water as makeup water for the scalder. This may
require preheating the chiller water with the scalder overflow water by using a
simple heat exchanger.
• Use pretreated poultry processing waste waters for condensing all cooking vapors
in onsite rendering operations.
• Consider dry offal handling as an alternative to fluming. A number of plants have
demonstrated the feasibility of dry offal handling in modern high-production
poultry slaughtering operations.
• Consider steam scalding as an alternative to immersion scalding.
• Control water use in gizzard splitting and washing equipment.
• Provide for frequent and regular maintenance attention to byproduct screening and
handling systems. A back-up screen may be required to prevent byproduct from
entering municipal or private waste treatment systems.
• Dry clean all floors and tables prior to washdown to reduce the waste load. This
is particularly important in the bleeding, cutting, and further processing areas and
all other areas where there tend to be material spills.
8^52
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
• Use high-pressure, low-volume spray nozzles or steam-augmented systems for
plant washdown.
• Minimize the amount of chemicals and detergents to prevent emulsification or
solubilization of solids in the waste waters. For example, determine the minimum
effective amount of chemical for use in the scald tank.
• Control inventories of raw materials used in further processing so that none of
these materials are ever wasted to the sewer. Spent raw materials should be
routed to rendering.
• Treat separately all overflow of cooking broth for grease and solids recovery.
• Reduce the waste water from thawing operations.
• Make all employees aware of good water management practices and encourage
them to apply these practices.
• Treat offal truck drainage before sewering. One method is to steam sparge the
collected drainage and then screen.
• In-plant primary systems—catch basins, skimming tanks, air flotation,
etc.—should provide for at least a 30-minute detention time of the waste water.
Frequent, regular maintenance attention should be provided.
The following BAT in-plant pollution control practices were listed in EPA's
"Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Processor Segment of the Meat Products Point Source Category"
(USEPA, 1974):
• Use water control systems and procedures to reduce water use considerable below
that of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) except for
small processors.
• Reduce the waste water from thawing operations.
8^53
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
• Provide for improved collection and greater reuse of cure and pickle solutions.
• Prepackage products (e.g., hams) before cooking to reduce grease contamination
of smokehouse floors and walls.
• Revise equipment cleaning procedures to collect and reuse wasted materials, or to
dispose of them through channels other than the sewer.
• Reuse or recycle noncontaminated water whenever possible.
• Initiate and continually enforce meticulous dry cleanup of floors before washing.
• Install properly designed catch basins and maintain them with frequent regular
grease and solids removal.
It should be noted that the in-plant controls and modifications required to achieve the
July 1, 1983, effluent limitations included water control systems and procedures to reduce water
use to about 50 percent of the water used to meet BPT (USEPA, 1974).
8.8.5 Non-Regulatory Approaches to Pollution Prevention
EPA is using non-regulatory approaches to facilitate reduction of wastewater generation
in the MPP industry. Specifically, the Agency has formed partnerships with industry and state
agencies to develop guidance materials and implement innovative practices for reducing waste.
Participants in developing this program include the American Meat Institute (AMI), the
American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), several State agencies, EPA programs and regions, and other interested constituent
groups. For example, EPA and its partners are developing BMP guidance materials for handling
and disposal of rendering materials, and for chloride, nitrogen, and phosphorus discharges. The
project team will evaluate these management practices and develop measures of their
effectiveness. Long-term deployment of the final tools will occur through the active leadership of
the industry's trade associations. In addition, EPA is partnering with the Iowa Waste Reduction
Center (IWRC) and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to pilot test the Guide
8-54
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
with five companies. IWRC and IDNR are providing technical assistance and implementation
consulting to the five companies. The pilot will be completed in July 2002, and then EPA will
evaluate the pilot and incorporate lessons learned into the final draft of the "EMS Guide for Meat
and Poultry Processors." The final guide is expected to be completed by September 2002, at
which point this tool will be widely marketed throughout the meat and poultry processing
industry.
8.6 REFERENCES
Banks, C. L, Z. Wang. 1999. Development of a two phase anaerobic digester for the treatment of
mixed abattoir wastes, Water Science and Technology , Vol. 40, No. 1. (DCN 10065)
Banks, C. J. 1994. Anaerobic digestion of solid and high nitrogen content fractions of
slaughterhouse wastes, In: Environmentally Responsible Food Processing, AIChE
Symposium Series, 90, 103-109. (DCN 100005)
Banks, C. J., O. O. Adebowale. 1991. Review of abattoir by-product disposal options,
Proceedings of MLC Conference: Meat Strategies, Options for By-product Disposal, 26-
27th March, Birmingham, U.K., pp. 21-42. (DCN 00042)
Berthouex, Paul M., David L. Grothman, Donald O. Dencker, Lawrence J. P. Scully, 1977.
Characterization and In-Plant Reductions of Wastewater from Hog Slaughtering
Operations, EPA-600/2-77-097, May 1977. (DCN 10058)
Brooks, Daniel R., Gary Van Stone, 2001. UV Experience in Inactivating Cryptosporidium in
Surface Water Plants, WaterWorld, May 2001, PennWell Publishers. (DCN 10068)
Carawan, R.E. and J.S. Clemens. 1994. Using Renovated Process Water at Hatfield Packing. In:
Proceedings 1994 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, P.H. Patterson and
J.P. Blake (eds). National Poultry Waste Management Symposium Committee, Auburn
University, Alabama. Pp. 220-230. (DCN 00197)
Carawan, R.E. 1994. Overview of Water Recycling in Processing. In: Proceedings 1994 National
Poultry Waste Management Symposium, P.H. Patterson and J.P. Blake (eds). National
8^55
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Poultry Waste Management Symposium Committee, Auburn University, Alabama. Pp.
211-215. (DCN 00198)
Clanton, CJ. 1997. Alternative Waste Management Systems. Department of Agricultural
Engineering. University of Minnesota.
. (DCN 00250)
Cowan, J.A.C., F. Mactavish, CJ. Brouckaert, E.P. Jacobs. 1992. Membrane treatment strategies
for red meat abattoir effluents, Water Science and Technology , 1992 , Vol. 25, No. 10.
(DCN 10066)
Diaz, M.E., S.E. Law. 1997. Ultraviolet Photon Enhanced Ozonation for Microbiological Safety
in Poultry Processing Water, 1997 ASAE Annual International Meeting, August 10-14,
1997, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (DCN 00037)
Eremektar, G., E. Ubay Cokgor, S. Ovez, F. Germirli Babuna, D. Orhon. 1999. Biological
treatability of poultry processing plant effluent - a case study, Water Science and
Technology , Vol. 40, No. 1. (DCN 00082)
FMCITT. 2002. Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations.
(DCN 00251)
Gelman, Stephen R., Sheila D. Scott, Hal Davis. 1989. Waste Minimization in the Poultry
Processing Industry- Process and Water Quality Aspects, Presented at MISSTAP
Workshop, Waste Minimization for Mississippi Industries, Mississippi State University,
November 9, 1989, NIST No. PB95-251385. (DCN 00077)
Glenn, S. L., Norris, R. T., Jr., Sommerfield, J. T. 1990. Discrete-event simulation in
wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Science and Heal, Vol. A25, No. 4.
(DCN 00079)
Grady, C.P.L., Jr. and H.C. Lim. 1980. Biological Wastewater Treatment Theory and
Applications. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. (DCN 00248)
8-56
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Green, T et al. 1981. Case History of Nitrification of a Rendering-Meat Packing Wastewater,
IN: Bell, J.M. (Editor), 1981. Proceedings of the 35th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue
University. (DCN 10006)
Harper, S. R., C. C. Ross, G. E. Valentine, F. G. Pohland. 1999. Pretreatment of poultry
processing wastewater in a pilot-scale anaerobic filter. Water Science and Technology ,
Vol. 22 , No. 9. (DCN 00034)
Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments In Wastewater Treatment In The Meat Processing Industry: A
Review. Bioresource Technology, Vol. 54. (DCN 00128)
Johnston, Carey A. 2001. Comparison of Meat Processing and Domestic Wastewaters, USEPA,
Memorandum to File. (DCN 10038)
Kiepper, Brian. 2001. A Survey of Wastewater Practices in the Broiler Industry. The University
of Georgia. U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. Presented at WEFTEC 2001.
(DCN 00260)
Lo, K. V., P.H. Liao, 1990. Treatment of poultry processing wastewater using sequencing batch
reactors. Department of Bio-Resource Engineering, University of British Columbia,
Canadian Agricultural Engineering , Vol. 32 , No. 2. (DCN 00080)
Martin, E. J. and Martin, E. T. 1991. Technologies For Small Water And Wastewater Systems.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. (DCN 00259)
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering—Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd ed.
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00213)
Morris, et al., 1998. (DCN 00191)
Nielsen V.C. 1996. Treatment and Disposal of Processing Wastes. In: Processing of Poultry,
edited by G.C. Mead, Chapman and Hall Publishing Company, New York, New York.
(DCN 00133-DCN 00137)
8-57
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Ohio EPA. 1999. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Tiered Permits. DSW-
0100.016. DWS Policy Manual. (DCN 00257)
Peavy, H.S., Rowe, D. R., Tchobanoglous, G. 1986. Environmental Engineering. McGraw Hill
Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00261)
Randall Clifford W., Pramod R. Mitta. 1998. Preliminary Assessment of the Rocco Farm Foods
Wastewater Treatment Plant Edinburg, Virginia for Biological Nutrient Removal,
Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia: Submitted to the USEPA Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland. (DCN 00035)
Randall Clifford W., Zeynep Kisoglu, Dipankar Sen, Pramod Mitta, Ufuk Erdal. 1999.
Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants for BNR Retrofits Using Advances in
Technology, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia: Submitted to the USEPA
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland. (DCN 00031)
Reddy, M., (editor). 1998. Biological and Chemical Systems for Nutrient Removal. A Special
Publication by Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia. (DCN 00253)
Reynolds, T.D. 1982. Unit Operations And Processes In Environmental Engineering. PWS-
Kent Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts. (DCN 00256)
Ross, C. C., and Valentine, G.E. 1992. Anaerobic Treatment of Poultry Processing Wastewaters.
In Proceedings of 1992 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium. (DCN 00254)
Scaief, James F. 1975. Effluent Variability in the Meat-Packing and Poultry Processing
Industries, Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, PB-245-623, June
1975, Corvallis, Oregon. (DCN 10001)
Starkey, J.E., and Wright, T. 1997. Tertiary Screening in Poultry Wastewater Treatment. 1997
Poultry and Environment Management Seminar. (DCN 10074)
8-58
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Sen, Dinpankar, Clifford W. Randall, and Thomas J. Grizzard. 1990. Biological Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Removal in Oxidation Ditch and High Nitrate Recycle Systems, Virginia
Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil Engineering, Manassas,
Virginia. (DCN 00029)
Stebor, T.W., Berndt, C.L., Gabriel, R. 1990. Operating Experience: Anaerobic Treatment At
Packerland Packing. 44th Purdue Industrial Conference Proceedings, Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. (DCN 00262)
Uhlman, Kristine. 2001. Land Application for Natural Wastewater Treatment, Environmental
Protection, August 2001, Vol. 12, No. 8. (DCN 10069)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1974. Development Document For Effluent
Limitation Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Red Meat
Processing Segment of the Meat Product And Rendering Processing Point Source
Category. (DCN 00162)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1975. Development Document For Effluent
Limitation Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Poultry Segment
of the Meat Product And Rendering Processing Point Source Category. (DCN 00140)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Treatability Manual. EPA/600/8-80/042d,
Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Design Manual - Phosphorous Removal.
EPA/625/1-87/001, Washington D.C. (DCN 00255)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Manual - Nitrogen Control. EPA/625/R-93/010,
Washington D.C. (DCN 10023)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Estimates of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Industrial and Domestic Wastewater Treatment, EPA-600/R-97-091, September
1997. (DCN 10061)
8-59
-------
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices
Weber, W.J., Jr. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, New York. (DCN 00252)
Witherow, Jack L., Ahmed Hamza, Samia Saad. 1978. Water Reuse in Poultry Processing,
Prepared for 1978 Summer Meeting of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, June
27-30, 1978, ASAE Technical Paper No. 78-6026, NIST No. PB-283-695. (DCN 10060)
Zhang, Ruihong. 2001. Biology and Engineering of Animal Wastewater Lagoons. University of
California, Davis. (DCN 00258)
8-60
-------
SECTION 9
POLLUTANT LOADINGS
This section presents annual pollutant loading estimates for the meat and poultry products
(MPP) industry. EPA estimated the pollutant loadings for the MPP industry to evaluate the
effectiveness of the treatment technologies, to estimate benefits gained from removing pollutants
discharged from each of the industry model facility groupings, and to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of the technology options in reducing the pollutant loadings. EPA defined baseline
loadings, technology option loadings, and pollutant removals as follows:
• Baseline loadings - Pollutant loadings in meat and poultry processing wastewater
being discharged to surface water or through publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) to surface water.
• Technology option loadings - Estimated pollutant loadings in meat and poultry
processing wastewater after implementation of technology option, also referred to
as post-compliance or treated pollutant loadings. In calculating these loadings
EPA assumed that all MPP facilities would operate wastewater treatment and
pollution prevention technologies equivalent to the technology option for which
they have been costed. Costing methodology and estimates are discussed in detail
in Section 11.
• Pollutant removals - The difference between baseline loadings and technology
option loadings.
EPA estimated baseline loadings, technology option loadings, and pollutant removals for
every model facility grouping (facility groupings are described further in Section 11). This
section discusses the methodology that EPA used to estimate pollutant loadings and removals,
and presents the resultant estimated pollutant loadings and expected removals as follows:
• Sections 9.1.1 through 9.1.4 discusses the data sources and methodology that EPA
used to estimate baseline pollutant loadings,
9-1
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
• Sections 9.2.1 through 9.2.4 present the data sources and methodology that EPA
used to estimate technology option pollutant loadings, and
• Section 9.3 discusses the method to estimate pollutant removals.
9.1 BASELINE POLLUTANT LOADINGS
This section presents baseline pollutant loadings for the meat and poultry products
industry. EPA estimated the baseline pollutant loadings for each model facility grouping based
on wastewater discharges to surface waters or through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
to surface waters.
The following is a summary of methods used by EPA to select data sources and compute
baseline loads:
• Section 9.1.1 presents sources used by EPA to compute baseline concentrations
for the pollutants of concern
• Section 9.1.2 outlines the methods used by EPA to compute average
concentrations from detailed survey analytical data and from EPA sampling
episodes
• Section 9.1.3 presents the hierarchy used by EPA to impute baseline
concentrations for all 37 pollutants of concern for the 151 (48 direct and 103
indirect discharge) facilities
• Section 9.1.4 describes the methodology used to estimate pollutant loadings for
the various pollutants of concern.
9.1.1 Sources and Use of Available Data
EPA used analytical data provided by the industry in the detailed surveys and analytical
data from facilities sampled to compute baseline pollutant concentrations. The analysis includes a
total of 48 direct and 103 indirect discharge facility detailed surveys. For the 151 direct and
indirect discharge facilities, EPA used baseline concentrations reported for 1999, the base year of
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
the MPP detailed survey. In addition to the analytical data from the 151 facilities, EPA used
sampling data from 11 facilities, including two facilities sampled by EPA. Nine facilities carried
out self-sampling with technical oversight provided by EPA.
9.1.2 Calculation of Average Concentrations from Analytical Data
For each facility and for each pollutant of concern (POC) in the baseline loading analysis,
EPA used average concentrations provided in the detailed survey. When a facility did not
provide average concentrations, but un-averaged, self-monitoring data instead, EPA calculated an
average value to use as the baseline concentration. In computing average baseline concentrations
for use in the proposal, the Agency did not edit any analytical data provided in the detailed
survey. In addition, EPA did not use sample detection limits or the maximum and minimum
concentration values, when average values were not available in the survey. However, for EPA
sampling episodes where concentrations of pollutants were reported below the sample detection
limit, the Agency used the reported sample detection limit as the concentration. Analytical data
from EPA sampling episodes were averaged on a daily basis at each sample location.
9.1.3 Establishment of Baseline Concentration Data
EPA derived baseline concentrations for each POC for each of the 151 facilities (48 direct
and 103 indirect) used to generate baseline pollutant loads. These concentration estimates were
then used to generate baseline pollutant concentrations for each of the 19 model facility
groupings being analyzed by EPA.
EPA used the following hierarchy to calculate baseline concentrations for each facility:
1. When a facility provided concentration data (average values provided in the
detailed survey and averages calculated by EPA from un-averaged self monitoring
data as described previously in Section 9.1.2) for any of the 37 POCs, EPA used
this average concentration.
2. For facilities where baseline concentrations were available from EPA sampling
episodes, EPA used these concentrations. In addition, in the absence of any
9-3
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
baseline concentration data in the detailed survey, EPA transferred analytical data
from the EPA sampling episodes for facilities in identical model facility groupings
and with identical treatments-in-place. For example, for a poultry first processor
(PI) facility with BAT-4 treatment-in-place, EPA used sampling episode data
from available poultry first processor (PI) facilities with BAT-4 treatment-in-
place. When such sampling data were available from more than one EPA
sampling episode, EPA used an average concentration value of these episodes to
transfer data to facilities in identical model facility groupings and with identical
treatments-in-place. However, for the 11 facilities with EPA sampling episode
data belonging to these facilities, the reported pollutant concentrations from
respective individual episodes were used, without using an average concentration.
3. For facilities with no data after the above two steps, EPA used average
concentrations from detailed survey data from other facilities in identical model
facility groupings and with identical treatments-in-place to derive pollutant
concentrations.
4. When survey data from facilities in identical model facility groupings were not
available, EPA used an average of survey and sample data from facilities with
identical treatments-in-place but in similar model facility groupings. EPA defined
similar model facility groupings as those which have at least one of the processes
for which an equivalent is being sought. For example, to impute baseline
concentrations for a meat first processor and Tenderer (R13) facility, EPA
considered the following: meat first processor (Rl), meat first and further
processor (R12), meat first, further processor, and Tenderer (R123), and meat
further processor, and Tenderer (R23) as similar model facility groupings. EPA's
rationale for this definition is that the above four meat model facility groupings
have either the meat first processor model facility grouping (Rl) or Tenderer
model facility grouping (R3). The Agency used only available meat model facility
groupings from the above four potential model facility groupings to impute
9-4
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
baseline concentrations. However, EPA did not use poultry facility data to derive
concentrations for facilities categorized as meat, or vice versa.
5. For POCs where detailed survey and sampling episode data were not available to
transfer according to the above four steps, the Agency used average
concentrations of both detailed survey and sampling episode data from facilities in
identical model facility groupings and with similar treatments-in-place to calculate
an average baseline concentration for each pollutant in a model facility grouping.
EPA defined a similar treatment-in-place as one that has the essential features of
the technology to which it is being considered as an equivalent. At this stage of
data imputation, except for microbiologicals, EPA used both direct and indirect
discharge facilities to transfer analytical data between identical model facility
groupings. For example, to obtain the baseline concentration of copper for a
poultry first and further processor (PI2) facility with PSES-2 treatment-in-place,
EPA used an average of copper baseline concentration data from poultry first and
further processor (P12) facilities with BAT-2 treatment-in-place. Though these
two treatment technologies are not identical, for the purposes of data imputation
EPA considered them as similar technologies for the treatment of certain
pollutants.
6. When data from facilities in identical model facility groupings and with similar
treatments-in-place were not available, an average concentration from facilities in
similar model facility groupings, as defined in step 4, and with similar treatments-
in-place, as defined in step 5, was used instead. Both detailed survey data and
EPA sampling episode data were used to compute average concentrations.
7. When all of the above imputation methods (steps 1-6 for non-microbiologicals,
steps 1-4 for microbiologicals) failed to derive pollutant concentrations, either
because analytical data were lacking in the detailed survey, or because the model
facility grouping the facility belonged to did not have EPA sampling episode data,
the Agency used facility data from treatment options from the next tier level, but
9-5
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
in identical model facility groupings. For example, for poultry first processor (PI)
model facility grouping with BAT-3 treatment in place when no data was
available from PI meat model facility grouping with BAT-3 treatment, EPA used
the following hierarchy: (a) transfer concentration data from PI facilities with
BAT-2 treatment technology, (b) transfer data from PI facilities with BAT-4
treatment technology. In either of the above two cases, EPA used average
concentrations from a group of facilities rather than a single value reported by an
individual facility.
8. At the next level of data imputation, EPA used a combination of items 6 and 7
above, using data from facilities in similar model facility groupings and with
treatments-in-place from the next tier level to derive baseline pollutant
concentrations.
9. For all microbiologicals, EPA transferred data within identical discharge types
only. The Agency did not use microbiological data from indirect dischargers to
derive concentrations for direct dischargers or vice versa. Other than this
exemption, EPA followed the logic described above for deriving baseline
concentration for microbiologicals.
When the baseline concentration of a pollutant derived by the above methods was lower
than the corresponding concentration with the identical treatment-in-place and in the identical
model facility grouping from the proposed treatment option, EPA equated the baseline
concentration to the concentration of the pollutant in the proposed option. However, for facilities
with available data from the detailed survey (i.e., step 1 above), and for the 11 facilities with data
from EPA sampling episodes and facilities where analytical data from EPA sampling episodes
were transferred between facilities in identical model facility groupings and with identical
treatments-in-place (i.e., step 2 above), the Agency did not replace derived pollutant
concentrations with concentrations from the proposed options, even when the baseline
concentrations were lower than the concentrations in the corresponding proposed options.
Table 9-1 illustrates the sequence of the above 10 steps.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Table 9-1. Summary of Imputation Methods Used for Derivation of Baseline Concentrations
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Description
Use available detailed survey data
Use available analytical data from
EPA sampling episodes for 1 1
facilities sampled and facilities in
identical model facility grouping and
with identical treatments-in-place
Use average concentrations of
analytical data from detailed survey
in identical model facility groupings
and with identical treatments-in-place
Use average of detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode data with
identical treatments-in-place, but in
similar model facility groupings
Use average of detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode data in
identical model facility groupings but
with similar treatments-in-place. Not
used for microbiologicals
Use average of detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode data in similar
model facility groupings and with
similar treatments-in-place
Use data in identical model facility
groupings and with treatments-in-
place from next tier levels
Use data in similar model facility
groupings and treatments-in-place
from next tier levels
For micribiologicals, data transfer
was only within identical discharge
types (direct or indirect) only
Use concentrations from proposed
options when baseline concentration
of pollutant is less than that in the
proposed options, with the exception
of concentrations derived in steps 1
and 2 above
Model
facility
grouping
Identical
Identical
Identical
Similar
Identical
Similar
Identical
Similar
Similar or
identical
Identical
Treatment-in-place
Identical
Identical
Identical
Identical
Similar
Similar
Next tier level of treatment-in-
place
Next tier level of treatment-in-
place
Use data from direct and indirect
facilities when deriving data for
direct and indirect facilities,
respectively.
Identical
Data Source
Facility-specific as
provided in detailed
survey
Facility-specific and
averaged EPA
sampling episodes
Averaged detailed
survey data when
facility did not provide
analytical data
Detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode
data
Detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode
data
Detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode
data
Detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode
data
Detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode
data
Detailed survey and
EPA sampling episode
data
Technology options as
described in Section
9.2.3 and presented in
Tables C-47 through
C-75 in Appendix C
9-7
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Certain pollutants that would normally sum to equal another pollutant (e.g., nitrate/nitrite
and TKN should sum to total nitrogen) may not do so in these calculations, since the individual
baseline concentrations for these pollutants were derived using data from different facilities and
sampling episodes. For this proposal, EPA determined that these concentrations be reported as
they are recorded in the detailed survey and in the EPA sampling episodes, and as calculated by
the imputation methods described above. The Agency made a similar determination for derived
concentrations of pollutants such as BOD5 and CBOD5, fecal coliform and total coliform, total
phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus, etc.
The size of the facility (small or non-small) was not considered when transferring data
within model facility groupings and treatments-in-place.
After pollutant concentration data were imputed separately for each direct and indirect
facility, EPA calculated average concentration for 19 model facility groupings using
concentration data from the individual facilities, separating small facilities from non-small
facilities.
Average baseline concentrations for all 37 POCs for each model facility grouping are
presented in Tables C-l through C-29 in Appendix C.
When a particular meat model facility grouping was not represented by any of the
facilities in the detailed survey, EPA used available, similar model facility groupings in the
detailed survey to derive average pollutant concentrations for the missing model facility
grouping. For example, in the meat model facility grouping for direct discharging non-small
facilities, only Rl, R12 and R13 model facility groupings were represented in direct discharging
detailed survey. Similarly for direct discharging non-small poultry model facility grouping, only
PI, P12, P123, and P13 model facility groupings were represented in the detailed survey. EPA
used averages to compute the meat and poultry model facility grouping concentrations that best
represented the model facility grouping without facilities in the detailed survey. This calculation
used both small and non-small facilities. The model facility grouping averages that were derived
using this method are identified with a footnote in Tables C-l through C-29 in Appendix C,
where applicable.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
9.1.4 Calculation of Pollutant Loadings
EPA estimated baseline pollutant loadings for all 37 POCs using the average baseline
concentrations, described in Section 9.1.3 for each model facility grouping and national flow
(median) values derived from the screener survey for small and non-small facilities. Table 9-2
shows the median flow values as projected from the screener survey for direct and indirect
dischargers.
Table 9-2. Median Flow for Direct and Indirect Dischargers by Model Facility
Grouping and Size
Model Facility Grouping
Meat first processors (Rl)
Meat first/further processors (R12)
Meat first/further processors and Tenderers (R123)
Meat first processors and Tenderers (R13)
Meat further processors (R2)
Meat further processors and Tenderers (R23)
Poultry first processors (PI)
Poultry first/further processors (PI 2)
Poultry first/further processors and Tenderers (P123)
Poultry first processors and Tenderers (PI 3)
Poultry further processors (P2)
Poultry further processors and Tenderers (P23)
Mixed poultry/meat further processors (M2)
Mixed poultry/meat further processors and Tenderers (M23)b
Renderers (REND)
Flow for Facilities (MGD)
Small
0.00046
0.00058
0.00120
0.00140
0.00038
0.000073
0.0160
0.00035
N/A
N/A
0.00077
0.00350
0.00058
0.00255
0.140
Medium
0.028
0.440
2.11
0.630
0.09
0.580
0.720
0.350
0.470
0.420
0.086
0.049
0.250
N/A
0.034
Large
N/Aa
N/A
3.42
0.932
0.017
N/A
0.885
0.901
2.81
1.59
0.434
0.850
N/A
N/A
0.090
Very Large
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.90
0.00995
N/A
1.90
1.60
2.80
1.7
0.0308
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.177
a No facilities are represented in this model facility grouping
b Indirect dischargers only
9-9
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
The following equation was used for conventional pollutants, nutrients, metals and
pesticides:
Load = Flow x Cone x 8.345
where
Load = pollutant loading, Ibs/day
Flow = flow rate, million gallons per day
Cone = pollutant concentration, mg/L
8.345 = conversion factor, Ibs/gal and mg/L.
For microbiological pollutants, the loads were computed using the following equation:
Load = Flow x Cone x 37.8
where
Load = pollutant loading, million cfu/day
Flow = flow rate, million gallons per day
Cone = pollutant concentration, cfu/100 mL
37.8 = conversion factor, L/gal and mL/L.
For Cryptosporidium, the loads were computed using the following equation:
Load = Flow x Cone x 3.78
where
Load = pollutant loading, million cysts/day
Flow = flow rate, million gallons per day
Cone = pollutant concentration, cysts per L
3.78 = conversion factor, L/gal.
EPA estimated pollutant loadings for the entire industry using the national estimates of
the number of facilities in each meat model facility grouping multiplied by the model facility
9-10
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
grouping loadings. Tables 9-3 and 9-4 present the number of facilities in each model facility
grouping, as projected from the screener survey for direct and indirect dischargers.
Table 9-3. Number of Direct Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size
Model Facility Grouping
Meat first processors (Rl)
Meat first/further processors (R12)
Meat first/further processors and Tenderers (R123)
Meat first processors and Tenderers (R13)
Meat further processors (R2)
Meat further processors and renders (R23)
Poultry first processors (PI)
Poultry first/further processors (PI 2)
Poultry first/further processors and Tenderers (P123)
Poultry first processors and renders (PI 3)
Poultry further processors (P2)
Poultry further processors and renders (P23)
Mixed poultry/red meat further processors (M2)
Renderers (REND)
Number of Facilities
Small
17
N/A
25
17
43
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9
6
Medium
6
N/A
17
17
10
4
17
6
2
7
10
N/A
5
7
Large
N/Aa
N/A
7
7
1
N/A
25
2
3
8
1
N/A
N/A
6
Very Large
N/A
N/A
N/A
12
1
N/A
7
8
1
2
2
N/A
N/A
8
No facilities are represented in this model facility grouping
9-11
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Table 9-4. Number of Indirect Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size
Model Facility Grouping
Meat first processors (Rl)
Meat first/further processors (R12)
Meat first/further processors and Tenderers (R123)
Meat first processors and renders (R13)
Meat further processors (R2)
Meat further processors and renders (R23)
Poultry first processors (PI)
Poultry first/further processors (PI 2)
Poultry first/further processors and Tenderers (P123)
Poultry first processors and renders (PI 3)
Poultry further processors (P2)
Poultry further processors and Tenderers (P23)
Mixed poultry/meat further processors (M2)
Renderers (REND)
Mixed poultry/meat further processors and renders
(M23)b
Number of Facilities
Small
265
674
50
12
2,489
32
19
20
N/A
N/A
272
4
707
17
4
Medium
N/Aa
28
12
7
160
7
32
11
3
2
133
9
97
26
N/A
Large
N/A
N/A
5
3
4
N/A
48
4
7
2
4
6
N/A
21
N/A
Very Large
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
4
N/A
12
14
2
1
18
N/A
N/A
28
N/A
No facilities are represented in this model facility grouping.
indirect dischargers only
9-12
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Tables 9-5 and 9-6 present the baseline loads generated for direct and indirect facilities,
respectively.
Table 9-5. Baseline Loadings for Direct Dischargers
Pollutant Groups of Concern
Conventional pollutants a
Toxic pollutants b
Nutrients c
Small Facility
Baseline
Loading
2,633,600
118,884
257,489
Non-Small
Facility Baseline
Loading
46,926,729
52,971,558
61,295,253
Units
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Other Pollutants of Concern
Aeromonas
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Cryptosporidium
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
E. coli
Fecal coliform bacteria
Fecal streptococci
Orthophosphate
Salmonella
Total coliform
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
37,398,048
10,971
7,211,921
831,715
440
22,325
24,345
37,590,901
4,012,138
2,506,958
62,845
17,007
35,508,476
3,721,125
68,602
1,212
784,276
74,124,203,180
5,436,829
45,006,868
289,715,129
40,016
2,890,205
6,097,899
78,926,098,937
35,157,310,463
1,273,974,840
4,435,234
6,738,113
96,100,436,605
907,402,228
5,932,150
475,125
114,282,048
million cfu/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
million cysts/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
million cfu/yr
million cfu/yr
million cfu/yr
Ibs/yr
million cfu/yr
million cfu/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
a Conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM) and total
suspended solids (TSS)
b Toxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium, czs-Permethrin,
manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, frans-Permethrin, vanadium, and zinc
c Nutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorus
9-13
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Table 9-6. Baseline Loadings for Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant Groups of Concern
Conventional pollutants a
Toxic pollutants b
Nutrients c
Small Facility
Baseline Loading
31,966,596
1,143,985
7,095,318
Non-Small
Facility Baseline
Loading
1,018,858,887
75,299,529
94,112,866
Units
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Other Pollutants of Concern
Aeromonas
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Cryptosporidium
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
E. colt
Fecal coliform bacteria
Fecal streptococci
Orthophosphate
Salmonella
Total coliform
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
19,184,904,649
18,098,643
28,814,396
22,053,547
229,949
14,962,017
477,206
66,192,758,859
46,703,268,777
57,574,999,260
237,447
583,562
71,410,481,190
38,778,129
9,442,455
3,333
26,271,375
1,084,294,192,937
547,829,773
941,098,914
752,413,059
4,310,247
381,609,489
14,902,848
3,257,404,839,755
2,944,853,206,446
1,131,842,917,041
9,640,839
44,105,854
3,326,332,420,450
1,423,824,756
197,631,108
113,586
1,197,019,690
million cfu/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
million cysts/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
million cfu/yr
million cfu/yr
million cfu/yr
Ibs/yr
million cfu/yr
million cfu/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
a Conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM) and total
suspended solids (TSS)
b Toxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium, cw-Permethrin,
manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, frans-Permethrin, vanadium, and zinc
c Nutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorus
9-14
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
9.2 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS LOADINGS
This section presents the methods used by EPA to develop pollutant loading estimates
after implementation of various technology options being considered for the MPP industry. EPA
defined options loadings as the estimated pollutant loadings in MPP wastewater after
implementation of the selected technology option, also referred to as treated pollutant loadings.
EPA estimated options loadings for all the MPP model facility groupings for each technology
option being considered.
In order to estimate the technology option loadings, EPA first derived the treated
pollutant concentrations for first processing, further processing and rendering wastewaters for
each technology option. EPA then estimated technology option concentrations for each model
facility grouping, from which technology option loadings could then be derived.
The following is a summary of the methods used by EPA to select data sources and
compute technology option loads:
• Section 9.2.1 describes data sources used by EPA to compute technology option
loadings for the pollutants of concern,
• Section 9.2.2 presents the methods used by EPA to compute average
concentrations for first processing, further processing and rendering wastewaters
for each technology option,
• Section 9.2.3 discusses the methods used by EPA to estimate technology option
concentrations for each model facility grouping, and
• Section 9.2.4 outlines the methodology used to estimate technology option
loadings for each model facility grouping.
9.2.1 Sources and Use of Available Data
To develop options loading estimates for the MPP industry, EPA used wastewater
sampling data from MPP facilities with unit processes contained within each technology option
9-15
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
being considered. As described in detail in Section 3, multi-day sampling was conducted at 11
MPP facilities. EPA performed multi-day sampling at two facilities, and nine facilities
performed the multi-day sampling on behalf of EPA. EPA used the data from the two EPA
sampled facilities, but only eight of the nine self-sampled facility sampling episodes in estimating
options loadings. EPA discarded the data from sampling episode 6446 because the Agency
needs to perform further review of the sampling data for this facility.1 To a limited extent, in the
absence of transferable sampling episode data, EPA used data received in the MPP detailed
surveys to estimate option loadings.
All data values (such as pollutant concentrations and flows) used in the development of
option loading estimations were derived as arithmetic averages. If pollutant concentrations were
reported below the sample detection limit, EPA used the sample detection limit. The Agency
used data from multiple sites for some options. In these cases, EPA first averaged the data for
each site and then averaged the sites' averages with each other.
9.2.2 Calculation of Average Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First
Processing, Further Processing and Rendering Wastewaters
This section describes in detail how, for each technology option, EPA calculated treated
pollutant concentrations for wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing,
further processing and rendering). EPA used these values later to calculate the treated pollutant
concentrations for each of the 15 model facility groupings identified from the MPP screener
surveys.
For each technology option, facilities were chosen from sampling episodes that had all the
technical unit processes of that technology option. Data from these sampling episodes were then
used to derive treated pollutant concentrations for first processing, further processing, and
rendering wastewaters after treatment by a particular technology option. If more than one facility
1 This facility was one of nine that performed self-sampling on behalf of EPA. Note that EPA does not
anticipate that the exclusion of sampling episode 6446 will significantly impact the technology option selection for
proposal: This facility was one of five that EPA selected to represent BAT-2 technology option performance. EPA
had sampling data from four other facilities using similar levels of treatment to use as the basis for proposal
development.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
was chosen for a technology option, then the treated pollutant concentration was derived from the
average of all the facilities.
To the extent possible with available data, EPA set the treated pollutant concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering wastewaters for each technology option
equal to the average effluent concentrations of the sampled facility or facilities that were chosen
as representative of the technology option. However, whenever this specific data was
unavailable, EPA calculated the concentration by one of three methods, depending on available
data.
Method 1: When appropriate influent2 data was available, it was multiplied by a factor
that would estimate the pollutant concentration after treatment. This factor was derived using
pollutant removal data from sampled facilities (in instances where several facilities were used in
the calculations, the average removal of the facilities was used). The following equation was
used:
Treated pollutant concentration = (influent concentration) x (1 - removal fraction)
where
pollutant removal fraction for a facility was calculated as follows3:
(influent concentration - effluent concentration) / (influent concentration)
Method 2: This method was based on estimating a facility pollutant mass balance between
the final effluent and its components of first processing, further processing, and rendering
wastewaters (as applicable). From this relationship, an equation to calculate the treated pollutant
concentrations for first processing wastewater could be derived as follows:
2 An influent wastestream could consist entirely of one type of wastewater (first processing, further
processing, or rendering), or any mixture of the three. When an influent concentration was used in calculating the
treated concentration of the first processing, further processing, or rendering wastewater, it consisted solely of the
appropriate wastewater type.
3 Influent and effluent pollutant concentrations were derived from the arithmetic average concentrations for
each sampling episode. All negative removal rates were set at zero.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Total pollutant effluent load = treated pollutant load from first processing + treated
pollutant load from further processing + treated pollutant load from rendering operations
Substituting loads with concentrations and flows:
(Final effluent concentration x total flow) = (treated concentration of first processing
wastewater x first processing wastewater flow) + (treated concentration of further processing
wastewater x further processing wastewater flow) + (treated concentration of rendering
wastewater x rendering wastewater flow)
Treated concentration of first processing wastewater = [(final effluent concentration x
total flow) - (treated concentration of further processing wastewater x further processing
wastewater flow) - (treated concentration of rendering wastewater x rendering wastewater flow)]
/ (first processing wastewater flow).
Method 3: When a specific technology option was not represented in the sampling
episodes, then concentrations were derived assuming that the removal fractions between different
technology option levels would be the same for meat and poultry facilities (i.e., the removal
fraction between meat BAT-2 and meat BAT-3 treatment options would be the same as the
removal fraction between poultry BAT-2 and poultry BAT-3 treatment options). This removal
fraction would then be applied to the treated pollutant concentrations calculated for the
technology option that was one step lower. This method is described in greater detail in the
technology options discussion where this method was applied.
For the equations that follow, the following notations were used:
Rl = treated meat first processing wastewater concentration
R2 = treated meat further processing wastewater concentration
R3 = treated meat rendering wastewater concentration
PI = treated poultry first processing wastewater concentration
P2 = treated poultry further processing wastewater concentration
P3 = treated poultry rendering wastewater concentration
influent @xxxx = influent concentration of sampling episode xxxx
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
effluent @xxxx = effluent concentration of sampling episode xxxx
(discharge effluent, unless otherwise noted).
Technology Options for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities
This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for
wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing, and
rendering) for direct discharging meat facilities.
BAT-1 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The BAT-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (DAF) (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS
removal), limited nitrification (ammonia (NH3) removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal).
The BAT-1 and BAT-2 options consist of the same unit processes; however, under BAT-
1, EPA assumed that MPP facilities would only achieve limited nitrification in comparison to
BAT-2. Thus, EPA set the BAT-1 treated pollutant averages for meat facilities equal to the
BAT-2 treated averages calculated for meat facilities (see next section), except for ammonia
(NH3 as N), nitrate/nitrite and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations.
The following methodology describes how EPA calculated BAT-1 concentrations for
ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and TKN.
EPA first estimated the ammonia concentration for meat first processing by taking an
average of effluent ammonia concentrations from meat facilities 0280, 0287, 0318, and 0336, as
reported in the MPP detailed surveys. These facilities were chosen, because their biological
treatment systems were not considered advanced, and it was assumed that these facilities were
not operating their system specifically to achieve full scale nitrification, and therefore would be
representative of a BAT-1 treatment effluent.
EPA then assumed that the total nitrogen concentration for the BAT-1 treatment option
would be equal to total nitrogen concentration for the BAT-2 treatment option. EPA believes
that only the concentrations of the different forms of nitrogen in a given wastestream would
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
change, but the total nitrogen concentration would not change (i.e., only the forms of nitrogen
would change when shifting to a nitrification system).
To calculate the TKN concentration for meat first processing wastewater treated by BAT-
1, the following relationships and equations were used to derive TKN estimates:
(TKN of BAT-1) = (ammonia of BAT-1) + (organic nitrogen of BAT-1)
then: (organic nitrogen of BAT-1) = (TKN of BAT-1) - (ammonia of BAT-1)
Assuming the relationship between total nitrogen and organic nitrogen remain the same
from BAT-1 to BAT-2:
(organic nitrogen of BAT-1) = (organic nitrogen of BAT-2)
With substitutions:
(TKN of BAT-1) = (ammonia of BAT-1) + (organic nitrogen of BAT-2)
(TKN of BAT-1) = (ammonia of BAT-1) + [(TKN of BAT-2) - (ammonia of BAT-2)].
To calculate the nitrate/nitrite concentration:
Total nitrogen = (nitrate/nitrite) + (TKN)
Nitrate/nitrite = total nitrogen - TKN.
After determining the concentrations for ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total nitrogen, and TKN
for meat first processing, the ratios of ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and TKN to total nitrogen for
meat further processing and rendering were set equal to the ratios of meat first processing. With
total nitrogen concentration values derived from BAT-2 treatment option numbers, the ammonia,
nitrate/nitrite, and TKN concentrations could be calculated. For example, ammonia for R2 was
equal to (ammonia of Rl divided by total nitrogen of Rl (this calculates the ratio)) multiplied by
the total nitrogen value for R2.
9-20
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Table C-30 of Appendix C summarizes the methods used to derive average
concentrations for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from
meat facilities using BAT-1 treatment technology.
BAT-2 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The BAT-2 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal),
EPA selected datasets from sampling episodes for facilities 6440, 6441, 6442, and 6447
to derive option concentrations, because these meat facilities all contained the unit processes of
the BAT-2 technology option. When wastewater samples from the further processing and/or
rendering operations were not available from a facility, appropriate sampling data from another
facility (i.e., same wastewater type) were substituted to fill data gaps. EPA used influent
rendering wastestream concentrations from sampling episode 6447 to substitute missing
rendering wastestream concentrations for sampling episodes 6440, 6441, and 6442. EPA also
used influent further processing wastestream concentrations from sampling episode 6335 to
substitute missing further processing wastestream concentrations for sampling episode 6447.
Table 9-7 summarizes data substitutions.
Table 9-7. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling
Missing Data
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episodes 6440, 6441, and 6442
Influent further processing wastewater concentrations
for sampling episode 6447
Data Substitution
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations from
sampling episode 6447
Influent further processing wastewater concentration
from sampling episode 6335
Since EPA selected four facilities to derive treated pollutant concentrations for the BAT-2
treatment technology, wastewater concentrations were calculated for each facility, and the
average of the four facilities was taken to derive the option concentrations.
9-21
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
The calculations to derive treated first processing, further processing, and rendering
wastewater concentrations for facility 6440 are given below as an example of how concentrations
were derived for each facility (refer to Table C-31 of Appendix C for equations):
• First processing wastewater (Rl): The first processing waste stream concentration
was calculated through a mass balance approach as previously described (Method
2) in the beginning of Section 9.2.2. Because facility 6440 only performed first
processing and rendering operations, the mass balance equation was modified to
only subtract a rendering allocation load, where:
Treated concentration of first processing wastewater = [(final effluent
concentration x total flow) - (treated concentration of rendering wastewater x
rendering wastewater flow)] / (first processing wastewater flow)
• Further processing wastewater (R2): Since facility 6440 only performed first
processing and rendering operations, the further processing wastewater
calculations were not applicable.
• Rendering wastewater (R3): The calculation for the rendering waste stream
concentration followed Method 1 as described previously.
R3 for facility 6440 = (a) x (influent rendering waste stream concentration of
facility 6447) where: (a) = (1 - average removal fraction of facilities 6440, 6441,
6442 and 6447.)
Since the influent rendering waste stream concentration of facility 6440 was
unavailable, data from facility 6447 was used as a substitution.
Table C-31 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities
using BAT-2 treatment technology.
9-22
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
BAT-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The BAT-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal) and denitrification (nitrogen removal), and disinfection
(pathogen removal).
The dataset from sampling episode 6335 was chosen because this meat facility contained
the unit processes of the BAT-3 technology option4. Table 9-8 summarizes data substitutions.
Table 9-8. Data Substitutions for BAT-3 Technology Option Sampling
Missing Data
Influent rendering wastewater concentration for
sampling episode 6335
Data Substitution
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations from
sampling episode 6447
Table C-32 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities
using BAT-3 treatment technology.
BAT-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The BAT-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), phosphorus removal, and
disinfection (pathogen removal).
Since sampling data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of BAT-4
technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived by
assuming that the removal fraction between poultry BAT-3 and BAT-4 technology options would
be the same as the removal fraction between meat BAT-3 and BAT-4 technology options. This
4 Facility 6335 is an indirect discharger, however, this facility also contained BAT-3 technology for the
treatment of reuse water. EPA used data from the reuse water sampling point at this facility to represent the
performance of the BAT-3 technology option.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
removal fraction was then used to calculate average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentrations for
meat facilities.
Table C-33 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities
using BAT-4 treatment technology.
Technology Options for Direct Discharging Poultry Facilities
This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for
wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing, and
rendering) for direct discharging poultry facilities.
BAT-1 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The BAT-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
limited nitrification (ammonia removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal).
EPA set the treated pollutant concentrations for BAT-1 poultry facilities equal to the
treated pollutant concentrations calculated for BAT-2 poultry facilities (see next section), except
for ammonia, nitrate/nitrite and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN).
The Agency first estimated the ammonia concentration for poultry first processing by
taking an average of effluent ammonia concentrations from facilities 0020, 0026, and 0308 as
reported in the MPP detailed surveys. These facilities were chosen because their biological
treatment systems were not considered advanced, and it was assumed that these facilities were
not operating their systems specifically to achieve nitrification and therefore would be
representative of a BAT-1 treatment effluent. The methodology for deriving the remaining
pollutant concentrations was identical to that described previously in Section 9.2.2 for the BAT-1
technology option for meat facilities.
9-24
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Table C-34 of Appendix C summarizes the methods used to derive average
concentrations for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from
poultry facilities using BAT-1 treatment technology.
BAT-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The BAT-2 technology option comprises of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal).
The dataset from sampling episode 6445 was chosen because this poultry facility
contained the unit processes of the BAT-2 technology option. Since facility 6445 only conducted
first processing operations, appropriate influent data from other sampled poultry facilities was
used. Table 9-9 summarizes data substitutions.
Table 9-9. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling
Missing Data
Influent further processing wastewater concentrations
for sampling episode 6445
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6445
Data Substitution
Influent further processing wastewater concentrations
from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6448
Table C-35 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
using BAT-2 treatment technology.
BAT-3 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The BAT-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), and disinfection (pathogen
removal),.
9-25
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Since sampling data from a poultry facility that contained the unit processes of BAT-3
technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived by
assuming that the removal fraction between the poultry BAT-2 and BAT-3 technology options
would be the same as the removal fraction between the meat BAT-2 to BAT-3 technology
options. This removal fraction was then combined with the poultry BAT-2 treated pollutant
concentrations to derive poultry BAT-3 treated pollutant concentrations.
Table C-36 of Appendix C gives the equations used to derive average concentrations for
first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
using BAT-3 treatment technology.
BAT-4 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The BAT-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), phosphorus removal, and
disinfection (pathogen removal).
The dataset from sampling episode 6304 was chosen because this poultry facility
contained the unit processes of the BAT-4 technology option5. Since facility 6304 only
conducted first processing operations, appropriate influent data from other sampled poultry
facilities was used. Table 9-10 summarizes data substitutions.
Table 9-10. Data Substitutions for BAT-4 Technology Option Sampling
Missing or Replaced Data
Influent further processing wastewater concentrations
for sampling episode 6304
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6304
Data Substitution
Influent further processing wastewater concentrations
from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6448
5 Facility 6304 had sampling points prior and following a polishing filter unit process. EPA used effluent
concentrations from the sampling point prior to the filter at this facility to represent performance of the BAT-4
technology option.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Table C-37 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
using BAT-4 treatment technology.
BAT-5 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The BAT-5 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), phosphorus removal,
polishing filter, and disinfection (pathogen removal).
The dataset from sampling episode 6304 was chosen because this poultry facility
contained the unit processes of the BAT-5 technology option6. Since facility 6304 only
conducted first processing operations, appropriate influent data from other sampled poultry
facilities was used. Table 9-11 summarizes data substitutions.
Table 9-11. Data Substitutions for BAT-5 Technology Option Sampling
Missing or Replaced Data
Influent further processing wastewater concentrations
for sampling episode 6304
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6304
Data Substitution
Influent further processing wastewater concentrations
from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6448
Table C-38 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
using BAT-5 treatment technology.
6 Facility 6304 had sampling points prior and following a polishing filter unit process. EPA used effluent
concentrations from the sampling point following the filter at this facility to represent performance of the BAT-5
technology option.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Technology Options for Indirect Discharging Meat Facilities
This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for
wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing and
rendering) for indirect discharging meat facilities.
PSES-1 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The PSES-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: of dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation) and equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal).
The dataset from sampling episode 6335 was chosen because this meat facility contained
the unit processes of the PSES-1 technology option7. Table 9-12 summarizes data substitutions.
Table 9-12. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling
Missing or Replaced Data
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6335
Data Substitution
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6447
Table C-39 of Appendix C gives the equations used to derive average concentrations for
first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities using
PSES-1 treatment technology.
PSES-2 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The PSES-2 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), and
nitrification (ammonia removal).
Since sampling data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of the PSES-2
technology option was unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the
calculated treated pollutant concentrations for meat BAT-2 and PSES-1 technology options for
7 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located after DAF and equalization of the treatment train
to represent the performance of the PSES-1 technology option.
9^28
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
non-microbial and microbial pollutants, respectively. Because PSES-2 and BAT-2 technology
options are similar in effective pollutant removals (except for microbial pollutants, due to the
disinfection unit process of BAT-2), EPA assumed that the treated pollutant concentrations of
both options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Also, since EPA believes that only a
disinfection process would significantly change the microbial concentrations in MPP
wastewaters, microbial pollutant concentrations for meat PSES-2 were set equal to treated
pollutant concentrations of meat PSES-1 (since microbial concentrations would not be expected
to change significantly in higher PSES option levels).
Table C-40 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities
using PSES-2 treatment technology.
PSES-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The PSES-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), and denitrification (nitrogen removal).
Since complete data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-3
technology option was unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the
calculated treated pollutant concentrations for the meat BAT-3 technology option for non-
microbial pollutants. Because PSES-3 and BAT-3 technology options are similar in effective
pollutant removals (except for microbial pollutants due to the disinfection unit process of BAT-
3), EPA assumed that the treated pollutant concentrations of both options would be similar for
non-microbial pollutants. Data from sampling episode 6335 was used to derive microbial
pollutant concentrations.8
Table C-41 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities
using PSES-3 treatment technology.
8 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfection to represent the performance
of the PSES-3 technology option for microbial pollutants.
9^29
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
PSES-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities
The PSES-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal) and phosphorus removal.
Since sampling data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-4
technology option was unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the
calculated treated pollutant concentrations for the meat BAT-4 technology option for non-
microbial pollutants. Because PSES-4 and BAT-4 technology options are similar in effective
pollutant removals (except for microbial pollutants due to the disinfection unit process of BAT-
4), EPA assumed that the treated pollutant concentrations of both options would be similar for
non-microbial pollutants. Data from sampling episode 6335 was used to derive microbial
pollutant concentrations.9
Table C-42 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities
using PSES-4 treatment technology.
Technology Options for Indirect Discharging Poultry Facilities
This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for
wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing and
rendering) for indirect discharging poultry facilities.
PSES-1 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The PSES-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation) and equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal).
9 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfection to represent the performance
of the PSES-4 technology option for microbial pollutants.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
EPA chose datasets from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444, because these poultry
facilities all contained the technical unit processes of the PSES-1 technology option. Table 9-13
summarizes data substitutions.
Table 9-13. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling
Missing or Replaced Data
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episodes 6443 and 6444
Data Substitution
Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for
sampling episode 6448
Table C-43 of Appendix C shows the equations used to derive average concentrations for
first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
utilizing PSES-1 treatment technology.
PSES-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The PSES-2 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), and
nitrification (ammonia removal).
Since sampling data from a poultry facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-2
technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the
calculated treated pollutant concentrations of poultry BAT-2. Both technology options are
similar in effective pollutant removals, except for microbial pollutants (due to disinfection unit
process in BAT-2). EPA therefore decided that the treated pollutant concentrations of both
options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were
derived from sampling episode 6304 data.10
Table C-44 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations
for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
using PSES-2 treatment technology.
10 EPA used data from the sampling point located following the diffused air flotation unit process (and
before the disinfection unit process) at this facility to represent the performance of the PSES-2 technology option for
microbial pollutants.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
PSES-3 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The PSES-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), and denitrification (nitrogen removal).
Since appropriate data from a sampled poultry facility that contained the unit processes of
PSES-3 technology option were unavailable, EPA derived the treated pollutant concentrations
from the calculated treated pollutant concentrations of poultry BAT-3. Both technology options
are similar in effective pollutant removals, except for microbial pollutants (due to disinfection
unit process in BAT-3). EPA therefore decided that the treated pollutant concentrations of both
options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were
derived from sampling episode 6443 data.11
Table C-45 of Appendix C shows the equations used to derive average concentrations for
first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
using PSES-3 treatment technology.
PSES-4 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities
The PSES-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air
flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),
nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal) and phosphorus removal.
Since sampling data from a poultry facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-4
technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the
calculated treated pollutant concentrations of poultry BAT-4. Both technology options are
similar in effective pollutant removals, except for microbial pollutants (due to disinfection unit
process in BAT-4). EPA therefore decided that the treated pollutant concentrations of both
11 EPA used microbial effluent concentrations from this facility to represent the treatment performance of
the PSES-3 technology option on microbial pollutants.
9-32
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were
derived from sampling episode 6443 data12.
Table C-46 of Appendix C shows the equations used to derive average concentrations for
first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities
utilizing PSES-4 treatment technology.
9.2.3 Development of Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations for each Model
Facility Group
This section describes the method by which EPA developed average treated pollutant
concentrations for 15 of the 19 model facility groupings used to represent the meat and poultry
processing industry. Section 11 provides a discussion of the model facility groupings.13 As
described in Section 9.2.2 above, EPA developed average treated pollutant concentrations for
each pollutant and technology option being considered by EPA for meat and poultry first
processing (Rl and PI), further processing (R2 and P2), and rendering (R3 and P3). Since there
are MPP facilities that perform combinations of these three types of MPP operations, EPA used
the average treated pollutant concentrations for first processing, further processing, and rendering
and the flow ratios among the various types of processes to derive flow-weighted average treated
pollutant concentrations.
EPA calculated flow fractions for different meat and poultry groupings using available
data from the MPP detailed survey. Specifically using flow rates reported in the MPP detailed
survey, EPA determined the fraction of total flow attributable to each of the processes (first
processing, further processing, and rendering). For example, EPA determined from a sample of
poultry first and further processing facilities that 74.08 percent of the total flow was attributable
to first processing and that the balance of 25.92 percent was from further processing operations.
Similar flow fractions were derived for the remaining meat and poultry groupings and are
12 EPA used microbial effluent concentrations from this facility to represent the treatment performance of
the PSES-4 technology option on microbial pollutants.
13 Note that although EPA organized the MPP industry into 19 model facility groupings, based on the MPP
screener survey results, there were direct and indirect discharging facilities in only 15 model facility groups.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
presented in Table 9-14 below. Since EPA used both direct and indirect facilities to derive the
flow fractions, the same flow fractions were used for both direct and indirect facilities.
Using the flow fractions in Table 9-14 and the average treated pollutant concentrations
derived as described in Section 9.2.2, EPA calculated pollutant concentrations for the various
meat and poultry facility groupings. Since the flow fractions are expressed as percentages, EPA
was able to compute the required concentrations without actual flow rates.
Table 9-14. Flow Fractions Used to Derive Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations
Model Facility
Grouping
PI
P12
P123
P13
P2
P23
Rl
R12
R123
R13
R2
R23
Ml
M2
M12
M13
M23
M123
Render
Flow Fraction
First Processing
a
0.7408
0.553
0.6857
a
--
a
0.5266
0.356
0.5235
a
—
C
b
c
c
D
c
--
Further Processing
a
0.2592
0.1934
—
a
0.4328
a
0.4734
0.32
--
a
0.4968
C
b
c
c
b
c
--
Rendering
a
-
0.2535
0.3143
a
0.5672
a
—
0.324
0.4765
a
0.5032
C
b
c
c
b
c
a
a Average treated pollutant concentrations were derived directly from sampling episode data; flow fractions were
not required.
b The average treated pollutant concentrations for the "mixed" model facilities groupings were calculated by taking
the average of the treated pollutant concentrations of relevant poultry and meat operations (for the corresponding
technology option and pollutant). For example, the average treated pollutant concentrations from P2 and R2 were
averaged together to derive the average treated pollutant concentration for mixed further processing (M2).
c According to the MPP screener survey, there were no direct or indirect facilities in this model facility grouping.
d The "Rendering" model facility grouping average concentration was calculated by taking the average of the treated
pollutant concentrations of P3 and R3 (for the corresponding technology option and pollutant).
9-34
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
For example, for a P12 facility, the wastewater will consist of first processing (PI) and
further processing (P2) wastewater effluents. From Table 9-14, a P12 facility has a flow fraction
of 0.7408 for first processing (PI) and 0.2592 for further processing (P2) wastewaters. If the
average BOD concentration for first processing wastewater treated by the BAT-2 option were
calculated to be 2.00 mg/L, and the further processing (P2) wastewater was calculated to be 5.91
mg/L, then the treated BOD concentration for a BAT-2 P12 facility would be:
P12 = (2.00 mg/L x 0.7408) + (5.91 mg/L x 0.2592) = 3.01 mg/L
Tables C-47 through C-75 in Appendix C present the average treated pollutant
concentration for each of the 15 model facility groupings for all pollutants of concern and all
technology options being considered by EPA.
9.2.4 Development of Post-Compliance Pollutant Loadings for each Technology
Option and each Model Facility Grouping
EPA estimated post-compliance pollutant loadings based on the average treated pollutant
concentration for each of the 37 pollutants of concern, for each of the 15 model facility
groupings, and for each technology being considered. For each model facility grouping, the
number and size of facilities and median facility discharge flow was determined from the MPP
screener surveys. EPA then estimated post-compliance pollutant loadings for each size of model
facility grouping using the following equations:
Load = Flow x Cone x CF x NF (for small facilities)
Load = Flow x Cone x CF x NF x 1.0814 (for non-small facilities)
where:
Load = post-compliance pollutant loading, in Ibs/day, million cfu/day, or million
cysts/day
14 EPA carefully selected 65 non-small "certainty" facilities to obtain site-specific information on major
producers for all types of meat and poultry products as well as facilities identified as good performers by state and
regional environmental personnel. These certainty facilities were not included in the screener survey projections for
deriving national estimates. The certainty facilities represent eight percent of the total number of non-small facilities
as estimated from screener survey projections. Thus, the estimated national loadings for non-small facilities were
multiplied by a factor of 1.08 to account for the certainty facilities.
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
Flow = median flow rate, million of gallons per day (based on an average of 260
production days per year)
Cone = average treated pollutant concentration for the model facility grouping
model facility grouping (as presented in Tables C-47 through C-75 in
Appendix C), in mg/L, cfu/100 mL, or cysts/liter
CF = conversion factor, which is dependant on the concentration units of the
pollutant:
mg/L = 8.345
cfu/100 mL = 37.8
cysts/liter = 3.78
NF = national estimate of the number of facilities for the model facility grouping
and size.
Tables 9-15 and 9-16 present a summary of the post-compliance pollutant loadings for
direct and indirect dischargers for all technology options being considered by EPA.
9.3 POLLUTANT REMOVALS
From baseline and technology option loadings, EPA estimated national pollutant
removals after implementation of each technology option considered. This estimation was done
by taking the difference between the baseline loadings and each technology option loadings.
9-36
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
«!
*3
^
bC
£H
^3
C3
O
g
-^
•a
in
H
•^
P9
-,.
H
«
w
H
PQ
01
H
H
—
^*
~3
g
1
£
o
2
^2
a
g
r7
i
=
z
"a
g
c«
_
"a
£
i
C
Q
Z
^ —
"a
g
VI
•-]
C3
2
°P
£•
O
Z
•M
"a
g
c
••
a
g
i
c
o
Z
(
"•
C3
E
m
!u
O
^
^5
Pollutant Groi
Concern
VH
"33
£
en
ON
oo"
01
^o"
^o
o
oo"
•xt
c»
01
"-^
'^J-
p —
o
ON
en"
ol
t--
ON"
' — '
^O
ON
^
ON"
en
ol
en
ft
fi
o
oo"
01
^o
o
f-
^iT
en
en
en
ft
fl
o
-sf
oo"
ol
o
^o"
en
en
CO
C
-2
3
| Conventional poll
VH
"33
£
ON
en
01
ON"
r--
en
ON
00
oo"
en
of
ON
r--
r--
ON"
00
o
of
en
p —
ft
ol
ON
OJ.
fl
ol
00
en
en"
r--
T^j-
co
^_(
r-
o
*>o~
T^j-
^
^O
•xf
ol
, — ^
•T^(-
00
ol
00^
oo"
ON
' — 1
| Toxic pollutants b
VH
"33
£
O
01
o
r--"
ON
,_<"
en
ON
ON
of
r--
^j"
00
r--
°i
T^j-
_H
00
re
00
— H
r--"
00
00
r~-^
of
en
00
01
r--
oo"
^
*>o
'^J-
ON
en
vq
en"
o
01
00
ol
r~-
oo"
*>o
^o
^iT
•r^(-
ON
en
^o
en"
o
Ol
[Nutrients0
s
fl)
0
=
u
(4-H
O
[Other Pollutants
§ &
s "3
••^ <+-<
i/-)
ol
o"
00
en"
o
en
^o"
ol
f}
"
5
ol
00^
f}
ol
"*
01
^H"
*>o
*>o
o"
t--
ft
00^
en"
en
o
[-4
00
of
en
en"
^o
ON
ft
ol
en
oo"
en
o
[-4
00
• — i
of
en
en"
ON
O
I/")"
01
en
oo"
Aeromonas
(I
"33
=2
3:
en
of
ot
ft
ON
00
oo"
r-^
ON
r-;
*^j-
01
)2
00
•xf"
f
^H
en"
, — i
01
^o
•xt"
t--
01
ON
oo"
r-;
^H
00
en
• — i
r--"
t--
01
ON
oo"
f
t~-
, — <~
00
en
• — i
r--"
D
Carbonaceous
biochemical oxyg
demand (CBOD)
VH
"33
=2
00
r--"
ON"
^O
r--
r--
P-^"
00
en
o"
01
ON
*^|-
en
01
ft
en
ol"
o
oo"
' — ]
, — 1
t--
o_
of
00
^^
ON
w>
oo"
•^
^H
01
01
ON
o"
00
ON
ft
oo"
*>o
•"N(-
, — <"
ol
ol
ON
^o
o"
00
' — 1
T*
g
o
Td
Chemical oxygen
(COD)
VH
"33
=2
00
o
oo"
f
01
^o
f}
00
^o"
ON
en
of
00
r--
ON
,—j
,—1
00
s
of
o
""I
•*
00
^H
ol^
f--"
"°
en
, I"
*>o
ON
of
00
en
01
ol
ON
en
en
o
, — <~
*>o
ON
of
00
en
ol
ft
ON"
en
^o
[Chloride
5
Z
|
.^
^
^
h^
Z
.^
^
<
^
^
2?
|
CD
•^
^
| Cryptosporidium
(I
"33
£
^
. — 1
^4"
en
,_<"
ol
ol
ol
r--"
00
ON
of
ol
•^
f}
en
r--
oo"
ON
T^(-
^H"
en
ON
O
of
— H
o
en
r~
^iT
f
of
ol
00
of
ol
o
en
t~-
^iT
ft
^o
of
01
00
' — 1
of
01
"3
o
Dissolved biocher
oxygen demand
(I
"sT
£
en
f,
ol
en"
r--
o
en
00
oo"
o
ON
r--
^^)-
ON
r--"
01
ON
ON
ON
01
•xf
ON
^O~
o
T^j-
(N
*>O
•^j-
CO^
,—1
ON
• — i
*>O~
O
•^
(N
•^j"
cn"
X
^
O
| Dissolved phosph
g ^
3 "3
'g tj
s
ON
oo"
01
ON
of
o
*^l-
en"
00
°1
ON
r--
of
o
of
en
^H
en"
o
00
en^
oo"
r--
ON
, I"
en
en"
en
01
•xt
00
o
r--"
00
f,
t--
ON
, — ^
en
o
en"
en
ol
00
o
r--"
00
"3
.2 -§>
g o
fl
ol
^-J."
•^
ON
f,
^
ON
ON
00
ON"
en
ft
00
f,
oo"
' '
ON
o"
01
^H
r--"
en
t--
^H
' — 1
of
o
ON
ol
r--
oo"
ol
r—r
f}
en
en
ON
00
oo"
ol
^H
ON
ol
r--
oo"
ol
r~-
fi
en
en
ON
00
oo"
ol
, — 4
.3
£
(1
Fecal coliform bai
§ ^
s "3
g o
ON
ly-)
ON
O
ON"
O
*^|-
^o"
r--
en
r--"
o
•xf
oo"
en
ol
en
ON"
O
•xf
of
en
ON
"/^
o"
00
ft
t~-
ON"
00
oo"
r--
ON
ON
oo"
r--
en
ft
f-
f-;
ON"
^H
00^
oo"
f-
ON
fl
ON
oo"
f-
en
Fecal streptococci
VH
"33
£
en
en"
01
o
o"
r--
r--
00
en"
f-
^H"
^H
00
^H"
Ol
fl
ON
en"
01
ON
r--
o"
01
en"
fi
01
of
ol
ON
r~-
o"
Ol
^o
en"
fi
ol
• — i
of
| Orthophosphate
^H
CD
CJ
Q
~i—»
O
O
o
G
—
fi
CS
H
9-37
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
CD
G
O
^
03
CD
J3
a
•i-H
Q
^_>
CJ
2
Q
o
o
G
as
_«
2
CS
H
£
'3
So
-3
a
Q
•^
O
•a
in
H
^
CQ
^
H
-^J
«
-y>
H
«
fS
H
PQ
^H
i
^
pg
-—
"a
3
=
o
53
S
a
o
Z
"a
^3
^
g
^
Q
Z
1
"a
S
!/!
Q
Q
Z
KM
13
g
m
^^
s
s
T*fl
a
Z
"a
•J2
14-
o
o
••
s _<
1 o3
Pollutant i
Com
O *~>
£3 3
g O
r--
r--
of
o
t--
^4"
t--
en
00
ol"
o
f-^
ON
ft
00
r--
of
00
ON
, — 4
00
f,
IS
t--
r-;
en
01
ol"
ON
*^t-
en"
^H
t--
r-;
en"
ol
• — i
ol"
ON
en"
Salmonella
g £,
3 ""5
•£j <-W
^
^q
^5"
^0
fi
^
^H
O
IT)
,-T
' '
00
o
00^
ON"
O
ON
00
en"
o
oo"
r--
ON
oo"
o
en
en
r-;
00
^o"
ol
2-
en
00
ON"
*>o
ft
•xf"
en
en
f-;
00
^5"
01
3
en
00
ON"
i"
a
o
"o
o
3
k
•&T
,0
ol
00
en"
ON
ON
r--
^H
ON
oo"
o
00
•xf"
' '
^ J-
o
o
f}
en
•xf"
r--
, — 4
Ol
t-~r
r--
r--
o
oo"
en
ON
en"
f,
r-;
en
en
ON
01
' ^
en
r--
en"
^H
ON
en"
, i
*y")
r—r
en"
en
ON
f-^
Ol
^}
en
t--
en"
ON
en
Vj
Td
"o
•d
1
"o
•3 ^_,
-j oo
|g
^
^
,0
f,
00
oo"
r--
^4"
r--
S
00
f
f,
ON
ft
O
f-;
ft
en
fi
ft
t~-
$
•*
o^
o
Ol
oo"
ON
o
-sf
ON"
*>O
^-f-
^H
O
o"
01
oo"
ON
o
T^-
ON"
O
,0
O
o
'8
oo
o ^
38
E26
^
•&T
,0
<;
"Z,
^
ON
f-"
^o"
en
f-
•xf"
r--
ON
O
f-"
^5"
en
r--
"*
ft
ON
"T.
O
00
ft
00
"O
ON
o"
00
ft
00
£H
!-H
o
f-*
o
"3
3
•d
2
3
,_,
•&T
^
' — i
oo"
r--
o"
r--
^H
S
Ol"
ol
ON"
O
S
Ol"
t--
00
01
f-"
o
ON
o"
00
01
ol"
00
^2
f-;
o"
Ol
ON"
' '
ft
ol
en"
ON
f-
^O
^H
r--
o"
01
r--
ON"
^^
ft
01
en"
ON
f-
o
3
(Volatile Res
!
^
S
S
a
'3
•§
^
"3 .2
o o
a M
rf ••§
^ ^ H -^
00 3 ^3
00 c
•do L^I
§ § <
& 00 pQ
| | 1
§ 'S oo
G "S *5b
i a s
"c— j < ^J bfj
fn" ^*
C § ^
S '^ '^
"D ^Q ^^
^ - ^
/• s ^_> 'rt
Q -C Q
° '8 6
^^ <1) &*
Td c3 "7^
g £ g
fl G PH
OJ *" ^
Td ^ ^2
§ ]> I ^
&* O "^
55 P-1 Td
^ c o 2
0 00 &Tj
_g c y ^ °
o ^ N ^3 ^2
*3 G ^ ^
J2 o * C C
•g a g- o o
3 rrt -^ H O
O M g C c
G rt rt rH
rf -^ Q [~i O
G 3 r-T ^ C3 7>
O ' — ' S • • O "S
*3 "3 'b 2 fc! -3
C &5 C IT, '3
8 o 2 .2 ' >
a '£ a ia H «
9-38
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
x
^H
n
ON
O
o"
ON
Ol,
OO
ON
oo
-^
ON
en
U"f
en
ON
Ol
O
,_4"
Ol
^4~
I
o
1
^
1
oo
\D
t~~-^
§
Ol"
O
en"
en
oo"
oo
f~~-
r-"
^H
ON
o"
oo
f~~.
o
en
Ol
ON
oo
oo
ON"
r^
oo
,__,
^o
r-"
oo
en
,_4~
(Nutrients c
g
c
o
o
•3
(Other Pollutants
a ^
o p.
11
Ol
Ol
Ol
of
oo
v^
oo"
en
f-~T
en
c^
Ol
oo"
1
Ol
Ol
Ol
of
oo
oo"
en
en
Tt
>n
i— i
>rf
Ol
oo"
o^
m
en
O
f-~T
of
g
o"
^
en
ON
oo
\Q
en"
^
1—1
Ol
ON"
oo
t~~-
o"
oo
^4"
O
2-
Ol
•/")
r-"
oo
\D
o"
Ol
oo
2
Aeromonas
*>~i
1
ON
•n"
en
en
r-"
oo
Ol
oo"
o
ON
en
ON
O
>n"
MD
\Q
OO
en
of
oo
of
oo
Ol
^j.
en
O
ON"
'— (
MD"
o
^o
Ol
o
^r
1— (
oo"
(D
Carbonaceous
biochemical oxyg
demand fCBOD)
^
1
cS
r-"
oo
Ol
ON"
Ol
ON"
oo
ON"
^T
Ol
O
Ol
r-"
,_|
O
r-"
o
°\
r-"
Ol
ON
en
oo
^
O
Ol
\Q
o
en"
ON
O
•/")
>n"
ON
en
Chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
^
1
01
r-"
ON
en
r-"
ON
°\
oo"
ON
oo"
Ol
o"
°\
^
>n
en
en"
O
oo"
en
oo
oo
\Q
Ol
o"
Ol
ON
oo
^o
0
^
'~H
o
\Q
en
of
o
,_,
en
en"
ON
f-~T
(Chloride
a
O -^
1 1
J
^H
z;
,..£
8
<;
8
8
,_|
Ol
ON
^
oo
ON"
Ol
of
^f,
-o
<^
Z
Cryptosporidium
^i
1
ON
r-"
oo
c~-^
Ol
o
Ol
ON
ON"
,.4"
>n
en
\Q
^
OO
OO
o
of
en"
>n
^o
-.j-
oo
s
en"
•^
oo
Ol
^o
^o
»n"
O
oo"
^
•1
Dissolved biochei
oxygen demand
^
1
en
O
o"
O
en
ON
en
O
Ol
Ol
,_4*
t^
t^
*rT
en
oo
ON
o"
ON
\Q
en
oo
Vl
en
^o*
en^
Ol
Ol
Tt-
,_4*
i— i
w
§
(Dissolved phosph
fl !_,
O &
§ "o
oo
r-"
o
01
ON
en
,-4"
ON
O
en"
r-"
S
oo
r-"
o
*rf
ON
en_
ON
""I
O
i— i
en"
O
f-~T
^t
£
,_|
O
MD"
o
r-"
of
^t
\Q
•^t
^
ON
ON
r-"
Ol
ON
oo
»n"
^
ON
MD"
0
en"
^j-
o
ON"
i— i
<^2
^
en
1
a !_,
o ^
11
^
of
lf\
ON"
ON
Ol"
ON
Ol
Ol
oo"
ON
en"
in
of
ON"
ON
Ol"
ON
^
Ol
Ol
oo"
S
en"
^t
£
T^-
oo
oo
of
Ol
Ol
r-"
S
ON
ON
en
^
O
o
o"
o"
en
oo
oo
ON"
O
oo"
o
o
oo"
oo
en"
en
oo
,_4~
oo
>n"
°i
en
• S
(D
o
Fecal coliform ba<
a LH
o ?,
11
o
en
°\
^~
en
Ol
Ol
f-~r
en
en
ON"
O
en
ON
>n"
01
°i
t^
en
,-4"
en
ON"
T^-
f~~~
•n"
01
en"
O
r-"
MD
O
ON
^O
^4~
S
,_4~
en
01
g
^
>n
ON"
oo
Ol"
,__,
Ol
of
f~~~
\Q
°.
en
Fecal streptococci
-C1
o
oo
,_4"
^o
en
O
oo"
O
^
^j-
Ol
en
-^
Ol
^H
Ol,
T^
en"
O
^O
^o
o
ON
o"
en
^q
>n
^o
^4"
oo
| Orthophosphate
a LH
0 ^
11
g
^"
ON
Ol
Ol
Ol
ON
°i
,_,
Ol
>n"
MD
f-^
Ol
en
•n"
Ol
o"
Ol
Ol
\Q
>n
en
of
S
o"
ON
Ol
f^
^o
\Q
en
^4~
Salmonella
fl L,
0 ^
11
^
Ol"
lf\
ON"
ON
Ol"
ON
Ol
oo"
ON
en"
1
of
ON"
ON
Ol"
ON
IS
Ol
Ol
oo"
S
en"
^t.
£
oo
oo
en"
en"
oo"
Ol
vq
ON
en
oo
oo"
of
en
en
oo
oo"
Ol
en
of
ON
en
Ol
en"
Ol
Ol
Ol"
o
oo"
Ol
vq
en
Total coliform
^
1
ON
ON
\Q
"^
•n
^4~
ON
>n"
en
Ol
oo
T
Ol
ON
•n
^o~
ON
Ol"
en
,_|
>n
r-"
of
^"
\Q
>n
Ol
0
^4"
en
£
^4"
o
^t-"
o
ON
oo
>n"
o
>n
of
3
Total dissolved sc
(TDS)
^
1
O
oo"
^q
ON
oo"
Tt
>n
o
oo"
^
^O
Tf
ON
oo"
^
Ol
>n
^4~
oo
O
en"
O
8
^T
'— (
>n
t~~-
01"
OJ
•o
(Total residual chic
9-39
-------
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings
*3~
o
V- »
CJ
03
CD
W)
cd
"1
•i-H
O
p
•^H
a
HH
£
ihfi
G
cd
O
O
p>
f~\
V— /
W)
o
'o
,G
CJ
CD
H
so
l-H
d>\
CU
2
CS
H
w
51
•3
«
o
c
0
I
'S
P
S
OH
•?
td
fc
S
W
PM
X
OH
g
i
o
Z
^
g
—
1
|
^
1
1
°P
c
o
Z
=
g
x
1
i
1
H
fi
1
—
o
a.
£5
0 3
1 §
3 O
J3
"o
OH
^
"
OO
en
ON
CN
OO
ON
T^-
oo"
°i
OO
OO
•xt-
,_4~
O
en^
OO
°\
•*f
r^
en"
^O
(N
ON"
(N
O\
ON
(N
>n
c^
S
^
1^
^
OO
§
OO
';t
ON"
O^
oo"
0)
atile resic
'o
1
3
'S
•3
^H"
^
^ a"
00 3
H, ,2
If
•d 0-
"g |
p , (^
^ (rf
^ P
| .g
Td -S
G D
__
S OH
W c^
ffi^'u
'S 3
c3 ^
_C
3 5-T
t> PH
-b o
X O
o S"
G 2
X r3
0 ,n
" O
Q B
O -g
S it
Td CTJ
G H
H G
Td >~>
S-H C/i
fl (rf 3
0 & £
>< O "Q,
^ fl o
^ M) "^
•^ ^ G -2
0 C§ 'S r£
Vi c3 Td G
'S ^
•^ § ^ §
3 ! .2 £
Q Jy^
-------
SECTION 10
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the Clean Water Act require EPA to consider non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements) associated with effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA considered the
potential impact of the proposed meat and poultry products (MPP) rule on energy consumption,
air emissions, and solid waste generation. A discussion of the proposed technology options is
given in Section 9 of this Development Document. Considering energy use and environmental
impacts across all media, the Agency has determined that the impacts identified in this section
are justified by the benefits associated with compliance with the proposed limitations and
standards. Section 10.1 discusses the energy requirements for implementing wastewater
treatment technologies at MPP facilities. Section 10.2 presents the impact of the proposed
technologies on air emissions, and section 10.3 discusses the impact on wastewater treatment
sludge generation.
10.1 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
EPA estimates that compliance with this rule will result in a small net decrease in energy
consumption at non-small MPP facilities that are direct dischargers, and no change in energy
consumption at all MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers (as EPA is proposing no PSES and
PSNS for all MPP subcategories). EPA did, however, estimate the energy consumption at
non-small MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers and noted a small net increase in energy
consumption. Table 10-1 and 10-2 present estimates of energy usage by technology option for
both non-small direct and indirect dischargers, respectively. For the selected proposal
technology options which apply to non-small direct discharging facilities only, EPA estimates
that there will be a reduction in total annual energy use (a net reduction of 144 million KWH/yr).
This is a relatively small net reduction compared to the total annual amount of energy purchased
by non-small direct discharging facilities (2,929 million KWH/yr). There are no incremental
energy impacts for direct dischargers that are small poultry slaughterers (Subpart K) or small
10-1
-------
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Table 10-1. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischargers"
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings'5
A, B, C, D
F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Total Energy Purchased
per Non-Small
MPP Facility
million KWH/fac.-yr
11.42
13.46
5.47
13.53
13.46
Incremental MPP WWTP Energy Use per Non-Small MPP
Facility in units of million KWH/fac.-yr
and Total Energy Usage Percent Increase
per Non-Small MPP Facility [% Increase]
BAT-2
0.0221
[0.19%]
0.0017
[0.01%]
0
[0.00%]
0.0031
[0.02%]
0.0021
[0.02%]
BAT-3
-0.9324
[-8.89%]
-0.0239
[-0.18%]
-0.2415
[-4.62%]
-0.627
[-4.86%]
-0.1088
[-0.81%]
BAT-4
-1.0759
[-10.40%]
-0.0354
[-02.26%]
-0.261
[-5.01%]
-0.6076
[-4.70%]
-0.1094
[-0.82%]
BAT-5
NA
NA
NA
-0.6033
[-4.67%]
-0.1519
[-1.14%]
a "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of
these facility classifications.)
b Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs
(including energy usage.)
Table 10-2. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities,
Indirect Dischargers"
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings'5
A, B, C, D
F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Total Energy Purchased
per Non-Small MPP
Facility
million KWH/fac.-yr
11.42
13.46
5.47
13.53
13.46
Incremental MPP WWTP Energy Use per Non-Small MPP
Facility in units of million KWH/fac.-yr
and Total Energy Usage Percent Increase
per Non-Small MPP Facility [% Increase]
PSES-1
0.2644
[2.26%]
0.1227
[0.90%]
0.0243
[0.44%]
0.1423
[1.04%]
0.0995
[0.73%]
PSES-2
4.5467
[28.48%]
0.6021
[4.28%]
0.4617
[7.78%]
2.6724
[16.49%]
0.6519
[4.62%]
PSES-3
2.0473
[15.20%]
0.3404
[2.47%]
0.0061
[0.11%]
0.9385
[6.49%]
0.3194
[2.32%]
PSES-4
1.6061
[12.33%]
0.3137
[2.28%]
-0.0547
[-1.01%]
0.8078
[5.63%]
0.2933
[2.13%]
a "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of
these facility classifications.)
b Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs
(including energy usage.)
10-2
-------
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
poultry further processors (Subpart L) because all of these small facilities are currently
implementing the proposed limitations and standards (See Section 6.3.1 of Administrative
Record - EPA 2001 Screener Survey). EPA is proposing no PSES and PSNS for all indirect
dischargers in all MPP subcategories. EPA did, however, estimate the energy usage at non-small
MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers and noted a small net increase in energy usage in most
cases.
In estimating energy use associated with BAT-3, BAT-4, and BAT-5, it was assumed that
anaerobic lagoon effluent would be used as the source of organic carbon necessary for
denitrification. This approach reduces oxygen transfer requirements and associated electrical
energy use for BOD reduction aerobically subsequent to anaerobic treatment. It has been
demonstrated that the electrical energy required for complete nitrification can be reduced by
approximately 20 percent through anoxic wastewater BOD reduction realized during
denitrification (Randall et. al., 1999). BAT-4 provides a small additional reduction in electrical
energy use as compared to BAT-3, given the BOD reduction occurring the anaerobic phosphorus
release phase of phosphorus removal.
EPA used facility count, wastewater flow, and treatment-in-place data from the MPP
screener survey and detailed survey to develop the energy use estimates presented in Tables 10-1
and 10-2. EPA also used data from the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers to estimate energy
demand for MPP facilities. See Appendix D for a listing of input values used to estimate energy
usage.
10.2 AIR EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The Agency believes that wastewater treatment processes included in the technology
options for this rule will not generate significant incremental air emissions, either directly from
the facility or indirectly through increased air emissions impact from the electric power
generation facilities providing the additional energy.
Odors are the only significant air pollution problem associated with the treatment of MPP
wastewaters and generally are associated with anaerobic conditions. Thus, flow equalization
10-3
-------
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
basins, dissolved air flotation (DAF) units, and anaerobic lagoons are potential sources of
malodors. However, odor problems usually are significant only when the sulfur content of MPP
wastewaters is high especially when treatment facilities are well managed. Generally, MPP
wastewater treatment facilities using anaerobic processes for treating wastewater with a low
sulfur concentration have few odor problems (USEPA, 1974). At such facilities, maintaining a
naturally occurring layer of floating solids in anaerobic contact basins and lagoons generally
minimizes odors. Thus, the proposed technology options should not increase emissions of
odorous compounds from well-managed MPP wastewater treatment facilities. EPA visited
several MPP facilities that EPA considered to be operating the selected proposal technology
options. None of these BAT facilities had odor control problems.
The requirement of nitrification for BAT-2 through BAT-5 should reduce ammonia
emissions by reducing air stripping of ammonia during aerobic treatment. However, the
requirement of anaerobic treatment for initial BOD reduction before aerobic treatment will
increase methane and VOC emissions, but increases should be negligible given the current
extensive use of lagoons and other anaerobic processes in MPP wastewater treatment. In
addition, covering anaerobic lagoons and flaring the biogas captured can reduce these emissions.
If the volume of biogas captured is sufficient, its use as a fuel to produce process heat or
electricity, or both, is an option. EPA observed two MPP facilities capturing biogas for use as an
alternative fuel during its 2001 site visits.
As previously stated, EPA estimates an annual net energy reduction of 144 million KWH
for the selected proposal technology options which applies to non-small direct discharging
facilities only. This annual net energy reduction, however, is small compared with the amount of
energy used by MPP direct dischargers (2,929 million KWH/yr) and trivial when compared with
the total electricity used by the entire United States in 1999 (3,501 billion KWH) (See the Energy
Information Administration - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/tab0812.htm).
10.3 SOLID WASTE GENERATION
The most significant non-water quality impact (NWQI) of the proposed technology
options for this rule is the generation of additional solid wastes from MPP wastewater treatment.
KM
-------
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
One source of these additional solids generation is wastewater screening to remove larger
suspended solids, such as pieces of soft and hard tissue, including feathers and hair as the initial
treatment unit process. These solids are non-hazardous, have value as raw materials for by-
product production by rendering, and are not considered to be soild waste. Accordingly,
generation of this solids is not considered to have NWQIs. A second source of solids in MPP
wastewaters treatment is DAF units used to remove a substantial fraction of the suspended solids
in MPP wastewaters remaining after screening. At some MPP facilities, this material, commonly
known as DAF float, is disposed of by rendering and has economic value. However, DAF float
also is considered as a waste at some facilities and is disposed of by land filling or land
application. The utilization of DAF float in the production of rendered products or disposal as a
waste depends on the types of rendered product being produced. EPA noted during site visits to
two independent rendering operations that sludges from dissolved air floatation units which use
chemical additions to promote solids separation are rendered; however, the chemical bond
between the organic matter and the polymers requires that the sludges be processed (rendered) at
higher temperatures (260 °F) and longer retention times (see Section 6.1.2.2 of Administrative
Record - Renderer #1 CBI Site Visit Report). Because both direct and indirect dischargers
currently use USC DAF extensively in MPP wastewater treatment, EPA feels that the proposed
rule will have no significant impact on DAF float generation.
Additional sources of solids generated in the treatment of MPP wastewaters are the
physiochemical and biological treatment processes used following DAF. These solids consist of
a mixture of those suspended solids not initially removed by screening and DAF, and the
microbial mass generated during biological treatment processes. These solids are collectively
known as sludge and typically have a moisture content of between 95 and 98 percent before
thickening. Generally, MPP wastewater sludges are thickened, stabilized, stored in holding
ponds or anaerobic lagoons, and/or dried before ultimate disposal typically by land application.
A wastewater treatment plant operator for a poultry slaughtering facility, which utilizes BAT-5
technology, noted that sludges from his facility are used as a soil amendment via subsurface
injection for crops raised on the facility's property. Other options for the ultimate disposal of
10-5
-------
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
MPP wastewater sludge are land filling and incineration, which require a substantial reduction in
moisture content as a prerequisite.
EPA estimates that compliance with this proposed rule generally will slightly decrease the
generation of sludges during MPP wastewater treatment. For the selected proposal technology
options which apply to non-small direct discharging facilities only, EPA estimates that there will
be a 3.4 percent reduction in total annual sludge production (a net reduction of approximately
16,500 tons/yr). This is a relatively small net reduction in comparison with the current total
annual amount of sludge production by non-small direct facilities (approximately 500,000
tons/yr). Tables 10-3 and 10-4 present the amount of wastewater treatment sludge expected to
diminish at non-small facilities as a result of implementing each of the technology options. It is
assumed that the sludge generated contain 50 percent moisture after being dried in a sludge dryer.
EPA used facility count, wastewater flow, and treatment-in-place data from the MPP screener
survey and detailed survey to develop these sludge generation estimates. See Appendix D for a
listing of input values used to estimate sludge generation. There are no incremental sludge
generation impacts for direct dischargers that are small poultry slaughterers (Subpart K) or small
poultry further processors (Subpart L), because all of these small facilities are currently
implementing the proposed limitations and standards (Section 6.3.1 of Administrative
Record—EPA 2001 Screener Survey). EPA also is proposing no PSES and PSNS for all indirect
dischargers in all MPP subcategories. EPA did, however, estimate the sludge generation at non-
small MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers and noted a nominal to substantial increase in
sludge generation (Table 10-4).
As shown in Table 10-3, BAT-3 for direct dischargers results in a small net decrease in
sludge generation when compared to the estimate of sludge generation for BAT-2. The estimates
of sludge production for BAT-3 also are based on the assumption that anaerobic lagoon effluent
will be the source of organic carbon necessary for denitrification. The use of organic carbon in
anaerobic lagoon effluent for denitrification will reduce BOD and the sludge production during
subsequent aerobic treatment to satisfy BOD reduction requirements for direct discharge.
Although microbial mass is synthesized during denitrification, which requires anoxic conditions,
10-6
-------
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Table 10-3. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct
Dischargers3
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings'5
A, B, C, D
F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Baseline Total
Sludge Generated at Non-Small
MPP Facilities, Direct
Dischargers
(tons/year)
353,794
6,564
3,655
129,917
3,326
Incremental Sludge Generated - tons/yr and
Percent Increase [% Increase] For Non-Small MPP
Facilities, Direct Dischargers
BAT-2
0
[0.0%]
0
[0.0%]
0
[0.0%]
0
[0.0%]
0
[0.0%]
BAT-3
-5,976
[-1.7%]
-45
[-0.7%]
-124
[-3.4%]
-10,353
[-8.0%]
-146
[-4.4%]
BAT-4
-5,334
[-1.5%]
-26
[-0.4%]
-124
[-3.4%]
8,533
[6.6%]
-137
[-4.1%]
BAT-5
NA
NA
NA
8,533
[6.6%]
-909
[-27.3%]
a "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of
these facility classifications.)
b Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs
(including sludge generation.)
Table 10-4. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect
Dischargers"
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings'5
A, B, C, D
F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Baseline Total
Sludge Generated at Non-Small
MPP Facilities, Indirect
Dischargers
(tons/year)
63,466
2,599
9,520
38,422
2,360
Incremental Sludge Generated - tons/yr and
Percent Increase [% Increase] For Non-Small MPP
Facilities, Indirect Dischargers
PSES-1
0
[0.0%]
302
[11.6%]
32
[0.3%]
97
[0.3%]
228
[9.6%]
PSES-2
227,567
[358.6%]
58,071
[2234.6%]
11,259
[118.3%]
188,012
[489.3%]
61,213
[2593.6%]
PSES-3
187,011
[294.7%]
48,598
[1870.1%]
9,212
[96.8%]
162,621
[423.3%]
53,794
[2279.2%]
PSES-4
189,695
[298.9%]
50,046
[1925.8%]
9,522
[100.0%]
162,589
[423.2%]
54,233
[2297.8%]
a "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of
these facility classifications.)
b Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs
(including sludge generation.)
10-7
-------
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
the rate of net cell synthesis is lower than that under aerobic conditions. This reduction in sludge
production with BAT-3 due to the reduction of BOD under anoxic conditions more than offsets
the increased sludge production associated with complete nitrification (BAT-2), because of the
very low growth rate of the microorganisms responsible for nitrification. Full-scale domestic
wastewater treatment plants have shown a five to 15 percent reduction in waste sludge
production after the inclusion of the nitrification/denitrification process (Randall, et. al, 1999).
Implementation of B AT-4 and B AT-5 would further decrease sludge generation.
EPA also expects that more emphasis on pollution prevention by increased segregation of
waste materials that have value as raw materials for the production of rendered products from
wastewater flows could further reduce sludge generation. Examples of such pollution prevention
practices include using alternatives of fluming to remove viscera from processing areas and
initially "dry cleaning" facilities as the initial step in the daily cleaning of processing equipment
and facilities. If contact with water is prevented, fats and proteins that become dissolved and are
not captured subsequently by screening and DAE do not become sources of BOD and ammonia
nitrogen. Such pollution prevention practices also have the potential to reduce overall water use
in MPP processing.
10.4 REFERENCES
Randall W., Z. Kisoglu, D. Sen, P. Mitta, and U. Erdal. 1999. Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Plants for BNR Retrofits Using Advances in Technology, Virginia
Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia: Submitted to the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program,
Annapolis, Maryland. (DCN 00031)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Retrofitting POTWS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development Document For Effluent Limitation
Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Red Meat Processing
Segment Of The Meat Product And Rendering Processing Point Source Category.
February 1974. (DCN 00162)
10-8
-------
SECTION 11
INCREMENTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED REGULATION
This section describes EPA's methodology for estimating engineering compliance costs
associated with implementing the technology options proposed for the meat and poultry products
(MPP) industry. EPA evaluated costs for each class of meat and poultry facilities, including
meat, poultry, and combined meat-poultry (mixed) facilities. This section provides description of
industry-wide compliance costs to achieve the proposed technology options.
11.1 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
EPA subdivided the entire MPP industry into 19 groupings and 4 size classes. EPA used
these groupings and size classifications to develop 76 model facilities (19 groupings x 4 size
classes) to represent the broad range of potential MPP facilities in current operation. The
Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems
(CAPDET) (Hydromantis, 2001), a computerized cost model, was used for developing the
construction and annual operating cost of a treatment unit for each model facility. The
construction cost was used to determine the capital cost of a treatment unit. The model facility
costs were multiplied by the number of facilities that require the upgrade to provide the
incremental costs for each set of model facilities. For selected technology options, EPA estimated
retrofit costs based on each set of model facility costs. Each set of model facility category costs
and the retrofit costs were combined separately to determine costs by regulatory subcategory
(e.g., A through D, F through I, J, K, and L). Details of the method of cost estimating are
presented in Section 11.9.
11.2 IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards based on a combination of
processes and treatment technologies but is not requiring their use. Rather, the processes and
technologies used to treat MPP wastewaters are left to the discretion of individual MPP facilities.
11-1
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
After promulgating the final rule, EPA will require compliance with the numerical limitations
and standards and not require MPP facilities to use specific processes or technologies. The
proposed technology options evaluated for existing direct dischargers (BPT/BCT/BAT), existing
indirect dischargers (PSES), new direct dischargers (NSPS), and new indirect dischargers
(PSNS) were based on an analysis of technology-in-place (TIP), according to data supplied in the
MPP detailed surveys. A summary of the treatment units for the proposed technology options is
shown in Table 11-1 and in Figures 11-1 through 11-9. Note that Technology Option 5 is
applicable to poultry facilities only.
Table 11-1. Proposed Technology Options for the MPP Industry
Treatment Units
Screen
Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
Equalization tank
Anaerobic lagoon
Biological treatment with nitrification
Biological treatment with nitrification and
denitrification
Biological treatment with nitrification and
denitrification and phosphorous removal
Filter
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
Technology Options
Direct Discharger
1
X
X
X
xb
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indirect Discharger
1
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X: treatment unit is required for that option.
a EPA only considered Direct Option 5 for poultry facilities only.
bDirect Option 1 uses a less optimized form of nitrification. (See Section 11.8.4.)
11-2
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Figure 11-1. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 1
(assuming incomplete nitrification).
Nitrification - ; | Secondary Clarifier |
Suspended Orourth
Figure 11-2. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 2.
11-3
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Biological Nitrogen ; | Secondary Clarifier | :
Figure 11-3. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 3.
Biological Nutrient ; Secondary Clanfierj ,
Removal - 3/5 St
Figure 11-4. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 4.
11-4
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Glogieal Hutment * Secondary Clanfier Firtrsticm
Figure 11-5. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 5
(Poultry Only).
Figure 11-6. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 1.
11-5
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Nrtntieation -
Suspended Growth
Figure 11-7. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 2.
: Biological Nitrogen ; | Secondary Clarifie
Figure 11-8. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 3.
11-6
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
\ Biological Nutrient j; | Secondary Clarifier |
: Removal -
Figure 11-9. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 4.
11.3 DEVELOPMENT OF MPP MODEL FACILITIES
EPA used the MPP screener survey results to develop MPP model. These model facilities
were used to estimate compliance costs and were also used in other analyses (e.g., pollutant
reductions by treatment technology, economic impacts, non-water quality environmental
impacts). To develop the MPP model facilities, EPA first separated MPP facilities based on the
type of animal processed (e.g., meat, poultry, or both meat and poultry). To ensure that all MPP
facilities identified in the MPP screener survey were accounted for, and that variations in raw
wastewater characteristics are considered, EPA classified all MPP operations as first processing
(e.g., slaughtering, carcass preparation, and quartering), further processing (e.g., deboning,
cooking, sausage making), or rendering (wet or dry) and all possible combinations of these
processes. These separations and classifications produced 19 different groupings, shown in Table
11-2.
11-7
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Classifications
cc
II
|s
)n Values
o
2
CH
•a
i
:ess(es) Perfor
2
CH
V
A
V
go
03
£
_s
03
Rendering
Further
Processing
First
Processing
Model Facility
Grouping Code
ts „
£
1
a
Z,
0
o
o
0
Al
o
0
0
o
V
0
0
0
IT)
V
o
0
V
X
2
OJ
o
0
0
o^
Al
0
o
o
0
V
0
o
0
o
0
CO
V
o
0
IT)
V
X
CN
a
•i-H
^-H
O
Q
9)
2
CS
H
11-8
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
EPA then further separated each of the 19 groupings into four size classes (small,
medium, large, and very large) based on total annual production data from the MPP screener
survey to develop 76 model facilities (19 groupings x 4 size classes). The resultant model
facilities allow EPA to consider MPP facility variations in (1) facility raw wastewater
characteristics, as determined by the source animal distinction (e.g., meat or poultry) and
processes performed (e.g., first processing, further processing; and rendering), and (2) facility
size, which can support estimation of wastewater volumes generated and thus the size of required
treatment units. EPA used these 76 model facilities to more accurately estimate costs, loadings,
non-water quality environmental impacts, and economic impacts of the proposed limitations and
standards on the MPP industry.
11.4 SELECTION OF A COST MODEL
EPA investigated various sources to collect cost information for the technology options
considered. The sources include vendor quotations, literature, the wastewater cost (WAV Cost)
computer model (WAV Cost, 1998), and the CAPDET computer model (Hydromantis, 2001).
EPA did not use vendor quotations or literature to derive cost curves for treatment units because
of a lack of detailed information. The WAV Cost model was also not used because of model
limitations, particularly the fact that the model does not have the costs for all the treatment units
considered in the technology options (e.g., denitrification). CAPDET was selected for estimating
the compliance costs for the proposed MPP regulation because it is user-friendly and has a
database that contains the latest costs (year 2000) of all the treatment units considered in the
MPP technology options. More important, based on a comparison to actual costs for MPP
facilities, CAPDET predicted the actual costs of MPP wastewater treatment plants reasonably
well (see Section 11.11).
The CAPDET software was originally developed based on the need for a method of
accurate and rapid preliminary design and cost estimating of wastewater treatment plant
construction projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed the software for EPA with
the specific intent of assisting personnel responsible for wastewater treatment planning in the
evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives, based primarily on life cycle costs and degree of
11-9
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
treatment provided. The major emphasis with CAPDET has been the development of accurate
planning-level cost estimates for unit processes. The model was designed to provide the
planning-level estimates based on knowledge of the basic system formulations and the use of
cost curves. The software calculates the design of each unit process, based on the influent to the
process, and then costs the design. This two-step approach gives the user the option to review the
produced design and modify it. Typical design defaults have been used for each unit process to
increase the acceptability of the calculated designs and make the software easier to use for
planners that require planning-level cost estimates for a new facility or an upgrade to an existing
facility.
Two basic methods are typically used for planning-level cost estimating. Parametric cost
estimating is based on a statistical approach (i.e., statistical analysis of the cost of facilities of
similar size and characteristics at other locations). A modification of this statistical approach is
the development of standard designs for various flows and formulation of a cost based on
engineering quantities. The second method identifies cost elements to which input unit prices are
applied (i.e., cubic yards of concrete in a clarifier are quantified). To this number an input cost
value for reinforced concrete in place is applied to determine construction costs. CAPDET
combines both parametric and unit costing techniques for estimating total project costs.
Costs associated with construction of a wastewater treatment facility are divided into two
categories: (1) unit process costs and (2) other direct and indirect costs. Unit process costs are
those associated with a specific treatment process, such as a clarifier. Battery limits are drawn
such that the clarifier is an individual functioning unit. Cost element estimating is used to
determine the costs of the unit process within these battery limits. Other direct and indirect costs
include those cost items required to create a functional treatment facility. These costs are derived
parametrically from EPA-developed cost curves based on bid data.
11.5 DESCRIPTION OF COST COMPONENTS
Cost estimation has two components: (1) capital costs and (2) operation and maintenance
costs. The capital cost is the initial investment a facility makes to build a treatment unit (or series
of treatment units). The operation and maintenance costs are annual costs incurred to maintain
and run that treatment unit (or series of treatment units).
11-10
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
11.5.1 Capital Costs
The basis of capital cost estimating is to identify all costs associated with wastewater
treatment facility construction. These costs, once identified, can be categorized into two
categories: (1) unit process construction costs and (2) other direct and indirect costs. The sum of
the two costs provides the total capital costs. Often other direct and indirect costs are expressed
as a percentage of the construction costs to determine the capital cost. A similar approach is
followed to estimate the capital costs of the treatment units for the proposed regulation. The
construction cost of treatment units obtained from CAPDET model runs is multiplied by a factor
to determine the capital cost.
11.5.1.1 Construction Cost
The construction cost of a unit process is the cost to construct and install a treatment unit,
including its associated housing, piping, and electric work. The costs are defined within battery
limits, which are established to be the physical dimensions of the unit process plus 5 feet. The
major cost items for construction of any unit process can be generally categorized as follows:
• Concrete or steel tanks and structures
• Installed equipment
• Building and housing
• Piping and insulation
• Electrical works, control systems, and other facilities
Structural Components
The costs of the structural component comprise the costs of reinforced concrete,
earthwork, structures, and piping. The construction of earthen basins (such as anaerobic lagoons)
is usually accomplished with equal cut-and-fill quantities. In other words, excavated material is
used in embankments so that borrowing of dirt from outside is not necessary. The procedure is
applicable only when soil and groundwater conditions are ideal, which the CAPDET model
assumes to simplify costing procedures. The unit cost input consists of dollars per cubic yard of
earthwork assuming equal cut-and-fill.
The costs of reinforced concrete structures are estimated as the sum of costs of concrete
slabs and concrete walls because of the significant difference in costs between the two types of
11-11
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
in-place structures. The unit cost inputs for both type of structures in the CAPDET model are in
dollars per cubic yard (Hydromantis, 2001).
Equipment and Installation Costs
Equipment for the wastewater treatment system may constitute one of the largest items of
identifiable fixable capital costs. Accurate estimation depends on up-to-date equipment cost data.
With a limited number of unit cost input entries, it is very difficult to maintain a reliable cost
database. The following description outlines a procedure that produces an accurate estimate
within these limitations. The installed equipment cost is considered in three components: the
purchase cost of the equipment, installation labor cost, and other minor costs such as electrical
work, minor piping, foundations, painting, and the like.
The purchase cost of process equipment is a function of size or capacity. To minimize the
number of cost inputs required, a standard unit of a particular size (or capacity) is selected and
the purchase cost of all other units of that type is expressed as a fraction or multiple of the
standard unit purchase cost. The exact form of the cost-versus-size relationship and the selection
of the standard sizes for each major equipment item were determined from a review of
manufacturers' information and available literature. In most cases, these size-cost relationships
are relatively unaffected by inflation and other cost changes.
Two options are available by which the purchase cost of equipment can be escalated to
account for inflation. The first option is for the user to obtain from equipment manufacturers the
current cost of the standard size equipment at the treatment plant site. The purchase cost of any
other size item of like equipment is then automatically escalated by the cost versus size
relationships described above. The second option is to escalate the purchase costs by the use of
cost indices (Hydromantis, 2001). Only one input is required for this process, the Marshall and
Swift Equipment Cost Index. The 1977 and 2000 purchase prices of the standard size equipment
are stored in the CAPDET model and are updated automatically if the cost index is input into the
program. The latter of the two methods requires fewer input values. If the model user inputs a
cost for equipment, the index is not used to update the new costs.
11-12
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Man-hour requirements for installation are dependent on the type and size of equipment.
The relationships between man-hour requirements for installation and equipment size and type
have been established and are presented in the designs for each unit process. The installation cost
is estimated by multiplying the man-hour requirements by the input labor rates. In many cases,
data concerning manpower requirements for equipment installation were found to be incomplete
or nonexistent. In such cases, the model uses a percentage of purchase price factor to calculate
the cost of equipment installation. These factors, in general, were obtained from equipment
manufacturers and published sources.
The other minor costs for each type of equipment may include costs of piping, steel,
instruments, electrical components, insulation, painting, insurance, taxes, and so forth. These
items are estimated as a percentage of the purchase costs. The percentage values will vary with
the type and size of equipment. These percentage values were established based on design
experience, engineering judgment, manufacturers' inputs, and previously published literature
(Hydromantis, 2001).
Costs for Building and Housing
Buildings are essential in certain unit processes for protection against weather or
maintenance of a requisite environment. The building requirements are related to the equipment
to be housed and are estimated as square footage of floor space. Building costs are estimated by
multiplying the square footage of floor space required by the unit cost per square foot
(Hydromantis, 2001).
Costs for Piping System
Piping costs are evaluated independently. Estimating process piping costs presents the
greatest challenge for the cost engineer. Estimating costs from detailed drawings is an arduous,
time-consuming task much beyond the scope of CAPDET. Evaluation on any other basis might
produce widely varying results. To estimate the cost of the "major piping system," a combination
of two well-established estimating methods used by the chemical industries is employed. The
costs of material are estimated by the use of the Dickson "N" method, and the field erection cost
11-13
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
is estimated by the cost of "joints" method. The R.A. Dickson "N" method uses a technique to
estimate purchase price of piping material similar to the one proposed to estimate equipment
costs. Relationships are developed between the cost ratios, designated as N factors, and sizes of
pipe material (Hydromantis, 2001).
With these factors stored in CAPDET for cast iron pipe, steel pipe, fittings, and valves,
the user inputs only a limited number of unit costs of the reference components. The field
erection costs for the piping system can be estimated by use of the cost-per-joint method. The
unit of work measurement is the joint (two for couplings and valves, three for tees, etc.). Because
joints require the bulk of piping labor for erection, the costs of handling, hanging pipe placement,
and insulation are estimated as a fraction of the cost of makeup joints. The man-hours of field
erection per joint for various pipe sizes and materials, as well as the fraction for placing and
insulating, are evaluated in the quantities calculations. The field erection costs of the piping
system are estimated based on the labor requirements and unit labor price inputs. The total piping
system costs are the sum of the following items: (1) piping material costs, (2) field erection costs,
and (3) other minor costs as a percentage of total piping costs.
In many cases it is impractical, at the planning level, to identify piping quantities and
sizes. In such cases, a percentage of other construction cost factors is used to estimate piping
cost. The method used is specific for each process (Hydromantis 2001).
11.5.1.2 Total Capital Costs
The construction cost of wastewater treatment facilities involves not only the cost of the
construction of unit processes but also other direct and indirect costs incurred in creating a
functional facility. Piping and pumping, and instrumentation and controls are examples of direct
costs; engineering and contingency are examples of indirect costs. The total capital cost is the
sum of the construction cost and other direct and indirect costs. Based on the cost information
obtained from the cost document for the centralized waste treatment industry (USEPA, 1998), the
other direct and indirect costs are estimated to be 69 percent of the construction cost of the
treatment units. Direct and indirect costs as percentage of construction cost are provided in Table
11-3. (See Attachment 11-1 in Appendix D for details.) The capital cost for a treatment unit is
11-14
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
obtained by multiplying the construction cost by 1.69 to estimate the total capital cost of the
treatment unit.
Table 11-3. Cost Factors Used to Estimate Capital Costs
Cost Item
Construction cost
Piping
Instrumentation and controls
Engineering
Contingency
Total capital cost
Cost Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Indirect
Indirect
Cost Factor
(Percent of Construction Cost)
100
17
13
19.5
19.5
169
For details, see Attachment 11-1 in Appendix D.
11.5.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance costs of a wastewater treatment unit process can be
divided into several major categories: energy, operation labor, maintenance labor, chemical costs,
operation and maintenance material and supply costs, and sludge disposal costs. The techniques
and methods used in CAPDET for estimating operation and maintenance costs are presented
below (Hydromantis, 2001).
11.5.2.1 Energy
Energy costs are derived from the calculated use of electric power, fuel oil, or natural gas.
The quantities calculations generate the quantities of energy use, whereas the cost calculations
apply user input unit prices to calculate the unit process energy cost. The total energy cost of the
treatment facility is simply the sum of the energy costs for the unit processes.
The cost of electric power is by far the predominant energy cost for most processes. The
procedure for calculating electric power cost is presented below. For some processes energy cost
may involve natural gas and fuel oil. Because natural gas and fuel oil are consumed in relatively
few processes, the costs of these fuels are tabulated as a material cost. For costing these fuels
EPA use techniques similar to those used to calculate electric power costs.
11-15
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Electric power consumption is estimated for each unit process and is part of the output
data from the quantities calculations of each process. The power consumption for the treatment
facility is simply the sum of the power consumption for the unit processes. The power
consumption is converted to costs by multiplying the power consumption (in kilowatt-hours per
year) by the unit price input for electric power costs (in dollars per kilowatt hour). Electric power
rates vary according to location, peak demand, and level of consumption. EPA used the
CAPDET default national cost of $0.08 per kilowatt-hour.
11.5.2.2 Labor Costs
The cost of labor can be divided into four categories: operation, maintenance,
administrative and general, and laboratory. Recommended staffing for the different levels of
manpower required for each of the four labor groups was established by using several
publications on staffing of wastewater treatment facilities. Based on staffing charts in the
literature, equations were developed to estimate an average labor rate for each labor group as a
function of Operator II labor rate. The user can input the Operator II labor rate or accept the
default value. The labor cost in each group is then calculated using the labor rate and the man-
hours. EPA used the CAPDET default labor rates.
Operation labor and maintenance labor are applied to the unit processes specified in the
treatment alternatives. The man-hours required over a year's time for operation labor and
maintenance labor are calculated for each unit process. The total man-hours requirement is the
sum of the requirement for each unit process in the treatment facility. However, administrative
and general labor, as well as laboratory labor, is computed for the treatment facility as a whole.
The man-hours required for administrative and general labor and for laboratory labor are
determined from equations that involve average flow to the treatment plant.
11.5.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Material and Supply Costs
Operation and maintenance material and supply costs are calculated for each unit process.
Typically, these costs are calculated as a percentage of the unit construction costs. The total
operation and maintenance material and supply costs for the entire treatment facility are the sum
of the costs for each unit process used in the treatment facility.
11-16
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
11.5.2.4 Chemical Costs
Four different chemicals are typically used at treatment facilities: lime, alum, ferric
chloride, and polymers. Quantities of each chemical required by the treatment processes are
calculated in the quantities calculations. These quantities are based on CAPDET's calculations to
achieve desired removals or effluent concentrations from input (influent) concentrations. The
cost of a chemical is determined by multiplying the amount required by the unit cost of the
chemical. The total annual chemical costs for the facility are simply the sum of the five different
chemicals used in the various processes.
11.5.2.5 Sludge Disposal Costs
The sludge generated by biological treatment units and DAF units is assumed to be dried
and dewatered in sludge dewatering devices before being hauled off-site for land disposal.
Therefore, for DAF and biological treatment systems, an additional annual cost of sludge
disposal was added. CAPDET assumes sludge is dewatered in drying beds and sent to disposal at
50 percent solids content. A sludge disposal cost of $2.3/ton (Parker, 1998) was used for hauling
of the dried sludge leaving the sludge dryer.
11.5.2.6 Total Operation and Maintenance
The total annual operation and maintenance cost is the sum of the energy costs, the labor
costs, the operation and maintenance material and supply costs, the chemical costs, and the
sludge disposal costs.
11.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT UNITS AND SELECTED DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS
For model runs, the cost modules in CAPDET are selected based on the treatment units
required for the technology options shown previously in Table 11-1. This section describes the
treatment units selected for the model runs. Descriptions of the treatment units, based on the
technical document in CAPDET, are presented below (Hydromantis, 2001).
11.6.1 Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary treatment comprises two processes: screening and grit removal. Because
most of the available cost information combines these processes and the costs of these treatment
11-17
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
units are relatively small, cost estimates are parametric. Inaccuracy in estimating the cost of the
preliminary treatment introduces only a small error in the total facility cost.
Screening devices are used to remove large objects that otherwise might damage pumps
and other equipment, obstruct pipelines, and interfere with the normal operation of the treatment
facilities. Bar screens are commonly used in the wastewater treatment facilities. Bar screens
consist of vertical or inclined bars spaced at equal intervals across the channel where wastewater
flows. The quantity of material removed by bar screening depends on the size of the bar spacings.
These devices may be cleaned manually or mechanically. The design of bar screens is based on
average and peak wastewater flow.
Grit removal is classified as a protective or a preventive measure. The process does not
contribute materially to the reduction in the pollutant load applied to the wastewater treatment
facility. Grit chambers are designed to remove grit, which can include sand, gravel, cinder, and
other inorganic abrasive matter. Grit causes wear on pumps, fills pump sumps and sludge
hoppers, clogs pipes and channels, and occupies valuable space in sludge digestion tanks. Grit
removal, therefore, reduces the costs of maintaining mechanical equipment and eliminates
operational difficulties caused by grit. Grit removal is recommended for small and large
treatment facilities. Bar screens are usually installed ahead of grit chambers to remove large
objects. The design of screens and grit chambers depends on the type selected, the type of grit
removal equipment, the specifications of the selected grit removal equipment, and the quantity
and quality of the grit to be handled. This process is part of preliminary treatment. Default design
values in CAPDET were used to develop costs for preliminary treatment. A 15-year life
expectancy was selected.
11.6.2 Dissolved Air Flotation
Flotation is a solid-liquid separation process. Separation is induced by introducing fine
gas bubbles (usually air) into the system. The gas-solid aggregate has an overall bulk density less
than the density of the liquid; thus, these aggregates rise to the surface of the fluid. Once the solid
particles have floated to the surface, they can be collected by a skimming operation. In
wastewater treatment, flotation is used as a clarifying process to remove suspended solids and as
a thickening process to concentrate various types of sludges. However, the process generally is
used for clarifying of certain industrial wastes and for concentrating waste-activated sludge.
11-18
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) involves air being dissolved in the wastewater under
elevated pressures and later released at atmospheric pressure. The principal components of a
dissolved air-pressure flotation system are a pressurizing pump, air injection facilities, a retention
tank, a back pressure regulating device, and a flotation unit. The primary variables for flotation
design are pressure, recycle ratio, feed solid concentration, detention period, air-to-solid ratio,
use of polymers, and solids and hydraulic loadings. CAPDET sizes a circular DAF system with a
concrete structure. Specific information on design specifications for DAF units was not available
in the MPP detailed surveys. Therefore, the default design values in CAPDET were used to
develop costs for dissolved air flotation. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.
11.6.3 Equalization
Equalization is used to dampen variable waste flows so that the treatment facility receives
a relatively constant flow. It has been shown that many treatment processes operate better if
extreme fluctuations in hydraulic and organic loadings are eliminated. Equalization basins are
usually aerated to prevent the settling of solids and to prevent anaerobic conditions from
developing.
The equalization basin volume is based on the magnitude and frequency of the variations
in hydraulic and organic load. The basin volume required for equalizing dry weather diurnal
flows is calculated based on two-hour flows for 24 consecutive hours. However, if the two-hour
flow data are not available, the desired volume of the basin is based on the median flow (see
Table 11-6). The program can be used for equalization of flows other than dry weather diurnal
flows by inputting the required basin volume. Cost of equipment is calculated from current cost
values in the selected database updated using the appropriate current cost indices. Default design
values in CAPDET were used to develop costs including the assumption that the basin is aerated.
A 15-year life expectancy was selected.
11.6.4 Lagoon
Lagoons have been extensively used for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment,
where sufficient land area is available. According to the MPP detailed surveys reviewed for the
proposed rulemaking, almost 30 percent of MPP facilities use a lagoon as part of their treatment
system. Some of the reasons for the popularity of lagoons are that they (1) have operational
stability with fluctuating loads, (2) usually require relatively unskilled operators, (3) incur low
11-19
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
operational costs, and (4) involve low construction costs. Lagoons can be anaerobic, aerobic, or
facultative.
Anaerobic lagoons are anaerobic throughout their depth, except for a very shallow upper
layer. These lagoons are constructed deep to ensure anaerobic conditions and to conserve heat.
Typically they are from 8 to 20 feet deep. Reductions of more than 65 percent of the influent
BOD5 are common with anaerobic lagoons.
For the model runs that included lagoons, an unlined anaerobic lagoon was selected with
a BOD loading rate of 350 pounds per acre per day. A 12-foot lagoon depth and 15-year life
expectancy were selected. Other parameters used to develop costs of an anaerobic lagoon were
left at the default values provided by CAPDET.
11.6.5 Intermediate Pumping
Several locations in a treatment facility may require pumping. Pumping is typically
required at points in the treatment train that create relatively high head losses or where a
relatively consistent flow is desired for optimum performance (e.g., pumping wastewater from an
anaerobic lagoon to a biological treatment system). The wastewater at this point is relatively
clean and free from large solids, so that more efficient pumps can be used for these processes
than for raw waste pumping. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs for
intermediate pumping stations. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.
11.6.6 Nitrification—Suspended Growth
Nitrogen in wastewater is present in several forms including organic nitrogen, ammonia
nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen. The prevalent forms in untreated MPP wastewater
are organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen. Organic nitrogen exists in both soluble and
particulate forms.
Nitrification is the process that converts organic and ammonia nitrogen to nitrate
nitrogen. Nitrification may be coupled with denitrification, which reduces nitrate to nitrogen gas
and removes the nitrogen from the water.
Suspended growth nitrification systems are similar in design to carbon oxidation-
activated sludge systems. The biological growth is suspended in an aeration basin. Mechanical or
diffused aerators provide oxygen for nitrification and provide mixing that keeps the solids in
suspension. The mixed liquor is then clarified to remove suspended solids and concentrate the
11-20
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
sludge for recycle. The solids retention time in a nitrification system is longer than that in a
carbon oxidation system given the slower growth rate of the nitrifiers compared to heterotrophic
bacteria. The plug flow suspended growth system is considered in CAPDET. Default design
values in CAPDET were used to develop costs of a nitrification system. A 15-year life
expectancy was selected. As described further in Section 11.9.2, there are situations where new
unit processes may not be required to achieve full nitrification. To account for the ability of
facilities to upgrade existing nitrification-suspended growth systems, EPA estimated retrofit
costs.
11.6.7 Biological Nitrogen Removal
Biological nitrogen removal encompasses both nitrification and denitrification.
Nitrification is the process that converts organic and ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen.
Nitrification may be coupled with denitrification, which reduces nitrate to nitrogen gas and
removes the nitrogen from the water. Experience has shown that significant biological nitrogen
removal activity does not occur in strictly aerobic systems. Rather, such activity is achieved by
incorporating an unaerated zone into the process design. For denitrification, an anoxic stage
(nitrate present, no oxygen) is included. The reactor configuration typically includes an
anaerobic/unaerated stage ahead of an aerobic reactor. These reactors are followed by a
secondary clarifier used to concentrate the sludge and return it to the unaerated stage.
Denitrification is a two-step biological process. Nitrate is converted to nitrite, which in
turn is reduced to nitrogen gas. This two-step process is termed "dissimilation." A broad range of
bacteria, including pseudomonas, micrococcus, achromobacter and bacillus, can accomplish
denitrification. These bacteria can use either nitrate or oxygen to oxidize organic material.
Because the use of oxygen is more energetically favorable than using nitrate, denitrification must
be conducted in the absence of oxygen (anoxic condition) to ensure that nitrate, rather than
oxygen, is used in the oxidation of the organic material. For denitrification to occur, a carbon
source must be available for oxidation. Carbonaceous material in the raw wastewater is often
used as a carbon source. However, if the carbonaceous material in the wastewater is not
available, an external carbon source may have to be added to the denitrification system. Default
design values in CAPDET were used for the design parameters to develop costs for biological
nitrogen removal. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.
11-21
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
11.6.8 Biological Nutrient Removal—3/5 Stage
Biological nutrient removal (BNR) encompasses both nitrogen removal and excess
biological phosphorus removal. Excess biological phosphorus removal is a biologically mediated
process used within activated sludge systems to achieve phosphorus removal from wastewater.
The process involves cultivating certain microorganisms within the mixed community. These
microorganisms, termed polyphosphate accumulating organisms (PAOs), have the ability to take
up more phosphorus than they require for growth. The net effect of this uptake is a reduction of
phosphorus concentration in wastewater to a level that can be less than 1 mg/L.
Experience has shown that significant BNR activity does not occur in strictly aerobic
systems. Rather, BNR behavior is achieved by incorporating an unaerated zone into the process
design. For denitrification, an anoxic stage (nitrate present, no oxygen) is included, and for
phosphorus removal, an anaerobic stage (neither nitrate nor oxygen present) must be included in
the reactor configuration. For a description of the nitrification and denitrification stages, refer to
Section 11.6.7.
The three-stage BNR configuration includes an anaerobic stage, followed by an anoxic
stage followed by an aerobic stage. One internal recycle is used to recycle nitrate from the
aerobic stage to the anoxic stage and a return activated sludge (RAS) recycle is used to recycle
thickened sludge from the clarifier to the anaerobic stage.
The five-stage configuration (also termed a "modified Bardenpho") is similar to the
three-stage configuration in that the first three reactors are similar and one internal recycle
recycles nitrate to the anoxic stage. However, to increase the nutrient removal capacity, two
additional stages are placed after the aerobic stage and before the clarifier. The first of these
stages is anoxic for more denitrification, and the second is aerobic for effluent polishing. The
five-stage configuration was selected to develop costs for this process. Default design values in
CAPDET were used to develop costs for the BNR process. A 15-year life expectancy was
selected. It should be noted that due to limitations of the CAPDET model, EPA could not adjust
for the fact that treatment in an anaerobic lagoon precedes the BNR process. This limitation most
likely results in overestimating the cost for the BNR process.
11-22
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
11.6.9 Secondary Clarification
Secondary clarifiers are commonly used in conjunction with biological wastewater
treatment systems to remove settleable solids. They produce an effluent low in suspended solids
and an underflow of sufficient concentration to maintain a sufficient population of active
microbial mass in the tank of biological activity. The secondary clarifiers are, therefore, designed
to provide clarification, as well as thickening. The design of clarifiers is based on the solids
loading rate, in addition to being governed by the overflow rate and detention time. The design
calculation considers the peak incoming wastewater flow; the return sludge withdrawal usually
takes place at a point very near the inlet to the tank. The performance of the final clarifiers is
affected by the method of sludge withdrawal. The preferred sludge collection mechanism is a
vacuum- or suction-type draw-off. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs
for secondary clarifiers. A 15-year life expectancy was selected. It should be noted that due to
limitations of the CAPDET model, EPA could not adjust for the fact that treatment is an
anaerobic lagoon precedes the BNR process. This limitation most likely results in overestimating
the cost for the BNR process.
11.6.10 Filtration
Filtration is the removal of suspended solids (and bacteria) through a porous medium.
The increasing concern for abatement of water pollution and the requirements for high-quality
effluents from wastewater treatment facilities have resulted in the rapid and wide acceptance of
filtration in wastewater treatment. Filtration is being used to remove biological floe from
secondary effluents and phosphate precipitates from phosphate removal processes, and as a
tertiary wastewater treatment operation to prepare effluents for reuse in water reuse, industry,
agriculture, and recreation.
Granular media used in filtration include sand, coal, crushed anthracite, diatomaceous
earth, perlite, and powdered, activated carbon. Sand filters have been most commonly. However,
mixed dual-media and multi-media filters are more effective and easier and less expensive to
operate than sand filters for the treatment of wastewaters. In the mixed dual-media and multi-
media filters, two or three materials of different specific gravities and sizes are selected to ensure
11-23
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
intermixing between the various media at the interfaces. Sand and anthracite are typically used
for dual-media filters, while garnet is added for multi-media filters.
The design of filters depends on the influent wastewater characteristics, process and
hydraulic loadings; method and intensity of cleaning; nature, size, and depth of the filtering
material; and the required quality of the final effluent. Various sizes and types of filtration units
are available in the market. For smaller installations, the package units usually are selected. For
larger installations, concrete wall constructions are used for containing the filter units. A
parametric cost curve is used for the package-type filtration units. The construction costs for the
larger concrete wall, rectangular cell, and filtration systems are estimated based on equipment
and material costs. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs. A 15-year life
expectancy was selected.
11.6.11 Drying Beds
Sludge drying beds are a common method for dewatering digested sludge, especially in
small plants. Drying beds are usually constructed using 4 to 9 inches of sand over 8 to 18 inches
of graded gravel. The beds are usually divided into at least three sections for operational
purposes. An underdrain system, usually of vitrified clay pipes spaced 9 to 20 feet apart, is used
to remove water.
The design of sludge beds is influenced by many factors, such as weather conditions,
sludge characteristics, land value, proximity of residences, and use of sludge conditioning aids.
Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs. Sludge produced in this process
was assumed to contain 50 percent solids. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.
11.6.12 Disinfection
Disinfection is the selective destruction of pathogenic organisms; sterilization is the
complete destruction of all microorganisms. Disinfection used in water and wastewater treatment
has resulted in the control and reduction of waterborne diseases.
Disinfection may be accomplished through the use of chemical agents, physical agents,
mechanical means, and radiation. In wastewater treatment the most commonly used disinfectant
is chlorine; however, other halogens, ozone, and ultraviolet radiation have been used.
11-24
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection has been used to disinfect wastewater for some time and is
often the preferred disinfection method. UV disinfection has the following advantages over
chemical methods: (1) no residual toxicity to aquatic communities; (2) more effective than
chlorine in inactivating harmful viruses, spores, and cysts (e.g., Cryptosporidium); (3) improved
safety; and (4) no production of harmful trihalomethanes and other chlorinated by-products.
The major disadvantage is cost, although this is improving as additional technology is
brought to market. In addition, the UV sources must be cleaned regularly to maintain effective
disinfection. High operational energy costs may also be a concern. EPA assumed that MPP
facilities would use UV disinfection. Although this assumption may overestimate disinfection
costs (as compared, for example, to chlorination), EPA feels that UV disinfection provides more
environmental benefits than other options. Default design values in CAPDET were used to
develop costs, and 15-year life expectancy was selected.
11.7 CAPDET MODEL INPUT
The input parameters required to run the CAPDET model consist of the influent pollutant
concentrations, target effluent pollutant concentrations, wastewater flow, and design
specifications of the treatment units. This section presents a discussion of the influent
concentrations, effluent concentrations, and wastewater flow. The design specifications of the
treatment units are discussed in Section 11.6.
11.7.1 Influent Concentrations
EPA obtained the influent concentrations from the 1-day, 3-day, and 5-day MPP sampling
episodes. Data from the sampling locations that represent influent concentrations of the
wastewater treatment system were selected. These sampling points were grouped based on the
type of MPP operation shown in Table 11-2 in Section 11.3. For sampling points representing the
same type of influent wastewater from multiple facilities, an average of the concentrations was
taken. EPA reviewed and discarded those data that were questionable, based on engineering
judgment. For example, BOD values that were reported higher than COD values were removed;
total Kjedahl nitrogen values lower than ammonia values were removed. If data were not
11-25
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
available, EPA derived data from similar operating facilities with similar wastewater
characteristics.
Table 11-4 shows the influent concentrations used to run the CAPDET model. Default
values provided in CAPDET were selected for the parameters for which no sampling value was
available. These included percent volatile solids, cations, anions, nondegradable fraction of
volatile suspended solids (VSS), and temperature. Soluble COD value was calculated assuming
that the ratio of soluble BOD to BOD is same as the ratio of the soluble COD to COD. Because
in most instances wastewater would be exposed to the atmosphere (i.e., exposed to oxygen), it
was assumed that all nitrite would be converted to nitrate. Therefore, the nitrite concentration in
the influent wastewater was assumed to be practically zero, and the nitrate concentration was set
equal to the nitrate/nitrite concentration obtained from sampling episodes. The settleable solids
value was obtained from the total suspended solids (TSS) concentration by using the following
equation developed from data for domestic wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991):
Settleable solids = 0.0178 * TSS - 1.8031, where
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg/L).
11.7.2 Effluent Concentrations
The effluent concentrations were obtained from the 3-day and 5-day MPP sampling
episodes performed by EPA and from MPP detailed survey responses. EPA identified best
performing meat, poultry, rendering, and mixed facilities representing the technology options
based on effluent concentrations and the TIP. If data were not available, EPA derived data from
similar operating facilities with similar wastewater characteristics. Table 11-5 shows the long-
term the effluent concentrations used for running the CAPDET model.1 The model did not
require any effluent concentrations for Technology Option 1 for indirect dischargers because
performance is based solely on percent removals of influent concentrations. The costs for
1 It should be noted that for purposes of estimating costs, EPA extracted data from the sampling episodes
and MPP detailed surveys prior to completion of pollutant load reduction. As a result, the values used to represent
desired effluent concentrations for purposes of generating costs were slightly different from the long-term averages
used to generate expected pollutant load reductions.
11-26
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
CD
03
CD
CJ
O
U
^^
CD
—
2
I
£.
z
0
z
A
o
»8
O
z
tf
z
lau
H
;_
vy
vy
H
V
•3 O
-C —
5 O
~ O
cc
Q
O
o
Q
O
tt
V
£
_S
"3
vy
Q"
O
PS
_ s~.
« *j
1=3
5 03
^ fe
S
ai
sJ
1
I
I
I
*
I
,j
Ifc
^
^
S
^
1 Grouping
Code
0
o
r--
0
o
o
a
CO
CO
-st"
o\
oo
n
o
m
t~~
CJ\
IT)
IT)
-st"
°i
5
CJ\
n
o
IT)
t~~
o\
IT)
IT)
-st"
°i
5
o\
>
a
&
a
o
"2
a
S
"3
>^
OJ
>
C/3
VH
a
U
o
VH
O
CO
<
OH
W
43
O
1
VH
O
V3
00
a
'n
S d
ao 2
^ . w
*O i-H -,
§t 1
"^3 O CuO
1^
111
S H 0
£-< rt J3
11-27
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
1X1
O
CD
CJ
O
U
^_>
CD
H
i/i
CS
H
^•2
Z. °*
a M
z
.0
a"
z
z
H
£
b
j2
o
O
13
§
i.
3
o
H
^
^^
H
^
1 Q
I
M
I
1=
*W
S
jS
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers were obtained from the costs of Technology
Option 2. Therefore, Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers did not require any effluent
concentrations.
11.7.3 Flow
Based on statistical analysis of the data in the MPP screener survey EPA developed 76
model facilities. (See Section 11.3.) The wastewater flow for each model facility, hereafter
referred to as model facility flow, is equal to the median wastewater flow of the corresponding
facilities identified in the MPP screener survey. Table 11-6 shows the model facility flows for 76
model facilities used in CAPDET model runs.
CAPDET requires average flow, maximum flow, and minimum flow of the treatment
system to be costed as input to run the model. For each model facility, the average flow was
taken equal to the respective model facility flow shown in Table 11-6. Since most facilities
operate 5 days a week, the average daily flow (gallons/day) for Option 1 for indirect dischargers
was calculated by dividing the flows (gallons/year) as reported in the screener surveys by 260
days/year. (Note: Option 1 for indirect discharges has equalization at the end of the treatment
system.) All other options include some sort of biological treatment following equalization;
therefore, a constant flow over 365 days a year was assumed for biological treatment for Indirect
Options 2, 3, and 4. The treatment units for those options were costed on an average daily flow
(gallons/day) obtained by dividing the flows (gallons/year) by 365 days/year. The maximum flow
and the minimum flows were taken equal to 125 percent and 75 percent of the average flow,
respectively.
11.8 OTHER COST MODELING PARAMETERS
In addition the costs provided by CAPDET, other cost modeling parameters were used to
obtain industry-wide compliance costs. A description of other cost modeling parameters is
provided below.
11-29
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
O
64)
u
~i—»
• 1—I
•i-H
O
£
c2
03
O
E
G
CO
CJ
cd
PH
—
2
•—
03
V
•5?
a
13
BO
_o
fa
*J
%
03
fa
"oS
•a
o
S
V
BO
c3
J
V
BO
03
g
£«
S
•3
"«
£«
H
V
«
o
J
BO
S
E.
s
o
3
^^
2;
i
00
IT)
00
s
^H
t--
o
0
o
o"
-, ^
^4-T O
S >-,
T3 CH
•-H cd
o fp*^
>'i
3 T3
S ^
§ y
u £
b §
^ t-i
-^ O
&H ^
W g
O ^3
(-< ^
^ "^
l-c pq
CM JJ
a i>
.M CO
3 CS
° OJ
OJO -0
>, JJ
^H ^
^ "S
«2 ^
•rt &
o *->
^ 2;
2 <
^ ^
11-30
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
11.8.1 Number of Facilities
Based on statistical analysis of the data in the MPP Screener Survey, EPA developed
national estimates for the direct and indirect discharging facilities representing the 76 model
facilities. Table 11-7 shows the national estimates by model facility category. These estimates do
not include the 65 certainty select facilities because those facilities were not included in the MPP
screener survey. EPA determined the incremental costs of the 65 certainty select facilities
separately, based on the model facility category costs and the number of facilities.
Table 11-7. Number of Facilities in 19 MPP Facility Groupings by Size
Model
Facility
Grouping
Code
Rl
R12
R13
R123
R2
R23
PI
P12
P13
P123
P2
P23
Render
M2
M23
Direct dischargers
Small
17
0
17
25
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
9
0
Medium
6
0
17
17
10
4
17
6
7
2
10
0
7
5
0
Large
0
0
7
7
1
0
25
2
8
3
1
0
6
0
0
Very
Large
0
0
12
0
1
0
7
8
2
1
2
0
8
0
0
Indirect dischargers
Small
265
674
12
50
2,489
32
19
20
0
0
272
4
17
707
4
Medium
0
28
7
12
160
7
32
11
2
3
133
9
26
97
0
Large
0
0
3
5
4
0
48
4
2
7
4
6
21
0
0
Very
Large
0
0
5
0
4
0
12
14
1
2
18
0
28
0
0
Note: Model facility groupings for which EPA screener survey did not identify any facilities are not shown.
11.8.2 Frequency of Occurrence
EPA developed 76 model facilities, as discussed in Section 11.3. EPA considered only
the direct and the indirect discharging facilities because those types of facilities will be affected
11-31
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
by the proposed regulation. Because the wastewater in a direct discharging facility generally
undergoes more treatment before discharge than that of an indirect discharging facility, the model
facility categories were further grouped by the type of discharge. Because of the limited number
of responses in the MPP detailed survey, the Agency grouped the medium, large, and very large
direct and indirect facilities into two "non-small" facility groups for estimating current TIP.
EPA evaluated the wastewater treatment systems of all the direct and indirect discharging
facilities in the MPP detailed survey. To determine the wastewater treatment upgrades necessary
for the facilities to be in compliance with the proposed regulation, the Agency compared the
existing TIP of the facilities with those of the technology options (Table 11-1). Based on the
comparison, EPA determined the frequency of occurrence of treatment units for each of the
model facility categories. Frequency of occurrence of a treatment unit is defined as the ratio of
the number of facilities that have the treatment unit in place (or other treatment units that can
perform the same function) to the total number of facilities in that category. The treatment units
considered are those which are listed for the technology options in Table 11-1. As previously
stated, EPA applied the same frequency of occurrence distribution across medium, large, and
very large facilities for each of the two "non-small" facility groups. That is, the same frequency
of occurrence distribution for each treatment unit was applied to all non-small indirect
dischargers and the same frequency of occurrence distribution for each treatment unit was
applied to all non-small direct dischargers. The frequency of occurrence of treatment units for
each model facility is available in Attachment 11-2 in Appendix D. Facilities that do not have a
treatment unit incur costs to upgrade to achieve the performance of the proposed technology
options.
11.8.3 Number of Treatment Units Required
Because frequency of occurrence represents the fraction of facilities that have the
treatment unit in place, "[1- frequency of occurrence]" represents the fraction of facilities that
require the treatment unit for the technology option considered. Therefore, the number of
facilities in a model facility category that require a treatment unit is given by
Number of facilities that require the treatment unit = (1-FO) x N,
11-32
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
where
FO = frequency of occurrence of a treatment unit and
N = national estimate of the number of facilities in the model facility category.
11.8.4 Performance Cost
EPA estimated the incremental cost for each technology option by comparing the existing
TIP of a facility identified in the MPP detailed survey with that of the proposed technology
option, costed for the additional treatment units needed to meet the technology option. Therefore,
a facility identified by the MPP detailed survey that has a TIP similar to a technology treatment
option does not accrue any additional cost for that technology option. It is expected that the
facilities with a TIP comparable to an option should be able to meet the proposed effluent limits
of that option. In reality, however, some of these facilities with TIP may not be able to meet the
proposed effluent limits because of inadequate operational practices. Therefore, to calculate the
cost of improving the performance, EPA assumed a 10 percent increase in the total annual costs
of all the facilities with TIP as performance cost. The performance cost may include cost for
improving operation of the treatment plant, changing sludge retention time, altering dissolved
oxygen content of wastewater in the tanks, mixing, monitoring, automation, and other costs that
would improve the performance of the plant to achieve the desired effluent concentration.
Performance cost is also used to determine the costs for Technology Option 1 from the
costs of Technology Option 2. Although Technology Option 1 contains the same treatment units
as Technology Option 2 (see Table 11-1), the effluent quality of Technology Option 1 is inferior
to that of Technology Option 2 because of limited nitrification. However, a facility with
Technology Option 1 might achieve the effluent quality of Technology Option 2 by improving
the operational practices (e.g., changing solids retention time, blowing more air to the aeration
basin etc.). Therefore, the costs for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers are determined to
be equal to the costs of Technology Option 2, without the performance cost.
11-33
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
11.9 DERIVATION OF COST ESTIMATES
EPA determined compliance costs for the proposed options using the results of the
CAPDET model runs and other cost modeling parameters (Section 11.8). For Technology Option
3 and Option 4 EPA also determined the compliance costs by retrofitting the existing treatment
systems. This section discusses the method used to calculate the compliance costs with and
without consideration of retrofit costs. Table 11-8 shows by size and discharge type the
technology options that are costed for the proposed regulation.
Table 11-8. Technology Options by Size and Discharge Type Costed for the Proposed
Regulation
Discharge Type
Direct
Indirect
Technology Option
1
2
3
3 (with retrofit costs)
4
4 (with retrofit costs)
5 (poultry only)
1
2
3
3 (with retrofit costs)
4
4 (with retrofit costs)
Non-Small Facilities
Direct
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
X
Small Facilities
Direct
X
X
X
X
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X: Category is costed for that option.
EPA used the model facility approach to determine the incremental costs for the proposed
rule. CAPDET was used for developing construction cost and annual operating and maintenance
costs of treatment units for the model facility flow. The capital cost of a treatment unit was
calculated using the construction cost obtained from CAPDET. The costs of a treatment unit
times the number of facilities that require the upgrade yielded the incremental costs for each set
of model facilities. The number of facilities that require upgrade is equal to the product of the
"[1- frequency of occurrence]" of the treatment unit and the total number of facilities in the
11-34
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
model facility category (see Section 11.8.3). As described in Section 11.9.2, retrofit costs for the
applicable technology options were developed from the set of model facility costs. The model
facility costs and the retrofit costs were combined separately to determine costs by regulatory
subcategory.
The step-by-step method for calculating the incremental industry-wide cost is summarized
below:
• Use the MPP screener survey data to establish production levels for each of the 76
model facilities.
• Use the MPP screener survey data to identify the median wastewater flow (model
facility flow), and to estimate the number of MPP facilities nationally represented
by each of the 76 model facilities.
• Use the MPP detailed survey data to determine frequency of occurrence for
treatment units in each of the 76 model facilities.
• Develop construction costs and annual costs of treatment units from CAPDET
using model facility wastewater flows and typical influent and effluent pollutant
concentrations.
• Estimate capital costs of treatment units from construction costs (see Section
11.5).
• Estimate capital and annual costs on a national basis for each regulatory option of
the 76 model facilities using capital and annual costs of treatment units, frequency
of occurrence, and national estimate of MPP facilities for each of the 76 model
facilities.
• Estimate the regulatory cost for each subcategory based on the model facility
costs.
11-35
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
11.9.1 Model Facility Costs Without Consideration To Retrofit Costs
As discussed in Section 11.3, EPA developed 76 model facilities to represent the broad
range of MPP facilities in current operation. Running the CAPDET model was the first step in
calculating the incremental compliance costs. For each model facility, a process schematic
representing the technology options (see Table 11-1) was developed in CAPDET. A preliminary
treatment module in CAPDET that consisted of screen and grit removal was selected to represent
the screens. The biological treatment units costed in CAPDET were nitrification module (under
suspended growth) for Option 2, biological nitrogen removal module (under biological nutrient
removal) for Option 3, and biological nutrient removal module with 3/5 stage (under biological
nutrient removal) for Option 4 and Option 5. The biological treatment system consisted of the
biological treatment units, clarifiers, pumps, blowers, and sludge drying beds.
Section 11.6 discusses the selected design specifications for the treatment units. The
required input influent and effluent concentrations of the pollutants and the model facility flow
used for the model runs are explained in Section 11.7.
With a given set of concentrations and flow, CAPDET calculates the construction cost
and the annual operation costs of individual treatment units, as well as the total annual cost of the
treatment scheme. The total annual cost of the treatment scheme is the sum of the annual
operating costs of the treatment units and the labor costs for administrative and laboratory work
(see Section 11.5.2). Because labor costs for administrative and laboratory work are available for
the entire treatment system, the costs were proportioned to individual treatment units, based on
the individual operation costs generated by CAPDET. Therefore, the annual operation cost of a
treatment unit is the sum of the individual annual costs generated by CAPDET and the
proportional costs of administrative and laboratory labor. For DAF and biological treatment
systems, an additional annual cost of sludge disposal was added. A sludge disposal cost of
$2.3/ton (Parker, 1998) was used as the cost for hauling of the dried sludge leaving the sludge
dryer.
The construction cost of a treatment unit was obtained as an output of the CAPDET
model runs. As discussed in Section 11.5.1, the capital cost of the treatment unit is obtained by
11-36
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
multiplying the construction cost by 1.69. The model runs were performed using the 2000 cost
database provided in CAPDET. The costs were adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Engineering
News index (ENR, 2001). Once the capital and annual operating costs associated with treatment
units were determined, the incremental capital and annual costs by model facility category were
obtained by multiplying the treatment unit costs by the number of treatment units required for the
technology option (see Section 11.8.3).
The national estimate of the number of facilities in the model facility category shown in
Table 11-7 does not include the 65 certainty select facilities. EPA determined the incremental
costs of the 65 certainty select facilities, based on the model facility category costs and the
number of facilities. These costs were added to obtain the total industry-wide costs for non-small
facilities.
Costs by model facility category are provided in Attachment 11-3 in Appendix D. Costs
for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers were developed for small direct discharging
facilities only. Since Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers is the same as Technology
Option 2 with limited nitrification, the costs for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers are
equal to the costs of Technology Option 2 without the performance cost. Costs for Technology
Option 5 for direct dischargers were developed for poultry facilities only.
11.9.2 Model Facility Category Costs With Consideration to Retrofit Costs
EPA observed that many operations with some sort of treatment already in place may be
able to upgrade the existing treatment process rather than construct an entirely new structure. The
method of cost calculation described earlier in Section 11.9.1 assumes that even if a facility had a
nitrification system in place, it would incur a cost of a new nitrification and denitrification
(N+DN) system for Technology Option 3 and a new nitrification/denitrification with phosphorus
removal (N+DN+DP) for Technology Option 4. These represent an upper bound of the cost
because in reality the nitrification system can be retrofitted to a N+DN system, which may be
retrofitted to a N+DN+DP system. Therefore, for Technology Options 3 and 4 two types of
capital costs are calculated: upper bound costs and retrofit costs.
11-37
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
In light of the ability to retrofit nitrification to accomplish both nitrification and
denitrification or to upgrade nitrification/denitrification to accomplish nitrification/denitrification
with phosphorus removal, EPA solicited information related to retrofit costs from several
technical experts for use in estimating compliance costs for the MPP industry. EPA contacted
two experts in MPP wastewater treatment design and biological nutrient removal wastewater
treatment systems (Tetra Tech, 2001).
Based on the input from these two experts, Table 11-9 presents the retrofit costs (as a
percent of the cost of a nitrification system) as those needed to (1) upgrade a nitrification system
to a N+DN system and (2) upgrade a nitrification system to a N+DN+DP system. As shown, each
expert provided a range of estimates, which were relatively close to each other. The experts also
noted that the upgrades might be as complicated as partitioning existing aeration tanks and/or
adding additional tanks and accessories (generally reflected by the upper end of the range) or as
simple as operational changes, such as switching air flow to the aeration basin on and off
periodically (generally reflected by the lower end of the range).
Table 11-9. Estimated Retrofit Costs (As Percent of Nitrification Costs) to Upgrade a
Nitrification System
Scenario
Nitrification to N+DN
Nitrification to N+DN+DP
Estimate 1
25%-50%
50%-75%
Estimate 2
15%^K)%
25%-65%
Source: Tetra Tech, 2001.
Although the estimates provided by the two experts are very close, the arithmetic average
of the midpoint of the range of the percentages they provided was used as the basis for
incorporating retrofit costs into the MPP industry compliance cost estimates. In summary, it is
estimated that to upgrade a nitrification system to a N+DN system, a facility would incur 33
percent of the capital cost of a nitrification system. To upgrade a nitrification system to a
N+DN+DP system, a facility would incur 54 percent of the capital cost of a nitrification system.
Therefore, retrofit costs were calculated for only Technology Options 3 and 4.
For the direct discharger technology options, nitrification costs were not available to
calculate potential retrofit costs. (All direct dischargers were assumed to be performing
11-38
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
biological treatment with nitrification, based on results from the MPP detailed survey.)
Therefore, capital costs from the nitrification/denitrification technology option (Technology
Option 3) were used as a surrogate for the nitrification costs. Because in most cases the
Technology Option 3 costs would be expected to be lower than nitrification costs (generally
because less oxygen is required and less control is needed for alkalinity), the retrofit percentages
of 33 percent and 54 percent were increased. Specifically, based on professional judgment, it was
assumed that to upgrade a nitrification system to a N+DN system, a facility would incur 45
percent of the capital cost of a greenfield nitrification/denitrification system and to upgrade a
nitrification system to a N+DN+DP system, a facility would incur 65 percent of the capital cost
of a greenfield nitrification/ denitrification system. As described in Section 11.11, these
assumptions were reasonable when compared to actual costs at several MPP facilities.
For the indirect discharger regulatory options, it was assumed that there would be no real
retrofit opportunities for the technology option requiring nitrification (Technology Option 2)
because very few indirect dischargers possess the tanks and/or equipment for nitrification.
However, based on the input from the experts there would be opportunities for retrofitting when
moving to the nitrification/denitrification technology option (Technology Option 3) and the
nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorus removal technology option (Technology Option 4).
For these two technology options, the retrofit average percentages (33 percent and 54 percent)
were used to adjust the compliance costs for only the fraction of those facilities that have the
opportunity to retrofit.
11.10 ESTIMATED COSTS
The costs generated by the method outlined in Section 11.9 were used to calculate the
compliance cost by regulatory category. This section presents the estimated costs for the
proposed regulation.
11.10.1 Model Facility Costs
The model facility costs obtained by the method outlined in Section 11.9 are shown in the
table provided in Attachment 11-3 of Appendix D. As shown in Table 11-7, results from the
11-39
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
EPA screener survey indicate that there are no MPP facilities for some model facilities (e.g.,
there are no reported MPP direct or indirect facilities for the "Rl-Very Large" model facility).
The costs for those categories are zero. Because all non-small facilities that discharge directly to
surface waters currently have biological treatment with nitrification (based on data provided as
part of the MPP detailed survey), the costs for Technology Option 2 were minimal. Costs for
Technology Option 5 for direct dischargers were developed for poultry facilities only, while costs
for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers were developed for small direct discharging
facilities only.
11.10.2 Regulatory Subcategory Costs
EPA developed a regulatory subcategory scheme for the proposed rule, based on various
combinations of the 76 model facility category costs. There are 10 regulatory groupings, which
are defined in Table 11-10.
Table 11-10. Definition of 10 MPP Regulatory Groupings
40 CFR Part
432
Subcategory
A, B, C, D
F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Facility Size1
M, L, VL
S
M, L, VL
Sb
M, L, VL
S
M, L, VL
S
M, L, VL
S
Facility Type
Meat first processors
Meat first processors
Meat further processors
Meat further processors
Independent Tenderers
Independent Tenderers
Poultry first processors
Poultry first processors
Poultry further processors
Poultry further processors
Model Facility Grouping Code3
R1,R12, R13, R123
R1,R12, R13, R123
R2, R23, 0.61*M2C
R2, R23, 0.59*M2C, 0.5*M23C
Render
Render
P1,P12, P13, P123
P1,P12, P13, P123
P2, P23, 0.39*M2C
P2, P23, 0.41*M2C, 0.5*M23C
a The following abbreviations apply: S = small, M = medium, L = large, VL = very large, R = meat facilities, P =
poultry facilities, M = facilities producing both meat and poultry products, 1 = first processors, 2 = further
processors, and 3 = meat or poultry facilities performing on-site rendering.
b This group of small meat further processors includes all meat facilities that annually produce fewer than 50 million
pounds of finished product and all facilities currently covered under Subpart E (Small Processors).
c Costs of mixed meat are allocated to similar operations in the meat and poultry subcategory.
11-40
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
The 76 model facility costs are combined according to Table 11-10 to generate the costs
by regulatory subcategory. For mixed (performing both meat and poultry) meat operations, the
MPP screener survey identified only medium-sized facilities performing further processing
(model facility code = M2) and small facilities performing further processing, and further
processing and rendering (model facility codes = M2 and M23). EPA allocated the costs for
mixed meat operations into the meat further processors regulatory grouping (40 CFR Part 432,
Subcategories F through I) and poultry further processors regulatory grouping (40 CFR Part 432,
Subcategory L) based on total annual production. EPA allocated the costs equally between the
two groupings if production data were not available. Tables 11-11 to 11-14 show the costs by
regulatory subcategory for non-small and small facilities.
11.11 COMPARISON OF MODEL PREDICTED COST WITH ACTUAL COST
Table 11-15 compares the costs (construction, capital, annual) provided by the facilities
in the MPP detailed survey and the costs predicted by CAPDET. The costs are adjusted to 1999
dollars with the Engineering News cost index (ENR, 2001). As discussed in Section 11.5.1.2, the
capital cost of a treatment unit is obtained by multiplying its construction cost by 1.69. The
model runs were performed with the actual flows for these specific facilities provided in the MPP
detailed survey by the facilities. However, the influent and the effluent concentrations of all the
required pollutants were not available; therefore, the model runs were made with typical
concentrations described in Section 11.7. For disinfection, the model runs were based on a UV
disinfection system because the system was used to estimate the model facility category costs, as
discussed in Section 11.9.
The percent difference in construction/capital cost varied between - 34 percent and +44
percent, with the exception of one facility where the percent difference was +166 percent. [Note:
Positive percentage differences indicate that the CAPDET model costs were higher than the
actual costs and vice versa.] The percent difference in actual and model-predicted
construction/capital costs for 6 out of 11 facilities is around 20 percent or lower. The percent
difference in annual costs varied between -49 percent and 218 percent. The facility that has a
difference of 218 percent uses chlorine for disinfection but was costed for a UV disinfection
11-41
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
03
CD
'5b
O
03
CJ
CD
e
03
O
O
03
l—>
03
O
U
U
"cd
-^
^
CO
0
, — *
&5
^
1— 1
^i.
CN
_H
in
&$
0
(N
co"
^o
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
"a
*c3
]__'
LN
O
i/}
vo
OJD
•^
5
^
s
V
I?
1
a
g
•U
X
O
U
•M
C5
Q
H
w
"tj *J
3r ^J
•M 72
V y
ta
^^
J
fed
L
,
fe
Q
-^
V
C.
L^
-W
O
O
. a
a o
$$
^
oo
00
o\
*^
o\
in"
o
f~-
MD
^O
OA
°),
t~-T
^^)-
^
^3
C
<^
CN
CO,
CN"
CN
CN"
CO
CN"
(N
0
00^
OA"
f — ,
CN"
V*
^
m
a\
MD
0
CN"
C3A
O
OO
, ^
2
CN"
I
m
CN
o
oo"
CN
\c
in"
(N
^
CO
CD
T^
00
co"
[---,
^
CO
o^
^-^
oo
•^j-
co"
[---,
^
^H
o
p/^
CJ
CO
CJ
O
CO
O
U
<
T3
u
13
-4—>
I
CJ
—
2
11-43
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
as
V->
•i-H
PH
6JQ
.^H
c3
CJ
CO
Q
o
Q
13
e
t/2
f | j
O
CO
CO
O
U
"c3
G
1
-^_i
O
1
'I
U
r— H
G
1
CO
CJ
HH
1— 1
'
1— 1
QJ
2
BO
_S
O
OA"
0
C3A
^*
CO
m
o^
CO
^*
0
-,
o
"S
00
ig
o
^
u
^
t/D
VH
OJ
C
§
o
t/D
OH
OH
O
a
o
LH
to
T3
OJ
OJ
C/3
OJ
'^
'o
OH
OH
^
O
r- <
S
o
T3
O
o
o
VH
S
2
o
1
t |
o
S
'o
—
oo
d
'ob
1
o
Q
0
F^-t
| g
S 2
^ 'o.
c ^D
^^ >!
^-H OX
o ^
+2 'o
GO d
o .a
U o
13 H
3 t^
§ ^
^3 _Q
^H i-H
^>
cd
13
U
3
S
(U
a
C7\"
°i
OA
CN
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Table 11-15. Comparison of CAPDET Model Prediction of Capital (and Construction) and
Annual Costs with Actual Costs
Facility
Code
3
1502
1762
4558
4787
6519
7012
7041
7995
8842
Treatment Units3
E+S+D
S+E+D+L+E+N+D
N+U+SD
S+D
D
E+N+DN+DP
D+E+N+DN+DP+U
E+D
E+D+E+N+DN+U+
SD
S+E+D+L
S+D
N+DN
S+D+L+N+DN+U
S+E+D+N+DN+SD
D
E+N+DN
S+D+E
CAPDET Cost Model
Prediction
Construction/
Capital Cost
($ 1999)
404, 1952
464,171
2,992,424
4,677,927
151,549b
3,194,882
7,910667
5,760,829
334,069b
2,339,460b
297,103
Annual
Cost
($ 1999)
52399
527,713
308,746
53,665
684,696
529,836
1,479,012
775,041
63,056
Actual Cost
Construction/
Capital Cost
($ 1999)
374,0912
460,644
2,676,968
3,252,461
128,118b
1,200,000
5,600,000
4,873,287
276,9 15b
l,743,810b
448,225
Annual
Cost
($ 1999)
50,000
1,032,000
97,179
46,940
690,000
280,000
1,555,813
545,419
113,093
Percent Difference0
(%)
Construction/
Capital
+8
+ 1
+ 12
+44
+ 18
+ 166
+41
+ 18
+21
+34
-34
Annual
+5
-49
+218
+14
-1
+89
-5
+42
-44
a S = screen, D = dissolved air floatation, E = equalization basin, N = nitrfication, N+DN = nitrification and
denitrification, N+DN+DP = nitrification and dentrification and phosphorous removal, U = ultraviolet
disinfection, SD = sludge dryer.
b Construction cost.
c Percent difference = (CAPDET cost - actual cost) x 100/actual cost.
system, which might have contributed to a higher model-predicted cost. The percent difference in
actual and model-predicted annual costs for four out of nine facilities is within +/-15 percent.
Therefore, EPA concludes that, in most cases, the model is able to predict the actual cost with
reasonable accuracy. The difference in actual and predicted cost estimates may be attributed to
approximate cost estimates provided by the facilities, engineering judgments used in the selection
of the model parameters, and/or use of typical concentrations instead of the actual design
11-45
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
concentrations. However, note that in most cases the predicted cost is higher than the actual
costs. This indicates that the costs estimated by EPA for the options are unlikely to underestimate
actual costs that a facility would incur to achieve the technology treatment option. Therefore, the
economic impact of these costs should not be underestimated
As described previously in Section 11.9.2, all nitrification systems can be retrofitted to
N+DN and N+DN+DP systems, and the capital costs incurred for such an upgrade are
approximately 33 percent and 54 percent of the cost of a nitrification system. Based on
engineering judgment, EPA refined the factors to be 45 percent and 65 percent of the cost of a
greenfield N+DN system, respectively. Therefore, the retrofit cost to upgrade an N+DN system to
an N+DN+DP system is approximately 20 percent (= 65 percent -45 percent) of the cost of an
N+DN system. Estimated retrofit capital costs of N+DN and N+DN+DP by model facility
category for non-small direct discharging facilities are shown in Table 11-16 and Table 11-18,
respectively (taken from Table A-4 of Appendix A). These estimated costs were compared with
the retrofit costs for N+DN and N+DN+DP available in the literature. Table 11-17 and Table 11-
19 show the retrofit costs available in the literature for several wastewater treatment plants that
may be upgraded to N+DN and N+DN+DP systems respectively. If the initial investment cost is
available, then the percent increase in the cost to upgrade was calculated and compared. If the
initial investment cost of the treatment plants (up to nitrification) was not available, a normalized
parameter of retrofit cost/MGD was used for the basis of comparison. Retrofit capital costs
divided by the flow provided the retrofit costs per unit flow.
As shown in Table 11-16, the estimated retrofit costs for N+DN systems ranged from
$1.3 million/MGD to $43 million/MGD with a mean and a median of $6.5 million/MGD and
$3.2 million/MGD, respectively (based on $ 1999). The cost per MGD estimated is compared
with the retrofit cost per MGD available in the literature. The retrofit cost per MGD (based on
1999 $) as reported in Table 11-17 varied between $12,000/MGD and $3.7 million/MGD with a
mean and a median of $650,000/MGD and $300,000/MGD. Thus, comparing the mean and the
median, it can be said that the estimated retrofit costs are almost 10 times higher than the costs
reported in the literature. As discussed in Section 11.8.4, depending on the type of upgrade
required, retrofit costs might vary from 15 percent to 50 percent of the cost of the nitrification
11-46
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Table 11-16. Retrofit Capital Costs of Nitrification/Denitrification by Category for the Proposed
Regulation
Model
Facility
Grouping
Code
R2
R13
R23
R123
R2
R13
R123
R2
R13
PI
P2
P12
P13
P123
PI
P2
P12
P13
P123
PI
P2
P12
P13
P123
M2
Render
Render
Render
Size
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Very large
Very large
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Very large
Very large
Very large
Very large
Very large
Medium
Medium
Large
Very large
Retrofit
Capital
Costs3
($ 1999)
98,815
28,083,452
118,769
1,370,040
6,498
15,839,177
957,706
6,022
77,336,143
12,695,217
3,582,590
3,395,017
4,608,071
2,081,694
21,222,194
788,937
1,966,867
13,232,186
11,611,084
9,805,491
532,854
11,624,854
3,478,687
3,852,889
1,442,589
2,488,431
2,943,171
5,474,505
N+DN
Frequency
Factor"
0.98
0.14
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.14
0.98
0.98
0.14
0.23
0.20
0.25
0.33
0.00
0.23
0.20
0.25
0.33
0
0.23
0.2
0.25
0.33
0
0.59
0
0
0
Number of
Facilities'
10
17
4
17
1
7
7
1
12
17
10
6
7
2
25
1
2
8
3
7
2
8
2
1
5
7
6
8
Flow"
(MGD)
0.065
0.449
0.414
1.5
0.012
0.664
2.43
0.007
2.04
0.515
0.061
0.247
0.303
0.337
0.63
0.309
0.642
1.13
2
1.37
0.022
1.15
1.21
1.98
0.178
0.024
0.064
0.126
Mean
Median
Retrofit Capital
Cost
($ 1999/MGD)
7,601,158
4,278,158
3,586,005
2,686,354
27,075,000
3,962,489
2,815,126
43,016,786
3,673,437
1,883,186
7,341,373
3,054,447
3,242,677
3,088,567
1,749,923
3,191,492
2,042,437
2,184,683
1,935,181
1,327,884
15,137,898
1,684,761
2,145,484
1,945,903
3,953,381
14,812,088
7,664,509
5,431,057
6,518,266
3,217,084
a From Table D-3 in Attachment 11-3 in Appendix D.
b From Table D-l in Appendix D.
c From Table 11-7.
d Derived from Table 11-6.
11-47
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Table 11-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Nitrogen Removal
State
Pennsylvania
Maryland
New York
Virginia
Treatment Plant
Altoona City (E)
Altoona City (W)
Chambersburg
Greater Hazleton
Hanover
Harrisburg
Lancaster
Lebanon
Scranton
State College
Susquehanna
Throop
Williamsport (C)
Williamsport (W)
Wyoming Valley
York City
Brunswick
Chestertown
Crisfield
Elkton
Federalsburg
Georges Creek
Indian Head
Mattawoman
Winebrenner
Binghampton
Endicott
Arlington
Colonial Beach
Dahlgren
Dale Services #1
Dale Services #8
Fishersville
Front Royal
Harrisonburg
H.L.Mooney
Leesburg
Estimated Retrofit
Capital Cost
( million $ 1999)
1.23
1.233
6.347
7.84
0.06
25.448
1.077
4.039
2.815
0.78
1.619
3.32
6.339
5.246
0.763
1.78
0.39
1.35
1.949
1.97
1.525
1.663
0.532
4.25
1.48
13.057
6.656
0.56
0.09
0.03
0.22
0.22
0.79
0.05
4.688
0.49
2.77
Design Flow
(MGD)
9
13.5
4.5
8.9
4.5
30
29.7
8
16
6
12
7
7.2
4.5
32
26
0.7
0.9
1
2.7
0.75
0.6
0.49
15
0.6
25
8
30
2
0.325
3
3
2
4
16
18
4.85
Estimated Retrofit
Capital Cost/Flow
($ 1999/MGD)
136,667
91,333
1,410,444
880,899
13,333
848,267
36,263
504,875
175,938
130,000
134,917
474,286
880,417
1,165,778
23,844
68,462
557,143
1,500,000
1,949,000
729,630
2,033,333
2,771,667
1,085,714
283,333
2,466,667
522,280
832,000
18,667
45,000
92,308
73,333
73,333
395,000
12,500
293,000
27,222
571,134
11-48
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
State
Treatment Plant
Lower Potomac
Middle River/Verona
Occoquan
Parkins Mill
Purcellville
Rocco Foods
Strasburg
Stuarts Draft
Waynesboro
Woodstock
Estimated Retrofit
Capital Cost
( million $ 1999)
20.8
0.15
0.51
0.097
1.3
4.48
0.12
1.24
3.5
0.07
Design Flow
(MGD)
67
4.5
6.25
2
1
1.2
0.975
1.4
4
1
Mean
Median
Estimated Retrofit
Capital Cost/Flow
($ 1999/MGD)
310,448
33,333
81,600
48,500
1,300,000
3,733,333
123,077
885,714
875,000
70,000
654,659
310,448
Source: Randall et al., 1991.
system. To account for all kinds of upgrading, an upper bound percentage (45 percent of the cost
of a nitrification and denitrification system) was used for retrofit cost estimation. This approach
resulted in higher cost estimates. However, it should be noted that the range of estimated retrofit
cost per MGD and those reported in literature overlap. This indicates that few of the facilities
reported in the literature may actually incur greater than or equal to 45 percent of the cost of an
N+DN system.
The costs to upgrade an N+DN system to an N+DN+DP system for the two treatment
plants shown in Table 11-19 are 8 percent and 12 percent of the cost of the N+DN system. This
cost is below the selected percentage of 20 percent used by EPA to estimate the retrofit costs of
N+DN+DP from N+DN systems. Considering the fact that the cost of upgrading to an
N+DN+DP system varies from facility to facility, the Agency believes that the selected 20
percent increase in cost is a reasonable estimate. The model-predicted cost and the cost available
in the literature were also compared based on cost per MGD. The retrofit costs were calculated
assuming the cost to upgrade from nitrification to an N+DN+DP system is 65 percent of the cost
of an N+DN system (see Section 11.8.4). The estimated retrofit costs for upgrade from
nitrification to N+DN+DP systems ranged from $77,000/MGD to $21 million/MGD (based on
11-49
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Table 11-18. Retrofit Capital Costs Of Nitrification/Denitrification/Phosphorous Removal
Model
Facility
Grouping
Code
R2
R13
R23
R123
R2
R13
R123
R2
R13
PI
P2
P12
P13
P123
PI
P2
P12
P13
P123
PI
P2
P12
P13
P123
M2
Render
Render
Render
Size
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Very large
Very large
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Very large
Very large
Very large
Very large
Very large
Medium
Medium
Large
Very large
Retrofit
Capital
Costs3
($ 1999)
142,733
40,564,987
171,555
1,978,947
9,386
22,878,812
1,383,353
8,699
111,707,762
18,337,536
5,174,852
4,903,914
6,656,102
3,006,892
30,654,281
1,139,575
2,841,030
19,113,158
16,771,565
14,163,487
769,678
16,791,455
5,024,770
5,565,284
2,083,739
3,594,400
4,251,248
7,907,619
N+DN+DP
Frequency
Factor"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0.07
0
0.22
0
0.08
0.07
0
0.22
0
0.08
0.07
0
0.22
0
0.04
0
0
0
Number of
Facilities'
10
17
4
17
1
7
7
1
12
17
10
6
7
2
25
1
2
8
3
7
2
8
2
1
5
7
6
8
Flow"
(MGD)
0.065
0.449
0.414
1.5
0.012
0.664
2.43
0.007
2.04
0.515
0.061
0.247
0.303
0.337
0.63
0.309
0.642
1.13
2
1.37
0.022
1.15
1.21
1.98
0.178
0.024
0.064
0.126
Mean
Median
Retrofit Capital
Cost
($ 1999/MGD)
219,589
5,314,422
103,596
77,606
782,167
4,922,292
81,326
1,242,707
4,563,226
2,276,654
9,121,897
3,308,984
4,023,321
4,461,263
2,115,547
3,965,534
2,212,640
2,710,625
2,795,261
1,605,328
18,809,335
1,825,158
2,661,989
2,810,749
2,438,834
21,395,238
11,070,957
7,844,860
4,455,754
2,752,943
a From Table D-3 in Attachment 11-3 in Appendix D.
b From Table D-3 in Appendix D.
c From Table 11-7.
d derived from Table 11-6.
11-50
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Table 11-19. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Phosphorus Removal
State
Virginia
Treatment
Plant
Leesburg
Occoquan
Design
Flow
(MGD)
4.85
6.25
Retrofit Capital
Cost from AS
to N+DN
(1999 million $)
2.77
0.51
Retrofit Capital
Cost from AS
to N+DN+DP
(1999 million $)
2.98
0.57
Retrofit Capital
Cost from AS
to N+DN+DP/
Flow
(1999 $/MGD)
614,433
91,200
Percent
Increase in
Cost from
N+DN to
N+DN+DP
7.6%
11.8%
AS = activated sludge process.
Source: Randall et al., 1999.
$ 1999) with a mean and a median of $4.5 million/MGD and $2.7 million/MGD, respectively.
The cost per MGD estimated was compared with the retrofit cost per MGD available in the
literature. The retrofit cost per MGD as reported in Table 11-19 are $600,000/MGD and
$91,000/MGD (based on $ 1999). These values reported in the literature are within the spectrum
of the estimated costs of $77,000/MGD and $21 million/MGD, although on the lower end. As
discussed in Section 11.9.2, depending on the type of upgrade required, retrofit costs might vary
from 25 percent to 75 percent of the cost of the nitrification system. However, to account for all
kinds of upgrades, an upper bound percentage (65 percent of the cost of a N+DN system) was
used for retrofit cost estimation. This might have resulted in higher EPA cost estimates.
11.12 REFERENCES
Engineering News-Record, 2001. Construction Cost Index, www.enr.com. (DCN 00212)
Hydromantis, Inc. www.hydromantis.com. Computer-assisted procedure for design and
evaluation of wastewater treatment systems (CAPDET), Version 1.0. State-of-the-art
software for the design and cost estimation of wastewater treatment plants. Hamilton,
Canada, 2001. (DCN 00129)
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater engineering—treatment, disposal, and reuse. 3rd ed.
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00213)
Parker, D. 1998. Alternative uses for poultry litter. Economic Viewpoints, Vol. 3, No.l.
University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension Service. (DCN 00214)
11-51
-------
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation
Randall, C. et al.1999. Evaluation of wastewater treatment plants for BNR retrofits using
advances in technology. Submitted to Chesapeake Bay Program, 1999. (DCN 00031)
Tetra Tech. 2001. Retrofit costs for meat processing industries (MPI). Memorandum prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. October
10, 2001. (DCN 00130)
Tetra Tech. 2001. Sampling episode reports, prepared by for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 2001. (DCN 00169-DCN 00175,
DCN 00208-DCN 00211)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Detailed costing document for the centralized
waste treatment industry. EPA 821-R-98-016. December. (DCN 00138)
WAV Cost, 1998. Version 3.0. Copyright (1994 to 2000), owned by Dr. George Mack Wesner.
(DCN 00215)
11-52
-------
SECTION 12
SELECTED TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
As discussed in Section 2, EPA must promulgate six types of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for each major industrial category, as appropriate:
• Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
• Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)
• Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
• Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
• Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS limitations regulate only those sources that discharge
effluent directly into waters of the United States. PSES and PSNS limitations restrict pollutant
discharges for those sources that discharge effluent indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs). This section presents the rationale EPA used in selecting
technology options to serve as the basis for the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
12.1 BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE (BPT)
In general, the BPT technology level represents the average of the best existing
performances of plants of various processes, ages, sizes, or other common characteristics. Where
existing performance is considered uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or industry. Limitations based on transfer of technology must be supported
by a conclusion that the technology is indeed transferable and a reasonable prediction that it will
be capable of meeting the prescribed effluent limits. (See Tanners' Council of America v. Train,
540 F.2nd 1188 (4th Cir. 1976).) BPT focuses on end-of-pipe treatment rather than process
changes or internal controls, except where the process changes or internal controls are common
industry practice.
12-1
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limited balancing, committed to EPA's discretion,
which does not require the Agency to quantify the benefits in monetary terms. In balancing costs
in relation to effluent reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume and nature of existing
discharges expected after the application of BPT, the general environmental effects of the
pollutants, and the cost and economic impact of the required pollution controls. When setting
BPT limitations, EPA is required under Section 304(b) to perform a limited cost-benefit
balancing to ensure the costs are not wholly out of proportion to the benefits achieved. (See
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).)
12.1.1 BPT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories
EPA is retaining the existing BPT limitations (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and oil and
grease) for all facilities currently covered under 40 CFR Part 432. It should be noted that in the
proposed rule for oil and grease in particular, limitations and standards are listed as "O&G
(HEM)" to indicate that the parameter should be measured as hexane extractable material
(HEM). In contrast, EPA has retained the previous notation of "O&G" for the existing BPT
limitations, but has included footnotes that indicate it can be measured as HEM. EPA used the
two different notations because the existing BPT limitations and proposed limitations were based
on analytical testing methods that used two different extraction solvents: freon and n-hexane,
respectively. EPA has determined that the two methods are comparable (see Approval of EPA
Methods 1664, Revision A, and 907IB for Determination of Oil and Grease and Non-polar
Material in EPA's Wastewater and Hazardous Waste Programs [EPA-821-F-98-005,
February 23, 1999, located at www.epa.gov/ost/methods/1664fs.html]) and Analytical Method
Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation and Use [EPA-821-R-00-003, February 2000,
located at www.epa.gov/ost/methods/1664guide.pdf]). Because freon is an ozone-depleting
agent and becoming more expensive, EPA believes that facilities will prefer to measure oil and
grease as HEM for the existing BPT limitations. EPA solicits comments on its notation for the
two types of oil and grease limitations and standards in the proposed rule.
EPA is also proposing an additional BPT limitation for COD for larger meat first and
further processing facilities to reflect the better design and operation of the existing BPT
12-2
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
treatment technology. EPA is retaining the existing BPT limitations and proposing no new BPT
limitations for "small" facilities. EPA used production-based thresholds to subcategorize these
small facilities (see related discussion in Section 5). EPA defines small MPP facilities as MPP
facilities that produce less than the production-based thresholds defined in Section 5. See also
Section 5 for a description of why and how EPA developed these production-based thresholds.
12.1.1.1 BPT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for COD. These pollutants are characteristic
of meat slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the
performance of the secondary biological treatment process, which is the key unit process of the
model BPT treatment systems for these subcategories.
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines based on BPT-2 for Subcategories A
through D. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the
proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment
including some degree of nitrification, and chlorination/dechlorination. BPT-2 represents an
improved version of the existing BPT technology. EPA has determined that the cost and removal
comparison for this option is reasonable.
As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BPT
options were considered. EPA estimated the costs and pollutant reductions that would be
achieved if these options were applied to all 71 facilities subject to the proposal. Limitations
based on BPT-2 remove at least 12.3 million pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an
annualized compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). Limitations based on BPT-2 result in a
cost-to-net income ratio of 0.28 percent, which means that approximately 0.28 percent of a
facility's profits would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, the
estimates of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $0.81 ($1999/pound). Thus, this
12-3
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
option is considered cost-reasonable. Detailed discussions on cost estimates are presented in
Section 11.
EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis for establishing BPT limitations that would
be more stringent than the level of control being proposed. However, EPA believes that Option 2
represents BPT (or "average of the best") treatment for this industry subcategory. Options 3 and
4 were evaluated in the BCT analysis.
12.1.1.2 BPT for Subpart E—Small Processors
EPA is not proposing new limitations for Small Processors (Subpart E). Small processors
are defined as operations that produce up to 2,730 kilograms (6,000 pounds) per day of any type
or combination of meat product, and they are currently regulated under Subpart E of 40 CFR
Part 432.
12.1.1.3 BPT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for COD, a pollutant characteristic of meat
further processing wastewater. EPA considers COD a key indicator of the performance of the
secondary biological treatment process, which is the key unit process of the model BPT treatment
systems for these subcategories.
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-2 for Subcategories F
through I. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed
BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment, and
chlorination/dechlorination. As discussed previously, the proposed BPT-2 limits for COD reflect
an average of the best performance of the existing technology in place at meat processing
facilities, which includes secondary biological treatment. EPA has determined that the cost and
removal comparison for this option is reasonable.
12-4
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BPT
options were under consideration. BPT-2 removes at least 0.25 million pounds of pollutants over
current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $0.4 million ($1999). Option 2 results in a
cost-to-net income ratio of 0.14 percent, which means that approximately 0.14 percent of a
facility's profits would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, the
estimates of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $1.59 ($1999/pound). Thus, this
option is considered cost-reasonable.
EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the
level of control being proposed. However, EPA believes that Option 2 represents BPT (or
"average of the best") treatment for this industry subcategory. Options 3 and 4 are considered in
the evaluation of BCT controls.
12.1.2 BPT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories
EPA proposes BPT limitations for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform
bacteria, pH, and oil and grease) and nonconventional pollutants (ammonia as nitrogen, total
nitrogen, and total phosphorus) for poultry first processing and poultry further processing that
have not previously been regulated under the current Part 432 regulations.
12.1.2.1 BPT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as
HEM), and ammonia as nitrogen for facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million pounds per
year (small facilities). EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease
(measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus
for facilities that slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year (large facilities). These
pollutants are characteristic of poultry slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated
pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment
processes, which are the key components of the model BPT treatment systems for the small and
large facilities, respectively.
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-1 for small facilities in
Subcategory K. This option is based on the current practices in place at facilities as reported to
EPA through the MPP detailed surveys. Option 1 assumes a less aggressive nitrification
treatment than Option 2. Based on the MPP screener and detailed survey responses the Agency
reviewed for proposal, no small poultry first processors exist; however, in the event that a small
number of facilities that were not captured through EPA's survey efforts exist, EPA is proposing
to establish BPT limits.
The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-3 for large
facilities in Subcategory K. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the
development of the proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary
biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. As
presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BPT options
were under consideration. EPA has estimated the costs and pollutant reductions associated with
each technology option as it would apply to the 95 facilities that would be subject to these
proposed requirements. BPT-2 removes at least 1.63 million pounds of pollutants over current
discharge at an annualized cost of $4.8 million ($1999). BPT-3 removes at least an additional
5.7 million pounds of pollutants over BPT-2, at an additional annualized compliance cost of
$29.7 million. BPT Option 2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 0.34 percent, which means
that approximately 0.34 percent of a facility's profits would be spent on compliance if it was to
implement this option. Also, the estimates of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $2.95
($1999/pound). Option 3 results in a cost to net income ratio of 2.73 percent, and the BPT cost to
effluent reduction benefit is $4.71 ($1999/pound). Thus, both of these options are considered
cost-reasonable. However, because Option 3 removes more pollutants at a cost that is
reasonable, BPT-3 was selected for this Subcategory.
EPA also evaluated Option 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the level
of control being proposed. EPA estimates that BPT-4 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 3.56
percent and the ratio of cost to effluent reduction benefits is 5.46. However, EPA is not
12-6
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
proposing to establish BPT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BPT-3 achieves
nearly equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would
remove at least 7.32 million pounds of pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of
$34.5 million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove an additional 10.7 percent of pollutants
at an additional cost of 28 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 appears to achieve minimal
additional pollutant removal and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of
$9.7 million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory.
12.1.2.2 BPT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as
HEM), and ammonia as N for facilities that further process no more than 7 million pounds per
year (small facilities). EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease
(measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus
for facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These
pollutants are characteristic of poultry further processing wastewater. These proposed regulated
pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment
processes, which are the key components of the model BPT treatment systems for the small and
large facilities, respectively.
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing to establish BPT-1 for small facilities in Subcategory L. This is the
same technology as described previously for Subcategoy K. EPA estimates that four small
facilities could be affected by these proposed requirements and these requirements could cost
$2,600.
The Agency is proposing to establish BPT-3 for large facilities in Subcategory L. The
treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are
equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment with nitrification and
denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. As presented in the Economic Development
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
Document for the proposed rule, three BPT options were under consideration. For the 16
facilities that would be subject to these proposed requirements, EPA estimates that BPT-2
removes at least 0.09 million pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an annualized cost of
$0.3 million ($1999). BPT-3 removes at least an additional 0.22 million pounds of pollutants
over BPT-2, at an additional annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million. BPT Option 2 results
in a cost-to-net income ratio of 0.39 percent, which means that approximately 0.39 percent of a
facility's profits would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, the
estimate of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $3.28 ($1999/pound). Option 3 results
in a cost-to-net income ratio of 4.23 percent, and the BPT cost to effluent reduction benefit is
$7.11 ($1999/pound). Thus, both of these options are considered cost-reasonable. However,
because Option 3 removes more pollutants at a cost that is reasonable, it was selected for this
subcategory.
EPA also evaluated Option 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the level
of control being proposed. EPA estimates that BPT-4 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 6.04
percent and the BPT cost to effluent reduction benefit is $9.54 ($1999/pound). EPA is not
proposing to establish BPT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BPT-3 achieves
nearly equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would
remove at least 0.31 million pounds of pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of $2.2
million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove at least 0.32 million pounds of pollutants at
an additional cost of 36 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 appears to achieve less pollutant
removal and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of $1.9 million ($1999), EPA
has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory.
12.1.3 BPT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for COD, a pollutant characteristic of meat
rendering wastewater. COD is a key indicator of the performance of the secondary biological
treatment process, which is the key component of the model BPT treatment systems for this
subcategory.
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-2 for Subcategory J. The
treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are
equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment with nitrification and
chlorination/dechlorination. Since secondary biological treatment already accomplishes some
nitrification, EPA believes that the proposed BPT is an improved version of the existing BPT
technology basis, which calls for secondary biological treatment. Option 2 results in a cost-to-net
income ratio of 0.68 percent, which means that approximately 0.68 percent of a facility's profits
would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, estimates of the BPT
cost to effluent reductions benefit is $0.03 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option is considered cost-
reasonable.
EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the
level of control being proposed. However, EPA believes that Option 2 represents BPT (or
"average of the best") treatment for this industry subcategory. Options 3 and 4 were considered
as possible options for revising the BCT limitations.
12.2 BEST CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
(BCT)
The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses the Agency's
consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the
reasonableness of BCT candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by
applying a two-part cost test:
1. The POTW test
2. The industry cost-effectiveness test
In the POTW test, EPA calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant removed
by industrial discharges in upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate technology and then
compares this cost to the cost per pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs
12-9
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
from secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW benchmark
of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT cost
divided by the BPT cost for the industry must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be
less than 29 percent). The Economic Development Document for the proposed rule provides
more details on the calculations of the BCT cost tests.
In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve
greater removals of conventional pollutants than those proposed for BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. For subcategories A
through D, E through I, K, and L, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants than the BPT standards that also pass the BCT cost test.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT effluent limitations equal to the current BPT
limitations for these subcategories. In the Rendering subcategory (Subcategory J), EPA found
that Option 2 would achieve greater removal of conventional pollutants and was cost-reasonable
under the BCT cost tests and therefore proposes this technology as BCT.
12.3 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
(BAT)
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best economically
achievable performance of facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. The CWA
establishes BAT as a principal national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process(es)
employed, potential process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts including
energy requirements, and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. The
Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. An
additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA
determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the industry and the effect of
compliance with BAT limitations on overall industry and subcategory financial conditions.
12-10
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
For purposes of the proposed rale, EPA has determined that each proposed model
technology is technically available. EPA has also determined that each is economically
achievable for the segment to which it applies. Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set
forth in Section 10, that none of the proposed technology options has unacceptable adverse non-
water quality environmental impacts. EPA also considered the age, size, processes, and other
engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the proposed segments for the purpose of evaluating
the technology options. EPA is proposing to establish separate limits for facilities on the basis of
size. As discussed in more detail in Section 5, EPA is not proposing to establish more stringent
limitations for small meat slaughterers, nor is the Agency proposing to revise the limitations for
the small meat processors subcategory (Subpart E). EPA survey data indicate that approximately
107 small meat processing facilities would have been subject to any new limitations. EPA
estimates that the additional pollutant reductions achieved by establishing more stringent
limitations for these small facilities would be minimal. For example, under Option 3, the
pollutant load reduction attributable to small facilities is less than 0.1 percent of the total
expected pollutant load reduction.
12.3.1 BAT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories
12.3.1.1 BAT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus. These pollutants are characteristic of meat slaughtering wastewater. These
proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the tertiary biological
treatment process, which is the technology basis for the BAT and NSPS requirements for these
Subcategories.
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines based on BAT-3 for Subcategories A
through D. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the
proposed BAT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment
12-11
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. EPA has determined that
the cost for nutrient removal for this subcategory is cost-effective (i.e., is less than the cost for
nutrient removal performed at a POTW). The Economic Development Document for the
proposed rule presents the methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness for nutrient pollutants.
As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BAT options
were considered. Effluent limitations based on BAT-2 remove approximately 2.0 million pounds
of phosphorus over current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999).
BAT-3 removes an additional 40 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT-2 at an
additional annualized compliance cost of $32.3 million ($1999). Both of these options result in a
cost-to-net income ratio of less than 1.5 percent, so both are considered economically achievable.
However, because B AT-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost that is economically
achievable, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations based on BAT-3.
EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level
of control being proposed. As was the case for BAT-3, the cost-to-net income ratio of less than
2.4 percent shows that the option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to
establish limits based on BAT-4 because BAT-3 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in
nitrogen and phosphorus for much less cost. EPA has determined that BAT-3 would remove 42.8
million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $42.2 million
($1999). In contrast, BAT-4 would remove 44.9 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per
year at a total annualized cost of $73.5 million ($1999). In view of the fact that BAT-4 appears to
achieve an increase in removals of only 5.0 percent and yet would prompt annualized costs to
increase by 74 percent, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the "best available"
technology economically achievable for Subcategories A, B, C, and D.
12.3.1.2 BAT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus. These pollutants are characteristic of meat further processing wastewater. These
proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the tertiary biological
12-12
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
treatment process, which is the key component of the model BAT and NSPS treatment system for
these subcategories.
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BAT-3 for Subcategories F,
G, H, and I. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the
proposed BAT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment
with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. EPA has determined that
the cost for nutrient removal for this subcategory is cost-effective and less than the cost for
nutrient removal performed at a POTW. As presented in the Economic Development Document
for the proposed rule, three BAT options were considered. EPA estimates that the 20 facilities in
Subparts F through I would achieve a removal of approximately 0.04 million pounds of
phosphorus over current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $0.4 million ($1999) with
BAT-2. BAT-3 removes an additional 2.08 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over
BAT-2 at an additional annualized compliance cost of $0.1 million ($1999). Both of these
options result in a cost-to-net income ratio of less than 0.5 percent, so both are considered
economically achievable. However, because BAT-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost
that is economically achievable, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations based on BAT-3.
The Agency also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than
the level of control being proposed. As was the case for BAT-3, the cost-to-net income ratio of
less than 1.4 percent shows that the option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not
proposing to establish limits based on BAT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly
equivalent reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus for much less cost. EPA has determined that
BAT-3 would remove 2.12 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total
annualized cost of $0.5 million ($1999). In contrast, BAT-4 would remove only 4,530 additional
pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $3.5 million ($1999). In
view of the fact that BAT-4 appears to achieve an increase in removals of only 0.2 percent and
yet would prompt annualized costs to increase by 600 percent, EPA has determined that BAT-3,
12-13
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
not BAT-4, is the "best available" technology economically achievable for Subcategories F, G,
H, and I.
12.3.2 BAT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories
12.3.2.1 BAT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for BAT as those for BPT. EPA proposes
establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia as
N for facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million pounds per year (small facilities). EPA
proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal
coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that slaughter
more than 10 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of
poultry slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the
performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment process, which are the key
components of the model BPT treatment systems for the small and large facilities, respectively.
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities in Subcategory K. EPA
was unable to determine whether there is an economically achievable BAT treatment technology
more stringent than that proposed for BPT because no small poultry first processors were
identified. EPA based its decision on the fact that there is no economically achievable BAT
treatment technology more stringent than that proposed for BPT for poultry first processors.
EPA is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for large facilities in Subcategory K because it
has determined that there is no economically achievable BAT treatment technology more
stringent than the proposed BPT treatments. Also, EPA has determined that the cost for nutrient
removal for this Subcategory is cost-effective; it is less than the cost for nutrient removal
performed at a POTW. As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed
rule, three BAT options were under consideration. BAT-2 removes approximately 810,000
12-14
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
pounds of phosphorus over current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $4.8 million
($1999). BAT-3 removes an additional 7.7 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over
BAT-2 at an additional annualized compliance cost of $29.7 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a
cost-to-net income ratio of less than 0.4 percent, so this option is considered economically
achievable. Because BAT-3 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of less than 2.8 percent, which
is also economically achievable, EPA has chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for Subcategory K.
EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level
of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of more than 3.6 percent for BAT-4
shows that the option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to establish
BAT limits based on BPT-4 because it has determined that BPT-3 achieves nearly equivalent
pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would remove at least 8.37
million pounds of total nitrogen and total phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $34.5
million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove only 8.87 pounds of total nitrogen and total
phosphorus at an additional cost of 28 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 achieves similar
pollutant removals and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of $9.7 million
($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory. Thus, EPA has determined
that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the "best available" technology economically achievable for large
facilities in Subcategory K.
12.3.2.2 BAT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for BAT as those for BPT. EPA proposes
establishing BAT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia as
N for facilities that further process no more than 7 million pounds per year (small facilities).
EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM),
fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that
further process more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are
characteristic of poultry further processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are
also key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment
12-15
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
processes, which are the key components of the model BAT treatment systems for the small and
large facilities, respectively.
Technology Selected
EPA is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities in Subcategory L because it
has determined that there is no economically achievable BAT treatment technology more
stringent than the proposed BPT treatment. BAT-2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of greater
than 20 percent, which would cause significant economic impacts for these facilities, so EPA has
chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities in Subcategory L.
The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BAT-3 for large
facilities in Subcategory L. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the
development of the proposed BAT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary
biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification. EPA has determined that there is no
economically achievable BAT treatment technology more stringent than the proposed BPT
treatment. As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three
BAT options were considered. BAT-2 removes approximately zero pounds of phosphorus over
current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $0.3 million ($1999). BAT-3 removes an
additional 0.32 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT-2 at an additional
annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio
of less than 0.4 percent, so this option is considered economically achievable. BAT-3 results in a
cost-to-net income ratio of less than 4.25 percent, which is also economically achievable, so EPA
has chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for Subcategory L.
EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level
of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of more than 6 percent for BAT-4 shows
that the option would cause significant economic impacts. Also, EPA is not proposing to
establish BAT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly
equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BAT-3 would remove at
least 0.32 million pounds of total nitrogen and total phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost
of $2.2 million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove only 0.318 pounds of total nitrogen
12-16
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
and total phosphorus at an additional cost of 36 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 appears
to achieve no additional pollutant removals and yet would prompt additional total annualized
costs of $0.8 million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory. Thus,
EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the "best available" technology economically
achievable for large facilities in Subcategory L.
12.3.3 BAT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to revise BAT limitations for ammonia-N. This pollutant is characteristic
of meat rendering wastewater. The proposed regulated pollutant is a key indicator of the
performance of the secondary biological treatment process, which is the key component of the
model BPT, BAT, and NSPS treatment system for this subcategory.
Technology Selected
The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BAT-2 for
Subcategory J. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the
proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment
with nitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. EPA has determined that this option is cost-
effective and economically achievable. As presented in the Economic Development Document
for the proposed rule, three BAT options were considered. EPA estimates that the 23 existing
facilities that would be subject to the proposed rule would achieve removals of approximately
87,000 pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over current levels discharged at an annualized
compliance cost of $0.6 million ($1999) under BAT-2. BAT-3 removes an additional 396,000
pounds of phosphorus over BAT-2 at an additional annualized compliance cost of $3.7 million
($1999). BAT-2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of less than 0.7 percent, so this option is
considered economically achievable. BAT-3 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of greater than
5.5 percent, which is also considered economically achievable. However, because EPA has
determined that the cost for nutrient removal for BAT-3 is not cost-effective and is more than the
12-17
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
cost for nutrient removal performed at a POTW, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations
based on BAT-2 for Subcategory J.
EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level
of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of more than 6.7 percent for BAT-4 is
even greater than the ratio for Option 3. Since the Agency is not proposing Option 3 on the basis
of the potential economic impact, EPA is not proposing Option 4, which has an even greater
potential impact. Thus, EPA has determined that BAT-2 is the "best available" technology
economically achievable for Subcategory J.
12.4 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
New Source Performance Standards reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based
on the best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to
install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies.
As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application
of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (that is, conventional,
nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
In selecting its proposed NSPS technology for these segments and subcategories, EPA
considered all of the factors specified in CWA section 306, including the costs of achieving
effluent reductions and the effect of costs on new projects (barrier to entry). The Agency also
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts for the
proposed NSPS options and concluded that these impacts were no greater than those for the
proposed BAT technology options and are acceptable. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS
technology basis proposed constitutes the best available demonstrated control technology for
those segments.
12-18
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
12.4.1 NSPS Requirements for Meat Subcategories
12.4.1.1 NSPS for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT (ammonia-N,
total nitrogen, and total phosphorus), with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as
HEM), and fecal coliform bacteria.
Technology Selected
The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed
NSPS limits are the same as the BAT for these Subcategories. As was the case for BAT, EPA did
not pursue additional, more stringent options for NSPS because as with existing sources Option 4
is not expected to achieve significant incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not
expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be
significantly less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing
system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for Subcategories A
throught D because the Agency believes BAT-3 represents the best demonstrated technology for
this subcategory.
12.4.1.2 NSPS for Subpart E—Small Processors
EPA is not proposing new limitations for Small Processors (Subpart E). Small processors
are defined as operations producing up to 2730 kilograms (6000 pounds) per day of any type or
combination of meat product, are currently regulated under Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 432.
12.4.1.3 NSPS for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT (ammonia-N,
total nitrogen, and total phosphorus), with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as
HEM), and fecal coliform bacteria.
12-19
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
Technology Selected
As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent, options for
NSPS because as with existing sources Option 4 is not expected to achieve significant
incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not expect that the cost to construct the
treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be significantly less for a new source
than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes
BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for Subcategories F through I because EPA believes it
represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
12.4.2 NSPS Requirements for Poultry Subcategories
12.4.2.1 NSPS for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT. EPA proposes
establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS , oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia
as N for facilities that slaughter no more than 7 million pounds per year (small facilities). EPA
proposes establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal
coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that slaughter
more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of
poultry first processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of
the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment processes, which are the key
components of the model NSPS treatment systems for the small and large facilities, respectively.
Technology Selected
EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent options for small facilities in Subcategory
K for NSPS because the Agency does not expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to
achieve Option 2 performance would be significantly less for a new source than it would be for
an existing source to retrofit its existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the
12-20
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
technology basis for NSPS for small facilities in Subcategory K because EPA believes it
represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent options for large
facilities in Subcategory K for NSPS because, as with existing sources, Option 4 is not expected
to achieve significant incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not expect that the
cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be significantly
less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing system.
Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for large facilities in
Subcategory K because EPA believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this
subcategory.
12.4.2.2 NSPS for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT. EPA proposes
establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia
as N for facilities that further process no more than 7 million pounds per year (small facilities).
EPA proposes establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM),
fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that
further process more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are
characteristic of poultry further processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are
key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment processes,
which are the key components of the model NSPS treatment systems for the small and large
facilities, respectively.
Technology Selected
EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent options for small facilities in Subcategory
L for NSPS because the Agency does not expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to
achieve Option 2 performance would be significantly less for a new source than it would be for
an existing source to retrofit its existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the
12-21
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
technology basis for NSPS for small facilities in Subcategory L because the Agency believes it
represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed
NSPS limits are the same as the BAT for this subcategory. As was the case for BAT, EPA did
not pursue additional, more stringent options for NSPS because, as with existing sources, Option
4 is not expected to achieve significant incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not
expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be
significantly less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its system.
Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for subcategory L because
EPA believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
12.4.3 NSPS Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)
Regulated Pollutants
EPA proposes to revise the new source performance standards for BOD, TSS, oil and
grease (measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, and ammonia.
Technology Selected
The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed
NSPS limits are the same as the BAT and BPT for this subcategory. EPA does not expect a
substantial cost savings for new facilities to design and construct a treatment system to achieve
more stringent effluent standards consistent with either Option 3 or 4. Thus, EPA believes
Options 3 and 4 could pose a barrier to entry for new sources in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA
proposes BAT-2 as the technology basis for NSPS for Subcategory J because the Agency
believes BAT-2 represents the best demonstrated technology economically achievable for this
subcategory.
12-22
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
12.5 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES) AND
NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in wastewater from
indirect dischargers that might pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to
similar levels of treatment. In addition, many POTWs are required to develop and implement
local discharge limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local
requirements (see 40 CFR 403.5). POTWs that are not required to implement approved
programs and have not had interference or pass through issues are not required to develop and
implement local limits. Nationwide there are approximately 1500 POTWs with approved
Pretreatment Programs and 13,500 small POTWs that are not required to develop and implement
approved Pretreatment Programs.
National pretreatment standards have three principal objectives: (1) prevent the wide-
scale introduction of pollutants into POTWs that will interfere with POTW operations, including
use or disposal of municipal sludge; (2) prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs that
will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible with the treatment
works; and (3) improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial
wastewaters and sludges.
Currently there are no categorical pretreatment standards for the MPP point source
category. EPA is not proposing new pretreatment standards for existing or new MPP indirect
dischargers. Although EPA has some information regarding effluents from MPP indirect
dischargers that may pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with POTW
operations, it is not clear that the particular information justifies categorical pretreatment
standards for this industry. The following sections discuss the information EPA was able to
collect for this proposal and plans to collect after proposal.
12-23
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
12.5.1 POTW Interference
As noted earlier, there are no categorical pretreatment standards for MPP indirect
dischargers; however, the national pretreatment standards prohibit the discharge of "Any
pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow
rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW" (see 40 CFR
403.5(b)(4)). All indirect dischargers are prohibited from introducing into a POTW any
pollutant(s) which cause pass through or interference regardless of whether categorical
pretreatment standards or any national, state, or local pretreatment requirements apply (see 40
CFR 403.5(a)(l)). POTWs are required to develop and enforce Pretreatment Programs and/or set
local limits to ensure renewed and continued compliance with the POTWs NPDES permit or
sludge use or disposal practices (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)). According to data provided in the MPP
detailed surveys, approximately one-third of the MPP facilities discharge to POTWs that
discharge less than 5 MGD. These POTWs are often not required through their NPDES permits
to develop and implement local Pretreatment Programs.
EPA typically does not establish pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants (e.g.,
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease) because POTWs are designed to treat such pollutants, but EPA has
exercised its authority to establish categorical pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants.
For example, EPA established categorical pretreatment standards for new and existing sources
with a 1-day maximum concentration of 100 mg/L oil and grease in the Petroleum Refining Point
Source Category (40 CFR Part 419). This standard is based on the performance of one of two
technologies (primary oil removal or dissolved air flotation). EPA identified this pretreatment
standard as necessary to "minimize the possibility of slug loadings of oil and grease being
discharged to POTW" (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). EPA notes that oil and grease
from Petroleum Refineries is not the same material as oil and grease from MPP facilities. EPA is
considering the use of a similar 100 mg/L standard for preventing POTW interference by
vegetable/animal oil and grease discharges.
EPA previously identified that high organic loadings and grease remaining in the MPP
facility effluent might cause difficulty in the POTW treatment system and that the performance
12-24
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
of trickling filters appears to be particularly sensitive (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00162;
Record No.00140). High loadings of oil and grease can also clog pipes and promote the growth
of filamentous bacteria, which can inhibit the performance of the POTW (especially trickling
filters, which are more often used at small POTWs) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00085).
A concentration of 100 mg/L for oil and grease is often cited as a local limit, and compliance
with this limit may require an effective dissolved air flotation device in addition to a catch basin
and other primary treatment system (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00162; Record
No. 00140). EPA recognizes that much of this data was developed in the 1970s but believes that
the data is still relevant today.
EPA also previously identified that oil and grease of petroleum origin has been reported
to interfere with the aerobic processes of POTWs (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). It
is believed that the principal interference is caused by the attachment of oil and grease of
petroleum origin onto floe particles, resulting in a slower settling rate, loss of solids by carryover
out of the settling basin, and excessive release of BOD from the POTW to the environment.
Additionally, EPA identified that oil and grease of petroleum origin may coat the biomass in
activated sludge treatment units, thereby interfering with oxygen transfer and reducing treatment
efficiency.
EPA regional and state permit writers and pretreatment coordinators identified
approximately 20 cases where MPP indirect dischargers interfered with POTW operations
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10037). Although some specific details are lacking, these
cases generally describe how overloadings of various parameters (e.g., BOD5, oil and grease,
TSS, ammonia) and unequalized flows from MPP indirect dischargers have resulted in POTW
interference incidents and POTW NPDES permit violations.
It is not clear, however, whether these identified interference incidents represent an
industry-wide problem or are site-specific and more appropriately addressed by the general
pretreatment prohibitions and local limits, or by POTW upgrades. Some of these instances do
involve violations of local limits or were resolved by POTW upgrades, and therefore the general
pretreatment prohibitions and local limits did work. EPA does not know, however, how
12-25
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
frequently this was the case. More detailed information will be gathered to determine whether
these facilities were in violation of the local limits, POTWs have upgraded since the incident, or
these were one-time problems. EPA will collect more information from EPA and state
pretreatment program coordinators, POTWs, and MPP indirect dischargers after proposal (1) to
understand whether the general pretreatment prohibition is sufficient to address POTW
interference and pass through incidents for this industry and (2) to determine if reoccurrences of
these POTW interference and pass through incidents necessitate categorical pretreatment
standards at the time of the final rule for non-small facilities.
Many POTWs are capable of controlling MPP indirect discharges through local limits or
sufficient dilution with domestic wastewaters. Most of the approximately 1,500 POTWs with
approved Pretreatment Programs have numeric oil and grease limits and many POTWs without
approved Pretreatment Programs also have oil and grease limits. For example, EPA identified
approximately two dozen Pretreatment Programs with local limits on oil and grease (Docket No.
W-01-06, Record No. 10037). Oil and grease limits were most often in the range of 50 mg/L to
450 mg/L with 100 mg/L as the most common reported limit. Other Pretreatment Programs use
descriptive requirements to limit interference from high oil and grease concentrations.
While most POTWs are not significantly affected by MPP indirect discharges, EPA notes
that some, primarily smaller POTWs, including those not required to implement approved
Pretreatment Programs, may have difficulty in properly treating MPP indirect discharges or in
setting local limits. Some POTWs may be particularly susceptible to high and variable organic
and oil and grease loadings. If MPP indirect dischargers are unable to reduce or equalize their
high organic and oil and grease concentrations, some small POTWs receiving these discharges
may be unable to dampen the peak loadings or equalize high organic and oil and grease
concentrations from MPP indirect dischargers with domestic wastewater. MPP indirect
discharges range from 3 to 20 times in organic concentrations than typical domestic wastewater
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10038). Small POTW facilities are generally more
susceptible to high and variable loadings from large MPP indirect dischargers. Small POTWs
often use less sophisticated wastewater treatment systems (e.g., trickling filters, simple anaerobic
lagoons), which may not be able to operate properly during periods of high flow or handle slug
12-26
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
loads discharged by MPP facilities after a shut-down period (e.g., no or low MPP indirect
loadings during weekend operations when no or limited MPP operations are taking place).
Trickling filters at small POTW facilities may be unable to effectively process high organic and
oil and grease concentrations and may allow unacceptable amounts of BOD and oil and grease
concentrations to pass through if MPP indirect dischargers are not properly controlled.
Anaerobic lagoons at small POTW facilities may be unable to convert ammonia to nitrate (a less
toxic form of nitrogen) and are therefore unsuitable as a treatment step to ensure that the
receiving water does not receive toxic amounts of ammonia. In one such instance, an MPP
facility was directed to establish biological pretreatment (by installing a biological sequencing
batch reactor) in order to discharge to the local POTW, which has a simple anaerobic lagoon
system (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10039).
Representatives of the MPP industry and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA) stated to EPA that cases of POTW interference from MPP indirect
dischargers are relatively infrequent occurrences and that they are best handled through local
limits and proper enforcement (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10040). AMSA is a
membership organization that represents approximately 10 percent of the largest POTWs in the
United States (about 150 of the 1,500 POTWs with Pretreatment Programs) and some small
POTWs; however, none of the approximately 20 cases of interference incidents identified in the
record involve AMSA members. EPA would collect additional information on other potential
positive and negative impacts on POTW operations if the Agency were to set national categorical
pretreatment standards for the prevention of interference with POTW operations. AMSA has
stated that any attempt to reduce organic loadings from MPP facilities would also reduce the
amount of revenue collected by their POTWs and have a detrimental effect on their operations.
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10040). EPA will collect additional information on whether
MPP indirect dischargers are causing interference issues on a national, ongoing basis and
whether POTWs are addressing these interference issues in a timely manner once they are
identified. Finally, EPA also will examine information on whether increased attention from
federal and state Pretreatment Programs and/or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs
12-27
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
would sufficiently deal with MPP indirect discharges that might cause POTW interference in lieu
of national categorical pretreatment standards.
12.5.2 POTW Pass Through
As noted above, federal categorical pretreatment standards are also designed to prevent
the introduction into POTWs of pollutants that will pass through the treatment works or will
otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works. Generally, to determine whether pollutants
pass through POTWs, EPA compares the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-operated
POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the pollutant removed by each of
the indirect technology options. As shown in Tables 12-1 and 12-2, EPA identified the MPP
pollutants, based on EPA sampling efforts, that EPA would normally determine to pass through
using EPA's standard methodology (i.e., the indirect technology option has a percent removal
higher than the POTW percent removal).
Table 12-1. Removal Efficiencies for Meat Pollutants of Concern
MPP Pollutant of
Concern
Oil and grease
Copper
Molybdenum
Zinc
CAS Number
C036
7440508
7439987
7440666
PSES Indirect Option 1
Treatment Efficiency
95
91
82
91
POTW Treatment
Efficiency a
86
84
19
79
These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00180).
Table 12-2. Removal Efficiencies for Poultry Pollutants of Concern
MPP Pollutant of Concern
Oil and grease
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total phosphorus
Barium
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
CAS Number
C036
C021
14265442
7440393
7439965
7440020
7440666
PSES Indirect Option 1
Treatment Efficiency
90
73
67
78
60
65
53
POTW Treatment
Efficiency a
87
57
57
16
36
51
79
These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.00180).
12-28
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
PSES Indirect Option 1 (PSES1) is a physical-chemical treatment system (dissolved air
flotation [DAF] with chemical flocculant addition, equalization tank) that primarily targets
conventional pollutants including oil and grease. As the tables above indicate, PSES1 shows
some metal and nutrient removals but it is not clear why a technology designed to control
conventional pollutants also affects the level of other pollutants. EPA notes that many of these
pollutants of concern that would normally be determined to exhibit pass through do so in low
concentrations. For example, metal concentrations in MPP indirect dischargers are relatively low
in comparison with conventional pollutants concentrations (e.g., BOD, TSS, and oil and grease).
EPA will further investigate the data and potential mechanisms behind the removals of metals
and nutrients by PSES1 to confirm the PSES1 treatment efficiencies. At the final regulation EPA
may issue pretreatment standards based on pass through for all or a subset of these pollutants.
Further, EPA has received comments from AMSA that the database used to characterize
POTW removal efficiencies is outdated and current POTW performance has improved. EPA is
considering different options on how to examine current POTW performance. One option is to
evaluate removal efficiencies based on a subset of the 50-POTW database that mainly includes
those POTWs that receive large amounts of industrial and/or MPP indirect discharges. EPA will
also continue to collect information on any cases of significant pass through from MPP indirect
dischargers where the local limits were not set or exceeded and evaluate whether EPA should
promulgate pretreatment standards for certain parameters (e.g., nutrients, TDS) based on their
potential passage through POTWs and into receiving waters.
Although some pollutants may pass through POTWs following fairly limited treatment,
current information available to EPA suggests that the overall levels of these pollutants in MPP
raw wastewater do not justify establishing numeric categorical pretreatment standards. EPA is
not proposing to establish pretreatment standards based on the difference between MPP
pretreatment options and POTW removal efficiencies because the Agency is uncertain that the
difference accurately reflects the incidences of pass through for this industry as a whole.
12-29
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
12.5.3 MPP Pretreatment Options Considered
Before determining no pass through or interference that justifies proposing additional
regulations, EPA considered four pretreatment options for both existing and new sources. Table
12-3 details the summary of EPA's economic analysis of the PSES1 pretreatment option for the
various MPP subcategories. If information that shows that there is sufficient interference or pass
through to justify categorical pretreatment standards for this industry is provided to EPA, EPA
will promulgate pretreatment standards in the final rule. With respect to preventing interference
incidents, EPA will evaluate comments and additional information to determine whether another
annual production size cutoff for MPP indirect dischargers should be established. Additionally,
EPA is considering whether it should exempt from categorical pretreatment standards MPP
indirect discharges that are below 5 percent of the dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of
the POTW treatment or another percentage level that is appropriate to prevent interference
incidents if EPA decides to set categorical pretreatment standards for non-small facilities in the
final rule.
Table 12-3. Economic Impacts and Toxic Cost-Effectiveness Summary Table for PSES
Option 1, Non-Small Facilities
MPP Industry Sector
(40 CFR Part 432, Subcategory)
Meat First Processors (A-D)
Meat Further Processors (F-I)
Independent Renderers (J)
Poultry First Processors (K)
Poultry Further Processors (L)
Cost/Net
Income (%)
$0.6
$0.8
$0.5
$0.6
$1.5
Pre-Tax
Annualized
Cost
($1999 M)
$7.0
$18.8
$1.3
$10.8
$15.3
PSES Option 1
Toxic Cost-Effectiveness
Removals
(Ib-eq)
240,421
76,890
3,918
377,651
49,950
$1981/lb-eq
17
143
198
17
178
EPA notes that the PSES 1 pretreatment option cost is generally at or below 1 percent of
the facility's net income (profit). Also, based on MPP detailed surveys received in time for
EPA's analysis, EPA notes that PSES1 is widely used in non-small MPP pretreatment operations
to reduce BOD and oil and grease concentrations. Results from the MPP detailed survey used in
estimating compliance costs indicate that 26 of the 103 indirect MPP facilities use PSES1. The
12-30
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
MPP detailed survey also identified the following breakdown of treatment-in-place: (1) 64
facilities use no pretreatment or pretreatment less effective than PSES1 (e.g., catch basins);
(2) 12 facilities use PSES2; (3) one facility use PSES3; and (4) none of the facilities use PSES4.
Based on MPP detailed survey data, the average oil and grease concentration from MPP indirect
facilities using PSES1 technology (equalization basin, DAE) is 99.5 mg/L.
As previously stated, EPA is not proposing new pretreatment standards for existing or
new MPP indirect dischargers because the Agency did not have sufficient information to
demonstrate that effluents from MPP indirect dischargers interfere with, are incompatible with,
or pass through POTW operations on a scale wide enough to justify national categorical
pretreatment standards. Further, EPA has received comments from AMSA that the database used
to characterize POTW removal efficiencies is outdated and current POTW performance has
improved. EPA will work with states and pretreatment control authorities to collect additional
data on a more systematic basis to determine whether national categorical pretreatment standards
are necessary. If the additional and existing data indicate that MPP indirect dischargers interfere
with or pass through POTW operations, one or more of the following options may be used to
establish national categorical pretreatment standards in the final rule for non-small indirect
dischargers.
• Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia as
nitrogen based on PSES1 (equalization and DAE) to prevent POTW interference.
• Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia based
on equalization alone to reduce MPP indirect discharge variable loads which can,
in some cases, prevent POTW interference.
• Establish numeric pretreatment standards to prevent POTW pass through (e.g., oil
and grease, nutrients, and/or metals).
• Establish narrative pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia as
nitrogen based on PSES1 (equalization and DAE) or equalization alone to prevent
POTW interference.
12-31
-------
Section 12. Selected Technology Options
Allow POTWs to waive national categorical pretreatment standards for MPP
indirect dischargers that do not interfere with POTW operation (e.g., MPP indirect
discharger below 5 percent of dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the
POTW treatment plant).
Allow a POTW to waive national categorical pretreatment standards for ammonia
for any MPP indirect discharges it receives when that POTW has nitrification
capability (see 40 CFR Part 439 as an example of this type of waiver).
Allow MPP indirect dischargers to demonstrate compliance with either numeric
pretreatment standards or with EMS/BMP voluntary alternatives (see Section 8.8).
Establish national categorical pretreatment standards for MPP indirect dischargers
based on compliance with BMPs or a regulatory BMP alternative.
12-32
-------
SECTION 13
LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS: DATA SELECTION AND
CALCULATION
This section describes the data sources, data selection, data conventions, and statistical
methodology used by EPA in calculating the long-term averages (LTAs), variability factors
(VFs), and proposed limitations. The proposed effluent limitations and standards for each
subcategory and option are based on long-term average effluent values and variability factors
that account for variation over time in treatment performance within a particular treatment
technology.
Section 13.1 briefly describes the data sources (a more detailed discussion of data
sources is provided in Section 3) and gives a general overview of EPA's evaluation and selection
of facility datasets that are the basis of the proposed limitations. Section 13.2 presents the
procedures for data aggregation. Sections 13.3 through 13.5 describe the estimation of daily
effluent concentrations and adjustments performed when technology option specific data were
unavailable. Section 13.6 provides an overview of the proposed limitations. Procedures for
estimation of long-term averages, variability factors, and concentration-based limitations in
Sections 13.7 through 13.10. Section 13.11 describes the conversion of these concentration-
based limitations into the proposed production-normalized limitations.
13.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA AND EPISODE SELECTION
To estimate the long-term averages, variability factors, and proposed limitations, EPA
used the same datasets as were used to calculate the post-compliance loading estimates, as
described in Section 9. As described in Section 3, EPA selected 11 MPP facilities for multi-day
sampling. The purpose of the multi-day sampling was to characterize pollutants in MPP raw
wastewaters prior to treatment, as well as document wastewater treatment plant performance
(including selected unit processes). Selection of facilities for multi-day sampling was based on
an analysis of information collected during the site visits performed by EPA, as well as on the
following criteria:
13-1
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
• The facility performed meat or poultry first processing, further processing, and/or
rendering operations representative of MPP facilities;
• The facility used in-process treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment technologies
that EPA was considering for technology option selection; and
• Compliance monitoring data for the facility indicated that it was among the better
performing treatment systems, or that it employed wastewater treatment process
for which EPA sought data for option selection.
During each multi-day sampling episode, EPA sampled facility influent and effluent
wastestreams. At some facilities, samples were also collected at intermediate points throughout
the wastewater treatment system to assess the performance of individual treatment units. Some
of the facilities chosen for sampling perform rendering and/or further processing operations in
addition to meat and/or poultry first processing. For facilities that also performed rendering
operations or further processing, wastewater from the rendering and/or further processing
operations was sampled separately, when possible.
EPA used the data from sampling episodes to develop long-term average (ETA) effluent
concentrations representative of performance of selected technology options.1 As explained in
Section 9, in the absence of sampling episode data for a particular type of process, EPA
transferred data from other facilities that employ similar production and treatment processes to
establish LTAs. EPA also used production and flow data contained in the MPP detailed surveys
for use in deriving production normalized flow values.
From each selected facility data set, an episode-specific long-term average was
calculated for each proposed regulated pollutant. Episode-specific long-term averages were then
used to calculate option long-term averages, which were then applied to develop the proposed
1 In developing the proposed limitations, EPA excluded the hexane extractable material (HEM) data
collected on day 1 from the sample point 3 and day 2 from the sample point 4 at facility 6443 because the discharge
values were found to be extremely variable in comparison to the other days (i.e., there was no evidence that the
facility was consistently controlling the HEM discharges). In addition, EPA excluded the ammonia (as N) value on
day 5 at episode 6335 because it was inconsistent with the other values at that sample point.
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
effluent limitations. For the final rule, EPA intends to further review and possibly revise the
data selection methodology.
13.2 DATA AGGREGATION
In some cases, EPA determined that two or more samples had to be mathematically
aggregated to obtain a single value that could be used in other calculations. As explained in this
section, in some cases, this meant that field duplicates and grab samples were aggregated for a
single sample point. Appendix F lists the data after these aggregations were completed and a
single daily value was obtained for each day for each pollutant.
In all aggregation procedures, EPA considered the censoring type associated with the
data. EPA considered measured values to be detected. In statistical terms, the censoring type for
such data was 'non-censored' (NC). Measurements reported as being less than some sample-
specific detection limit (e.g., <10 mg/L) were censored and were considered to be non-detected
(ND). Laboratories can also report numerical results for specific pollutants detected in the
samples as right censored. Right censored data are those reported as being greater than the
highest calibration value of the analysis (e.g., >1000 ug/1). For calculating the proposed
limitations, the right censored data were set to the reported amount and treated as non-censored
data. In the tables and data listings in this document and the record for the rulemaking, EPA has
used the abbreviations NC and ND to indicate the censoring types.
The distinction between the two censoring types is important because the procedure used
to determine the variability factors considers censoring type explicitly. The variability factor
estimation procedure models the facility data sets using the modified delta-lognormal
distribution. In this distribution, data are modeled as a mixture of two distributions. Thus, EPA
concluded that the distinctions between detected and non-detected measurements were important
and should be an integral part of any data aggregation procedure. (See Appendix G for a
detailed discussion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution.)
Because each aggregated data value entered into the modified delta-lognormal model as a
single value, the censoring type associated with that value was also important. In many cases, a
single aggregated value was created from unaggregated data that were all either detected or non-
13-3
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
detected. In the remaining cases with a mixture of detected and non-detected unaggregated
values, EPA determined that the resulting aggregated value should be considered as detected,
because the pollutant was measured at detectable levels.
This section describes each of the different aggregation procedures. They are presented
in the order that the aggregation was performed. That is, field duplicates were aggregated first
and grab samples second.
13.2.1 Aggregation of Field Duplicates
During the EPA sampling episodes, the Agency collected a small number of field
duplicates. Generally, ten percent of the number of samples collected were duplicated. Field
duplicates are two samples collected for the same sampling point at approximately the same
time, assigned different sample numbers, and flagged as duplicates for a single sample point at a
facility.
Because the analytical data from each duplicate pair characterize the same conditions at
that time at a single sampling point, EPA aggregated the data to obtain one data value for those
conditions. The data value associated with those conditions was the arithmetic average of the
duplicate pair.
Frequently, both samples in duplicate pair displayed the same censoring type. In this
case, the censoring type of the aggregate was the same as the duplicates. When one sample in
the duplicate pair was a non-censored and the other a non-detected type, EPA assigned the
aggregated value as 'non-censored' because the pollutant had been present in one sample. (Even
if the other duplicate had a zero value2, the pollutant still would have been present had the
samples been physically combined.) Table 13-1 summarizes the procedure for aggregating the
analytical results from the field duplicates. This aggregation step for the duplicate pairs was the
first step in the aggregation procedures for both influent and effluent measurements.
2 This is presented as a 'worst-case' scenario. In practice, the laboratories cannot measure 'zero' values.
Rather they report that the value is less than some level.
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 13-1. Method for Aggregation of Field Duplicates
If the field duplicates are:
Both non-censored
Both non-detected
One non-censored and one
non-detected
Censoring type
of average is:
NC
ND
NC
Value of aggregate is:
arithmetic average of measured values
arithmetic average of sample-specific
detection limits
arithmetic average of measured value
and sample-specific detection limit
Formulas for
aggregate value of
duplicates:
(NCj + NC2)/2
(DLj + DL2)/2
(NC + DL)/2
NC - non-censored (or detected).
ND - non-detected.
DL - sample-specific detection limit.
13.2.2 Aggregation of Grab Samples
During the EPA sampling episodes, the Agency collected two types of samples: grab and
composite. Typically, EPA collected composite samples. Of the pollutants proposed for
regulation, HEM was the only one for which the chemical analytical method specifies that grab
samples must be used. For HEM, EPA collected multiple (usually four) grab samples during a
sampling day at a sample point. To obtain one value characterizing the pollutant levels at the
sample point on a single day, EPA mathematically aggregated the measurements from the grab
samples.
The procedure arithmetically averaged the measurements to obtain a single value for the
day. When one or more measurements were non-censored, EPA determined that the appropriate
censoring type of the aggregate was 'non-censored' because the pollutant was present. Table
13-2 summarizes the procedure.
13.3 DERIVATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
Since total nitrogen was not analyzed, its daily concentrations were obtained as the sum
of nitrate/nitrite (C005) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (C021) before aggregation. If one of two
values was non-censored, the censoring type of total nitrogen was non-censored. Any non-detect
values were set as equal to the sample-specific detection limit in the sum.
13-5
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 13-2. Procedure for Aggregation of Grab Samples
If the grab or multiple
samples are:
All non-censored
All non-detected
Mixture of non-censored
and non-detected values
(total number of
Censoring type of
Daily Value is:
NC
ND
NC
Daily value is:
arithmetic average of measured
values
arithmetic average of sample-
specific detection limits
arithmetic average of measured
values and sample-specific
detection limits
Formulas for Calculating
Daily Value:
INC,
i=l
n
2>>
1=1
n
k m
jNCi+jDLj
i=l i=l
n
NC - non-censored (or detected).
ND - non-detected.
DL - sample-specific detection limit.
13.4 DERIVATION OF EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION DATA
To the extent possible with available data, EPA calculated the proposed limitations for
first processing, further processing, and rendering operations wastewater for each technology
option from the daily effluent concentrations at the sampled facility or facilities chosen as
representative of the technology option. However, when specific data were unavailable, EPA
estimated the daily effluent concentrations for the model technology options, using assumptions
similar to those applied during pollutant loading calculations explained in Section 9. This section
describes the methodology used to estimate the daily effluent concentrations for the model
technology options.
13.4.1 Calculation of Daily Effluent Concentrations
When influent data were available, they were multiplied by a removal fraction for the
technology option. When there were more than one facility that could provide a removal
fraction, the median of the removal fractions was used. The daily effluent concentrations were
calculated as follows:
Effluent concentration = (influent concentration) x (1 - removal fraction)
13-6
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
where the removal fraction for a facility was calculated using long-term averages (LTAs) as
follows:
(influent LTA concentration - effluent LTA concentration) / (influent LTA concentration).
The calculation of long-term averages is discussed in Section 13.8. The facilities with
negative removal fractions were excluded from calculations for the limitations for that specific
analyte.
When there were no influent data available, the daily effluent concentrations were
derived based on an estimation of the pollutant mass balance between the final effluent and its
unit processes of first, further, and rendering wastewaters (as applicable for a facility). For
example, the daily effluent concentrations for first processing wastewater could be derived from:
Daily effluent concentration of first processing wastewater = [(Final daily effluent
concentration x Total flow) - (Daily concentration of further processing wastewater3 x
Further processing wastewater flow) - (Daily concentration of rendering wastewater3 x
Rendering wastewater flow)] / (First processing wastewater flow)
The data and equations used to derive the daily effluent concentration values are
summarized by technology options in Tables 13-3 through 13-7.
3 If the daily concentrations for this unit process were from a different facility than the final effluent
concentrations, the long-term average of the concentrations for the unit process was used instead of daily values.
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
co a
CO -G
O
&<
tfi
E
£ ^
5 Q
P..H O
ii 5
^ ^!/
ft
•*j
Effluen
trations
p— ' o
°o3 u
P g
.
1 P
^ O
'!<,->;
ta —
fl r/j
H
ll
D2=Daily
Concent
[i.
o Q
E o
'L£
ta ^
^j
B »j
V £
0 O
£ *-3
» z
£? a
!p« 0>
03 U
p g
iL"
'3
r*
—
IT)
~
;4_,
s&
TT
S
p^
Xl-
S
T3
\
^1-
^
1
V5
•S
O
CO
&
GO
3
&
<^
o
a
o
a
1
'-3
CD
a
-s
&o
H
O
03
13
>
o
a
2
CD
CD
cB
-g
I fraction) \
o
CD
"~a
03 U
P ^
ii Q
i'°
IQ
EO
fi .
ii
p— ' s
'3 u
Q"
•*j
'3
«
—
IT)
t~~
CD
CO
CD
'B ©
1|
• a
IT)
CD
ao
"55
CD ^^
||
O £H
1 =a
g"
^H
CD
O
H
• -^
i ^^r
"S • PH
^ r\'
"^3 ^
2 o °
3
CD
i-H
(^
r^
VO
00
^2
o
CD
ao
I
13-8
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
bfi
CD
CD
&
tofl 2
'I ^
GO O
CD K^_
CJ ^~>
o ^
CJ
CD
©
PH S
-4-^ "^
2 o
fe PH
O £?
GO G
G O
O Cu
a
o
G
CD CJ
G CD
w
e
§
W G
•§-i
—
3
cs
H
=
o
s '-S
S 93
.2 i
o3 "
ON S
O 0
BO -w
.S §
LN ^
•si
gw
e< jj>
=
BO 2
s
'i s
Further Proce
ly Effluent Cone
S
ai
S
13
, s •—
BO 'g
S ^
'a s
g 0
1- -w
CH S
•w *
l|
Q
b
^
z;
OJ
a
00
• further process!
3
^
1
~i
*£3
Q
1
W)
T3
G
OH
P K.
O ^
S bO
^ °
OH -3
b a
-S "S
PH
CD
CJ
o
VH
OH
CO
a
CD
CJ
O
U
CD
CD
e
§
_ a
"S-S
C3 rrt
Q O"
vo
J2
CS
H^u ^5
O-
«!
1
bri
a.
O
BO
V
S
V
BO
_B
|
£
L
V
•fcj
•—
S
BO
_B
*x
x
V
g
b
CH
ta
lo
EO
[y Effluent
ntrations
*p3 ^
« u
'Un
IQ
EO
fe —
ly Effluent
ntrations
S «
73 U
- o
d*°
I Q
b O
^
=
.2
H^
03
•—
+J
a
V
u
a
o
O
ly Effluent
Q
i^
^
CD
CO
CD
•endering
lt@6447)
s^^
• ^
e«
IT)
CD
further
ng influent
• -^
-0 0)
^^ o
o
VH
"—I
CD
^-~. P*
^ --
ry [r_/
13 •
C^ Q
fc- «-i
!|
^^
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
.^H
^H
CD
T3
O
T3
OH
CO
CO
CD
CJ
O
OH
C/l ^J
cy^ Cu
CD ^>
O cU
£S
PH PH
O ^*
co 3
C O
O OH
•73 g
c
CD
CS
H
- ^g
H^^ ^5
^ f-\
a
Is
a.
O
BC
V
•a
V
BC
a
x
V
V
Further Pro
BC
a
'%
V
o
o
£
X
!.
E
£ Q
E O
3
Effluent Con
M
^H
Q
g
'u
r*
—
^
I
Rendering
y Effluent
@l
<
z,
^
«;
z
<
z
oe
TT
S
IT)
"-1
^
|
CXD
CD
OJO
<-> a
0 u
,
'3
Q
r^
TT
S
IT)
CD
|
iz
CN
CD
CD
OJO
C/3
C/3 —
O Vj"
O C
I-H CD
CD H
1&
ii 3
. ^
-S
ro
ITi
CD
i
"F
o
E ^
s E
o --
I^H r^n
• CN
S^
CD
SO
CD ^-'
-2?
'cd
Q
TT
TT
S
tion of 6443)
o
a
fr
13
>
o
S
VH
CD
oi
1
^
'c?
13-10
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
13.4.2 Censoring Type of Calculated Effluent Concentrations
When assigning the censoring type to the calculated concentration, EPA first determined
the "lowest potential value" for each analyte. The lowest potential value is the minimum of the
lowest detected (non-censored) value and the minimum of the nominal quantitation limits as
defined in Appendix A. (Ammonia as nitrogen was the only one instance where the lowest
detected value was less than the minimum of the nominal quantitation limits.) Each daily
influent or effluent value was then compared to this lowest potential value. If the calculated
value was less than the lowest potential value, the censoring type of this value was considered to
be non-detect with a sample-specific detection limit equal to the lowest potential value. For
example, suppose the influent concentration is non-censored. If the lowest potential value is 10
mg/L and the calculated effluent concentration is 7.5 mg/L, the effluent concentration is
considered as a non-detected at a detection limit 10 mg/L. If the calculated value was greater
than the lowest potential value, one of the following two methods of substitution was made.
Method 1: When the effluent concentration was calculated as a product of the proportion
of residual pollutant concentration after treatment and the influent concentration of the sample
point, the calculated effluent concentration was assigned the censoring type of the influent
sample. Table 13-8 provides an example of the final censoring type using this method where the
lowest potential value is 10 and the removal fraction is 50 percent.
Table 13-8. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 1
Influent Concentration
Amount
10
20
22
Censoring Type
ND
NC
ND
Effluent Concentration
Influent Concentration
*(l-Removal Fraction)
5
10
11
Final Calculated
Amount
10
10
11
Censoring Type
ND
NC
ND
Method 2: When the effluent concentration method was calculated based on a facility
pollutant mass balance between the final effluent and its unit processes of first, further, and
rendering wastewaters (as applicable), it had the censoring type associated with the initial
13-11
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
effluent concentration. Table 13-9 provides an example of the final censoring type using this
method where the lowest potential value is 10 and the removal fraction is 50 percent.
Table 13-9. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 2
Initial Effluent
Concentration
Amount
15
10
100
20
Censoring
Type
NC
ND
ND
NC
Further
Processing
Effluent
10
10
10
10
Rendering
Effluent
20
24
40
10
Calculated
Effluent
Concentration3
8.75
9.70
136
25.78
Final Calculated Effluent
Concentration
Amount
10
10
136
25.78
Censoring
Type
ND
ND
ND
NC
Calculated Effluent Concentration=(Initial Effluent *0.73 - Further Processing Effluent*0.7- (1-Removal
Fraction)*Rendering Effluent * 0.15) 70.51
13.5 DATA ADJUSTMENT
Once the daily effluent concentration for a facility was calculated, the data value was
compared to the long-term average (LTA) of the actual measured effluent for that facility. When
the calculated concentration was less than the LTA, it was replaced by the LTA. After a
thorough review of the calculated effluent concentrations, EPA adjusted several of the
concentration values when the calculation methodology resulted in effluent concentrations that
were generally lower than documented performance values for the technology or lower than
actual effluent concentrations. More specifically, the methodology used by EPA in the absence
of effluent data for a particular meat or poultry process type was dependent at times on the
transfer of data and treatment system performance from different facilities. There were instances
when this methodology resulted in calculated concentrations that were below what EPA
considered to be reasonable or realistic. In evaluating whether a derived effluent value was
reasonable or realistic, EPA compared the data to expected ranges of effluent concentrations as
provided in the technical literature.4 EPA also ensured that a derived effluent data for a
particular process type (i.e., first processing, further processing, or rendering) were never lower
than the actual effluent concentration as reported in the sampling episodes.
4 EPA particularly used the ranges presented in "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse"
Metcalf & Eddy, 1995 for each technology option.
13-12
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
13.6 OVERVIEW OF LIMITATIONS
The following sections discuss the data selected as the basis for the proposed limitations,
the data aggregation procedures, and the methodology used to obtain daily values for limitations.
This section describes EPA's objective for daily maximum and monthly average limitations, the
selection of percentiles for those limitations, and compliance with final limitations. EPA has
included this discussion because these fundamental concepts are often the subject of comments
on EPA's proposed effluent guidelines regulations and in EPA's contacts and correspondence
with the industry.
13.6.1 Objective
In establishing daily maximum limitations, EPA's objective is to restrict the discharges
on a daily basis at a level that is achievable for a facility that targets its treatment at the long-
term average. EPA acknowledges that variability around the long-term average results from
normal operations. This variability means that occasionally facilities may discharge at a level
that is greater than the long-term average. This variability also means that facilities may
occasionally discharge at a level that is considerably lower than the long-term average. To allow
for these possibly higher daily discharges, EPA has established the daily maximum limitation. A
facility that discharges consistently at a level near the daily maximum limitation would not be
operating its treatment to achieve the long-term average, which is part of EPA's objective in
establishing the daily maximum limitations. That is, targeting treatment to achieve the
limitations may result in frequent values exceeding the limitations due to routine variability in
treated effluent.
In establishing monthly average limitations, EPA's objective is to provide an additional
restriction to help insure that facilities target their average discharges to achieve the long-term
average. The monthly average limitation requires continuous dischargers to provide on-going
control, on a monthly basis, that complements controls imposed by the daily maximum
limitation. In order to meet the monthly average limitation, a facility must counterbalance a
value near the daily maximum limitation with one or more values well below the daily maximum
13-13
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
limitation. To achieve compliance, these values must result in a monthly average value at or
below the monthly average limitation.
13.6.2 Selection of Percentiles
EPA calculates limitations based upon percentiles chosen with the intention, on one hand,
to be high enough to accommodate reasonably anticipated variability within control of the
facility and, on the other hand, to be low enough to reflect a level of performance consistent with
the Clean Water Act requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the "best"
technologies. The daily maximum limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the
distribution of the daily measurements. The monthly average limitation is an estimate of the
95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the daily measurements.
The 99th and 95th percentiles do not relate to, or specify, the percentage of time a
discharger operating the "best available" or "best available demonstrated" level of technology
will meet (or not meet) the limitations. Rather, the use of these percentiles relate to the
development of limitations. (The percentiles used as a basis for the limitations are calculated
using the products of the long-term averages and the variability factors as explained in the next
section.) If a facility is designed and operated to achieve the long-term average on a consistent
basis and the facility maintains adequate control of its processes and treatment systems, the
allowance for variability provided in the limitations is sufficient to meet the requirements of the
proposed rule. The use of 99 percent and 95 percent represents a need to draw a line at a definite
point in the statistical distributions (100 percent is not feasible because it represents an infinitely
large value) and a policy judgment about where to draw the line that would ensure that operators
work hard to establish and maintain the appropriate level of control. In essence, in developing
the proposed limitations, EPA has taken into account the reasonable anticipated variability in
discharges that may occur at a well-operated facility. By targeting its treatment at the long-term
average, a well-operated facility should be capable of complying with the limitations at all times
because EPA has incorporated an appropriate allowance for variability into the limitations.
While the actual monitoring requirements will be determined by the permitting authority,
the Agency has assumed thirty samples per month (i.e., daily monitoring) in determining the
13-14
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
proposed maximum monthly average limitations. EPA recognizes that small poultry facilities
are unlikely to operate on weekends and is soliciting comment on whether their monthly
limitations should be based upon 20 days. Increasing or decreasing monitoring frequency does
not affect the statistical properties of the underlying distribution of the data used to derive the
limitations. However, monitoring less frequently theoretically results in average values that are
more variable. As a consequence, average values based on 20 monitoring samples per month
from small poultry facilities theoretically could be numerically larger than average values based
upon 30 monitoring samples from non-small facilities. Thus, operators of small poultry facilities
may find they need to design treatment systems to achieve an average below the long term
average basis of the proposed limitations and/or more control over variability of the discharges
in order to maintain compliance with the limitations. Attachment 13-5 in Appendix H provides a
list of both the proposed limitations and those derived using a 20-day monitoring assumption.
In conjunction with the statistical methods, EPA performs an engineering review to
verify that the limitations are reasonable based upon the design and expected operation of the
control technologies and the facility process conditions. As part of that review, EPA examines
the range of performance by the facility data sets used to calculate the limitations. Some facility
data sets demonstrate the best available technology. Other facility data sets may demonstrate the
same technology, but not the best demonstrated design and operating conditions for that
technology. For these facilities, EPA will evaluate the degree to which the facility can upgrade
its design, operating, and maintenance conditions to meet the limitations. If such upgrades are
not possible, then the limitations are modified to reflect the lowest levels that the technologies
can reasonably be expected to achieve.
13.6.3 Compliance with Limitations
EPA promulgates limitations that facilities are capable of complying with at all times by
properly operating and maintaining their processes and treatment technologies. However, the
issue of exceedances5 or excursions is often raised by comments on proposed limitations (as has
been the Agency's experience with proposals for other industries). For example, comments
5 Values that exceed the limitations
13-15
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
often suggest that EPA include a provision that a facility is in compliance with permit limitations
if its discharge does not exceed the specified limitations, with the exception that the discharge
may exceed the monthly average limitations one month out of 20 and the daily average
limitations one day out of 100. This issue was, in fact, raised in other rules, most notably in
EPA's final Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) rulemaking. EPA's
general approach there for developing limitations based on percentiles is the same in this
proposal, and was upheld in Chemical Manufacturers Association v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 870 F.2d 177, 230 (5th Cir. 1989). The Court determined that:
EPA reasonably concluded that the data points exceeding the 99th and 95th percentiles
represent either quality-control problems or upsets because there can be no other
explanation for these isolated and extremely high discharges. If these data points result
from quality-control problems, the exceedances they represent are within the control of
the plant. If, however, the data points represent exceedances beyond the control of the
industry, the upset defense is available.
Id at 230.
EPA's allowance for reasonable anticipated variability in its effluent limitations, coupled
with the availability of the upset defense reasonably accommodates acceptable excursions. Any
further excursion allowances would go beyond the reasonable accommodation of variability and
would jeopardize the effective control of pollutant discharges on a consistent basis and/or bog
down administrative and enforcement proceedings in detailed fact finding exercises, contrary to
Congressional intent. See, e.g., Rep. No. 92-414, 92nd Congress, 2nd Sess. 64, reprinted in A
Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 at 1482;
Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977 at 464-65.
13.6.4 Summary of Proposed Limitations
The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option are provided as 'daily maximums'
and 'maximums for monthly averages'. Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the
daily maximum limitation is the "highest allowable 'daily discharge'" and the maximum for
monthly average limitation (also referred to as the "monthly average limitation") is the "highest
13-16
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
allowable average of 'daily discharges' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all 'daily
discharges' measured during a calendar month divided by the number of 'daily discharges'
measured during that month." Daily discharges are defined to be the '"discharge of a pollutant'
measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar
day for purposes of samplings." EPA has proposed daily maximum and monthly average
limitations expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge (pounds) per unit of production
(Live-Weight Killed, Finished Products, Raw Materials). In this document and elsewhere, EPA
refers to such limitations as 'production-normalized.' EPA has proposed production-normalized
limitations in terms of daily maximums, maximums for 20-day averages (poultry facilities only),
and maximum for monthly averages.
To derive the proposed production-normalization limitations, EPA used the modified
delta-lognormal distribution to develop limitations based upon the concentration data
("concentration-based limitations"). Sections 13.7 throughlS.10 describe the calculations for the
concentration-based limitations. Section 13.11 describes the conversion of these limitations to
"production-normalized limitations" using the model flow rates described in Section 11.
13.7 ESTIMATION OF CONCENTRATION-BASED LIMITATIONS
In estimating the concentration-based limitations, EPA determines an average
performance level (the "option long-term average" discussed in the next section) that a facility
with well-designed and operated model technologies (which reflect the appropriate level of
control) is capable of achieving. This long-term average is calculated from the data from the
facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects that all facilities subject to
the limitations will design and operate their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average
performance level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-designed and operated model
technologies have demonstrated that this can be done.
In the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance for the
variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through extensive and well designed
treatment systems. This allowance for variance incorporates all components of variability
including shipping, sampling, storage, and analytical variability. This allowance is incorporated
13-17
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
into the limitations through the use of the variability factors (the "option variability factor"
discussed in Section 13.9) which are calculated from the data from the facilities using the model
technologies. If a facility operates its treatment system to meet the relevant long-term average,
EPA expects the facility will be able to meet the limitations. Variability factors assure that
normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations. By accounting
for these reasonable excursions above the long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors
results in limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term averages.
Facilities that are designed and operated to achieve long-term average effluent levels
used in developing the limitation should be capable of compliance with the proposed limitations,
which incorporate variability, at all times.
The following sections describe the calculation of long-term averages and variability
factors.
13.8 ESTIMATION OF LONG-TERM AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
This section discusses the calculation of LTAs for each sample episode ("episode-
specific LTA") and for each technology option ("option LTA") for each pollutant. The LTAs
discussed in this section were used to develop the proposed limitations.
For each technology option being considered, EPA calculated LTAs that represent the
best performing facilities (from the respective of types of treatment in-place and degree of
expected pollutant removals). For purposes of proposal, EPA relied on EPA sampling episode
data to calculate LTAs. EPA calculated LTAs for the following six meat and poultry processes:
• first processing (meat);
• further processing (meat);
• rendering (meat);
• first processing (poultry);
• further processing (poultry); and
• rendering (poultry).
13-18
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
LTAs were derived for each of the above six meat and poultry processes from effluent
concentration data collected during the sampling episodes. Specifically, for each technology
option being considered, effluent concentration data from representative facilities were used to
derive LTAs for each pollutant of concern. Consistent with the methodology described in
Section 9.2, in the absence of data for a particular meat and poultry process at a facility, EPA
used the derived effluent concentration data.
13.8.1 Episode-specific Long-Term Average Concentrations
EPA calculated the episode-specific long-term average by using either the modified
delta-lognormal distribution or the arithmetic average (see Appendix G). In Appendix H, EPA
has listed the arithmetic average (column labeled 'Obs Mean') and the estimated episode-
specific long-term average (column labeled 'Est LTA'). If EPA used the arithmetic average as
the episode long-term average, then the two columns have the same value.
13.8.2 Option Long-Term Averages
EPA calculated the option long-term average for a pollutant as the median of the episode-
specific long-term averages for that pollutant from selected episodes with the technology basis
for the option. The median is the midpoint of the values ordered (i.e., ranked) from smallest to
largest. If there is an odd number of values (with n=number of values), then the value of the
(n+l)/2 ordered observation is the median. If there are an even number of values, then the two
values of the n/2 and [(n/2)+l] ordered observations are arithmetically averaged to obtain the
median value.
For example, for subcategory Y option Z, if the four (i.e., n=4) episode-specific long-
term averages for pollutant X are:
Facility Episode-Specific Long-Term Average
A 20 mg/L
B 9 mg/L
C 16 mg/L
D 10 mg/L
13-19
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
then the ordered values are:
Order Facility Episode-Specific Long-Term Average
1 B 9 mg/L
2 D 10 mg/L
3 C 16 mg/L
4 A 20 mg/L
And the pollutant-specific long-term average for option Z is the median of the ordered
values (i.e., the average of the 2nd and 3rd ordered values): (10+16)72 mg/L = 13 mg/L.
The option long-term averages were used in developing the proposed limitations for each
pollutant within each regulatory option.
13.8.3 Substitution of LTAs
In a limited number of cases, EPA used substitutions for the calculated option-level
LTAs because data existed that indicated the technology option performed at these levels (or
better) at MPP facilities. Table 13-10 summarizes the option-level LTA substitutions. For
poultry further processing BAT-2, the option LTA of TSS was substituted with 9.76 mg/L,
which was the largest value reported in the MPP detailed survey for poultry facilities with
further processing operations and implementing BAT-2 level treatment technology. For poultry
rendering operation BAT-2, the option LTA of HEM was substituted with 19.5 mg/L, which was
the largest value reported in the MPP detailed survey for poultry facilities with rendering
operations and implementing BAT-2 level treatment technology. Finally, for poultry rendering
operation BAT-1, the option LTA for COD was substituted with the average effluent from a
poultry facility performing rendering operations.
13-20
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 13-10. Substitution Values for Option-Level LTA
Pollutant
TSS
HEM
COD
Substitution
Value (mg/L)
9.76
19.5
29.64
Subcategory
Poultry further
processing
Poultry
rendering
Poultry
rendering
Option
BAT-2
BAT-2
BAT-2
Calculated
Option LTA
(mg/L)
537.56
334.96
168.92
Source of Substitution Value
Largest concentration reported
value in MPP survey data for
poultry facilities with further
processing operations at BAT-2.
Largest concentration reported
value in MPP survey data for
poultry facilities with rendering
operations at BAT-2.
Average concentration of treated
rendering effluent at sampling
episode 6448
13.8.4 Calculation of Poultry BAT-3 Option-Level Long-Term Averages
For poultry BAT-3, the technology option was not represented in the sampling episodes
of poultry facilities. Thus, the option LTAs were calculated assuming that the removal fractions
between different technology option levels would be the same for meat and poultry facilities
(i.e., the removal fraction between meat BAT-2 and meat BAT-3 treatment options would be the
same as the removal fraction between poultry BAT-2 and poultry BAT-3 treatment options).
Thus, the removal fractions were calculated as follows:
Removal Fraction = (Option LTA from Meat BAT-2- Option LTA from Meat BAT-3)/
Option LTA from Meat BAT-2.
The resulting removal fraction would then be applied to the treated pollutant
concentrations calculated for the technology option BAT-2 to obtain the option long-term
averages as follows:
LTA = ( Option LTA from Poultry BAT-2)*(l-Removal Fraction).
If the LTA was less than the option level LTA of the actual sampled effluent data used
for Meat Option 3, it was replaced by the option level LTA of the actual sampled effluent data
used for Meat BAT-3. The formula for the option level LTA for the option BAT-3 of Poultry is
provided in Table 13-11.
13-21
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 13-11. Formulas for Calculating BAT-3 Technology Option Level LTA for
Poultry Facilities
RF =
Removal
Fraction
Option
LTA
First Processing
[(Option LTA of First
Processing Meat BAT-2) -
(Option LTA of First
Processing Meat BAT-
3)]/Option LTA of First
Processing Meat BAT-2
(1 - RF) • (Option LTA of First
Processing Poultry BAT-2)
Further Processing
[(Option LTA of Further
Processing Meat BAT-2) -
(Option LTA of Further
Processing Meat BAT-
3)]/Option LTA of Further
Processing Meat BAT-2
(1 -RF)« (Option LTA of
Further Processing Poultry
BAT-2)
Rendering Operations
[(Option LTA of Rendering
Operation Meat BAT-2) -
(Option LTA of Rendering
Operation Meat BAT-
3)]/Option LTA of Rendering
Operation Meat BAT-2
(1 - RF) • (Option LTA of
Rendering Operation Poultry
BAT-2)
13.8.5 Calculation of Independent Rendering BAT-2 Option-Level Long-Term
Averages
The option level LTA for the independent rendering facilities was calculated as the
average of the option level LTAs of rendering process from Meat BAT-2 and Poultry BAT-2.
The formula for the option level LTA for the independent LTA is
Option LTA = [(Option LTA of Rendering Operation Meat BAT-2)+(Option LTA of
Rendering Operation Meat BAT-2)]/2.
13.8.6 Adjustments to Option Long-Term Averages
To ensure that the option BAT-2 LTAs were no more stringent than the BAT-3 option
LTAs, a comparison was made between the BAT-2 option LTAs and the BAT-3 option LTAs.
BAT-2 option LTAs were substituted with BAT-3 option LTAs whenever they were more
stringent than the corresponding BAT-3 option LTA. Table 13-12 identifies the cases for which
the BAT-3 value was substituted for the calculated BAT-2 long-term average.
13-22
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 13-12. BAT-2 Option LTA Substitutions
Subcategory
Poultry
Meat
Process
First
Processing
Further
Processing
Rendering
First
Processing
Further
Processing
Rendering
Pollutant
Ammonia as Nitrogen
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Fecal Coliform
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Residual Chlorine
Ammonia As Nitrogen
Fecal Coliform
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Fecal Coliform
Total Phosphorus
Ammonia As Nitrogen
Ammonia As Nitrogen
Ammonia As Nitrogen
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Calculated
Option BAT-2
LTA (mg/L)
0.25
2.00
4.63
1.61
0.77
0.22
0.85
4.63
2.16
5.60
2.55
0.70
0.52
1.29
6.92
Calculated
Option BAT-3
LTA(mg/L)
2.34
4.68
21.50
2.08
6.97
15.96
2.34
21.50
4.68
21.50
6.97
3.75
2.34
2.34
8.35
Final Option
BAT-2 LTA
(mg/L)a
2.34
4.68
21.50
2.08
6.97
15.96
2.34
21.50
4.68
21.50
6.97
3.75
2.34
2.34
8.35
a These values represent the LTAs that were subsequently used by EPA for deriving effluent limitations.
13.9 CALCULATION OF OPTION VARIABILITY FACTORS
In developing the option variability factors used in calculating the proposed limitations,
EPA first developed daily and monthly episode-specific variability factors using the modified
delta-lognormal distribution. The variability factors were estimated from the daily effluent data
of the facility used to compute the episode-specific LTA's. This estimation procedure is
described in Appendix G.
After calculating the episode-specific variability factors, EPA calculated the option daily
variability factor as the mean of the episode-specific daily variability factors for that pollutant in
the subcategory and option. Likewise, the option monthly variability factor was the mean of the
episode-specific monthly variability factors for that pollutant in the subcategory and option. For
poultry BAT-3, the option variability factors were transferred from the meat BAT-3 because, as
13-23
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
described in Section 13.8.4 the technology option was not represented in the sampling episodes
of poultry facilities. Because the BAT-3 technology options are the same for meat and poultry,
EPA expects the variability to be similar, and thus transferred the variability factors from the
meat BAT-3 dataset. Additionally, the variability factors for Independent Rendering BAT-2
were calculated as the average of option VF's from BAT-2 Meat and BAT-2 Poultry because the
LTA was based on the average of option LTAs from BAT-2 Meat and BAT-2 Poultry.
13.9.1 Transfers of Option Variability Factors
After estimating the option variability factors, EPA identified several pollutants for
which variability factors could not be calculated in some options. This resulted when all episode
datasets for the pollutant in the option had too few detected measurements to calculate episode-
specific variability factors (see data requirements in Appendix G). For example, if a pollutant
had all non-detected values for all of the episodes in an option, then it was not possible to
calculate option variability factors. When EPA could not calculate the option variability factors
or determined that the calculated option variability factors should be replaced, EPA selected
variability factors from other sources to provide an adequate allowance for variability in the
proposed limitations. This section describes these cases.
Table 13-13 lists the pollutants for which EPA was unable to calculate option variability
factors. For biochemical oxygen demand in Poultry BAT-2, EPA transferred the option
variability factors from the Poultry BAT-3. EPA expects that these two options would have
similar variability in the effluent concentrations. Likewise for HEM in Poultry BAT-2 and
BAT-3 and Meat BAT-3, EPA transferred the variability factors from Meat BAT-2. For
ammonia (as N), the variability factors for Poultry BAT-2 were transferred from Poultry BAT-3.
EPA determined that the variability factors were unlikely to be more variable than the Poultry
BAT-3. For total nitrogen, EPA transferred the option variability factors for total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN) from the same option because EPA did not calculate daily total nitrogen values.
(Daily values are needed to calculate variability factors.) However, EPA had developed
variability factors for the two pollutants, TKN and nitrate/nitrite, which are summed to obtain
total nitrogen. Because TKN was the more variable of the two pollutants, EPA selected those
13-24
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
variability factors to use in developing the total nitrogen limitations. EPA expects that total
nitrogen would be no more variable than TKN.
Table 13-13. Cases where Option Variability Factors Could Not be Calculated
Pollutant
Biochemical oxygen demand
HEM
Ammonia (as N)
Total nitrogen
Technology Option
Poultry BAT-2
Poultry BAT-2
Poultry BAT-3
Meat BAT-3
Poultry BAT-2
All technology options
Source of Variability Factors
Poultry BAT 3
Meat BAT-2
Meat BAT-2
Meat BAT-2
Poultry BAT-3
TKN from the same option
13.10 SUMMARY OF STEPS USED TO DERIVE CONCENTRATION-BASED
LIMITATIONS
This section summarizes the steps used to derive the proposed concentration-based
limitations. For each pollutant in an option for each type of processing operation (first
processing, further processing, and rendering), EPA performed the following steps in calculating
the proposed concentration-based limitations:
Step 1: EPA calculated the episode-specific long-term averages and daily and monthly
variability factors for all selected episodes with the model technology for the
option for each type of processing operation. (See Attachment 13-2 in Appendix
H for episode-specific long-term averages and variability factors.)
Step 2: EPA calculated the option long-term average as the median of the episode-
specific long-term averages. (See Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H.)
Step 3: EPA calculated the option variability factors for each pollutants as the mean of
the episode-specific variability factors from the episodes with the model
technology. (See Appendix 13-3 in Appendix H.) The option daily variability
factor is the mean of the episode-specific daily variability factors. Similarly, the
option monthly variability factor is the mean of the episode-specific monthly
variability factors.
13-25
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Step 4: For the pollutants for which Steps 1 and 3 failed to provide option variability
factors, EPA determined variability factors on a case-by-case basis. (See Table
13-13.)
Step 5: EPA calculated each proposed concentration-based daily maximum limitation for
a pollutant using the product of the option long-term average and the option daily
variability factor. (See Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H.)
Step 6: EPA calculated each proposed concentration-based monthly average limitation
for a pollutant using the product of the option long-term average and the option
monthly variability factor. (See Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H.)
The next section describes the conversion of the concentration-based limitations to the
production-normalized limitations that are provided in the proposed regulation.
13.11 CONVERSION TO PRODUCTION-NORMALIZED LIMITATIONS
The previous discussions about the limitations were based upon concentration data. The
proposed pollutant limitations are presented in terms of pounds of allowable pollutant discharge
per 1,000 pounds of production units (lbs/1000 Ibs). This section describes the conversion from
concentration-based limitations to the production-normalized limitations in the proposed
regulation. This section also provides EPA's methodology for determining the number of
significant digits to use for the proposed production-normalized limitations.
13.11.1 Calculation of Production Normalized Limitations
In calculating the proposed production-normalized limitations, EPA used the
concentration-based limitations, the production flow rates, and a conversion factor. The
concentration-based limitations were calculated as described in the previous section and are
listed in Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H. The following paragraphs briefly describe the
production flow rates and the conversion factors used to calculate the production-normalized
limitations.
13-26
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
The production flow rates used in the calculation are expressed as production-normalized
flow rates (PNFs) in terms of gallons of water discharged per 1,000 pound of production units.6
The production-normalized flow rates are provided in Attachment 13-4 in Appendix H. EPA
used the following conversion factor:
. . 3.7854L Ib __._.. Inn6 LI gal
conversion factor = x = 8.3454 x 10 —-—
gal 453.593 xlO3 mg mg/lb
The conversion factor assumes that the concentration-based limitations are expressed as
milligrams per liter (mg/L). EPA used the production flows and the conversion factor to
calculate each production-normalized limitation using the following basic equation:
Production-normalized limitation = Concentration-based limitation x Production-
normalized flow rate x conversion factor
The following is an example of applying a conversion factor to the concentration-based
limits:
For Meat First Processing technology option, suppose the concentration based daily
maximum limitation is 0.1 mg/L. Using the production flow rate of 322.8 gal/1000 Ib-
LWK (Live-Weight Killed), the production-normalized daily maximum limitation for the
First Processing Meat subcategory is:
0.1 mg 322.8 gal , LI gal Ib
- X8-3454X'° =
6 Production units include live weight killed (LWK) for first processing, finished product (FP) for further
processing, and raw material (RM) for rendering.
13-27
-------
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
13.11.2 Significant Digits for Production-Normalized Limitations
After completing the conversions described in the previous section, EPA rounded the
proposed production-normalized limitations to three significant digits. EPA used a rounding
procedure where values of five and above are rounded up and values of four and below are
rounded down. For example, a value of 0.003455 would be rounded to 0.00346, while a value of
0.003454 would be rounded to 0.00345. The production-normalized limitations listed in
Attachment 13-5 of Appendix H have three significant digits.
13-28
-------
SECTION 14
REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION
14.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF PART 432 THROUGH THE NPDES PERMIT
PROGRAM AND THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Under sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 of the CWA, EPA promulgates national effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance for major industrial categories for three
classes of pollutants: (1) conventional pollutants (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and grease,
biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform bacteria, and pH); (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic
metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-
a-pyrene, and naphthalene); and (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N, fluoride, iron,
total phenols, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran).
As discussed in Section 2, EPA must consider six types of effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for each major industrial category, as appropriate. The types of effluent limitation
guidelines and standards are presented in Table 14-1.
Table 14-1. Types of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
Abbreviation
Effluent Limitation Guideline or Standard
BPT
BAT
BCT
NSPS
PSES
PSNS
Best practicable control technology currently available
Best available technology economically achievable
Best control technology for conventional pollutants
New source performance standards
Pretreatment standards for existing sources
Pretreatment standards for new sources
Pretreatment standards apply to industrial facilities with wastewater discharges to
POTWs. The effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards apply to
industrial facilities with direct discharges in to navigable waters.
14-1
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
14.1.1 NPDES Permit Program
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program is designed to limit the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters of the United States through a combination of various
requirements, including technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations.
Technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the meat and
poultry processing industry are used by permit writers to derive NPDES permit technology-based
effluent limitations. Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based on receiving
water characteristics and ambient water quality standards, including designated water uses. They
are derived independently from technology-based effluent limitations. The CWA requires that
NPDES permits contain the more stringent of the applicable technology-based and water quality-
based effluent limitations.
Section 402(a)(l) of the CWA provides that in the absence of promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines or standards, the Administrator, or her designee, may establish technology-
based effluent limitations for specific dischargers on a case-by-case basis. Federal NPDES permit
regulations provide that these limits may be established using "best professional judgment" (BPJ)
taking into account any proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards and other relevant
scientific, technical, and economic information.
Section 301 of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires that
BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants be achieved as expeditiously as possible, but not
later than three years from date of promulgation of such limitations and in no case later than
March 31, 1989. Because the revisions to 40 CFR Part 432 will be promulgated after March 31,
1989, NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the revised effluent limitations guidelines
must be included in the next NPDES permit issued after promulgation of the regulation, and the
permit must require immediate compliance.
14-2
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
14.1.2 New Source Performance Standards
New sources must comply with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
limitations of the MPP rule at the time they commence discharging MPP process wastewater.
The Agency considers a discharger a new source if construction of the source begins after
promulgation of the final rule (see 40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3).
Following promulgation of revised NSPS, existing NSPS continue to apply for a limited
period of time to new sources that commenced discharging MPP process wastewater within the
time period beginning 10 years before the effective date of a final rule revising Part 432. Thus, if
EPA promulgates revised NSPS for Part 432 in December 2003, and those regulations take effect
in January 2004, any direct discharging new source that commenced discharge after January 1994
but before February 2004 would be subject to the currently codified NSPS for 10 years from the
date it commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or amortization of such facility,
whichever comes first (see CWA section 306(d)). After that 10 year period expires, any new or
revised BAT limitations would apply with respect to toxics and nonconventional pollutants.
Limitations on conventional pollutants would be based on the current NSPS for conventional
pollutants unless EPA promulgates revisions to BPT/BCT for conventional pollutants that are
more stringent than these NSPS requirements. Appendix I provides the regulations at 40 CFR
Part 432 (including NSPS), as codified in the 2001 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations for
use during the applicable 10 year period.
14.1.3 National Pretreatment Standards
40 CFR Part 403 sets out national pretreatment standards which have three principal
objectives. The first objective is to prevent the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) that will interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of
municipal sludge. Second, national pretreatment standards are in place to prevent the
introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will pass through the treatment works or will
otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works. The final objective is to improve
opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
14-3
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
The national pretreatment and categorical standards comprise a series of prohibited
discharges to prevent the discharge of "any pollutant(s) which cause Pass Through or
Interference" (see 40 CFR 403.5(a)(l)). Local control authorities are required to implement the
national pretreatment program, including applying the federal categorical pretreatment standards
to any industrial users that are subject to such categorical pretreatment standards, as well as any
pretreatment standards derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are more restrictive than the federal
standards.
The federal categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources must be achieved not
later than three years following the date of publication of the final standards. This proposed
regulation does not revise federal categorical pretreatment standards (PSES and PSNS)
applicable to meat and poultry processing facilities regulated by 40 CFR Part 432. If EPA were
to promulgate PSNS in the final rule, MPP new sources would be required to comply with the
new source performance standards of the MPP rule at the time they commence discharging MPP
process wastewater. Because the final rule is not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule,
the Agency considers an indirect discharger a new source if its construction commences
following promulgation of the final rule (see 40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA expects to take
final action on this proposal in December 2003.
In addition, Section 403.7 of the Clean Water Act provides the criteria and procedures to
be used by a Control Authority to grant a categorical industrial user (CIU) variance from a
pollutant limit specified in a categorical pretreatment standard to reflect removal by the POTW
treatment plant of the pollutant. Procedures for granting removal credits are specified in 40 CFR
403.11.
14.2 UPSET AND BYPASS PROVISIONS
A "bypass" is an intentional diversion of the streams from any portion of a treatment
facility. An "upset" is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the
reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning bypasses and upsets for direct
14-4
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR
403.16 and 403.17.
14.3 VARIANCES AND MODIFICATIONS
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established pursuant to section 301
or pretreatment standards of section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in a limited number of
circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative mechanisms to provide an
opportunity for relief from the application of the national effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
14.3.1 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable
requirements, if an individual discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to
factors considered in establishing the limitation of standards applicable to the individual facility.
Such a modification is known as a "fundamentally different factors" (PDF) variance.
PPA provides for the PDF modifications from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT
limitations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provides for modifications from
pretreatment standards. PDF variances for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (see Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC, 479
U.S. 116(1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added section 301(n) to the
Act to authorize modifications of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or
categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is fundamentally different with
respect to the factors specified in section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 301(n) also defined the
conditions under which EPA may establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
application for approval of a PDF variance must be based solely on either information submitted
during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different, or information the
applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be no
less stringent than justified by the difference and must not result in markedly more adverse non-
water quality environmental impacts than does the national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart D, authorizing the Regional Administrators
to establish alternative limitations and standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to
evaluate PDF variance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) identifies six
factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be
considered in determining whether or not a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must
determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in question is
fundamentally different from the facilities and factors considered by EPA in developing the
nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g.,
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay) that may not
provide a basis for an PDF variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), a request for
limitations less stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if compliance with
the national limitations would result in either a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the
removal cost considered during development of the national limitations, or a non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than the
impact considered during development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an
PDF variance for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for approval of a request
to modify applicable pretreatment standards and factors considered are the same as those for
direct dischargers.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity for the PDF variance
applicant to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(l) are
explicit in imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that the factors
relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's permit which are claimed to be
fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from those factors considered by
EPA in establishing the applicable guidelines. The criteria for applying for and evaluating
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
applications for variances from categorical pretreatment standards are included in the
pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9). An PDF variance is not available to a new
source performance subject to NSPS or PSNS.
14.3.2 Economic Variances
Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise applicable BAT
effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due to economic factors. The request for a
variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines must normally be filed by the
discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other filing time periods may
apply, as specified in 40 CFR 122.21(1)(2). Specific guidance for this type of variance is
available from EPA's Office of Wastewater Management.
14.3.3 Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent guidelines for
certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants
include ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.
14.4 PRODUCTION BASIS FOR CALCULATION OF PERMIT LIMITATIONS
14.4.1 Background
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS are
expressed as mass limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per 1,000 pounds (of production unit).
EPA is soliciting comment on PSES and PSNS numeric standards that are concentration-based.
The NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.45(f)) require permit writers to implement mass-based
limitations for direct dischargers, but allow an exception when the limits are expressed in terms
of other units of measurement (e.g., concentration). The General Pretreatment Regulations (40
CFR 403.6(d)) provide that the control authority may impose mass limitations on industrial users
using dilution to meet applicable pretreatment requirements or where mass limitations are
appropriate. EPA believes that MPP facilities that have been using the best pollution prevention
and water conservation practices may also request that the permit writer or POTW use mass-
14-7
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
based limits in their permits or control mechanism. See Section 6 for detailed information on
water use levels for meat and poultry processing operations and rendering. EPA believes this
information will be useful to permit writers and control authorities in those instances where they
deem it appropriate to set mass-based limits.
14.4.2 Mass-Based Limitations and Standards
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS are
expressed as mass limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per 1,000 pounds (of production unit).
Production units include live weight killed (LWK), equivalent live weight killed (ELWK),
finished product (FP), and raw material (RM). The mass limitation is derived by multiplying an
effluent concentration (determined from the analysis of treatment system performance) by an
appropriate normalized wastewater volume ("production-normalized flow") determined for each
MPP operation expressed in gallons per 1,000 pounds of product. The following equation
describes how EPA calculated mass-based limitations and standards.
Mass-Based Limit = [CONG, mg/L] x [PNF, gal/1,000 Ib] x [3.7854 L/gal] x [1 lb/453,592 mg]
where:
Mass-based limit = technology-based mass-based limit for each pollutant proposed for
regulation. Expressed as a unitless fraction in terms of mass (Ib) of
pollutant per mass (1,000 Ib) of production.
CONC, mg/L = technology-based concentration limits for each pollutant proposed
for regulation. Expressed in units of mass (mg) of pollutant per
volume (L) of wastewater.
PNF, gal/1,000 Ib = production normalized flow (PNF) for the regulatory subcategory.
Expressed in units of volume of wastewater generated (gal) per
1,000 pounds of production (LWK, ELWK, FP, or RM).
[3.7854 L/gal], [1 lb/453,592 mg] = conversion factors.
14-8
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
EPA developed the production-normalized flows to generate the limits in the proposed
rule from survey questionnaire responses from MPP facilities. See Section 13.11 for a
description of these production-normalized flows.
A facility subject to today's proposed regulation can use a combination of various
treatment alternatives and/or water conservation practices to achieve a particular effluent
limitation or standard. The model treatment systems provided in Section 11 illustrate several
available options to achieve the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
The NPDES permit regulations discuss the use of mass-based limitations and standards.
In order to convert the effluent limitations and standards expressed as pounds per 1,000 pounds
of product to a monthly average or daily maximum permit limit, the permitting or control
authority would use a production rate with units of 1,000 pounds per day. The NPDES permit
regulations (40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)) require that NPDES permit limits be based on a "...reasonable
measure of actual production." The production rates used for NPDES permitting for the MPP
industry have commonly been the highest annual average production from the prior five year
period prorated to a daily basis.
The objective in determining a production estimate for a facility is to develop a measure
of production which can reasonably be expected to prevail during the next term of the permit.
This measure is used in combination with the production-based limitations to establish a
maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharged each day and month. However, if the permit
production rate is based on the maximum month, then the permit could allow excessive
discharges of pollutants during significant portions of the life of the permit. These excessive
allowances may discourage facilities from ensuring optimal waste management, water
conservation, and wastewater treatment practices during lower production periods. On the other
hand, if the average permit production rate is based on an average derived from the highest year
of production over the past five years, then facilities may have trouble ensuring that their waste
management, water conservation, and wastewater treatment practices can accommodate shorter
periods of higher production. This might require facilities to target a more stringent treatment
level than that on which the limits were based during these periods of high production. To
14-9
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
accomplish this, facilities would likely have to develop more efficient treatment systems and
better water conservation and waste management practices during these periods.
When a facility is also covered by other existing effluent guidelines, the facility will need
to comply with both regulations. In those cases, the permit writer will combine the limitations
using an approach that proportions the limitations based on the different production levels (for
production-based standards) or wastewater flows (for concentration-based standards). NPDES
permit writers refer to it as the "building block approach."
The proposed limitations neither require the installation of any specific control
technology nor the attainment of any specific flow rate or effluent concentration. A facility can
use various treatment alternatives or water conservation practices to achieve a particular effluent
limitation or standard. Appendix J provides several examples of how these proposed limitations
and standards will be applied.
14.5 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize the Administrator to
prescribe BMPs as part of effluent limitations guidelines and standards, or as part of a permit.
Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to include BMPs in effluent limitations guidelines
for certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for the purpose of controlling "plant site runoff, spillage
or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage." Section 402(a)(l)
and NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k) also provide for best management practices to
control or abate the discharge of pollutants, when numeric limitations and standards are
infeasible. In addition, section 402(a)(2), read in concert with section 501 (a), authorizes EPA to
prescribe as wide a range of permit conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to
ensure compliance with applicable effluent limitations and standards and such other requirements
as the Administrator deems appropriate.
Dikes, curbs, and other control measures are being used at some MPP facilities to contain
leaks and spills as part of good "housekeeping" practices." However, on a facility-by-facility
basis a permit writer may choose to incorporate BMPs into the permit. Section 8.8 provides a
14-10
-------
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation
detailed discussion of pollution prevention and best management practices used in the MPP
industry.
14-11
-------
SECTION 15
GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
A
AAMP - The American Association of Meat Processors
Administrator - The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alternate discharge - See Zero discharge
AMI - American Meat Institute
AMSA - Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Average monthly discharge limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily discharges"
over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during the
calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the month.
B
BAT - The best available technology economically achievable, applicable to effluent limitations
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT - The best control technology for conventional pollutants, applicable to discharges of
conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources, as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of
the CWA.
Blood processing - The blood may be heated to coagulate the albumin; then, the albumin and
fibrin are separated (e.g., with a screen or centrifuge) from the blood water and forwarded for
further processing. The blood water or serum remaining after coagulation may be evaporated for
animal feed, or it may be sewered.
15-1
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
BOD5 - Biochemical oxygen demand measured over a 5 day period.
BPJ - Best professional judgment
BPT - The best practicable control technology currently available, applicable to effluent
limitations, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(l) of the
CWA.
Canned meat processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart I) - An operation that prepares and
cans meats (such as stew, sandwich spreads, or similar products) alone or in combination with
other finished products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 Ib) per day.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
Clean water act (CWA) - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33
U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended.
Complex slaughterhouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart B) - A slaughterhouse that
accomplishes extensive by-product processing, usually at least three of such operations as
rendering, paunch and viscera handling, blood processing, hide processing, or hair processing
Conventional pollutants - Constituents of wastewater as determined by Section 304(a)(4) of the
CWA (and EPA regulations), i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
D
Daily discharge - The discharge of a pollutant measured during any calendar day or any 24-hour
period that reasonably represents a calendar day.
Deep-well injection - Long-term or permanent disposal of untreated, partially treated, or treated
wastewaters by pumping the wastewater into underground formations of suitable character
through a bored, drilled, or driven well.
IT2
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Direct discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge treated or untreated wastewaters
into waters of the United States.
DMR - Discharge monitoring report
Dry rendering - The process of cooking animal byproducts by dry heat in open steam-jacketed
tanks.
E
Effluent limitation guideline (ELGs) - Under CWA section 502(11), any restriction, including
schedules of compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and
concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged
from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean (CWA
Sections 301(b) and 304(b)).
ELWK - Equivalent live weight killed
Existing source - For this rule, any facility from which there is or may be a discharge of
pollutants, the construction of which is commenced before the publication of the final regulations
prescribing a standard of performance under Section 306 of the CWA.
Facility- All contiguous property and equipment owned, operated, leased, or under the control of
the same person or entity.
FDF - Fundamentally different factor
Finished product - The final manufactured product produced on site, including products
intended for consumption with no additional processing as well as products intended for further
processing, when applicable.
First processing - Operations which receive live meat animals or poultry and produce a raw,
dressed meat or poultry product, either whole or in parts.
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
FSIS - Food Safety and Inspection Service
FTE - Full time equivalent employee
Further processing - Operations which use whole carcasses or cut-up meat or poultry products
for the production of fresh or frozen products, and may include the following types of processing:
cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, dicing,
forming, or breading.
G
Ground water - Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or water
H
Ham processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart H) - An operation that manufactures hams
alone or in combination with other finished products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 Ib) per
day.
Hazardous waste - Any waste, including wastewater, defined as hazardous under RCRA,
TSCA, or any state law.
Hexane extractable method (HEM) - A measure of oil and grease in wastewater by mixing the
wastewater with hexane and measuring the oils and greases that are removed from the
wastewater with the hexane. See 40 CFR Part 136.
Hide processing - Wet or dry hide processing. Includes demanuring, washing, and de fleshing,
followed by curing.
High-processing packinghouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart D) - A packinghouse that
processes both animals slaughtered at the site and additional carcasses from outside sources.
In scope - Facilities and/or wastewaters that EPA proposes to be subject to this guidelines.
15-4
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Indirect discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge wastewaters into a publicly
owned treatment works.
Live weight killed (LWK) - The total weight of the total number of animals slaughtered during
a specific time period.
Long-term average (LTA) - For purposes of the effluent guidelines, average pollutant levels
achieved over a period of time by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used
in developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in the proposed regulation.
Low-processing packinghouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart C) - A packinghouse that
processes no more than the total animals killed at that plant, normally processing less than the
total kill.
M
Maximum monthly average discharge limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily
discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured
during the calendar month, divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the
month.
Meat - The term "meat" includes all animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs,
etc., except those defined as poultry.
Meat cutter (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart F) - An operation fabricates, cuts, or otherwise
produces fresh meat cuts and related finished products from livestock carcasses, at rates greater
than 2730 kg (6000 Ib) per day.
Meat product operations - Include meat and poultry slaughtering operations, by-product
operations, rendering, and further processing.
15-5
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Minimum level - The level at which an analytical system gives recognizable signals and an
acceptable calibration point.
MPP - Meat and poultry products
N
NAICS - North American Industry Classification System. NAICS was developed jointly by the
U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new comparability in statistics about business activity
across North America.
National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit - A permit to discharge
wastewater into waters of the United States issued under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination system, authorized by Section 402 of the CWA See NPDES.
Nitrification capability - The capability of a POTW treatment system to oxidize ammonia or
ammonium salts initially to nitrites (via nitrosomonas bacteria,) and subsequently to nitrates (via
Nitrobacter bacteria). Criteria for determining the nitrification capability of a POTW treatment
system are: bioassays confirming the presence of nitrifying bacteria, and analyses of the nitrogen
balance demonstrating a reduction in the concentration of ammonia or ammonium salts and an
increase in the concentrations of nitrites and nitrates.
Non-contact cooling water - Water used for cooling in process and nonprocess applications
which does not come into contact with any raw material, intermediate product, by-product, waste
product (including air emissions), or finished product.
Non-conventional pollutants - Pollutants that are neither conventional pollutants nor priority
pollutants listed at 40 CFR §401.15 and Part 423 Appendix A.
Non-detect value - The analyte is below the level of detection that can be reliably measured by
the analytical method. This is also known in statistical terms as left-censoring.
15-6
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Non-water quality environmental impact - Deleterious aspects of control and treatment
technologies applicable to point source category wastes, including, but not limited to air
pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NRA - National Renderers Association
NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council
NPDES program - The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
authorized by Sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act. It applies to facilities that
discharge wastewater directly to United States surface waters.
NSPS - New Source Performance Standards, applicable to industrial facilities whose
construction is begun after the effective date of the final regulations (if those regulations are
promulgated after 120 days from publication of proposal in the Federal Register). See 40 CFR
122.2.
NTTA - National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NWPCAM - The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model (version 1.1) is a
computer model to model the instream dissolved oxygen concentration, as influenced by
pollutant reductions of BOD5, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform
bacteria.
Q
Off-site - Outside the boundaries of a facility
On-site - The same or geographically contiguous property, which may be divided by a public or
private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads
intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along the right-of-way. Non-
contiguous properties owned by the same company or locality but connected by a right-of-way,
which it controls, and to which the public does not have access, is also considered on-site
property.
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Out-of-scope - Out-of-scope facilities are facilities which EPA has not determined to be subject
to provisions of this guideline, or facilities that do not engage in meat products operations.
Outfall - The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a facility effluent
discharges into receiving waters.
Packinghouse - A plant that both slaughters animals and subsequently processes carcasses into
cured, smoked, canned, or other prepared meat products.
Pass through - The term "pass through" means a discharge that exits the POTW into waters of
the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge
or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's
NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation).
Point source - Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. See CWA section 502(14).
Pollutants of concern (POCs) - Pollutants commonly found in meat and poultry processing
wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is considered as a POC if it is detected in untreated process
wastewater at five times a baseline value in more than 10 percent of the samples.
Poultry - Broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons, geese,
ducks, and small game such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits.
Poultry operations - Includes poultry slaughtering operations, by-product operations, rendering,
and further processing.
Priority pollutant - 126 compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of
pollutants outlined, pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA.
Process wastewater - Any water which, during red meat or poultry operations, comes into direct
contact with or results from the storage, production, or use of any raw material, intermediate
15-8
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
product, finished product, by-product, or waste product. Wastewater from equipment cleaning,
direct-contact air pollution control devices, rinse water, storm water associated with industrial
activity, and contaminated cooling water are considered to be process wastewater. Process
wastewater may also include wastewater that is contract hauled for off-site disposal. Sanitary
wastewater, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water, and storm water not associated with
industrial activity are not considered to be process wastewater.
PSES - Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect discharges, under Section 307(b)
of the CWA, applicable (for this rule) to indirect dischargers that commenced construction prior
to promulgation of the final rule.
PSNS - Pretreatment standards for new sources under Section 307(c) of the CWA.
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) - A treatment works as defined by section 212 of the
Clean Water Act, which is owned by a State or municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the
Clean Water Act). This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage,
treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature.
It also includes sewers, pipes and other conveyances, only if they convey wastewater to a POTW
treatment plant. The term also means the municipality as defined in section 502(4) of the Clean
Water Act, which has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to and the discharges from such a
treatment works.
R
Raw material - The basic input materials to a Tenderer, composed of animal and poultry
trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals, feathers and related usable by-products.
RCRA - The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Section
6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid
and hazardous wastes.
Renderer (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart J) - An independent or off-site rendering
operation, conducted separately from a slaughterhouse, packinghouse, or poultry dressing or
15-9
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
processing plant, that manufactures at rates greater than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day of
meat meal, tankage, animal fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may cure cattle hides, but
excluding marine oils, fish meal, and fish oils.
RFA - Regulatory Flexibility Act
Sample-specific detection limit - The smallest quantity in the experiment calibration range that
may be measured reliably in any given sample.
SAP - Sampling and analysis plan.
Sausage and luncheon meat processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart G) - An operation
that cuts fresh meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, smokes, or otherwise produces finished products,
such as sausage, bologna, and luncheon meats at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 Ib) per day.
SBREFA - Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
SCC - Sample control center
SER - Small entity representative
SIC - Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) - A numerical categorization system used by the
U.S. Department of Commerce to catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products,
or group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered by an operating
establishment. SIC codes are used to group establishments by the economic activities in which
they are engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic
activities.
Simple slaughterhouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart A) - A slaughterhouse that
accomplishes very limited by-product processing, if any, usually no more than two of such
operations as rendering, paunch and viscera handling, blood processing, hide processing, or hair
processing.
15-10
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Site - A site is generally one contiguous physical location at which manufacturing operations
related to the meat products industry occur. This includes, but is not limited to, slaughtering,
processing, and rendering. In some instances, a site may include properties located within
separate fence lines, but located close to each other.
Slaughter house - A plant that slaughters animals and has as its main product fresh meat as
whole, half, or quarter carcasses, or smaller meat cuts.
Small-business - The definitions of small business for the meat products industries are in SBA's
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards were updated effective October 1, 2000.
SBA size standards for the meat and poultry products industry (i.e., forNAICS codes 311611,
311612, 311613, and 311615) define a"small business" as one with 500 or fewer employees.
Small processor - (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart E) An operation that produces up to
2730 kg (6000 Ib) per day of any type or combination of finished products.
Stearin - An ester of glycerol and stearic acid found in MPP wastewaters.
Surface water - Waters of the United States, as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
J
TKN - Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Treatment - Any method, technique, or process designed to change the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of any metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to
neutralize such wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge, or to recover metal, oil, or
organic content from the wastes.
TSS - Total suspended solids
V
Variability factor - Used in calculating a limitation (or standard) to allow for reasonable
variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through extensively and well designed
ITU
-------
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are
accounted for in the limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the long-
term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in limitations that are generally well above
the actual long-term averages.
Viscera handling (wet or dry viscera handling) - Includes removal of partially digested feed and
washing of viscera.
w
Wastewater - See Process Wastewater.
Wastewater treatment - The processing of wastewater by physical, chemical, biological, or
other means to remove specific pollutants from the wastewater stream, or to alter the physical or
chemical state of specific pollutants in the wastewater stream. Treatment is performed for
discharge of treated wastewater, recycle of treated wastewater to the same process which
generated the wastewater, or for reuse of the treated wastewater in another process.
Wet rendering - The process of cooking animal byproducts by steam under pressure in closed
tanks.
Zero (or alternate) Discharge - Disposal of process and/or nonprocess wastewaters other than
by direct discharge to a surface water or by indirect discharge to a POTW or PrOTW. Examples
include land application, deep well injection, and contract hauling.
15-12
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND BASELINE VALUES
A-l
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
The analytical methods described in this appendix were used to determine pollutant levels
in wastewater samples collected by EPA and industry at a number of meat and poultry product
facilities (sampling efforts are described in Section 3.) In developing the proposed rule, EPA
sampled facilities to determine the levels of Aeromonas, ammonia as nitrogen, biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand
(COD), chloride, Cryptosporidium, dissolved biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved total
phosphorus, E. coli, fecal coliform, fecal streptococcus, 21 metals, oil and grease (measured as
hexane extractable material (HEM)), nitrate/nitrite, six pesticides, Salmonella, total coliform,
total dissolved solids (TDS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total organic carbon (TOC), total
orthophosphate, total phosphorus, total residual chlorine, total suspended solids (TSS), and
volatile residue. As explained in Section 7, EPA is regulating a subset of these pollutants.
Sections A.I and A.2 of this appendix provide explanations of nominal quantitation
limits and baseline values. Section A.3 describes the reporting conventions used by laboratories
in expressing the results of the analyses. Section A.4 describes each analytical method and the
corresponding baseline values that EPA used in determining the pollutants of concern. Section
A.5 defines total nitrogen. Table A-l lists the analytical methods and baseline values used for
each pollutant.
A.I NOMINAL QUANTITATION LIMITS
The nominal quantitation limit is the smallest quantity of an analyte that can be reliably
measured with a particular method. Protocols used for determination of nominal quantitation
limits in a particular method depend on the definitions and conventions that EPA used at the time
the method was developed. The nominal quantitation limits associated with the methods
addressed in this section fall into five categories.
1) The first category pertains to EPA Methods 1660 and 1664, which define the
minimum level (ML) as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system
must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte.
These methods are described in Section A.4.1.
A-2
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
2) The second category pertains specifically to EPA Method 1620, and is explained
in detail in Section A.4.2.
3) The third category pertains to the remainder of the chemical methods (classical
wet chemistry and pesticides) in which a variety of terms are used to describe the
lowest level at which measurement results are quantitated. In some cases
(especially with the classical wet chemistry analytes) the methods date to the
1970s and 1980s when different concepts of quantitation were employed by EPA.
These methods typically list a measurement range or lower limit of measurement.
The terms differ by method and, as discussed in subsequent sections, the levels
presented are not always representative of the lowest levels laboratories currently
can achieve.
For those methods associated with a calibration procedure, the laboratories
demonstrated through a low-point calibration standard that they were capable of
reliable quantitation at method-specified (or lower) levels. In such cases these
nominal quantitation limits are operationally equivalent to the ML (though not
specifically identified as such in the methods). In the case of titrimetric or
gravimetric methods, the laboratory adhered to the established lower limit of the
measurement range published in the methods. Details of the specific methods are
presented in Section A.4.3 through A.4.17.
4) The fourth category pertains to Cryptosporidium. There is currently no detection
limit associated with the method used to determine Cryptosporidium (EPA
Method 1622 described in Section A.4.18); so when Cryptosporidium was not
found in the sample, there was no number that was associated with the sample.
Therefore, there is no nominal quantitation limit for Cryptosporidium.
5) The fifth category pertains to all microbiological methods except
Cryptosporidium. The fifth category pertains specifically to the multiple-tube test
procedure and is explained in detail in Section A.4.19.
A-3
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.2 BASELINE VALUES
As described further in Section 7, in determining the pollutants of concern, EPA
compared the reported concentrations for each pollutant to a multiple of the baseline value. As
described in Section A.3 and shown in Table A-l, for most pollutants, the baseline value was set
equal to the nominal quantitation limit for the analytical method. EPA made two general types of
exceptions which are briefly described below. Section A.4 provides additional details about
these exceptions in the context of the analytical method.
The first type of exceptions were baseline values that were different than the nominal
quantitation limits in the analytical methods. When the baseline values had lower values, EPA
made these exceptions because the laboratory had submitted data that demonstrated reliable
measurements could be obtained at lower levels for those pollutants. When the baseline values
had higher values, EPA concluded that the nominal quantitation limit for a specified method was
less than the level that laboratories could reliably achieve and adjusted the baseline value
upward.
The second type of exceptions were baseline values set at a common value for multiple
analytical methods for the same pollutant. For some analytes, EPA permitted the laboratories to
choose between methods to accommodate sample characteristics. When these methods had
different nominal quantitation limits, EPA generally used the one with the lowest value or the
one associated with the method used for most samples.
A.3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORTING CONVENTIONS
The laboratories expressed results of the analyses either numerically or as not quantitated1
for a pollutant in a sample. If the result is expressed numerically, then the pollutant was
quantitated2 in the sample. All of the analytical chemistry data were reported as liquid
1 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA refers to pollutants as "not
detected" or "non-detected". This appendix uses the term "not quantitated" or "non-quantitated" rather than non-
detected.
2 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA refers to pollutants as
"detected". This appendix uses the term "quantitated" rather than detected.
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
concentrations in weight/volume units, e.g., micrograms per liter (|-ig/L). Cryptosporidium
results were reported in the calculated number of Cryptosporidium oocysts detected per liter.
Bacteriological data generated using multiple-tube fermentation techniques were reported as
most probable number (MPN)/100 mL.
For example, for a hypothetical pollutant X, the result would be reported as "15 |-ig/L"
when the laboratory quantitated the amount of pollutant X in the sample as being 15 |-ig/L. For
the non-quantitated results, for each sample, the laboratories reported a "sample-specific
quantitation limit."3 For example, for the hypothetical pollutant X, the result would be reported
as "<10 |-ig/L" when the laboratory could not quantitate the amount of pollutant X in the sample.
That is, the analytical result indicated a value less than the sample-specific quantitation limit of
10 |-ig/L. The actual amount of pollutant X in that sample is between zero (i.e., the pollutant is
not present) and 10 |-ig/L. The sample-specific quantitation limit for a particular pollutant is
generally the smallest quantity in the calibration range that can be measured reliably in any given
sample. If a pollutant is reported as non-quantitated in a particular wastewater sample, this does
not mean that the pollutant is not present in the wastewater, merely that analytical techniques
(whether because of instrument limitations, pollutant interactions or other reasons) do not permit
its measurement at levels below the sample-specific quantitation limit.
In its calculations, EPA generally substituted the reported value of the sample-specific
quantitation limit for each non-quantitated result. In a few cases described in Section A.4.1,
when the sample-specific quantitation limit was less than the baseline value, EPA substituted the
baseline value for the non-quantitated result. And in a few instances also described in Section
A.4.1, when the quantitated value was below the baseline value, EPA considered these values to
be non-quantitated in the statistical analyses and substituted the baseline value for the measured
value.
3 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA refers to a "sample-specific
quantitation limit" as a "sample-specific detection limit" or, more simply, as a "detection limit."
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4 ANALYTICAL METHODS
EPA analyzed all of the meat product facility wastewater samples using methods
identified in Table A-l. (As explained in Section 7, EPA is proposing to regulate only a subset
of these analytes.) EPA generally used either EPA methods from "Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes' (MCAWW) or the American Public Health Association's
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater." Table A-l provides a
summary of the analytical methods, the associated pollutants measured by the method, the
nominal quantitation levels, and the baseline levels. The following sections provide additional
information supporting the summary in Table A-l.
In analyzing samples, EPA generally used analytical methods approved at 40 CFR 136 for
compliance monitoring or methods that had been in use by EPA for decades in support of
effluent guidelines development. Exceptions for use of non-approved methods are explained in
the method-specific subsections that follow Table A-l. Except for nitrate/nitrite, EPA proposed
limitations or standards based only upon data generated by methods approved in 40 CFR Part
136. As explained in Section A.4.10, EPA used nitrate/nitrite data from Method 300.0 to
develop the proposed limitations and standards for total nitrogen and is proposing the use of
Method 300.0 for compliance.
Each of the following sections state whether the method is approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 (even if the pollutant was not proposed to be regulated), provides
a short description of the method, identifies the nominal quantitation limit, and explains EPA's
choice for the baseline value. The sections are ordered alphabetically by analyte name within the
five categories identified in Section A.I.
A-6
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Table A-l. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Analyte
Aeromonas
Ammonia as Nitrogen
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
BOD5
Boron
Cadmium
Carbonaceous BOD5
Carbaryl
COD
Chloride
Chromium
czs-Permethrin
Cobalt
Copper
Cryptosporidium
Dichlorvos
Dissolved BOD5
Dissolved Total Phosphorus
E. coli
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Streptococcus
HEM
Lead
Malathion
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Method
9260L
350.2
1620
1620
1620
1620
405.1
1620
1620
5210
405.1
632
410.1
410.2
410.4 (automated)
410.4 (manual)
5220B
300.0
325.3
1620
1660
1620
1620
1622
1657
405.1
365.2
365.3
9221F
9221E
9230B
1664
1620
1657
1620
1620
1620
CAS
Number
C2101
7664417
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
COOS
7440428
7440439
C002
C002
63252
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
16887006
16887006
7440473
61949766
7440484
7440508
137259508
62737
C003D
14265442D
14265442D
C050
C2106
C2107
C036
7439921
121755
7439965
7439976
7439987
Nominal
Quantitation
Value
2.0
0.20
20.0
10.0
200.0
5.0
2.0
100.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
50.0
5.0
3.0
20.0f
5.0
0.05
1.0
10.0
5.0
50.0
25.0
2.0
2.0
0.01
0.01
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
50.0
2.0
15
0.20
10.0
Baseline
Value
2.0
0.20
20.0
10.0
200.0
5.0
2.0
100.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
5.0"
5.0"
5.0"
5.0
1.0
1.0
10.0
5.0
50.0
25.0
2.0
2.0
0.01
0.01
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
50.0
2.0
15
0.20
10.0
Unit
/lOOmL
mg/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|Ig/L
|Ig/L
mg/L
|ag/L
|Ig/L
mg/L
mg/L
|ag/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
per_L
|ag/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
/lOOmL
/lOOmL
/lOOmL
mg/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
A-7
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Analyte
Nickel
Nitrate/Nitrite
Salmonella
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachlorvinphos
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Total Coliform
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Organic Carbon
Total Orthophosphate
Total Phosphorus
Total Residual Chlorine
Total Suspended Solids
frans-Permethrin
Vanadium
Volatile Residue
Yttrium
Zinc
Method
1620
300.0
353.1
353.2
FDA-BAM
1620
1620
1657
1620
1620
1620
922 IB
160.1
351.2
351.3
415.1
300.0
365.2
365.2
365.3
HACH8167
330.5
160.2
1660
1620
160.4
1620
1620
CAS
Number
7440020
COOS
COOS
COOS
68583357
7782492
7440224
22248799
7440280
7440315
7440326
E10606
C010
C021
C021
C012
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
7782505
7782505
C009
61949777
7440622
C030
7440655
7440666
Nominal
Quantitation
Value
40.0
0.01
0.01
0.05
2.0
5.0
10.0
2.0
10.0
30.0
5.0
2.0
10.0
0.10
0.50
1.0
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.20
4.0
5.0
50.0
10.0
5.0
20.0
Baseline
Value
40.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
2.0
5.0
10.0
2.0
10.0
30.0
5.0
2.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.20
4.0
5.0
50.0
10.0
5.0
20.0
Unit
|ag/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
/lOOmL
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
/lOOmL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
mg/L
|ag/L
|ag/L
"The baseline value was adjusted to reflect the lowest nominal quantitation limit of the titrimetric procedures (i.e.,
410.1, 410.2, and 5220B). See Section A.4.6 for a detailed explanation.
Method 410.4 lists two different quantitation limits that are dependent upon whether the automated or manual
protocols were followed. The automated method limit =3 mg/L and the manual method limit =20 mg/L.
A-8
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.1 EPA Methods 1660 and 1664 (cw-Permethrin, fraws-Permethrin, HEM)
Laboratories used EPA Method 1660 to measure c/s-permethrin and ?rans-permethrin,
and EPA Method 1664 to measure n-hexane extractable material (HEM). While 40 CFR Part
136 lists Method 1664 as an approved method for compliance monitoring of HEM, Part 136 does
not list any methods for the pesticides czs-permethrin and ?rans-permethrin. However, Table 7 in
40 CFR 455 lists Method 1660 as approved for compliance monitoring of permethrin for the
Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category. (Permethrin is the common name given to any
mixture of the two isomers, czs-permethrin and zrans-permethrin.)
These methods use the minimum level (ML) concept for quantitation of the pollutant(s).
The ML is defined as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system must give a
recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte. When an ML is published
in a method, the Agency has demonstrated that the ML can be achieved in at least one well-
operated laboratory. When that laboratory or another laboratory uses that method, the laboratory
is required to demonstrate, through calibration of the instrument or analytical system, that it can
achieve pollutant measurements at the ML.
For czs-Permethrin, /rans-Permethrin, and HEM, EPA used the method-specified MLs as
the baseline values. In determining the pollutants of concern and in calculating the HEM
standards, if a quantitated value or sample-specific quantitation limit was reported with a value
less than the ML specified in the method, EPA substituted the value of the ML and assumed that
the measurement was not quantitated. For example, for czs-permethrin with an ML of 5 |-ig/L, if
the laboratory reported a quantitated value of 3 |-ig/L, EPA would have assumed that the
concentration was not quantitated4 with a sample-specific quantitation limit of 5 |-ig/L. The
objective of this comparison was to identify any results for the three pollutants reported below
the method-defined ML. Results reported below the ML were changed to the ML to ensure that
all results used by EPA were reliable. In most cases, the quantitated values and sample-specific
quantitation limits were equal to or greater than the baseline values.
4 As explained in Appendix C, EPA applied different statistical assumptions to quantitated and non-
quantitated results.
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.2 EPA Method 1620 (Metals)
Laboratories used EPA Method 1620 to measure the concentrations of 21 metals. While
EPA Method 1620 is not listed in 40 CFR Part 136 as an approved method for compliance
monitoring, it represents a consolidation of the analytical techniques in several 40 CFR 136-
approved methods such as EPA Method 200.7 (inductively coupled plasma atomic emission
(TCP) spectroscopy of trace elements) and Method 245.1 (mercury cold vapor atomic absorption
technique). This method was developed specifically for the effluent guidelines program. EPA
Method 1620 includes more metal analytes than are listed in the approved methods and contains
quality control requirements at least as stringent as the 40 CFR Part 136-approved methods.
EPA Method 1620 employs the concept of an instrument detection limit (IDE). The IDE
is defined as "the smallest signal above background noise that an instrument can detect reliably."5
Data reporting practices for EPA Method 1620 analyses follow conventional metals reporting
practices used in other EPA programs, in which values are required to be reported at or above the
IDE. In applying EPA Method 1620, IDLs are determined on a quarterly basis by each analytical
laboratory and are, therefore, laboratory-specific and time-specific. Although EPA Method 1620
contains MLs, these MLs pre-date EPA's recent refinements of the ML concept described earlier.
The ML values associated with EPA Method 1620 are based on a consensus opinion reached
between EPA and laboratories during the 1980s regarding levels that could be considered reliable
quantitation limits when using EPA Method 1620. These limits do not reflect advances in
technology and instrumentation since the 1980s. Consequently, the IDLs were used as the lowest
values for reporting purposes, with the general understanding that reliable results can be
produced at or above the IDE. Though the baseline values were derived from the MLs (or
adjusted MLs) in EPA Method 1620, EPA used the laboratory-reported quantitated values and
sample-specific quantitation limits, which captured concentrations down to the IDLs, in its data
analyses.
5 Keith, L.H., W. Crummett, J. Deegan, R.A. Libby, J.K. Taylor, G. Wentler (1983). "Principles of
Environmental Analysis," Analytical Chemistry, Volume 55, Page 2217.
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
In general, EPA used the MLs specified in Method 1620 as the baseline values.
However, EPA adjusted the baseline value for lead to 50 |_ig/L and boron to 100 |-ig/L. In EPA
Method 1620, lead has an ML of 5 |_ig/L for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA)
spectroscopy analysis; EPA determined, however, that it was not necessary for the laboratories to
measure down to such low levels, and that lead could be analyzed by inductively couple plasma
atomic emission (ICP) spectroscopy.6 Consequently, the ML requirement was adjusted to 50
|J,g/L, the ML for the ICP method. In EPA Method 1620, boron has an ML of 10 |J,g/L, but
laboratory feedback years ago indicated that laboratories could not reliably achieve this low level.
As a result, EPA only required laboratories to measure values at 100 |_ig/L and above. Thus,
EPA adjusted the baseline value to 100 |-ig/L.
A.4.3 Method 350.2 (Ammonia as Nitrogen)
Ammonia as nitrogen was measured using Method 350.2, which is listed as approved for
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 350.2 utilizes either colorimetric,
titrimetric, or electrode procedures to measure ammonia.
Method 350.2 has a lower measurement range limit of 0.20 mg/L for the colorimetric and
electrode procedures, and a lower measurement range limit of 1.0 mg/L for the titrimetric
procedure. Rather than use different baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the 0.20
mg/L because it represented a value at which ammonia as nitrogen can be measured reliably by
several determinative techniques in Method 350.2, as well as in other methods approved at 40
CFR 136.
A.4.4 Methods 405.1 and SM5210B (BOD5, Carbonaceous BOD5, and Dissolved
BOD5)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Carbonaceous BOD5 (cBOD5), and Dissolved
BOD5 were measured using Method 405.1 and Standard Method (SM) 5210B, both of which are
approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. BOD5 and cBOD5 are essentially the
6 Also antimony, arsenic, selenium, and thallium were analyzed by ICP instead of GFAA. The method MLs
were used because the laboratories demonstrated that their IDLs were able to quantitate below the ML for these four
analytes.
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
same method, except an organic compound is added to the cBOD5 test to inhibit nitrogenous
oxygen deemand. If the sample does not include any nitrogenous demand to inhibit, the results
should be comparable for BOD5 and cBOD5. BOD5 and dissolved BOD5 are the same method,
except that the dissolved BOD5 sample is filtered prior to analysis (either in the field or
immediately upon receipt by the laboratory).
Method 405.1 and SM5210B are identical and the nominal quantitation limit, which is
expressed in the methods as the lower limit of the measurement range at 2 mg/L, is the same for
all three forms of BOD5. EPA used this nominal quantitation limit of 2 mg/L as the baseline
value in determining the pollutants of concern.
A.4.5 EPA Method 632 (Carbaryl)
Carbaryl was determined by EPA Method 632. There are no methods approved in 40
CFR Part 136 for carbaryl. However, Method 632 is approved for compliance monitoring of
carbaryl for the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category (see Table 7 in 40 CFR Part 455).
In this method, samples are prepared by liquid-liquid extraction with methylene chloride
in a separatory funnel. The extract is analyzed by a high-pressure liquid chromatograph with a
UV detector. The nominal quantitation limit was determined by a low-point calibration standard.
The nominal quantitation limit for carbaryl is 1 |_ig/L and was used as the baseline value.
A.4.6 Methods 410.1, 410.2, 410.4, and SM5220B (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) was measured using Methods 410.1, 410.2, 410.4, and
SM5220B, of which Methods 410.1, 410.2, and 410.4 are approved for compliance monitoring in
40 CFR Part 136. Methods 410.1 and 410.2 are titrimetric procedures that follow identical
analytical protocols, but differ only in the range of COD concentration that they are designed to
measure. Reagent concentrations and sample volumes are adjusted to accommodate a wide range
of sample concentrations, since the dynamic range of the chemistry used to detect COD is
somewhat limited. Standard Method 5220B is a titrimetric method that incorporates the different
reagent concentrations and sample volumes listed in Methods 410.1 and 410.2 into one method.
A-12
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Data from all three of these methods are directly comparable. Method 410.4 is a colorimetric
procedure.
Method 410.1 is designed to measure mid-level concentrations (greater than 50 mg/L) of
COD and is associated with a nominal quantitation limit of 50 mg/L. Method 410.2 is designed
to measure low-level concentrations of these parameters in the range of 5-50 mg/L. Method
410.4 has a measurement range of 3-900 mg/L for automated procedures and measurement range
of 20-900 mg/L for manual procedures. EPA contracts required that laboratories measure down
to the lowest quantitation limit possible for whatever method is used. Therefore, if the laboratory
analyzes a sample using Method 410.1 and obtains a non-quantitated result, it must reanalyze the
sample using Method 410.2. Thus, the quantitation limit reported for non-quantitated results was
equal to 5 mg/L, unless sample dilutions were required for matrix complexities.
For all COD data, EPA used the baseline value of 5 mg/L that is associated with the
lower quantitation limit for the titrimetric procedures because most of the data used to determine
the pollutants of concern had been obtained by the titrimetric procedures (i.e., Methods 410.1,
410.2, or SM5220B).
A.4.7 Methods 325.3 and 300.0 (Chloride)
Chloride was measured using Methods 325.3, which is approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136, and 300.0, which is not listed in Part 136. Method 325.3 is a
colorimetric (actually titrimetric) procedure and measures concentrations greater than 1 mg/L.
Method 300.0 uses ion chromatography and can measure down to 0.05 mg/L. EPA allowed
laboratories to use Method 300.0 even though it is not approved at 40 CFR Part 136 because the
analytical methods normally used for chloride are subject to interferences sometimes present in
samples containing blood, animal tissue, and/or other particulates. With Method 300.0, the
complex matrices are not a factor and this method has a lower nominal quantitation limit than
Method 325.1. (Section A.4.10 provides a more detailed description of Method 300.0.)
For all chloride data, EPA used the baseline value of 1 mg/L that is associated with the
higher quantitation limit for the colorimetric procedure because most of the data used in the
A-13
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
pollutants of concern analysis had been obtained by the colorimetric procedure (i.e., Method
325.3).
A.4.8 EPA Method 1657 (Dichlorvos, Malathion, Tetrachlorvinphos)
Laboratories used Method 1657 to measure dichlorvos, malathion, and tetrachlorvinphos
concentrations in the samples. There is one approved method for malathion at 40 CFR Part 136:
Standard Method 6630C; however, the other two pesticides are not listed in 40 CFR Part 136.
EPA Method 1657 was selected for analysis of all three pesticides for several reasons, including:
• Method 1657 is approved for compliance monitoring of all three pesticides for the
Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category (see Table 77 in 40 CFR 455).
• EPA 1600-series methods were developed specifically for the effluent guidelines
program; therefore, they have more stringent quality control requirements than
Standard Methods; and
• It was more economical to use one method for the three pesticides, rather than
analyzing malathion separately by SM6630C.
In Method 1657, samples are prepared by liquid-liquid extraction. The extract is dried
and concentrated and a l-|_iL aliquot of the extract is injected into the gas chromatography. The
nominal quantitation limit of 2 |J,g/L was used as the baseline value for all three pesticides. This
nominal quantitation limit was determined from the results of low-point calibration standards.
A.4.9 Methods 365.2 and 365.3 (Dissolved Total Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus)
Dissolved total phosphorus and total phosphorus were measured using Method 365.2 and
365.3, respectively. Both methods are approved for compliance monitoring of total phosphorus
in 40 CFR Part 136. Total phosphorus represents all of the phosphorus present in the sample,
regardless of form, as measured by the persulfate digestion procedure.
7 Table 7 lists tetrachlorvinphos as stirofos.
A-14
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
The two methods differ only in the preparation of one of the reagents. Method 365.2
specifies the separation of the ammonium molybdate and the antimony potassium tartrate from
the ascorbic acid reagent. Method 365.3 allows combining these reagents into a single solution.
Because the chemistry is unaffected, the data are directly comparable.
These methods have the same nominal quantitation limit of 0.01 mg/L for both analytes.
EPA used this value as the baseline value for both dissolved total phosphorus and total
phosphorus.
A.4.10 Methods 300.0, 353.1, and 353.2 (Nitrate/Nitrite)
Nitrate/nitrite was measured using Methods 300.0, 353.1, and 353.2. Methods 353.1 and
353.2 are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136, while Method 300.0 is not
listed in Part 136. However, because nitrate/nitrite is a component of total nitrogen (see Section
A.5), EPA is proposing to approve EPA Method 300.0 at 40 CFR Part 432 for compliance
monitoring of nitrate/nitrite. Alternatively, EPA may amend 40 CFR Part 136 to include Method
300.0 for determination of nitrate/nitrite from wastewaters in the meat and poultry products point
source category. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA has requested comment on the use of
this method for the meat and poultry point source category and whether the method should be
approved at 40 CFR Part 432 or at 40 CFR Part 136 or both.
Many of the analytical methods for nitrite/nitrate that are currently approved at 40 CFR
Part 136, including Methods 353.1 and 353.2, are based on colorimetric techniques (i.e., adding
reagents to a sample that form a colored product when they react with the nitrate/nitrite and
measuring the intensity of the colored product). Such methods can be subject to interferences in
the difficult matrices associated with this industry where samples may contain blood, animal
tissue, and/or other particulates which affect both the color development and ability to pass light
through the sample to measure the intensity of the colored product. In contrast, Method 300.0
employs the technique known as ion chromatography to measure 10 inorganic anions, including
nitrate and nitrite. Ion chromatography permits the various inorganic anions to be separated from
one another, as well as from other materials and contaminants present in the sample. Each anion
can be identified on the basis of its characteristic retention time (the time required to pass
A-15
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
through the instrumentation). After separation, the anions are measured by a conductivity
detector that responds to changes in the effluent from the ion chromatograph that occur when the
negatively charged anions (analytes) elute at characteristic retention times, thereby changing the
conductivity of the solution. Thus, Method 300.0 offers better specificity for nitrate and nitrite in
the presence of interferences compared to the approved colorimetric methods. Method 300.0 is
located in the rulemaking record (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.10036).
Methods 353.1 and 353.2 are essentially the same method, with variations in the
technique used to reduce the nitrite (NO2) present in the sample to nitrate (NO3). Method 353.1
uses hydrazine to accomplish the reduction, while 353.2 uses cadmium granules. Method 353.2
is generally preferred simply because the cadmium granules are far easier to handle and less toxic
than hydrazine. The chemistry of the colorimetric determination is the same, as are the
interferences.
Each of the three methods lists slightly different nominal quantitation limits that are
expressed in the methods as the lower limit of the measurement range. The nominal quantitation
limit for Method 353.1 is 0.01 mg/L and the nominal quantitation limit for Method 353.2 is 0.05
mg/L. Rather than use different baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the nominal
quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L from Method 353.1 as the baseline value for nitrate/nitrite. EPA
chose this value because Method 353.1 was used to obtain most of the data used in the pollutants
of concern analysis. It is also the maximum of the nominal quantitation limits from the three
methods.
A.4.11 Method 160.1 (Total Dissolved Solids)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) was measured by Method 160.1, which is approved for
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 (see 'residue - filterable'). Method 160.1 is a
gravimetric method with a lower limit measurement range of 10 mg/L. EPA used this nominal
quantitation limit of 10 mg/L as the baseline value.
A-16
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.12 Methods 351.2 and 351.3 (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN))
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was measured by Methods 351.2 and 351.3, both of which
are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 351.2 is designed to be
used with a flow colorimetry apparatus with a lower measurement range limit of 0.1 mg/L.
Method 351.3 is a manual colorimetric analysis that has a lower measurement range limit of 0.5
mg/L. Rather than use different baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the nominal
quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L from Method 351.3 as the baseline value for TKN. EPA chose
this value because Method 351.3 was used to obtain most of the data used in the pollutants of
concern analysis. It is also the maximum of the nominal quantitation limits from the two
methods.
A.4.13 Method 415.1 (Total Organic Carbon (TOC))
Total organic carbon (TOC) was determined by Method 415.1, which is approved for
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 415.1 is a combustion (or oxidation)
method with a lower measurement range limit of 1 mg/L. EPA used this nominal quantitation
limit of 1 mg/L as the baseline value.
A.4.14 Methods 365.2 and 300.0 (Total Orthophosphate)
Methods 365.2 and 300.0 were used to measure Orthophosphate concentrations. Total
orthophosphate is the inorganic phosphorus (PO4) in the sample. Method 365.2 is approved for
compliance monitoring of total orthophosphate in 40 CFR Part 136, while Method 300.0 is not.
As explained previously (see Sections A.4.7 and A.4.10), EPA allowed laboratories to use
Method 300.0 because interferences, sometimes present in samples containing blood, animal
tissue, and/or other particulates, are not a factor in the analysis.
Method 365.2 is a colorimetric method for determining orthophosphate and measures
concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/L. Method 300.0 uses ion chromatography and can measure
down to 0.20 mg/L. For all orthophosphate data, EPA used the baseline value of 0.01 mg/L, that
is associated with the lower quantitation limit for the colorimetric procedure because the
A-17
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
laboratories used Method 365.2 to produce the majority of the data used in the pollutants of
concern analysis.
A.4.15 Methods HACH 8167 and 330.5 (Total Residual Chlorine)
Total residual chlorine was determined by Methods 330.5 and HACH 8167. Method
330.5 is approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Methods 330.5 and HACH
8167 use the same colorimetric reagent, N,N-diethyl-p-phenylene diamine (DPD), and are
essentially the same procedure; thus, the data are directly comparable.
The nominal quantitation limit in Method 330.5 is 0.2 mg/L; the nominal quantitation
limit for method HACH 8167 is 0.1 mg/L. Rather than use two different baseline values for the
same pollutant, EPA used the value associated with Method 330.5 (i.e., 0.2 mg/L) as the baseline
value because Method 330.5 produced the majority of the data used in the pollutants of concern
analysis. It also is the higher of the two values.
A.4.16 Method 160.2 (Total Suspended Solids)
Total suspended solids (TSS) was determined by Method 160.2, which is approved for
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 160.2 is a gravimetric method with a lower
limit measurement range of 4 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit of 4 mg/L was used as the
baseline value.
A.4.17 Method 160.4 (Volatile Residue)
Volatile residue was determined by Method 160.4, which is approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 160.4 is a gravimetric and ignition method with a lower
limit measurement range of 10 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit of 10 mg/L was used as the
baseline value.
A.4.18 EPA Method 1622 (Cryptosporidium)
Cryptosporidium was determined by EPA Method 1622, which, as explained in Section
A.I, has not been approved for compliance monitoring. There are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved
A-18
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
methods for Cryptosporidium; however, EPA proposed Method 1622 for ambient water
monitoring on August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages 45811-45829). In Method 1622, the
laboratory filters a 10-L sample through an absolute-porosity filter to capture any target
organisms that may be present, elutes the filter, concentrates the eluate, purifies the concentrate
using immunomagnetic separation, and applies the purified sample to a microscope slide. The
purified sample is stained with an antibody stain and a vital dye stain, and target organisms are
identified and counted based on immunofluorescence assay, differential interference microscopy,
and vital dye staining characteristics.
Due to the high turbidity of the sample matrices for these episodes, it was necessary for
the analytical laboratory to modify the sample processing steps of the method, depending on the
nature of the particulates in the sample. For samples that contained a high concentration of
biological particles, a small volume of the sample (100 - 250 mL) was concentrated using
centrifugation and then processed according to EPA Method 1622. For samples with lower
concentrations of biological particulates that could be filtered, a 10-L sample was filtered through
a compressed foam filter, the filter was eluted, and the eluate was concentrated by centrifugation
and then processed according to EPA Method 1622.
As explained earlier, there is no detection limit or baseline value associated with EPA
Method 1622; however, EPA used the baseline value of zero in the pollutant of concern analysis.
Further, if Cryptosporidium was not quantitated, the sample was reported as zero.
A.4.19 SM9221B, SM9221E, SM9221F, SM9230B, SM9260L, FDA-BAM Chapter 5
(total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal Streptococcus, Aeromonas,
Salmonella)
Laboratories measured the densities of total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal
Streptococcus, Aeromonas, and Salmonella in 100-mL samples using the multiple-tube
fermentation test specified in Standard Methods. EPA used methods approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 for total coliform (SM9221B), fecal coliform (SM9221E), and
fecal streptococcus (SM9230B). There are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved methods for E.coli,
A-19
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Aeromonas, and Salmonella; however, EPA proposed ambient water monitoring methods for
E.coli on August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages 45811-45829).
In measuring total coliforms (SM 922IB), fecal coliforms (SM 922IE), and E. coli (SM
922IF), samples were inoculated into a presumptive medium (Lauryl tryptose broth) and
incubated. Tubes positive for growth and gas production were transferred into confirmatory
media: brilliant green bile broth (for total coliforms), EC (for fecal coliforms), or EC-MUG (for
E. coli). Tubes with acidic growth and gas production in their respective media were recorded as
positive.
In measuring fecal streptococcus (SM 9230B), samples were inoculated into a
presumptive medium (azide dextrose broth) and incubated. Tubes positive for turbidity (growth)
were confirmed by streaking onto bile esculin agar plates. All plates with typical growth were
recorded as positive for fecal streptococcus.
Aeromonas densities were determined using SM9260L, followed by the confirmation
steps in EPA Method 1605, to minimize false positive results. Samples were inoculated into a
presumptive medium (TSB30) and incubated. Tubes with growth were streaked onto ADA. All
yellow colonies were isolated on nutrient agar and confirmed as Aeromonas if they were oxidase
positive and were able to ferment trehalose. In addition to the biochemical confirmation, colony
morphologies from ADA and nutrient agar were recorded and used to differentiate between
Aeromonas and Bacillus.
The Food and Drug Administration-Biological Analytical Manual (FDA-BAM) Chapter 5
method was used to determine Salmonella densities. Samples were inoculated into a
presumptive medium (tetrathionate broth) and incubated. Tubes with growth were streaked onto
Hektoen enteric agar plates. Typical colonies were confirmed on triple sugar iron agar slants.
The FDA-BAM method was used instead of the approved EPA Kenner-Clark method because
FDA-BAM method performance is better suited for samples that contain blood and particulates.
The nominal quantitation limit for these analytes was determined using the most probable
number (MPN) approach specified in Standard Methods. The MPN of each target organism per
A-20
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
100 mL was calculated based on the positive and negative results from the analysis of multiple
replicates at multiple dilutions for each sample (see Table 9221.IV of Standard Methods and
Table 2 in Appendix 2 of FDA-BAM). Based on the tables in Standard Methods, the nominal
quantitation limit for all analytes was 2 MPN per 100 mL. The nominal quantitation limit was
used as the baseline value. No values were reported below the baseline value.
Table n in 40 CFR 136.3 specifies holding times of six hours for some pathogens. In its
sampling for this proposed rule, EPA measured counts in samples that had been retained longer
than the six hours specified in Table II. In its data review narratives (located in Section 6.1.4.2 of
the administrative record for the proposal), EPA has identified those samples that were retained
longer than eight hours at the laboratory (includes the six hours holding time allotted for delivery
to the laboratory plus an additional two hours at the laboratory). Method 922IE, an approved
method8 for fecal coliform, states that "Water treatment and other adverse environmental
conditions often place great stress on indicator bacteria, resulting in an extended lag phase before
logarithmic growth takes place." EPA is currently conducting a holding time study to assess
potential changes in pathogen concentrations in effluents over time (8, 24, 30, and 48 hours after
sample collection). This study will evaluate total and fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli,
Aeromonas species, and fecal streptococci for both the meat products and aquaculture industries
effluents. Additionally, Salmonella will be analyzed in meat products effluents. EPA is
conducting this holding time study for two purposes: to evaluate the use of data in developing the
limitations and standards; and for possible revisions to Table n. EPA notes that if the holding
time can be extended to longer periods, overnight shipping of samples would be possible for
compliance monitoring. However, EPA has not proposed any new limitations and standards for
these analytes. Rather, EPA plans to retain the current limitations and standards for fecal
coliform. The study plan for the holding time study is located at DCN 15060 in Section 6.1.4 of
the administrative record for the proposal. In the forthcoming NOD A, EPA will provide the data
collected during the study and its evaluation of the results.
' Per Table IA of 40 CFR 136.3.
A-21
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.5 TOTAL NITROGEN
EPA proposes to regulate total nitrogen to ensure that the relationship between organic
nitrogen (estimated by TKN) and inorganic nitrogen (estimated by nitrate/nitrite) is maintained,
thus EPA is defining for the purposes of this industry 'total nitrogen' to be the sum of
nitrate/nitrite and TKN. This summation will include nitrogen in the trinegative oxidation state
(the dominant oxidation state of nitrogen in organic compounds), ammonia-nitrogen, and
nitrogen in nitrite (NO2~) and nitrate (NO3~). In developing the limitations (see Section 13), EPA
used a baseline value of 0.1 mg/L which is the sum of the baseline values for nitrate/nitrite (0.05
mg/L) and TKN (0.05 mg/L).
A-22
-------
APPENDIX B
SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF NATIONAL
ESTIMATES
B-l
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
In 2001, EPA distributed two industry surveys. The first survey, entitled 2001 Meat
Products Industry Screener Survey (short survey), was mailed to 1,650 meat products industry
facilities. The second survey, entitled 2001 Meat Products Industry Survey (detailed survey),
was mailed to 350 meat products industry facilities.
Section B. 1 of this appendix describes the survey design (identification of facilities in the
industry and sample design). Section B.2 of this appendix describes the selection of the sample.
Section B.3 of this appendix describes response status of short survey facilities. Section B.4 of
this appendix describes the calculation of sample weights. Section B.5 of this appendix
describes the methodology for estimating national totals and their variance estimates. Section B.6
of this appendix summarizes EPA's plans for the analysis of the detailed survey.
B.I SURVEY DESIGN
This section describes the development of the sampling plan, which includes
identification of the meat products industry and stratification of facilities.
B.I.I Sample Frame
To produce a mailing list of facilities for the detailed survey and short survey, EPA
developed a sample frame of the meat products industry. A sample frame is a list of all members
(sampling units) of a population, from which a random sample of members will be drawn for the
survey. Therefore, a sample frame is the basis for the development of a sampling plan to select a
random sample. EPA used several data sources to construct this sample frame. The March 2000
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) database was the main source of data. It
was supplemented with information from the Urner-Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 and
an April 2000 list of 236 Tenderers provided by the National Renderers Association (NRA). The
sample frame for the meat product survey contained 8,217 facilities.
EPA classified each facility into sampling strata by considering facility type, facility size,
and type of animal used at the facility. Each facility was of one of the following 3 types: further
processor, first processor, or Tenderer. Three size categories were used to determine the facility
size. The size category was defined as large for facilities with 500 employees or more, small for
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
facilities with 10 to 499 employees, and very small for facilities with 9 employees or less. Each
facility on the sample frame specialized in one or several types of animal. These types of animal
corresponded to poultry, beef, pork, and other. Renderers were not identified by size or animal
type.
B.1.2 Sample Design
The sample frame for the survey included an unknown number of out-of-scope facilities.
In order to obtain reliable counts of eligible meat product facilities, i.e., the facilities that were in-
scope, by type and facility size directly from the frame, the survey was designed as a two-phase
sample.
A first-phase sample of 2,000 facilities was selected from a sample frame containing
8,217 facilities. Additionally, a second-phase sample of 350 facilities was selected from the first-
phase sample. All 350 second-phase sample facilities were mailed the detailed questionnaire,
while the remaining 1,650 first-phase sample facilities received the short questionnaire. While
the abridged form collected basic data to determine eligibility status and types of meat processed,
the long form collected data about the 350 second-phase sample facilities for technical and
financial information. Because of time constraints, both surveys were sent out simultaneously.
To improve the accuracy of estimates from the detailed survey, the final weights will be
calibrated to the estimated counts of eligible facilities from the short survey.
EPA identified a list of 65 facilities that were to be selected for the second-phase detailed
sample with certainty to obtain information necessary for evaluating facility operations and best
technology options. The first-phase and second-phase facility samples were stratified samples.
Stratification separated the eligible population into non-overlapping strata that were as
homogeneous as possible. Stratification assured that the sample would contain the same
proportions as found on the sample frame, for those variables used to define the strata. The first-
phase sample (selecting 1,935 non-certainties from 8,152) was stratified by facility type and size.
The stratification of the second-phase sample was based only on facility type, since just 285
facilities were to be selected from the 1,935 first-phase non-certainties.
B-3
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-l shows the distribution of facilities on the sample frame by facility type (first
processor, further processor, Tenderer, or missing), size, and certainty status. Most certainty
facilities were large first processors. Only 5 certainty facilities were small and none of the very
small facilities were included in the sample with certainty.
B.1.3 Imputing for Missing Facility Type
In order to estimate the number of eligible facilities by type, size, and meat product (the
purpose of the short survey) it was necessary to include samples of sufficient size from each
facility-type-by-size stratum. This required assigning each facility on the frame to one of these
strata; however, this information was unknown for many facilities; thus, EPA imputed the
missing stratification data.
Table B-l. Distribution of facilities in the sample frame by certainty, facility type, and size
Certainty status
Non-certainties
Facility type
First Processor
Further Processor
Renderer
Unknown
Non-certainty total
Certainties
First Processor
Further Processor
Renderer
Unknown
Certainty total
Grand total
Size
Large
149
34
0
50
233
56
1
0
2
59
292
Small
234
883
0
1,259
2,376
3
0
0
2
5
2,381
Very small
0
0
0
5,308
5,308
0
0
0
0
0
5,308
Unknown
0
0
235
0
235
0
0
1
0
1
236
Total
383
917
235
6,617
8,152
59
1
1
4
65
8,217
From Table B-l it is seen that facility type had to be imputed for 6,617 non-certainty
facilities.1 The facilities to be imputed a specific type were chosen randomly from the set of
facilities with missing type. The facilities with unknown facility type were distributed between
"first processors" and "further processors" proportionally to the reported size of each type.
1 It should be noted that no imputation was carried out on the 4 certainty facilities with missing facility type,
as they were to be included in the sample by design.
B-4
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Therefore, 9 (=50 x (347(34+149))) of the 50 large facilities with missing facility type were
assigned to the further processor category, while the remaining 41 large facilities were assigned
to the "first processor" category. Similarly, 995 of the 1,259 small facilities with missing facility
type were assigned the "further processor" type, and the remaining 264 small facilities were
assigned the "first processor" type. All very small facilities were assumed to be further
processors because very small facilities in this industry were typically further processors.
All imputed values were used only for allocating the sample. None of the values were
used for estimation and any wrong assumption simply resulted in a less efficient sample (larger
variance). In addition, this imputation process was not expected to introduce any bias in the
statistical procedure. For example, all very small facilities were assumed to be further
processors; however, if any very small facility reported as a first processor it was treated as such
in all analyses.
B.1.4 Imputing for Missing Animal Type
Before selecting the samples, the frame was sorted by animal type within each stratum.
This allowed for appropriate representation of the different animal types in random selection of
the sample. Table B-2 shows the distribution by animal type of noncertainty facilities that were
not Tenderers. It should be noted that the stratification did not require the specification of animal
type for the Tenderers. All large facilities with missing animal type were randomly assigned to
one of the 7 animal type categories described in Table B-2 proportionally to the large facilities
with animal types reported in the frame. On the other hand, small and very small facilities were
combined and randomly assigned to animal type groups proportionally to the number of small
facilities reported with animal types.
B-5
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-2. Distribution of noncertainty and non-renderer facilities imputed for animal type
Facility size
Large
Small and very small
Animal type
Pork only
Poultry only
Poultry & Pork
Beef only
Beef & Pork
Beef & Poultry
Beef & Poultry & Pork
Missing
Pork only
Poultry only
Poultry & Pork
Beef only
Beef & Pork
Beef & Poultry
Beef & Poultry & Pork
Missing
Total
Number of facilities
reported on frame
17
127
2
10
6
3
23
45
157
152
32
196
203
76
438
6,430
7,917
Number of facilities
imputed
4
30
0
2
1
2
6
N/A
805
779
164
1,005
1,041
390
2,246
N/A
6,475
B.2 SAMPLE SELECTION OF FACILITIES
The design of the first-phase sample was based upon the assumption that large facilities
were more likely to be eligible than small facilities, which in turn were expected to be eligible
more frequently than very small facilities. Thus, EPA determined that oversampling of the large
facilities would be appropriate, in order to include many eligible facilities. Too much
oversampling would reduce the accuracy of estimates because some facilities would have much
greater weights than other facilities. An examination of alternative oversampling schemes2
suggested balancing these two constraints by selecting large facilities at six times the rate of very
small facilities, and at twice the rate of small facilities.
2 DCN-55,001 July 28, 2000 memorandum from David Marker to Helen Jacobs and Jade Lee-Freeman.
B-6
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
After sorting by animal type, the facilities were selected from each stratum using
systematic sampling scheme. Systematic sampling involve selecting every kth facility where k is
determined by the selection rate. The allocation of the sample is described in Table B-3. The
allocation in Table B-3 was based upon the 6-3-1 rule according to which, large facilities were
selected at a rate that
was 6 times higher than that of very small facilities and twice higher than that of small
facilities. Using this allocation scheme, EPA selected a total of 2,000 facilities from the frame of
8,217 facilities.
Table B-3. Allocation of the first-phase sample
Stratum h
Certainty
Large First Processor
Large FurtherProcessor
Small First Processor
Small Further Processor
Very Small Further Processor
Renderer
Total
Sample frame size
W
65
190
43
498
1,878
5,308
235
8,217
First phase sample size
(«h)
65
152
34
199
750
706
94
2,000
The 350 sample facilities were allocated in the second-phase sample to provide similar
precision for each of seven analytic domains of interest. These domains were: poultry, beef, and
pork further processors; poultry, beef, and pork first processors; and Tenderers. The 285
noncertainty sample facilities were therefore allocated so that approximately 41 (=285/7) were in
each of these seven domains. The entire second-phase sample, including the noncertainty
sample, consisted of 122 further processors, 121 first processors, and 42 Tenderers, along with 65
facilities selected with certainty. The facilities were sorted within facility type by animal type (as
listed in Table B-4) before selecting the samples. Table B-4 shows how the first-phase sample in
the previous table was distributed across the short and detailed surveys.
B-7
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-4. Allocation of the sample to the short and detailed surveys
Facility size and type
Certainty
Large First processor
Large Further processor
Small First processor
Small Further processor
Very small Further processor
Renderer
Total
Sample size
First phase
65
152
34
199
750
706
94
2,000
Short survey
0
100
31
130
688
649
52
1,650
Detailed Survey
65
52
3
69
62
57
42
350
For the purpose of selecting the sample of facilities, the WESSAMP SAS macro
developed at Westat was used. WESSAMP selects systematic samples within sampling strata
defined through a set of parameters.
B.3 RESPONSE STATUS OF SHORT (SCREENER) SAMPLE FACILITIES
Of the 1,650 facilities to which a short form was mailed, 601 did not return the form and
their eligibility status was unknown as of April 24, 20013. A total of 193 facilities that were
either out-of-scope or could not be located were classified as ineligible. EPA assumed that some
of the 601 facilities that did not return the short form were eligible nonrespondents. Therefore, it
was necessary to estimate the number of ineligible facilities for sample weight adjustments. (See
Section B.4.) The remaining 856 facilities were eligible respondents. These were facilities that
returned a complete form and indicated that they engaged in meat processing. Table B-5 shows
the response status by stratum for the facilities that were mailed a short survey.
3 Any surveys processed after that date will be included in the revised estimates for the final rule.
B-8
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-5. Response status for the short survey by first-phase stratum
Stratum
Large First Processor
Large Further Processor
Small First Processor
Small Further Processor
Very Small Further Processor
Renderer
Total
Sample
size
100
31
130
688
649
52
1,650
Eligible
Respondent
(Si)
81
25
76
350
287
37
856
Nonrespondent
(S4)
18
5
41
247
281
9
601
Ineligible
Out-of-Scope
(S3)
1
1
10
53
36
4
105
Non-
deliverable
0
0
3
38
45
2
88
B.4 WEIGHTING OF THE SHORT SURVEY
This section describes the methodology used to calculate the base weights, non-response
adjustments, and the final weights for the short survey. In its analysis, EPA applied sample
weights to survey data. The short survey was weighted in order to account for variable
probabilities of selection, differential response rates, and ineligible facilities. The base weights
and non-response adjustments reflect the probability of selection for each facility and
adjustments for facility level non-responses, respectively. Weighting the data allows inferences
to be made about all eligible facilities, not just those included in the sample, but also those not
included in the sample or those that did not respond to the survey. Also, the weighted estimates
have a smaller variance than unweighted estimates (see Section B.5 of this appendix for variance
estimation.)
B.4.1 Base Weight Calculation
The first step in weighting the short survey was to assign a base weight to each of the
sample facilities. The base weight associated with a short survey facility was calculated by
multiplying the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the first-phase sample of
2,000 facilities, by the reciprocal of the probability of not including that facility in the detailed
survey sample in the second phase. Table B-6 shows the calculation of the base weight. The
B-9
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
short survey base weight for a given first-phase stratum h and second-phase stratum / can
formally be written as follows:
Base weighthl =
where Nh is the number of facilities in the sample frame that belong to first-phase stratum h, nh is
the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample that belong to first-phase stratum h (Nh
and nh are shown in Table B-5), Ml is the number of first-phase sample facilities that belonged to
second-phase stratum /, and ml is the number of facilities selected in the detailed survey sample
from second-phase stratum /.
For example, in the first-phase sample, 34 of 43 large further processors were selected, so
the first-phase inclusion probability was 0.7907. The second-phase sample only stratified by
facility type, so the second-phase inclusion probability for further processors in the detailed
survey was (3 + 62 + 57)7(34 + 750 + 706) = 0.0819 (see Table B-4). The overall inclusion
probability for the short survey was (0.7907) x (1 - 0.0819) = 0.72596. The base weight was the
reciprocal of this probability, 1.3775.
Table B-6. Base weight calculation for the short survey
Stratum
Large First processor
Small First processor
Large Further processor
Small Further processor
Very Small Further processor
Renderer
First-phase
inclusion
probability
(«/A^
0.8000
0.3996
0.7907
0.3994
0.1330
0.4000
Second-phase
detailed survey
inclusion
probabilities
(m,/M,)
0.3447
0.3447
0.0819
0.0819
0.0819
0.4468
Short survey
inclusion
probabilities
s / \~\
li_[i_JlL_|
I* A MJ)
0.52422
0.26185
0.72596
0.36666
0.12212
0.22128
Short survey base
weights
(fn V ( m Vl
-ILU xl— ^M
l AT, I I M, I
1.9076
3.8191
1.3775
2.7273
8.1889
4.5192
B-10
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
B.4.2 Eligibility and Non-response Adjustment
The base weights associated with the short survey facilities were adjusted for non-
response. Because the 601 nonresponding facilities had an unknown eligibility status, it was
assumed that they were distributed among eligible and out-of-scope facilities in the same
proportions as the respondents within each stratum. It was assumed that all nonrespondents did
receive their surveys. The base weights of facilities were multiplied by the adjustment factor
obtained by dividing the count of all sample facilities by the count of facilities with known
eligibility status. The final weight, whi for a facility z in stratum h, can be written as follows:
w,
= (base weight^. x(nonresponse adjustment^
h • 1 \ f5l+53+
= (baseweight)h.x\ *
V ^l+^3
where S}, S3, and S4 represent counts for stratum h of eligible respondents, out-of-scope
respondents who received their surveys, and facilities who did not respond, respectively (see
Table B-6). This non-response adjustment was performed within strata in order to account for
differential response rates in the short survey. For example, large further processors had 25
eligible respondents, 1 not involved in meat products, and 5 non-respondents. Its non-response
adjustment factor was therefore 1.1923 (=31/26). Table B-7 shows the non-response adjustment
factors and final weights for each stratum.
Table B-7. Non-response adjustment and final weight for the short survey
Stratum h
Large First Processor
Small First Processor
Large Further Processor
Small Further Processor
Very Small Further Processor
Renderer
Short survey base
weight
1.9076
3.8191
1.3775
2.7273
8.1889
4.5192
Non-response
adjustment
fa+Ss+O
I s,+s3 )
1.2195
1.4767
1.1923
1.6129
1.8670
1.2195
Short survey final
weight
(Whi)
2.3264
5.6398
1.6400
4.3880
15.2658
5.5113
B-ll
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
EPA plans to revise the short survey weighting and estimation to include the facilities
whose responses were processed after the initial deadline. The same procedures will be used as
described above, but the number of completes, ineligibles, and nonrespondents will change, and
so will the weights. These revised short survey weights also will be used to revise the detailed
survey weights. (See Section B.6.)
B.5 ESTIMATION METHOD
This section presents the general methodology and equations for calculating estimates
from the short survey.
B.5.1 National Estimates
National total estimates were obtained for each characteristic and domain of interest by
multiplying the reported value by the non-response-adjusted weight and by summing all weighted
values for the facilities that belong to the domain of interest k.
Similarly, ratio estimates (for example, of the mean) in a given domain k were obtained as
a ratio of two national total estimates. For example, the average cattle production by facilities
doing first processoring was calculated by dividing the weighted production of cattle by the
weighted count of first processors.
where whi is the non-response adjusted weight for facility z, yki is the cattle production for facility
z, both in domain k, and the summation is over all facilities reporting cattle production.
Note that many facilities were involved in more than one type of activity or production.
Their classification into one activity type, either first processoring, processing, rendering, or
some combination was determined by the relative concentration of their production in any
B-12
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
activity. Similar classification issues arose when reporting production by animal type (red meat,
poultry, or mixed). If at least 85 percent of total production was of a given type of activity, it was
classified accordingly (e.g., first processor). If no activity type accounted for 85 percent of
production it was classified as mixed type. The same rule was used for animal type.
Further, note that the 65 certainty facilities were excluded from the short survey. The
above estimation procedure will produce national estimates for all facilities except for those 65.
To produce national estimates from the short survey that cover the entire meat products industry
it will be necessary to combine these estimates with the reported data from the detailed
questionnaires filled out for those 65 certainty facilities. Since these 65 facilities represent only
themselves, they are each given a weight of one for such analyses. For the final rule, EPA will
incorporate the values for the 65 facilities into its revised national estimates.
B.5.2 Variance Estimates
To compute the correct estimates of standard errors a set of jackknife replicate weights
was constructed and attached to each facility. Under the jackknife replication method, a number
of subsamples (called jackknife replicates) were generated from the full sample, and the entire
weighting process as described in the previous sections was repeated for each replicate. In this
way, a series of replicate weights were generated for each facility, which together with the full-
sample weight were used to calculate sampling errors (see Wolters, 1985 for a description of the
jackknife and other variance estimation methods)4. Given that there were almost 900 responding
facilities for the short survey, it was decided to create 90 replicates for variance estimation. Each
respondent was assigned a number between 1 and 90. The first replicate used the values from all
facilities except those assigned to group 1. The other replicates were derived in a similar way by
excluding the values for a different group each time.
In order to illustrate how the sampling errors have been calculated, let be the weighted
national average estimate of a characteristic y (e.g., first processor meat production of cattle) for
Wolters, K. M. (1985) Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York.
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
the entire data set. If is the corresponding estimate for jackknife replicate r, then the estimated
variance of y is given by the following formula:
90
where the summation extends over all 90 jackknife replicates that were formed for the short
survey. This jackknife variance was often used to compute 95 percent confidence limits around
the estimate. These limits are given by:
y±1.96A/var()T)
The WesVar program was used to compute estimates of standard errors.
B.6 ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILED SURVEY
The process of detailed surveys is more complex and time-consuming than the process of
short surveys due to its length and the details of survey responses. In order to meet the court
ordered deadline for the proposed rule, EPA only analyzed the short surveys. Detailed surveys
will be analyzed for the final rule using similar methodology described in Sections B.4 and B.5.
For the final rule, the base weight associated with a detailed sample facility was calculated by
multiplying the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the first-phase sample of
2,000 facilities, by the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the detailed survey
sample. Table B-8 shows the calculation of the base weight. The detailed survey base weight for
a given first-phase stratum h and second-phase stratum / can formally be written as follows:
Base weighthl =
where Nh is the number of facilities in the sample that belong to first-phase stratum h (Nh and nh
are shown in Table B-3), nh is the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample that
belong to first-phase stratum h, Ml is the number of first-phase sample facilities that belong to
second-phase stratum /, and ml is the number of facilities selected in the detailed survey sample
B-14
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
from second-phase stratum / (second-phase stratum totals can be found in the column labeled
"Detailed Survey" in Table B-4).
Table B-8. Base weight calculation for the detailed survey sample
Stratum
Large First Processor
Small First Processor
Large Further Processor
Small Further Processor
Very Small Further Processor
Renderer
Certainties
First-phase
inclusion
probability
(nn/Nh)
0.8000
0.3996
0.7907
0.3994
0.1330
0.4000
1.0000
Second-phase
inclusion
probabilities
(m,IMd
0.3447
0.3447
0.0819
0.0819
0.0819
0.4468
1.0000
Detailed survey
inclusion
probabilities
f(B'Ym'll
lU.A^JJ
0.2758
0.1378
0.0647
0.0327
0.0109
0.1787
1.0000
Detailed survey
base weights
fwwi
tUJ UJ J
3.6260
7.2594
15.4460
30.5816
91.8232
5.5952
1.0000
Due to duplication on the sample frame, a few facilities were sampled for both the short
and detailed surveys. Such facilities were encouraged to complete both forms since estimates are
made independently from both surveys.
The non-response adjustment for the detailed survey will be carried out with the same
methodology used to adjust the base weights for the short survey (see Section B.4.2). However,
the non-response-adjusted weights will further be adjusted to benchmark them to the weighted
counts of eligible facilities calculated from the short survey. This is because the much larger
sample size in the short survey provides better estimates of the number of eligible facilities in
each stratum. This second adjustment will be done within the type and size categories and will
yield the final weight. If h designates a first-phase stratum, then the detailed survey final weight
wt for a given facility i can be written as follows:
=(NR-Adjusted Weight).
x
(Estimated Number of Facilities from Short Survey
(Estimated Number of Facilities from Detailed Survey)
B-15
-------
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
National estimates and corresponding standard errors for the detailed survey will be
calculated using the same methods described in Section B.5 for the short survey with the
exception that for each jackknife replicate sample will be based on a different number of
subsamples. In the documentation for the final rule, EPA will further describe the detailed
questionnaire estimates.
B-16
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLES TO SECTION 9
C-l
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-l. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First Processing (Rl) Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
99.00
172.0
9.00
508.0
6.12
0.001
5.80
85.37
513.0
5.00
20.62
245.5
239.3
24.09
1,953
5.66
17.69
23.42
0.594
273.5
a
0.00367
1.21
0.05069
0.00679
0.00305
0.00153
0.00583
0.05881
2,951
0.3000
228.3
30.98
—
400.0
0.0160
0.0160
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
7.60
8.00
14.54
20.00
8.77
0.001
11.00
118.4
2,070
5.20
7.10
102.0
89.82
11.73
3,067
7.65
19.14
7.63
0.030
121.2
—
0.00297
0.00656
0.19680
0.00755
0.03117
0.00387
0.00356
0.02281
1,296
0.300
180.1
150.1
—
476.5
0.0040
0.0040
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
not applicable
C-2
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-2. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing (R12)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
6.16
25.67
11.78
38.94
0.38
0.00100
4.00
48.33
1,587
4.00
13.57
300.7
304.7
12.27
3,930
3.99
11.50
15.43
0.792
270.0
b
0.00417
0.00100
0.00553
0.00757
0.00183
0.00100
0.00573
0.02337
36.33
0.300
54.00
20.67
—
124.7
0.0160
0.0160
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
6.16
25.67
11.78
38.94
0.38
0.00100
4.00
48.33
1,587
4.00
13.57
300.7
304.7
12.27
3,930
3.99
11.50
15.43
0.792
270.0
—
0.00417
0.00100
0.00553
0.00757
0.00183
0.00100
0.00573
0.02337
36.33
0.300
54.00
20.67
—
124.7
0.0160
0.0160
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
a Baseline concentration of R12 (small) was derived using R12 (non-small) since no R12 small direct discharge
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-3
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-3. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First Processing and Rendering (R13)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
32.08
19.13
84.67
92.36
2.47
0.00100
24.21
63.17
856.8
11.29
23.87
134.4
140.8
12.72
2,610
7.46
16.72
30.17
2.66
182.7
b
0.00888
0.00308
0.07028
0.00395
0.01530
0.00132
0.00454
0.06153
89,822
0.371
106,326
1,478.18
—
84,624
0.0069
0.0069
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
32.08
19.13
84.67
92.36
2.47
0.00100
24.21
63.17
856.8
11.29
23.87
134.4
140.8
12.72
2,610
7.46
16.72
30.17
2.66
182.7
—
0.00888
0.00308
0.07028
0.00395
0.01530
0.00132
0.00454
0.06153
89,822
0.371
106,326
1,478.18
—
84,624
0.0069
0.0069
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
a Baseline concentration of R13 (small) was derived using R13 (non-small) since no R13 small direct discharge
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-4
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-4. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing and
Rendering (R123)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
30.51
44.94
36.08
131.76
3.43
0.00100
12.20
71.13
1,245
6.80
17.10
202.9
203.3
14.30
3,017
6.03
15.54
20.38
1.26
216.7
b
0.00546
0.20412
0.06652
0.00623
0.01142
0.00168
0.00499
0.04190
30,661
0.324
35,528
529.79
—
28,396
0.0110
0.0110
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
30.51
44.94
36.08
131.76
3.43
0.00100
12.20
71.13
1,245
6.80
17.10
202.9
203.3
14.30
3,017
6.03
15.54
20.38
1.26
216.7
—
0.00546
0.20412
0.06652
0.00623
0.01142
0.00168
0.00499
0.04190
30,661
0.324
35,528
529.79
—
28,396
0.0110
0.0110
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
a Baseline concentration of R123 was derived using average concentrations
R12 (non-small) + R13 (non-small facilities), since no R123 small or non-;
represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
of Rl (small and non-small facilities) +
small direct discharge facilities were
C-5
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-5. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat Further Processing (R2)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
6.16
25.67
11.78
38.94
0.38
0.00100
4.00
48.33
1,587
4.00
13.57
300.7
304.7
12.27
3,930
3.99
11.50
15.43
0.792
270.0
b
0.00417
0.00100
0.00553
0.00757
0.00183
0.00100
0.00573
0.02337
36.33
0.300
54.00
20.67
—
124.7
0.0160
0.0160
Non-Small
Facility
Concentration
6.16
25.67
11.78
38.94
0.38
0.00100
4.00
48.33
1,587
4.00
13.57
300.7
304.7
12.27
3,930
3.99
11.50
15.43
0.792
270.0
—
0.00417
0.00100
0.00553
0.00757
0.00183
0.00100
0.00573
0.02337
36.33
0.300
54.00
20.67
—
124.7
0.0160
0.0160
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
a Baseline concentration of R2 was derived using R12 (non-small), since no R2 small or non-small direct discharge
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-6
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-6. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat Further Processing and Rendering (R23)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
19.12
22.40
48.23
65.65
1.42
0.00100
14.11
55.75
1,222
7.64
18.72
217.5
222.7
12.49
3,270
5.72
14.11
22.80
1.73
226.3
b
0.00652
0.00204
0.03791
0.00576
0.00857
0.00116
0.00514
0.04245
44,929
0.336
53,190
749.42
—
42,374
0.0114
0.0114
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
19.12
22.40
48.23
65.65
1.42
0.00100
14.11
55.75
1,222
7.64
18.72
217.5
222.7
12.49
3,270
5.72
14.11
22.80
1.73
226.3
—
0.00652
0.00204
0.03791
0.00576
0.00857
0.00116
0.00514
0.04245
44,929
0.336
53,190
749.42
—
42,374
0.0114
0.0114
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
a Baseline concentration of R23 was derived using
since no R23 small or non-small direct discharge
b not applicable
average concentrations of
facilities were represented
R12 (non-small) + R13 (non-small),
in the detailed survey
C-7
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-7. Average Baseline Concentration for Meat First Processing (Rl) Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
1,823
1,266
246.2
1,982,510
381.0
0.0116
1,925
3,884
1,087
1,174
40.09
4.26
393.1
36.66
2,554
388.8
661.1
55.15
0.611
2,028
a
0.100
0.0361
1.02
0.0164
0.0321
0.00864
0.00382
0.457
1,467,870
106.3
1,844,750
918,043
—
1,600,000
0.00411
0.00434
Non-Small
Facility
Concentration
1,636
1,233
256.5
1,763,340
217.2
0.0148
1890.6
3,600
1,381
1,152
44.25
6.35
369.0
39.02
2,400
362.6
592.0
61.96
0.676
1,800
—
0.1193
0.0318
0.7994
0.0158
0.0267
0.0113
0.0047
0.4899
1,321,636
127.5
1,763,167
820,620
—
1,600,000
0.00414
0.00400
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
not applicable
C-8
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-8. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat First/Further Processing (R12)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
1,406
1,256
192.6
1,400,769
334.4
0.01228
1,883
2,691
1,269
1,183
40.92
4.97
246.0
32.44
1,871
241.0
684.2
56.51
0.671
2,104
a
0.108
0.0315
0.505
0.0166
0.0183
0.0100
0.00363
0.501
839,877
127.5
1,600,000
950,517
—
1,600,000
0.00411
0.00445
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
1,083
568.9
117.1
1,341,847
404.5
0.00952
868.9
1,965
793.6
921.6
36.19
45.20
276.8
24.58
2,412
231.6
477.1
48.80
0.436
1,491
—
0.0755
0.0445
0.6194
0.0136
0.0205
0.0059
0.00324
0.3204
1,127,373
59.53
1,500,066
656,497
—
1,431,028
0.00649
0.00640
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
not applicable
C-9
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-9. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat First Processing and Rendering (R13)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
412.0
93.00
2.40
1,811,050
91.00
0.0010
478.0
862.0
542.0
7.11
13.86
128.7
250.5
27.07
2,517
98.20
23.33
14.38
0.404
257.7
a
0.0027
0.0500
0.0303
0.0065
0.0029
0.0010
0.0047
0.0487
1,251,966
0.150
1,487,234
16,664
—
1,177,498
0.00400
0.00400
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
1,514
581.4
108.0
1,811,050
611.9
0.0098
1,546
2,725
542.0
1,150
37.59
2.13
336.0
23.28
2,400
333.8
592.0
51.07
0.248
1,800
—
0.0779
0.0500
0.9936
0.0158
0.0288
0.0045
0.0021
0.3234
1,251,966
42.50
1,600,000
820,620
—
1,600,000
0.00409
0.00400
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
not applicable
C-10
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-10. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat First/Further Processing and
Rendering (R123)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
czs-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
156.7
210.1
50.48
728,066
210.5
0.0054
654.6
1,201
1,306
577.6
22.34
3.95
120.4
14.08
2,827
116.5
305.6
29.08
0.179
960.6
b
0.0404
0.0266
0.4409
0.0110
0.0169
0.0028
0.0016
0.1709
496,918
21.40
803,169
410,313
—
803,664
0.0040
0.0040
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
156.7
210.1
50.48
728,066
210.5
0.0054
654.6
1,201
1,306
577.6
22.34
3.95
120.4
14.08
2,827
116.5
305.6
29.08
0.179
960.6
—
0.0404
0.0266
0.4409
0.0110
0.0169
0.0028
0.0016
0.1709
496,918
21.40
803,169
410,313
—
803,664
0.0040
0.0040
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
a Baseline concentration of R123 (small) was derived using R123 (non-small), since no R123 small indirect
discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-ll
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-ll. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat Further Processing (R2)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
1,301
374.4
135.0
810,899
22.81
0.00968
1,385
2,330
6,421
1,076
65.09
15.61
39.0
21.82
8,145
23.39
566.6
73.67
0.265
1,857
a
0.0733
0.0172
0.0284
0.0176
0.00682
0.00431
0.00224
0.2902
341,181
39.77
1,197,695
1,422,046
—
1,571,742
0.00486
0.00477
Non-Small
Facility
Concentration
1,035
258.5
96.59
820,000
37.87
0.0108
1,220
2,368
6,674
1,150
59.05
2.13
21.46
22.80
8,238
19.33
600.2
68.56
0.248
1,911
—
0.0779
0.0267
0.0293
0.0176
0.0067
0.0045
0.0021
0.2877
345,000
42.50
1,352,381
1,375,958
—
1,600,000
0.00410
0.00400
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
not applicable
C-12
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-12. Average Baseline Concentration for Meat Further Processing and Rendering (R23)a
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
883.1
444.1
94.09
1,181,468
240.4
0.0080
1,086
1,918
2,357
830.3
37.17
25.83
176.3
22.52
3,905
147.5
444.3
46.39
0.329
1,418
b
0.0620
0.0341
0.3860
0.0137
0.0147
0.0045
0.0026
0.2642
768,900
44.34
1,292,964
757,866
—
1,323,449
0.0045
0.0045
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
883.1
444.1
94.09
1,181,468
240.4
0.0080
1,086
1,918
2,357
830.3
37.17
25.83
176.3
22.52
3,905
147.5
444.3
46.39
0.329
1,418
—
0.0620
0.0341
0.3860
0.0137
0.0147
0.0045
0.0026
0.2642
768,900
44.34
1,292,964
757,866
—
l,323,449cfu/l
0.0045
0.0045
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
Baseline concentration of R23 was derived using average concentrations
R123 (non-small), +R13 (small and non-small facilities) + R2 (small and
or non-small indirect discharge facilities were represented in the detailed
not applicable
of R12 (small and non-small facilities) +
non-small facilities), since no R23 small
survey
C-13
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-13. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First Processing (PI)
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
7.00
31.50
23.60
560.0
2.00
0.00100
478.0
862.0
542.0
5.20
7.10
27.18
89.82
14.00
3,067
98.20
19.14
7.63
a
178.8
0.06797
0.00876
—
0.19680
—
0.01212
—
—
0.0769
65,085
—
66,480
1,980
111.2
163,280
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
4.15
11.73
9.96
173.4
1.09
0.00100
4.08
25.09
81.55
2.08
0.36
33.54
27.22
1.95
721.3
1.80
5.70
2.39
—
174.6
0.0057
0.0082
—
0.0111
—
0.0011
—
—
0.0715
1,431
—
5.05
36.65
2.00
580
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
not applicable
C-14
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-14. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing (P12)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
15.67
30.92
19.12
200,311
2.22
0.00100
7.41
32.50
125.9
2.49
7.44
39.32
41.80
4.28
900.5
2.76
8.68
7.97
b
526.4
0.00531
0.02450
—
0.01598
—
0.00324
—
—
0.1173
49,288
—
16,622
929.6
29.30
200,753
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
15.67
30.92
19.12
200,311
2.22
0.00100
7.41
32.50
125.9
2.49
7.44
39.32
41.80
4.28
900.5
2.76
8.68
7.97
—
526.4
0.00531
0.02450
—
0.01598
—
0.00324
—
—
0.1173mg/L
49,288
—
16,622
929.6
29.30
200,753
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P12 (small) was derived using P12 (non-small), since no P12 small direct discharge
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-15
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-15. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First Processing and Rendering (PI3)
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
4.00
9.40
5.97
434.0
1.33
0.00100
3.20
29.60
94.40
2.20
14.50
64.76
66.58
12.56
1,916
1.82
11.49
15.22
a
130.0
0.00256
0.04024
—
0.02456
—
0.00544
—
—
0.0925
57.67
—
123.3
73.20
2.00
1,308
—
—
Non-Small
Facility
Concentration
7.26
13.43
15.25
163
0.78
0.00127
4.62
44.25
89.34
4.67
11.49
50.00
57.16
9.73
1,505
2.50
11.51
10.62
—
166
0.00668
0.03279
—
0.03721
—
0.00562
—
—
0.0867
289.0
—
91.69
58.88
2.00
959.1
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not applicable
C-16
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-16. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing and
Rendering (P123)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
5.83
8.60
95.26
2.55
0.44
0.00100
4.61
131.4
53.00
4.62
7.44
39.32
77.99
4.28
460.0
4.18
12.38
7.97
b
577.0
0.00600
0.02450
—
0.01598
—
0.00324
—
—
0.1362
1,550
—
2.00
0.0300
2.00
621.0
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
5.83
8.60
95.26
2.55
0.44
0.00100
4.61
131.4
53.00
4.62
7.44
39.32
77.99
4.28
460.0
4.18
12.38
7.97
—
577
0.00600
0.02450
—
0.01598
—
0.00324
—
—
0.1362
1,550
—
2.00
0.03
2.00
621.0
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P123 (small) was derived using P123 (non-small), since no P123 small direct discharge
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-17
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-17. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing (P2)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
10.75
19.76
57.19
100,157
1.33
0.00100
6.01
81.96
89.43
3.55
7.44
39.32
59.89
4.28
680
3.47
10.53
7.97
b
552
0.0057
0.0245
—
0.0160
—
0.0032
—
—
0.1268
25,419
—
8,312
464.80
15.65
100,687
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
10.75
19.76
57.19
100,157
1.33
0.00100
6.01
81.96
89.43
3.55
7.44
39.32
59.89
4.28
680
3.47
10.53
7.97
—
552
0.0057
0.0245
—
0.0160
—
0.0032
—
—
0.1268
25,419
—
8,312
464.80
15.65
100,687
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P2 was derived using
since no P2 small or non-small direct discharge
b not applicable
average concentrations of P12 (non-small) +P123 (non-small)
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
C-18
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-18. Average Baseline Concentrations for Non-Small Poultry Further Processing and
Rendering (P23)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
9.04
16.98
41.66
66,871
1.24
0.00105
5.31
66.95
90.24
3.51
9.29
45.34
60.55
6.57
1,024
3.03
10.85
9.62
b
417
0.0053
0.0285
—
0.0209
—
0.0040
—
—
0.1144
17,004
—
5,577
331.88
11.10
67,503
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
9.04
16.98
41.66
66,871
1.24
0.00105
5.31
66.95
90.24
3.51
9.29
45.34
60.55
6.57
1,024
3.03
10.85
9.62
—
417
0.0053
0.0285
—
0.0209
—
0.0040
—
—
0.1144
17,004
—
5,577
331.88
11.10
67,503
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P23 was derived using average concentrations of P12 (non-:
small facilities) + P123 (non-small), since no P23 small or non-small direct discharge
the detailed survey
b not applicable
small) + PI3 (small and non-
facilities were represented in
C-19
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-19. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First Processing (PI)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
1,657
667
743.7
790,333
7.82
0.163
1,013
1,990
92.74
314.5
13.17
0.613
38.44
5.20
503.8
37.83
193.9
10.61
a
1,171
0.0371
0.1218
—
0.0575
—
0.0066
—
—
0.239
39,593
—
786,333
663,583
188.5
1,054,000
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
392.2
147.5
55.77
1,243,178
10.62
0.00227
345.4
472.9
217.3
498.3
3.40
2.75
48.77
6.08
752.0
53.62
139.5
17.40
—
282.4
0.0180
0.0283
—
0.1614
—
0.0065
—
—
0.0598
182,879
—
1,291,380
58,746
11.93
1,248,749
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not applicable
C-20
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-20. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First/Further Processing (P12)a
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
403.8
188.6
42.26
923,559
13.60
0.00100
160.0
466.5
185.1
59.57
6.14
16.12
47.00
4.46
954.9
78.55
59.64
13.89
b
710.7
0.0095
0.0236
—
0.0673
—
0.0044
—
—
0.1358
192,500
—
920,652
4,140
45.68
900,898
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
403.8
188.6
42.26
923,559
13.60
0.00100
160.0
466.5
185.1
59.57
6.14
16.12
47.00
4.46
954.9
78.55
59.64
13.89
—
710.7
0.0095
0.0236
—
0.0673
—
0.0044
—
—
0.1358
192,500
—
920,652
4,140
45.68
900,898
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P12 (small) was derived using P12 (non-small), since no P12 small indirect discharge
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-21
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-21. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First Processing and Rendering (P13)a
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
253.0
41.33
111.6
944,808
13.16
0.00100
232.7
434.0
214.0
97.53
4.59
8.37
71.42
4.57
890.5
65.49
93.62
18.18
b
228.2
0.0118
0.0234
—
0.1016
—
0.0052
—
—
0.0703
192,500
—
933,564
4,645
36.05
914,926
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
253.0
41.33
111.6
944,808
13.16
0.00100
232.7
434.0
214.0
97.53
4.59
8.37
71.42
4.57
890.5
65.49
93.62
18.18
—
228.2
0.0118
0.0234
—
0.1016
—
0.0052
—
—
0.0703
192,500
—
933,564
4,645
36.05
914,926
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P12 (small) was derived using P12 (non-small), since no P12 small indirect discharge
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
C-22
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-22. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First/Further Processing and
Rendering (P123)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
1,215
3,672
244.6
772,891
15.56
0.02427
1,159
2,026
212.8
287.9
21.98
6.78
71.95
6.65
969.7
79.55
215.8
48.37
b
4,198
0.0249
0.0334
—
0.0788
—
0.0094
—
—
0.313
163,955
—
774,597
104,827
45.99
830,389
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
1,215
3,672
244.6
772,891
15.56
0.02427
1,159
2,026
212.8
287.9
21.98
6.78
71.95
6.65
969.7
79.55
215.8
48.37
—
4,198
0.0249
0.0334
—
0.0788
—
0.0094
—
—
0.313
163,955
—
774,597
104,827
45.99
830,389
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P123 was derived using average concentrations of PI (small and non-;
P12 (non-small) +P13 (non-small) + P2 (small and non-small facilities), since no P123 small or
discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b not applicable
small facilities) +
non-small indirect
C-23
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-23. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry Further Processing (P2)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
5,481
27,523
608.0
87,500
27.68
0.0150
4,185
7,032
297.3
686.2
78.68
0.938
141.9
13.18
1,707
141.0
633.0
192.5
a
17,574
0.0583
0.0100
—
0.0242
—
0.0242
—
—
0.986
153,000
—
86,150
58,500
2.00
265,000
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
872.7
582.7
241.6
325,383
24.86
0.0103
2,941
4,910
297.3
489.9
59.15
0.938
109.6
10.68
1,105
115.8
453.2
102.4
—
12,677
0.0432
0.0134
—
0.0500
—
0.0189
—
—
0.810
166,167
—
324,483
40,217
2.00
443,717
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not applicable
C-24
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-24. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry Further Processing and
Rendering (P23)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
1,278
4,761
192.9
691,603
17.67
0.00489
1,318
2,290
232.1
248.4
26.55
8.47
81.40
6.98
1,084
90.82
232.1
59.83
b
5,355
0.0240
0.0195
—
0.0687
—
0.0104
—
—
0.3680
181,528
—
686,511
19,381
27.91
723,394
—
—
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
1,278
4,761
192.9
691,603
17.67
0.00489
1,318
2,290
232.1
248.4
26.55
8.47
81.40
6.98
1,084
90.82
232.1
59.83
—
5,355
0.0240
0.0195
—
0.0687
—
0.0104
—
—
0.3680
181,528
—
686,511
19,381
27.91
723,394
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of P23 was derived using average
P2 (small and non-small facilities), since no P23 small or
in the detailed survey
b not applicable
concentrations of P12 (non-small) + P13 (non-small) +
non-small indirect discharge facilities were represented
C-25
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-25. Average Baseline Concentrations for Rendering Only (REND)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
389.5
885
155
163.2
4.42
0.001
4.73
3,940
347
11.5
11.5
40.1
94.5
33.02
1,749
108.8
36.07
23.94
0.52
406.1
0.01404
0.0086
0.00344
0.05477
0.00438
0.01211
0.00961
0.02985
0.08734
806.9
0.50
271.9
240.5
2.00
593.8
0.004
0.004
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
389.5
885
155
163.2
4.42
0.001
4.73
3,940
347
11.5
11.5
40.1
94.5
33.02
1,749
108.8
36.07
23.94
0.52
406.1
0.01404
0.0086
0.00344
0.05477
0.00438
0.01211
0.00961
0.02985
0.08734
806.9
0.50
271.9
240.5
2.00
593.8
0.004
0.004
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
Baseline concentration of small REND
discharge facilities were represented in
was derived using REND (non-small),
the detailed survey
since no REND small direct
C-26
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-26. Average Baseline Concentration for Rendering (Rend) Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
476.4
352.6
73.95
1,021,164
98.98
0.0098
1,715
2,629
542.0
1,889
37.59
2.13
1,130
22.80
2,453
1,128
1,258
51.07
0.248
1,800
N/Aa
0.0779
0.0500
0.182
0.0158
0.0067
0.0045
0.0021
0.323
345,000
42.50
1,600,000
1,385,099
N/A
1,600,000
0.0041
0.0040
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
1,691
694.7
163.6
562,878
71.87
0.0010
720.1
2,887
339.9
635.5
19.52
18.49
611.5
22.89
1,807
1,557
836.4
26.24
0.3226
1,466
0.0281
0.0095
0.0045
0.124
0.0036
0.0084
0.0097
0.0272
0.0882
154,667
0.1500
1,233,333
1,600,000
51.64
1,233,333
0.0040
0.0040
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
not available
C-27
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-27. Average Baseline Concentrations for Mixed Poultry/Meat Further Processing (M2)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
8.45
22.72
34.49
50,098
0.854
0.001
5.01
65.15
838.0
3.78
10.50
170.0
182.3
8.27
2,305
3.73
11.02
11.70
0.555
410.8
0.09816
0.01433
0.00473
0.01076
0.00529
0.00254
0.00112
0.00772
0.07507
12,728
0.150
4,183
242.7
8.83
50,406
N/Ab
N/A
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
8.45
22.72
34.49
50,098
0.854
0.001
5.01
65.15
838.0
3.78
10.50
170.0
182.3
8.27
2,305
3.73
11.02
11.70
0.555
410.8
0.09816
0.01433
0.00473
0.01076
0.00529
0.00254
0.00112
0.00772
0.07507
12,728
0.150
4,183
242.7
8.83
50,406
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Baseline concentration of M2 was derived
no M2 small or non-small direct discharge
b not available
using average concentrations of P2 (non-small) + R2 (non-small), since
facilities were represented in the detailed survey
C-28
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-28. Average Baseline Concentration for Mixed Poultry/Meat Further Processing (M2)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
2,026
808.8
170.2
960,000
92.81
0.0133
1,702
2,542
4,658
1,151
59.70
3.71
87.17
27.23
5,907
83.68
599.2
80.44
0.822
1,897
0.079405
0.0934
0.0116
0.0314
0.0173
0.0090
0.0071
0.0029
0.241
470,000
74.38
1,383,333
1,140,310
2.00
1,600,000
0.0042
0.0040
Non-Small Facility
Concentration
2,201
531.8
98.69
820,000
41.66
0.0092
1,556
1,770
5,080
1,150
59.70
2.13
26.42
56.90
6,494
24.73
599.2
74.54
1.10
1,897
0.0829
0.0779
0.0112
0.0293
0.0173
0.0071
0.0045
0.0021
0.1587
345,000
42.50
1,383,333
1,140,310
2.00
1,600,000
0.0042
0.0040
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
C-29
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-29. Average Baseline Concentration for Mixed Poultry/Meat Further
Processing and Rendering (M23)a>b Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
Small Facility
Concentration
1,080
2,603
143.5
936,536
129.1
0.006433296
1,202
2,104
1,294
539.4
31.86
17.15
128.9
14.75
2,494
119.2
338.2
53.11
0.164
3,386
N/AC
0.0408
0.0171
0.227
0.0069
0.0126
0.0022
0.0013
0.316
475,214
22.17
989,737
388,624
N/A
1,023,422
0.0022
0.0022
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
a Baseline concentration of M23 was derived using average concentrations of P23 (small) + R23 (small) since no
M23 small indirect discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey
b No non-small indirect discharge facilities exist for Mixed Poultry/Red Meat Further Processing/Rendering (M23).
c not available
C-30
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
W)
G
CD
O
G
CD
l-H
T3
C^
bB
CO
CO
CJ
o
£
r^
3
PH
bB
•i-H
CO
CD
CJ
o
£
CO
S_i
fP CO
^"^ VH
CO «
0 g
'3 S
VH ^
^ ^
CD 1^
CJ P^
c ti
O G
u §
s ^
'o
OH
O
SH
O
[>^
W)
'o
G
J3
CJ
CD
H
CD
>
CD
Q
o
^
Q
o
i
U
CU
2
H
.2
~
03
t"H
03
V
s
b
S
"S.
O
_o
"o
1
H
I
H
tt
^^^^
fl
^
S'
tg
^
0>
^
4>
PH
r— N
—
be
=
*s
2
^
^
^
^
2
^^^
st Processing
£
=
^o
t^
03
L*
g
U
fl
O
O
-4~i
M
S
ai
a
_o
03
fcj
=
U
O
^)
"S
S
S
N
a
.2
13
ent Concentr
s
h"H
CN
r
ffl
r| |
O
CN
H
ffl
o
CN
CN
H
ffl
o
2
0)
o
W
c
-S
"o
OH
1
OJO
03
5-H
>
^1
o
o
S
H
2"
fa
5
2
03
fa
Z1
'c
o
1
^c
T3
,0
o
-rt
>,
OJO
_o
"o
T3
o
"S
a
OJ
C/D
a
T3
-0
'Cn
O
CO
•S
>^
OJO
"o
T3
O
"S
a
OJ
o
t/D
a
T3
o
£_}
CO
>^
OJO
£>
"o
T3
O
1
OJ
t/5
03"
'S
o
1
g
OJO
i
^1
a
o
O
ON
C
O
'-4— >
C^
o\
o
D
C/D
a
o
o
OJ
§
H,
1
5
2
fa
iz
i-H
2
>
2
03
OJO
S
X
^
S"
.§
4-H
[ration of meal
a
o
a
o
o
£
"o
2
03
OJ
fa
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
cd
X
CD
CJ
O
OH
CD
PH
IX)
IX)
CD
CJ
O
OH
^->
(Z)
IX)
O
G
G
O
OH
g
'
£
Q
O
•j3
cd
u
cu
.2
]C
1
S
t*
to
*-C
O
"o
't
d
i
«
r— v
•a * P
•*^ o O
^™ ^H
^
PS
Kr
Renderinj
/— -
PS
BO
_B
te
2
PH
•—
V
+*
•—
'—
, — ,
J^
PH
BO
'1
0>
o
o
£
to
s
/— v
E g
*o—S
Effluent
Concentrations
5£ Q
1 V
^,
a
o
*i 'S
a jS
Si
S g
w g
o
O
ss P
o O
^ ^S
—
trations
— 1
"^T
S
1 '1 1
Q
ii
°s
^ •
O ^H
19 MD
S'S
fluent® 6441 •
concentration
flow of 6441)
1-1 C*1 ^H
S^t^
1
o\
CN
CD
(a) • (rendering
influent@6447)
g
<
^
CO
in
, J
^
r^n
S Qo ^
a '% ©
^^ o S
• O OJ
" .s
in
CD
^
A "
r~- r~-
3 Ti
S S
, 'I | 'i |
o o
5 o o
1
5-H
CO
C t-~-
.2 ^
S "°
0) C
O c3
O ci
U -xf
° 5
OJO ^3
< S
r-.
'N'
MD
5-H
o
•£3
ca
fa
a
o
a
o
o
rt feC
.2 2
— >
O
OJ
•S
CO
'^
o
O
19
>
1
0)
•S
s
o
o
fa
19
1
s
1
II
C-32
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
03
_G
'co
CO
CD
CJ
o
£
CD
,G
^— *
S
_G
'co
CO
CD
CJ
O
£
CO
y
PH
0
CO
G
O
1 <">
G «
CD 03
11
^ ^
G ^
- S
5 g
"o ,3
OH g
G PJ
o 7l
• ,-H OJJ
a.g
T3
° rV
O ^^
CJ
H
CD
'C -rt
1 g>|
r^ /•> ^^
i i
"S CD
CO CD
sampling episode 63
quations to Deriv
For Meat Facilities.
— ' ts
Further Processing
Effluent Concentra
K
, — , c
TH' O
*f
Boi
= S
'S *
a
25
Cu "^
™ s
CO
H
pq
<^
o
CO
•
o
^ — ^
CO
H
pq
o
CN
O
H
pq
(^
o
2
o
V
BO
03
V
S
O
u
o
c
^
'o o
ft M)
'N!' 5-H
H >
rT\ CH
T3 -^
CH ^ |
cd o
«: ^
pq pq
§ 1 c1
p^ ^ O
S Ofl cS
CH ^H
S a o
So °
Q ^
1 o i
,j-j r— ^
-^ C ft
2 o H ^ i
rC J* . VH C C« t^
^ CuO Tl) ^-» -3 O cd
1 B 1 1 1 J |
flj cd O '•*"> -i— » 5 ^
> 3 .2 s _g g g
S Oi O OH Cd Cd Cd
S ri, D CD CD
^ 2 2 J ^ a a
g/E u «: o o o
JT ° -9 pq a a a
i ro g , O O O
^ H TS a "S "S "S
< ^ g .2 fa fa fa
"g ^ a a o o o
^-^^§000
(^"S-^oooo
H aa| « « i
P^ a CD ^4 o o o
•O CD <_, X OH OH OH
3 g £ g.TS T3 T3
o # m S 2 2
& o g i ca "S "S
O ^ "Q <^ £3 £3 £3
^ O 03 Q2 CO CO CO
S '^ S "^ H H H
-o 2 13 " 0) 0)
'•H > 53 o oa oa oa
>H B O t<-i OJ OJ OJ
^ OJ 43 ^ > > >
c^ ,,-. r1^ •>
>. 0 -^ CM CO
C-33
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
c
cd
tob
_c
'03
03
CD
CJ
s
OH
1
^
[T
r-
a
* vi
1X1
CD
CJ
o
OH
1 i
(Z)
^_,
0
1X1
O
ll
CD cd
0 ft;
o S
u g
"^ t^-
cd ^
^ CH
i~H Q_^
'o 5
£LH ^
G —
|l
U o
W) g
,£3
CJ
> .2
"^ "^
CD 3
Q «
o ^
G "^
.2 |
3 0
1 Q
G '-S
Q ^'
o
ro ^*
U £
— T*
— H
H pa
SB
S
ll
1 1
-3 O
t£. V
3
E
W
/•"•*. C/5
2.2
fen ~*e&
a -
urther Processi
ffluent Concent
'- W
Q|
^|
d d
Process]
t Conce
First 1
Effluen
z
^ x a
O W H
„
•^
"S
o
ll
'O CD
ro ^/y
o
-S
§
OJ
OJ
t/5
CH
'^H
T3
OJ
,0
'VH
GO
methodology de
Section 9
OJ
0)
t/D
a
OJ
,0
o
CO
T3 ^
S52
1 8
T3 t/5
O
-Q
1
OJ
o
t/D
mmonia,
•<
n Average For
te/Nitrite, TKN
.2 «
'S* *^
o z
^
cd
tob
c
CD
CJ
o
£
CD
S
PH
C
'c/i
CO
CD
CJ
O
£
1
03
T |
O
03
c
2 -2
SI S £
22 ^ CD
# "co « +3
O cd VH CD C^
oo -1 | U 1
.S §j c§ 'S J>
=« o ^ § ^
y O t t-* ^ "
O ,, i~H Q3
a _§ S "0,3
to ^ ^ ^ S
«s a a g w
III 'E .g3
O O O O .Jj
Sec Jr; a
-S -S -S /2> '3
555 Q «
T3 T3 T3 2 *S
o o o ^H ^
cd 03 03 .^ O
OJ OJ OJ -4-" flj
fa fa fa Cd «
H H H W *S
< < < -rt 0
PQ PQ PQ X t^
OJO OJO OJO , O
03 03 03 2
o3 o3 o3 c3 £j
II II II ,r- §
CN CN CN ff) A
H H H ^j «
pq pq pq ^ f §
II II
<^ PQ
C-34
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
1
G
'03
03
CD
CJ
o
£
CD
PH
G
CO
03
ill!
*
03
G
O
?3 03
•O ^
is
r3 (U
'o 3
P 1 ^H
G —
O *A
• i-H OJJ
o"S
too "G
G
CJ
CD
H
CD 95
> .S
• j— j -4—1
o 3
Q |
1 §
c^
3 *"
p_] 'B
•« -2
*I3 ^
3 °
Q 5
o
so g
2 H
H «
9!
§
^_^ tfcj
o 2
fe "a
11
h o
-3 O
|1
1
- — , 9!
fj S
— O
er Processing 1
nt Concentrat
5 S
EE
^ a
First Processing (PI)
ffluent Concentrations
a
CJJ?
H
PQ
o
f?
^
c?
H
PQ
o
OD -> iO ^>
r^ & r-T •< *— ^ -4.^
S M-l 2 U ^§
^> C CO CO !_> »J_
(S .3 O (S ?H k^
g g? 0 S£ § t>
,1 lit 11
jj H n i> <3 ° r3
^o ,>,>, .2 tof)
^S III a.S
a! o ooo O a3
1-1 ^ £" £" 1> 1> r^
H S OOO hH
03 "^ a a a
OJ fa OOO .Jj
qj !Z! cd cd cd ^J •••
^ o -a -a -a Q a
5 ° -3 -3 -3 r
| S o o o 0 ^
2 S & & & ^ ^
| a TS TS TS g i
& CM 222 o 3
_, 1 C3 C3 C3 . ^H O
^ ^ il il il ^
" PQ O H
s
_o
/— v ~*i
CH ~
"— ' "S
a u
I 6
c -^— »
S a
S
95
||
BO 03
ther Processin
uent Concentr
^ S
«!
First Processing (PI)
Effluent Concentration
^3
*o
W
*
^
o
effluent prior to filter® 63
0
vo
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
cd
CJ
o
OH
_C
'
•c
CD
Q
o
u
_«
—
91
•—
H-rf
1
IN
•^
S
o
&N
t-
_o
§
a_
Dl
o
"o
43
o
;—
*/)
H
P3
^o
§1
'S o
-B O
S^
* s
S
w
II
Processin
Concenti
T ^*
S s
^ s
ta W
91
^H O
CH '-S
"M *
s "S
'S »
95 U
v S
u o
2 o
°- s
1 1
ES
a
^>
JPM
u
03
iz
^
s
CO
MD
©
S
,±1.}
^H
OJO
^
o
VH
S
a
0)
3
^
?H
0)
vo
CO
ffl
CO
o
CO
a
V
BC
03
V
^1
S
O.
O
13
>
a
i
•
^P
S
©
^H
2
PS
«3
O
o
i-H
a
VH
2
tfl
OJO
£3
o
CO
MD
O
1
1
Q
a
a
1
i— *
•
•
S 0
N ^ r-<
1 ' +->
°3
O CO
£? J2
<3 O
> £3
C3 o
II £
<^ Jl|
^
!fl
43
OJO
VH
S
S
CO
r, ,
O
a
o
13
>
o
i-H
^
^^
•
°o
i
§
5
£-.
.^H
OJO
a
•§
a
i-H
II
S
e
cd
8
&
•—
CD
-S
OD
O
O
e
o
e
o
H
•a
vi
_o
rt
3
«
-
2
el
8
.*
•fcrf
A
•^^
03
V
«2
_O
Q
J^.
|
S
^
CM
3 1 §
O "• ji
S
BJ3
S
'S
T)
S
^
2
BJ3
'i
V
g
IN
-
1
•^^
IN
-
r-v,
^H
«
BJ3
*yj
yj
V
U
O
£
£
S
•2 M ^
^§
o
•*^ *rt
s 1
S y
S
o
O
5£ Q
o O
E^
o
•w •«
S 2
c "S
w |
o
O
5£ Q
o O
• — '
91
_o
•fcj
03
IN
H^
1
O
O
-4—1
0>
1
N
£
'S
03
IT)
f^
O
CO
CD
II
a ©
0) *->
i-H CH
^-^ oj
• ^3
•T> ^H
^^ .S
T^-
CD
OJO
CO
S in
O CO
O CO
a^°
S •"
S §
• *^H
S
t~~
CD
g
1 I-*
"~~^ !§
G 2
^ V
ITi i
CO ' ~j
C<~} ^, te
© o ~~-
a CN
8 t^
"S ^
^ Pi
IT)
vo
IT)
CO
i-H
CO
Pi
IT)
CO
CO
VH
,O
li
a§ &
JJ T3 >,
" OJ OJO
' co o
^1
-^w 8
C-36
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
cd
1X1
03
CD
CJ
s
OH
1X1
1X1
CD
CJ
o
C
1X1
o
ll
CD cd
G *
O S
r N 03
cd
G ^
a 5
5 g
i? r3
OH g
G p-1
Q
I!
^"2
W) S
r^ CD
1*
CJ
£
CD
De
1X1
O
cd
U
_«
2
CS
H
X
.*
•*J
'S
"03
V
•—
o
«M
a
o
'£
O
w
"o
JS
ȣ
.w
*s
- g
3.§
i. 5
o <;
fe W
>*• ai
Option A
Pollutant
i
W
oo
o
2
^H
00
W
00
o
(N
Pi
Rl of PSES-1
o
ta
03
^- ^2
«! .2
I!
fa
-H
a
t -> ->.->
oooccc
accooo
.
§ § § 0 0 0
0 0 0 C C C
H C C O O O
O O O CJ CJ CJ
T3 T3 T3 CJ CJ CJ
H H H W W W
03
CD
CJ
O
£
PH
03
CD
CJ
o
03
G
o
CD cd
cj >
g
.
0^3
^T-I
27?rt
W) g
•£-'
CD
CD
Q
O
cd
OOOOOO
.2
^3
ta
1
^
£
_o
"a
_o
s
V
a
Further Proc
Effluent Com
SB
^ S
1H O
* '-S
^^^ 03
First Processing
ffluent Concentr
W
CO
H
PQ
o
CO
Pi
H
<
PQ
<+-<
o
(N
Pi
PQ
o
2
13
2
— o
^ 0
15
BO 1"
cd x
•< ^
i|
o £
IT)
^> ^> <^
ca a a s
g g g -g
S S S ^3
"o "o "o 2
;ant concentration
;ant concentration
;ant concentration
oint located prior
B B B a
S S S QD
0 0 0 C
T3 T3 T3 &
c3 c^ c3 ^
CJ CJ CJ x
-b -b -b cj
> > §
TO TO TO ^
II II II ~
(4— 1
H H H "g
<^ <^ <^ &o
pq pq pq ^3
O O O p^
^
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
T3
G
cd
&b
G
• ^H
1X1
1X1
CD
Q
0
OH
S-H
-S
s
^
_G
'iXl
1X1
o
0
OH
1X1
^H
PH
£
1X1
G
O
%-J
£ |
G B
G ^
0 B
S sb
_J r^^
1 1 ^_>
^ CH
'o §
Pn 5y
CH —
If
to« G
-3 (^
,G
O
CD
CD S
Q =g
2 £
1X1 -W
§ 1
5 *<
1 1
G "ft
cd Q
C3 ^,
cd 2*
Q §
r^ ^
^f o
1 V
U H
oj T
| I
H CH
91
S
_o
f — v *-fcJ
P4 i
II
!• O
-3 o
S "S
— i
W
*-^ x
fj a
C« .2
s*-"' ^
BC 03
.£, i
'93 S
r Proces
it Conce
* S
£ s
S
c<1
©
effluent2
1
03
< 3
a -S
.2 2
•s u
0§
T3
G
cd
bb
• ^H
1X1
1X1
^^
"^ o > •<— ' "ti
^ 0 ^ ^ CH
8 ^ op ^o
^ .S o ^
a u fe s P-< S
o o o -s O H
a a a ^3 •«
o o o 2 ^ g
5-H 5-H £H 5-H | f^/f
2 2 2 .2 o w
cd cd 03 CL b2
fa fa fa -rt
O O O 2 CO
O O O C3 |—
C C C 0 '^ „.
O O O O d) g
0 0 0 rt > .^
-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutai
-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutai
-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutai
effluent data from the sampling poi
43. Data and Equations to De
chnology Option for Poultry Faci
£££^ 6 H
-^ -^ -^ vj ^^
pq pq pq s ^ ^
'o 'o 'o ^ >o y
-H
Wo
2
Q
O
o O
^
o
Effluent Concentrati
^
a
'S
03
t--
' — '
|
^
z;
oo
CD
OJO
V3 •• — ^
OJ C*1
o •*
&©
I s
"fa OJ
,? p-^
• •-H
G
o\
CD
A o
5 |
"SS2
[(effluent® 6443 • total flow
(P2 concentration of 6443 •
6443)]
/ (PI flow)
vo
IT)
in
CD
|
^
K
>
o <
^
1
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
G
03
G
•»— <
CO
CD
CJ
s
OH
-G
VH
S
_G
'co
CO
CD
CJ
s
A
-—
to
^
0
CO
O
£5 ^
CD od
G ^
0 S
^^ >-^.
+3 +->
G G
'o J3
P | ^ — 1
CH —
Q
QH ^
O*< |
fl\
•^. T^
tot) g
,G
CJ
CD 4)
VH ""
CD 'y
Q *
0 ^
CO *j
91
S
_o
^_^ tfcj
£i
*— ' a
si
£ *
•3 0
11
1
9)
g
fsl O
ft- -
|l
°9) «
v? O
First Proce:
Effluent Con
91
x— v a
£H O
ft- '3
t Processing (
:nt Concentra
•- s
ES
(N
H
<
PQ
CM
O
£
«3 " ^-^
oj cd i-H O c^
s ^ 2 y ^
M-S 1 5 1
^C co co +_, ^
c3 o ^ ^3 ^
O y i— H qj
a c3 S -33
^ -g T3 Pn 5n
cS c§ § g W
333 OH .S
3^3 rT c
O O O W CD
'o 'o "o W> G
a C C r-H [V
222 o
M M M *G
CO CO CO r^
O O O hH
a a a 9)
O O O CD o>
o o o > -s
"r^ "r^ "r^ ^ "™
J3 J3 J3 CD "3
333 Q "
"o "o "o 2 >-.
^ t ^ t ^ t ' ^
n— t n— t n— t , ^M
Cfi
=
to
^.^ *-4— »
£i
"— ' a
S 1
£ o
•3 0
11
1
9)
g
fsl O
ft- '£
|l
-9) 4>
v< U
First Proce:
Effluent Con
91
x— v a
£H O
ft- '3
t Processing (
:nt Concentra
•- s
ES
H
PQ
o
£
°?
H
<
PQ
CM
O
CN
On
CO
H
PQ
o
CO
5
sO
®
c
co
3
co
•st-
S
(8)
ef fluent (
:ffluent@6443
OJ
i-H
CD
S §
c3 d>
2 | S
§ g1!
OJO 'to 2
^ o ^
U S OJO
o .^
a c3 jj
^» 3 T3
cS c§ §
333
333
o o o
o o o
222
c c c
co co co
o o o
c c c
o o o
o o o
"r^ "r^ "r^
333
"o "o "o
n— t n— t n— t
,
+3
od
Q
03
od
U
_«
2
CS
H
C-39
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
03
CD
CJ
O
£
PH
CJ
o
£
03
g 03
SB
CD cd
1^
W ^_l
u S
o ^
P I ^H
G pj
O ^
'E.s
CD
o
CJ
CD
H
CD
Q
o
^^
03
G
O
3
cr
cd
cd
Q
U
cu
2
.2
]C
'S
b
^
3
^
i.
£
s
o
t^
a
O
1
•^
u
V
H
^
ft-
9!
S
' — ^ "t£
ff^ 03
^ — ' &
BO g
•S s
h °
^ 0
s *-
o> fi
^ V
S
E
g
^— ' 13
First Processing
ffluent Concentr
a
VI
^ S
1H O
- '€
N- ' 03
Mi
S =
•s «
Procesi
it Cone
*^ ^
£ s
*"* c
—
t
H
^
ffl
o
CO
OH
t
H
ffl
o
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-47. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing (Rl)
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
6.28
24.28
7.28
343.0
5.03
N/Aa
5.62
62.01
733.9
2.19
17.46
240.9
239.3
17.53
2,964
7.07
1.54
19.97
0.336
273.5
b
0.0023
0.0019
0.0507
0.0068
0.0031
0.0015
0.0058
0.0541
1,235
N/A
228.3
30.98
—
400.0
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
6.28
24.28
7.28
343.0
0.408
N/A
5.62
62.01
733.9
2.19
17.46
245.5
239.3
17.53
2,964
2.45
1.54
19.97
0.336
273.5
—
0.0023
0.0019
0.0507
0.0068
0.0031
0.0015
0.0058
0.0541
1,235
N/A
228.3
30.98
—
400.0
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
6.17
14.75
14.28
47.61
15.40
N/A
9.44
41.98
N/A
1.38
0.340
22.66
30.62
11.73
N/A
7.65
N/A
6.10
58.18
74.07
—
0.0030
0.0066
0.1326
0.0076
0.0312
0.0039
0.0036
0.0228
6.50
N/A
3.90
N/A
—
26.53
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
6.17
14.75
3.31
47.61
12.06
N/A
9.44
41.98
774.3
1.38
0.340
5.65
15.12
2.92
2,162
5.82
N/A
6.10
58.18
74.07
—
0.0015
0.0066
0.1326
0.0024
0.0312
0.0039
0.0012
0.0228
6.50
N/A
3.90
1.82
—
2.45
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not available
not applicable
C-41
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-48. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further
Processing (R12)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidiiim
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
3.31
12.78
3.84
180.6
2.65
N/Ab
2.96
32.65
386.5
1.16
9.20
126.8
126.0
9.23
1,561
3.72
0.811
10.52
0.177
144.0
C
0.0012
0.0010
0.0267
0.0036
0.0016
0.0008
0.0031
0.0285
650.1
N/A
120.2
16.31
—
210.6
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
3.31
12.78
3.84
180.6
0.215
N/A
2.96
32.65
386.5
1.16
9.20
129.3
126.0
9.23
1,561
1.29
0.811
10.52
0.177
144.0
—
0.0012
0.0010
0.0267
0.0036
0.0016
0.0008
0.0031
0.0285
650.1
N/A
120.2
16.31
—
210.6
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
3.25
7.77
7.52
25.07
8.11
N/A
4.97
22.11
N/A
0.725
0.179
11.93
16.13
6.18
N/A
4.03
N/A
3.21
30.64
39.01
—
0.0016
0.0035
0.0698
0.0040
0.0164
0.0020
0.0019
0.0120
3.42
N/A
2.05
N/A
—
13.97
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
3.25
7.77
1.74
25.07
6.35
N/A
4.97
22.11
407.8
0.725
0.179
N/A
7.96
1.54
1,139
3.07
N/A
3.21
30.64
39.01
—
0.0008
0.0035
0.0698
0.0013
0.0164
0.0020
0.0006
0.0120
3.42
N/A
2.05
0.960
—
1.29
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-42
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-49. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing and
Rendering (R13)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
6.86
16.53
7.67
295.9
2.70
N/Ab
4.99
49.86
479.3
7.11
13.86
129.1
138.9
14.14
2,517
3.79
23.33
14.38
0.299
257.7
C
0.0027
0.0010
0.0303
0.0039
0.0019
0.0010
0.0034
0.0352
1,377
N/A
195.8
36.01
—
326.4
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
6.86
16.53
7.67
295.9
0.797
N/A
4.99
49.86
479.3
7.11
13.86
128.7
138.9
14.14
2,517
4.18
23.33
14.38
0.299
257.7
—
0.0027
0.0010
0.0303
0.0039
0.0019
0.0010
0.0034
0.0352
1,377
N/A
195.8
36.01
—
326.4
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
7.07
8.73
10.41
34.08
8.74
N/A
10.48
40.69
N/A
3.97
1.82
12.03
18.04
7.58
N/A
4.52
13.37
4.74
30.65
124.1
—
0.0020
0.0036
0.0785
0.0045
0.0182
0.0024
0.0020
0.0143
3.58
N/A
2.78
0.111
—
21.79
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
7.07
8.73
2.02
34.08
6.99
N/A
10.48
40.69
533.0
3.97
1.77
2.99
8.39
2.84
2,301
3.57
13.83
4.74
30.65
124.1
—
0.0013
0.0036
0.0785
0.0018
0.0182
0.0024
0.0008
0.0143
3.58
N/A
2.78
5.37
—
4.15
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-43
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-50. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing
and Rendering (R123)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
5.59
12.35
6.38
253.2
1.86
N/Ab
4.01
39.08
1,910
6.95
18.11
88.79
96.11
12.55
3,889
2.61
21.96
16.48
0.255
240.5
C
0.0026
0.00078
0.0210
0.0043
0.0015
0.00079
0.0026
0.0287
2,030
N/A
181.6
36.61
—
323.9
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
5.59
12.35
6.38
253.2
0.600
N/A
4.01
39.08
1,910
6.95
18.11
88.23
96.11
12.55
3,889
3.17
21.96
16.48
0.255
240.5
—
0.0026
0.00078
0.0210
0.0043
0.0015
0.00079
0.0026
0.0287
2,030
N/A
181.6
36.61
—
323.9
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
5.80
6.23
7.97
27.26
6.01
N/A
8.80
33.23
N/A
3.85
4.26
8.66
12.52
6.00
N/A
3.13
13.03
5.86
20.92
133.0
—
0.0016
0.0027
0.0543
0.0055
0.0138
0.0018
0.0015
0.0113
2.69
N/A
2.36
2.78
—
21.70
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
5.80
6.23
1.46
27.26
4.82
N/A
8.80
33.23
2,489
3.85
4.13
N/A
5.91
2.70
4,201
2.48
13.34
5.86
20.92
133.0
—
0.0011
0.0026
0.0543
0.0037
0.0138
0.0018
0.0007
0.0113
2.69
N/A
2.36
6.35
—
5.32
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-44
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-51. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing (R2)
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
2.89
3.47
3.65
162.4
0.0639
N/Aa
1.94
16.17
4,952
6.59
27.15
3.06
5.21
9.16
6,803
0.0897
19.07
20.94
0.161
203.98
b
0.0022
0.00023
0.0013
0.0050
0.00070
0.00024
0.00091
0.0147
3,419
N/A
151.5
37.89
—
318.6
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
2.89
3.47
3.65
162.4
0.183
N/A
1.94
16.17
4,952
6.59
27.15
2.13
5.21
9.16
6,803
1.02
19.07
20.94
0.161
203.98
—
0.0022
0.00023
0.0013
0.0050
0.00070
0.00024
0.00091
0.0147
3,419
N/A
151.5
37.89
—
318.6
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
3.11
0.912
2.78
12.78
0.211
N/A
5.24
17.38
6,674
3.59
9.44
1.51
0.769
2.65
8,238
0.182
12.29
8.23
0.248
151.99
—
0.00069
0.00084
0.0031
0.0077
0.0046
0.00037
0.00042
0.0050
0.817
N/A
1.46
8.45
—
21.50
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
3.11
0.912
0.27
12.78
0.211
N/A
5.24
17.38
6,645
3.59
9.16
0.27
0.631
2.42
8,238
0.182
12.29
8.23
0.248
151.99
—
0.00069
0.00050
0.0031
0.0077
0.0046
0.00037
0.00042
0.0050
0.817
N/A
1.46
8.45
—
7.81
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a not available
b not applicable
C-45
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-52. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing and
Rendering (R23)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
5.21
5.76
5.89
203.5
0.0987
N/Ab
3.13
26.41
2,560
9.57
18.47
4.73
16.96
9.79
4,399
0.139
33.26
14.55
0.210
222.3
C
0.0027
0.00018
0.0046
0.0028
0.00065
0.00037
0.00081
0.0146
2,470
N/A
155.8
39.72
—
281.9
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
5.21
5.76
5.89
203.5
0.707
N/A
3.13
26.41
2,560
9.57
18.47
1.30
16.96
9.79
4,399
3.57
33.26
14.55
0.210
222.3
—
0.0027
0.00018
0.0046
0.0028
0.00065
0.00037
0.00081
0.0146
2,470
N/A
155.8
39.72
—
281.9
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
5.60
1.51
4.48
16.02
0.816
N/A
8.45
28.39
3,451
5.21
6.42
0.923
2.51
2.83
5,327
0.636
21.44
5.72
0.324
165.6
—
0.00084
0.00064
0.0111
0.0044
0.0042
0.00058
0.00037
0.0050
0.590
N/A
1.50
8.86
—
19.02
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
5.60
1.51
0.442
16.02
0.816
N/A
8.45
28.39
3,436
5.21
6.23
N/A
0.815
2.58
5,327
0.636
21.44
5.72
0.324
165.6
—
0.00084
0.00038
0.0111
0.0044
0.0042
0.00058
0.00037
0.0050
0.590
N/A
1.50
8.86
—
6.91
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-46
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-53. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing (Rl) Indirect
Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidiiim
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
PSES1
1,697
966.7
39.01
2,530,020
1,079
N/Aa
1,392
2,812
N/A
381.52
1.51
0.324
564.9
36.05
N/A
564.8
N/A
28.62
0.340
307.1
b
0.0310
0.0200
1.73
0.0033
0.0499
0.0042
0.0032
0.125
2,274,907
N/A
2,089,500
N/A
—
1,433,988
N/A
N/A
PSES2
6.28
24.28
7.28
2,530,020
0.408
N/A
5.62
62.01
733.9
2.19
17.46
245.5
239.3
17.53
2,964
2.45
1.54
19.97
0.34
273.5
—
0.0023
0.0019
0.0507
0.0068
0.0031
0.0015
0.0058
0.0541
2,274,907
N/A
2,089,500
N/A
—
1,433,988
N/A
N/A
PSES3
6.17
14.75
14.28
7,328
15.40
N/A
9.44
41.98
N/A
1.38
0.340
22.66
30.62
11.73
N/A
7.65
N/A
6.10
58.18
74.07
—
0.0030
0.0066
0.133
0.0076
0.0312
0.0039
0.0036
0.0228
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
PSES4
6.17
14.75
3.31
7,328
12.06
N/A
9.44
41.98
774.3
1.38
0.340
5.65
15.12
2.92
2,162
5.82
N/A
6.10
58.18
74.07
—
0.0015
0.0066
0.133
0.0024
0.0312
0.0039
0.0012
0.0228
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not available
not applicable
C-47
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-54. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further
Processing (R12)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
1,298
537.4
24.14
1,653,717
575.1
N/A"
1,098
2,032
N/A
672.0
20.69
N/A
304.2
22.84
N/A
303.8
192.5
33.36
0.193
460.0
— c
0.0198
0.0117
0.926
0.0033
0.0295
0.0024
0.0019
0.0788
1,333,263
N/A
1,470,027
N/A
—
1,305,229
N/A
N/A
PSES2
3.31
12.78
3.84
1,332,308
0.215
N/A
2.96
32.65
386.5
1.16
9.20
N/A
126.0
9.23
1,561
1.29
0.811
10.52
0.177
144.0
—
0.0012
0.0010
0.0267
0.0036
0.0016
0.00081
0.0031
0.0285
1,197,966
N/A
1,100,331
N/A
—
755,138
N/A
N/A
PSES3
4.72
8.20
8.83
7,328
8.21
N/A
7.45
30.34
N/A
2.42
4.65
N/A
16.49
7.43
N/A
4.11
4.66
7.11
30.76
111.0
—
0.0019
0.0039
0.0713
0.0076
0.0186
0.0022
0.0021
0.0144
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
PSES4
3.25
7.77
1.74
3,859
6.35
N/A
4.97
22.11
407.8
0.725
0.179
N/A
7.96
1.54
1,139
3.07
N/A
3.21
30.64
39.01
—
0.00081
0.0035
0.0698
0.0013
0.0164
0.0020
0.00064
0.0120
26,857
0.158
3,337
3.42
—
3,859
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
not available
not applicable
C-48
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-55. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing and
Rendering (R13)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
a's-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
PSES1
1,945
571.8
28.45
1,811,050
611.9
N/Ab
1,546
2,725
N/A
1,100
8.09
0.172
332.8
23.28
N/A
333.8
551.8
22 23
0.201
514.6
C
0.0212
0.0111
0.994
0.0020
0.0288
0.0026
0.0018
0.0783
1,251,966
N/A
1,487,234
16,664
—
1,177,498
N/A
N/A
PSES2
6.86
16.53
7.67
1,811,050
0.797
N/A
4.99
49.86
479.3
7.11
13.86
128.7
138.9
14.14
2,517
4.18
23.33
14.38
0.299
257.7
—
0.0027
0.0010
0.0303
0.0039
0.0019
0.0010
0.0034
0.0352
1,251,966
N/A
1,487,234
16,664
—
1,177,498
N/A
N/A
PSES3
7.07
8.73
10.41
7,328
8.74
N/A
10.48
40.69
N/A
3.97
1.82
12.03
18.04
7.58
N/A
4.52
13.37
4.74
30.65
124.1
—
0.0020
0.0036
0.0785
0.0045
0.0182
0.0024
0.0020
0.0143
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
PSES4
7.07
8.73
2.02
7,328
6.99
N/A
10.48
40.69
533.0
3.97
1.77
2.99
8.39
2.84
2,301
3.57
13.83
4.74
30.65
124.1
—
0.0013
0.0036
0.0785
0.0018
0.0182
0.0024
0.00079
0.0143
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-49
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-56. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing and
Rendering (R123)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
1,596
407.9
21.78
1,448,804
420.9
N/Ab
1,298
2,225
N/A
1,066
18.95
N/A
230.9
18.44
N/A
231.3
537.5
27.48
0.146
551.6
— c
0.0167
0.0084
0.685
0.0024
0.0217
0.0019
0.0014
0.0621
942,835
N/A
1,261,244
415,728
—
1,172,549
N/A
N/A
PSES2
5.59
12.35
6.38
1,448,804
0.600
N/A
4.01
39.08
1,910
6.95
18.11
N/A
96.11
12.55
3,889
3.17
21.96
16.48
0.255
240.5
—
0.0026
0.00078
0.0210
0.0043
0.0015
0.00079
0.0026
0.0287
942,835
N/A
1,261,244
415,728
—
1,172,549
N/A
N/A
PSES3
5.80
6.23
7.97
7,328
6.01
N/A
8.80
33.23
N/A
3.85
4.26
N/A
12.52
6.00
N/A
3.13
13.03
5.86
20.92
133.0
—
0.0016
0.0027
0.0543
0.0055
0.0138
0.0018
0.0015
0.0113
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
PSES4
5.80
6.23
1.46
7,328
4.82
N/A
8.80
33.23
2,489
3.85
4.13
N/A
5.91
2.70
4,201
2.48
13.34
5.86
20.92
133.0
—
0.0011
0.0026
0.0543
0.0037
0.0138
0.0018
0.00067
0.0113
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
not available
not applicable
C-50
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-57. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing (R2)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
854.7
59.75
7.59
678,936
14.80
N/Aa
772.0
1,164
6,674
995.2
42.02
0.0216
14.19
8.15
8,238
13.44
507.2
38.63
0.0300
630.1
b
0.0072
0.0026
0.0293
0.0034
0.0067
0.00040
0.00038
0.0276
285,799
N/A
780,938
1,263,903
—
1,162,000
N/A
N/A
PSES2
2.89
3.47
3.65
678,936
0.183
N/A
1.94
16.17
4,952
6.59
27.15
2.13
5.21
9.16
6,803
1.02
19.07
20.94
0.161
204.0
—
0.0022
0.0002
0.0013
0.0050
0.0007
0.00024
0.00091
0.0147
285,799
N/A
780,938
1,263,903
—
1,162,000
N/A
N/A
PSES3
3.11
0.912
2.78
7,328
0.211
N/A
5.24
17.38
6,674
3.59
9.44
1.51
0.769
2.65
8,238
0.182
12.29
8.23
0.248
152.0
—
0.00069
0.00084
0.0031
0.0077
0.0046
0.00037
0.00042
0.0050
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
PSES4
3.11
0.912
0.274
7,328
0.211
N/A
5.24
17.38
6,645
3.59
9.16
0.275
0.631
2.42
8,238
0.182
12.29
8.23
0.248
152.0
—
0.00069
0.00050
0.0031
0.0077
0.0046
0.00037
0.00042
0.0050
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not available
not applicable
C-51
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-58. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing and
Rending (R23)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material
(HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
1,540
99.06
12.25
851,145
57.16
N/A"
1,247
1,902
3,451
1,445
28.58
N/A
46.23
8.70
5,327
46.97
884.8
26.85
0.0392
686.7
C
0.0088
0.0020
0.106
0.0019
0.0062
0.0006
0.00034
0.0274
206,458
N/A
803,393
1,324,889
—
1,028,002
N/A
N/A
PSES2
5.21
5.76
5.89
851,145
0.707
N/A
3.13
26.41
2,560
9.57
18.47
N/A
16.96
9.79
4,399
3.57
33.26
14.55
0.210
222.3
—
0.0027
0.00018
0.0046
0.0028
0.00065
0.00037
0.00081
0.0146
206,458
N/A
803,393
1,324,889
—
1,028,002
N/A
N/A
PSES3
5.60
1.51
4.48
7,328
0.816
N/A
8.45
28.39
3,451
5.21
6.42
N/A
2.51
2.83
5,327
0.636
21.44
5.72
0.324
165.6
—
0.00084
0.00064
0.0111
0.0044
0.0042
0.00058
0.00037
0.0050
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
PSES4
5.60
1.51
0.44
7,328
0.816
N/A
8.45
28.39
3,436
5.21
6.23
N/A
0.81
2.58
5,327
0.636
21.44
5.72
0.324
165.6
—
0.00084
0.00038
0.0111
0.0044
0.0042
0.00058
0.00037
0.0050
51,000
0.300
6,338
6.50
—
7,328
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cysts/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
not available
not applicable
C-52
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-59. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing (PI)
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
2.00
8.20
23.60
2.00
2.02
0.00100
2.00
25.60
87.20
2.00
0.378
25.42
28.74
0.108
822.4
3.32
5.86
0.722
b
178.8
0.00444
0.00876
—
0.00740
—
0.00104
—
—
0.07694
1,550
—
2.00
34.00
2.00
621.0
—
—
BAT 2
2.00
8.20
23.60
2.00
0.258
0.00100
2.00
25.60
87.20
2.00
0.378
27.18
28.74
0.108
822.4
1.56
5.86
0.722
—
178.8
0.00444
0.00876
—
0.00740
—
0.00104
—
—
0.07694
1,550
—
2.00
34.00
2.00
621.0
—
—
BAT 3
1.96
4.98
23.60
0.278
0.258
N/Aa
2.00
17.33
N/A
1.26
0.00737
2.51
3.68
0.0723
N/A
1.56
5.86
0.220
—
48.42
0.00019
0.00876
—
0.00740
—
0.00104
—
—
0.03246
8.16
—
0.03418
N/A
1.82
41.19
—
—
BAT 4
8.60
5.60
5.47
2.00
0.202
0.00229
6.60
20.40
92.00
4.80
0.0500
0.626
1.82
0.0180
600.0
1.19
3.52
0.472
—
122.4
0.02132
0.00456
—
0.07432
—
0.00288
—
—
0.05004
468.6
—
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.80
—
—
BATS
3.00
4.00
5.50
41.60
0.200
0.00100
3.00
19.00
92.20
3.00
0.0960
0.714
2.00
0.0100
618.8
1.29
3.77
0.410
—
124.0
0.02108
0.00100
—
0.05514
—
0.00238
—
—
0.00624
3.40
—
41.60
2.00
2.00
81.60
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not available
not applicable
C-53
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-60. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further
Processing (P12)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
BAT1
3.01
81.46
25.12
1.52
1.63
0.00074
2.96
34.04
141.6
2.62
1.09
20.52
50.00
0.131
1,052
2.68
8.14
3.71
c
579.0
0.00592
0.00715
—
0.00645
—
0.00196
—
—
0.128
1,222
—
1.52
25.64
2.00
494.2
—
—
BAT 2
3.01
81.46
25.12
1.52
0.387
0.00074
2.96
34.04
141.6
2.62
1.09
20.38
50.00
0.131
1,052
2.82
8.14
3.71
—
579.0
0.00592
0.00715
—
0.00645
—
0.00196
—
—
0.128
1,222
—
1.52
25.64
2.00
494.2
—
—
BAT 3
2.99
23.49
23.30
0.208
0.387
N/A"
2.96
27.91
N/A
1.55
0.288
2.03
6.97
0.0684
N/A
1.45
6.79
1.41
—
368.6
0.00134
0.00669
—
0.00645
—
0.00196
—
—
0.0484
6.06
—
0.0257
N/A
1.86
32.82
—
—
BAT 4
19.26
60.10
4.62
1.66
0.347
0.00170
12.34
35.81
144.9
6.92
0.311
0.495
4.82
0.0269
886.8
3.91
7.07
4.67
—
557.6
0.02108
0.00400
—
0.06069
—
0.00519
—
—
0.0823
438.5
—
1.66
2.25
1.48
3.65
—
—
BATS
6.72
42.93
4.65
34.50
0.344
0.00074
5.61
33.36
145.2
4.33
0.597
0.565
5.32
0.0149
900.8
4.24
7.56
4.06
—
564.9
0.02084
0.00088
—
0.04502
—
0.00429
—
—
0.0103
3.18
—
34.62
2.25
1.48
78.41
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
not available
not applicable
C-54
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-61. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing and
Rendering (P13)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material
(HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
BAT1
2.04
16.41
111.0
2.11
2.14
0.00073
2.23
65.79
91.66
4.67
0.647
26.94
70.14
0.216
1,027
3.52
11.84
1.25
c
302.3
0.0050
0.0098
—
0.0103
—
0.0024
—
—
0.103
1,088
—
2.18
36.88
2.00
675.7
—
—
BAT 2
2.04
16.41
111.0
2.11
1.50
0.00073
2.23
65.79
91.66
4.67
0.647
26.82
70.14
0.216
1,027
3.64
11.84
1.25
—
302.3
0.0050
0.0098
—
0.0103
—
0.0024
—
—
0.103
1,088
—
2.18
36.88
2.00
675.7
—
—
BAT 3
2.02
6.25
88.41
0.248
1.50
N/A"
2.23
60.12
N/A
2.66
0.140
7.55
9.97
0.0907
N/A
1.53
9.06
0.446
—
167.1
0.0010
0.0072
—
0.0103
—
0.0024
—
—
0.0395
5.60
—
0.0312
N/A
1.87
45.10
—
—
BAT 4
11.56
11.85
10.87
4.96
1.47
0.00157
8.84
80.25
94.82
13.10
0.165
1.49
3.00
0.0499
874.1
5.49
11.59
1.35
—
271.9
0.0186
0.0067
—
0.0815
—
0.0063
—
—
0.0663
352.7
—
5.49
24.55
1.37
8.73
—
—
BATS
4.03
8.46
10.94
103.1
1.46
0.00069
4.02
74.74
95.02
8.18
0.317
1.69
3.32
0.0277
887.0
5.95
12.40
1.17
—
275.5
0.0184
0.0015
—
0.0604
—
0.0052
—
—
0.0083
2.56
—
114.26
24.55
1.37
187.5
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-55
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-62. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing
and Rendering (P123)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
BAT1
2.79
69.48
95.26
1.73
1.83
0.00059
2.90
64.31
131.4
4.62
1.13
22.98
77.99
0.213
1,158
3.01
12.38
3.37
— c
577.0
0.00600
0.00841
—
0.00907
—
0.00282
—
—
0.136
933.0
—
1.78
30.08
2.00
570.4
—
—
BAT 2
2.79
69.48
95.26
1.73
1.36
0.00059
2.90
64.31
131.4
4.62
1.13
21.81
77.99
0.213
1,158
4.18
12.38
3.37
—
577.0
0.00600
0.00841
—
0.00907
—
0.00282
—
—
0.136
933.0
—
1.78
30.08
2.00
570.4
—
—
BAT 3
2.77
19.81
75.65
0.202
1.36
N/A"
2.90
59.73
N/A
2.61
0.323
6.22
11.21
0.0842
N/A
1.45
9.14
1.29
—
383.0
0.0017
0.00595
—
0.00907
—
0.00282
—
—
0.0501
4.53
—
0.0254
N/A
1.90
38.09
—
—
BAT 4
18.94
51.30
9.20
4.13
1.34
0.00127
12.69
80.17
133.7
13.07
0.337
1.22
5.02
0.0503
1,035
6.69
12.68
4.31
—
567.7
0.0189
0.00587
—
0.06990
—
0.00733
—
—
0.0872
352.6
—
4.57
20.37
1.11
7.67
—
—
BATS
6.61
36.65
9.26
85.90
1.32
0.00055
5.77
74.67
134.0
8.17
0.648
1.39
5.54
0.0280
1,045
7.25
13.56
3.75
—
575.1
0.0187
0.00129
—
0.05186
—
0.00606
—
—
0.0109
2.56
—
95.00
20.37
1.11
164.6
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-56
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-63. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing (P2)
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material
(HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
rraws-Permethrin
BAT1
5.91
290.8
29.48
0.140
0.518
N/Aa
5.71
58.14
297.3
4.38
3.13
6.51
110.8
0.198
1,707
0.852
14.65
12.23
b
1,723
0.0101
0.0026
—
0.0038
—
0.0046
—
—
0.275
285.9
—
0.138
1.73
2.00
131.7
—
—
BAT 2
5.91
290.8
29.48
0.140
0.757
N/A
5.71
58.14
297.3
4.38
3.13
0.938
110.8
0.198
1,707
6.42
14.65
12.23
—
1,723
0.0101
0.0026
—
0.0038
—
0.0046
—
—
0.275
285.9
—
0.138
1.73
2.00
131.7
—
—
BAT 3
5.91
76.39
22.45
0.0110
0.757
N/A
5.71
58.14
297.3
2.38
1.09
0.668
16.36
0.057
1,707
1.14
9.44
4.81
—
1,284
0.0046
0.0008
—
0.0038
—
0.0046
—
—
0.094
0.068
—
0.0013
0.386
2.00
8.88
—
—
BAT 4
49.73
215.9
2.21
0.684
0.763
N/A
28.75
79.87
296.0
12.99
1.06
0.121
13.41
0.052
1,707
11.68
17.20
16.68
—
1,802
0.0204
0.0024
—
0.0217
—
0.0118
—
—
0.175
352.4
—
0.706
2.95
0.0071
3.23
—
—
BATS
17.35
154.2
2.23
14.22
0.755
N/A
13.07
74.39
296.6
8.12
2.03
0.138
14.80
0.029
1,707
12.66
18.40
14.49
—
1,825
0.0202
0.0005
—
0.0161
—
0.0097
—
—
0.0218
2.56
—
14.69
2.95
0.0071
69.31
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a not available
b not applicable
C-57
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-64. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing and
Rendering (P23)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5 -Day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material
(HEM)
Fecal colifonn bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
a's-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
BAT1
3.77
145.3
183.9
1.39
1.59
0.00008
4.02
112.2
186.2
7.86
2.06
19.97
138.94
0.342
1,574
2.61
20.45
6.65
C
1,070
0.0079
0.0080
—
0.0111
—
0.0050
—
—
0.210
169.7
—
1.51
25.23
2.00
507.8
—
—
BAT 2
3.77
145.3
183.9
1.39
2.72
0.00008
4.02
112.2
186.2
7.86
2.06
15.16
138.94
0.342
1,574
7.42
20.45
6.65
—
1,070
0.0079
0.0080
—
0.0111
—
0.0050
—
—
0.210
169.7
—
1.51
25.23
2.00
507.8
—
—
BAT 3
3.77
38.17
140.1
0.11
2.72
N/Ab
4.02
112.2
186.2
4.28
0.715
10.80
20.53
0.099
1,574
1.32
13.18
2.61
—
797.2
0.0036
0.0025
—
0.0111
—
0.0050
—
—
0.0718
0.0405
—
0.0146
5.63
2.00
34.27
—
—
BAT 4
31.73
107.9
13.82
6.77
2.74
0.000004
20.22
154.1
185.4
23.31
0.693
1.96
8.98
0.0903
1,574
13.49
24.01
9.07
—
1,119
0.0159
0.0075
—
0.0645
—
0.0128
—
—
0.133
209.11
—
7.74
43.10
0.0071
12.45
—
—
BATS
11.07
77.06
13.90
140.7
2.71
0.000002
9.19
143.6
185.8
14.57
1.33
2.23
9.91
0.0502
1,574
14.62
25.69
7.87
—
1,134
0.0158
0.0016
—
0.0478
—
0.0106
—
—
0.0166
1.52
—
161.1
43.10
0.0071
267.3
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
0 not applicable
C-58
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-65. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing (PI)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
PSES1
152.4
N/Aa
24.36
1,341,534
7.52
N/A
193.4
355.8
53.95
55.53
0.0928
0.273
30.61
2.76
458.5
30.24
87.86
6.96
b
68.76
0.0108
0.0285
—
0.1065
—
0.0040
—
—
0.0291
190,767
—
1,331,004
5,867
1.60
1,259,454
—
—
PSES2
2.00
8.20
23.60
79,280
0.258
0.0010
2.00
25.60
87.20
2.00
0.38
27.18
28.74
0.108
822.4
1.56
5.86
0.722
—
178.8
0.0044
0.0088
—
0.0074
—
0.0010
—
—
0.0769
65,085
—
66,480
1,980
111.2
163,280
—
—
PSES3
1.96
4.98
23.60
801,150
0.258
N/A
2.00
17.33
N/A
1.26
0.0074
2.51
3.68
0.0723
N/A
1.56
5.86
0.220
—
48.42
0.0002
0.0088
—
0.0074
—
0.0010
—
—
0.0325
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
PSES4
8.60
5.60
5.47
801,150
0.202
0.0023
6.60
20.40
92.00
4.80
0.0500
0.63
1.82
0.0180
600.0
1.19
3.52
0.472
—
122.40
0.0213
0.0046
—
0.0743
—
0.0029
—
—
0.0500
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
not available
not applicable
C-59
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-66. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further
Processing (P12)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
PSES1
258.5
612.2
34.02
1,005,165
10.55
N/Ab
260.5
436.2
117.0
64.83
5.28
0.445
32.98
3.52
667.1
32.25
85.71
21.77
C
798.4
0.0114
0.0229
—
0.0814
—
0.0052
—
—
0.141
180,978
—
1,000,319
4,467
1.71
967,397
—
—
PSES2
3.01
81.46
25.12
79,280
0.387
0.00074
2.96
34.04
141.6
2.62
1.09
20.38
50.00
0.131
1,052
2.82
8.14
3.71
—
579.0
0.0059
0.0072
—
0.0065
—
0.0020
—
—
0.128
65,085
—
66,480
1,980
111.2
163,280
—
—
PSES3
2.99
23.49
23.30
801,150
0.387
N/A
2.96
27.91
N/A
1.55
0.288
2.03
6.97
0.0684
N/A
1.45
6.79
1.41
—
368.6
0.0013
0.0067
—
0.0065
—
0.0020
—
—
0.0484
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
PSES4
19.26
60.10
4.62
801,150
0.347
0.0017
12.34
35.81
144.9
6.92
0.311
0.495
4.82
0.0269
886.8
3.91
7.07
4.67
—
557.6
0.0211
0.0040
—
0.0607
—
0.0052
—
—
0.0823
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-60
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-67. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing and
Rendering (P13)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
105.2
6.74
111.6
944,808
6.48
N/Ab
133.4
292.2
68.86
41.38
0.451
8.37
71.42
2.04
777.0
23.31
68.06
5.52
c
226.9
0.0094
0.0234
—
0.0783
—
0.0044
—
—
0.0703
151,265
—
933,564
4,645
36.05
914,926
—
—
PSES2
2.04
16.41
111.0
79,280
1.50
0.00073
2.23
65.79
91.66
4.67
0.647
26.82
70.14
0.22
1026.57
3.64
11.84
1.25
—
302.3
0.0050
0.0098
—
0.0103
—
0.0024
—
—
0.103
65,085
—
66,480
1,980
111.2
163,280
—
—
PSES3
2.02
6.25
88.41
801,150
1.50
N/A
2.23
60.12
N/A
2.66
0.140
7.55
9.97
0.0907
N/A
1.53
9.06
0.446
—
167.1
0.0010
0.0072
—
0.0103
—
0.0024
—
—
0.0395
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
PSES4
11.56
11.85
10.87
801,150
1.47
0.0016
8.84
80.25
94.82
13.10
0.165
1.49
3.00
0.0499
874.1
5.49
11.59
1.35
—
271.9
0.0186
0.0067
—
0.0815
—
0.0063
—
—
0.0663
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
not available
not applicable
C-61
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-68. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing
and Rendering (P123)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
193.4
465.5
101.9
770,439
8.95
N/A"
195.1
364.4
113.0
51.05
4.25
6.93
65.29
2.74
871.0
26.14
70.28
16.85
C
740.7
0.0101
0.0202
—
0.0650
—
0.0052
—
—
0.146
151,584
—
763,576
3,836
29.46
763,532
—
—
PSES2
2.79
69.48
95.26
79,272
1.36
0.00059
2.90
64.31
131.4
4.62
1.13
21.81
77.99
0.213
1,158
4.18
12.38
3.37
—
577.0
0.0060
0.0084
—
0.0091
—
0.0028
—
—
0.136
65,079
—
66,473
1,980
111.2
163,264
—
—
PSES3
2.77
19.81
75.65
801,070
1.36
N/A
2.90
59.73
N/A
2.61
0.323
6.22
11.21
0.0842
N/A
1.45
9.14
1.29
—
383.0
0.0017
0.0059
—
0.0091
—
0.0028
—
—
0.0501
192,481
—
801,070
3,650
2.00
801,070
—
—
PSES4
18.94
51.30
9.20
801,070
1.34
0.0013
12.69
80.17
133.7
13.07
0.337
1.22
5.02
0.0503
1,035
6.69
12.68
4.31
—
567.7
0.0189
0.0059
—
0.0699
—
0.0073
—
—
0.0872
192,481
—
801,070
3,650
2.00
801,070
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-62
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-69. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing (P2)
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidiiim
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
PSES1
561.6
2,379
61.62
43,813
19.23
N/Aa
452.3
665.9
297.3
91.38
20.10
0.938
39.75
5.67
1,263
37.97
79.57
64.10
b
2,884
0.0131
0.0068
—
0.0098
—
0.0085
—
—
0.460
153,000
—
55,215
464.7
2.00
132,690
—
—
PSES2
5.91
290.8
29.48
79,280
0.757
N/A
5.71
58.14
297.3
4.38
3.13
0.938
110.76
0.198
1,707
6.42
14.65
12.23
—
1,723
0.0101
0.0026
—
0.0038
—
0.0046
—
—
0.275
65,085
—
66,480
1,980
111.2
163,280
—
—
PSES3
5.91
76.39
22.45
801,150
0.757
N/A
5.71
58.14
297.3
2.38
1.09
0.668
16.36
0.0572
1,707
1.14
9.44
4.81
—
1,284
0.0046
0.0008
—
0.0038
—
0.0046
—
—
0.0941
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
PSES4
49.73
215.9
2.21
801,150
0.763
N/A
28.75
79.87
296.0
12.99
1.06
0.121
13.41
0.0522
1,707
11.68
17.20
16.68
—
1,802
0.0204
0.0024
—
0.0217
—
0.0118
—
—
0.175
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a not available
b not applicable
C-63
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-70. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing and
Rendering (P23)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material
(HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
244.3
1,049
197.9
63,930
10.71
N/A"
197.3
375.3
186.2
45.51
9.40
15.16
108.2
2.71
1,382
21.07
48.55
29.10
c
1,573
0.0092
0.0098
—
0.0137
—
0.0067
—
—
0.290
103,135
—
61,605
1,324
63.94
150,041
—
—
PSES2
3.77
145.3
183.9
79,280
2.72
0.000076
4.02
112.2
186.2
7.86
2.06
15.16
138.9
0.342
1,574
7.42
20.45
6.65
—
1,070
0.0079
0.0080
—
0.0111
—
0.0050
—
—
0.210
65,085
—
66,480
1,980
111.2
163,280
—
—
PSES3
3.77
38.17
140.1
801,150
2.72
N/A
4.02
112.2
186.2
4.28
0.715
10.80
20.53
0.0990
1,574
1.32
13.18
2.61
—
797.2
0.0036
0.0025
—
0.0111
—
0.0050
—
—
0.0718
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
PSES4
31.73
107.9
13.82
801,150
2.74
0.000004
20.22
154.1
185.4
23.31
0.693
1.96
8.98
0.0903
1,574
13.49
24.01
9.07
—
1,119
0.0159
0.0075
—
0.0645
—
0.0128
—
—
0.133
192,500
—
801,150
3,650
2.00
801,150
—
—
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
c not applicable
C-64
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-71. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Mixed Meat/Poultry Further
Processing (M2)a Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
4.40
147.2
16.56
81.25
0.291
N/Ab
3.82
37.15
2,624
5.48
15.14
4.78
57.98
4.68
4,255
0.471
16.86
16.59
2.01
963.3
0.0106
0.0024
0.0122
0.0025
0.0070
0.0027
0.00086
0.0011
0.145
1,853
N/A
75.81
19.81
1.61
225.1
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
4.40
147.2
16.56
81.25
0.470
N/A
3.82
37.15
2,624
5.48
15.14
1.53
57.98
4.68
4,255
3.72
16.86
16.59
2.01
963.3
0.0106
0.0024
0.0122
0.0025
0.0070
0.0027
0.00086
0.0011
0.145
1,853
N/A
75.81
19.81
1.61
225.1
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
4.51
38.65
12.61
6.39
0.484
N/A
5.47
37.76
3,486
2.99
5.26
1.09
8.57
1.35
4,972
0.663
10.87
6.52
2.06
717.8
0.0048
0.00074
0.0125
0.0034
0.0084
0.0046
0.00092
0.00050
0.0496
0.442
N/A
0.730
4.42
2.00
15.19
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
26.42
108.4
1.24
6.73
0.487
N/A
16.99
48.63
3,471
8.29
5.11
N/A
7.02
1.24
4,972
5.93
14.74
12.46
2.06
976.8
0.0127
0.0015
0.0075
0.0124
0.0086
0.0082
0.0013
0.00076
0.0898
176.6
N/A
1.08
5.70
0.0071
5.52
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
C-65
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-72. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Mixed Meat/Poultry Further
Processing (M2)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cis-Permethrin
trans-Permethrin
PSES1
708.1
1,219
34.61
361,375
17.02
N/A"
612.2
915.1
3,486
543.3
31.06
N/A
26.97
6.91
4,751
25.71
293.4
51.37
1.95
1,757
0.0111
0.0070
0.0053
0.0195
0.0054
0.0076
0.0012
0.00082
0.244
219,399
N/A
418,076
632,184
2.00
647,345
N/A
N/A
PSES2
4.40
147.2
16.56
379,108
0.470
N/A
3.82
37.15
2,624
5.48
15.14
N/A
57.98
4.68
4,255
3.72
16.86
16.59
2.01
963.3
0.0106
0.0024
0.0122
0.0025
0.0070
0.0027
0.0009
0.0011
0.145
175,442
N/A
423,709
632,941
56.60
662,640
N/A
N/A
PSES3
4.51
38.65
12.61
404,239
0.484
N/A
5.47
37.76
3,486
2.99
5.26
N/A
8.57
1.35
4,972
0.663
10.87
6.52
2.06
717.8
0.0048
0.00074
0.0125
0.0034
0.0084
0.0046
0.00092
0.00050
0.0496
121,750
N/A
403,744
1,828
2.00
404,239
N/A
N/A
PSES4
26.42
108.4
1.24
404,239
0.487
N/A
16.99
48.63
3,471
8.29
5.11
N/A
7.02
1.24
4,972
5.93
14.74
12.46
2.06
976.8
0.0127
0.0015
0.0075
0.0124
0.0086
0.0082
0.0013
0.00076
0.0898
121,750
N/A
403,744
1,828
2.00
404,239
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
not available
C-66
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-73. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Mixed Meat/Poultry Further
Processing and Rendering (M23)a Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
fraws-Permethrin
PSES1
892.2
574.1
105.1
457,538
33.94
N/A"
721.9
1,138
1,819
745.3
18.99
N/A
77.22
5.71
3,354
34.02
466.7
27.97
0.912
1,130
0.0077
0.0093
0.0047
0.0599
0.0041
0.0064
0.0061
0.0172
0.159
154,796
N/A
432,499
663,106
32.97
589,021
N/A
N/A
PSES2
4.49
75.55
94.92
465,213
1.71
N/A
3.57
69.31
1,373
8.71
10.26
N/A
77.95
5.07
2,987
5.50
26.85
10.60
1.00
646.1
0.0077
0.0053
0.0072
0.0079
0.0049
0.0028
0.0058
0.0174
0.112
135,772
N/A
434,936
663,434
56.60
595,641
N/A
N/A
PSES3
4.69
19.84
72.27
404,239
1.77
N/A
6.23
70.30
1,819
4.75
3.57
N/A
11.52
1.47
3,450
0.979
17.31
4.17
1.06
481.4
0.0035
0.0017
0.0075
0.0111
0.0057
0.0046
0.0059
0.0080
0.0384
121,750
N/A
403,744
1,828
2.00
404,239
N/A
N/A
PSES4
18.67
54.69
7.13
404,239
1.78
N/A
14.34
91.27
1,811
14.26
3.46
N/A
4.90
1.34
3,450
7.06
22.72
7.39
1.06
642.3
0.0097
0.0042
0.0045
0.0378
0.0059
0.0085
0.0090
0.0149
0.0691
121,750
N/A
403,744
1,828
2.00
404,239
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
C-67
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-74. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Rendering (REND)a
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODS)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
BAT1
4.82
21.17
155.0
123.3
1.27
N/Ab
3.51
94.99
150.5
11.51
5.56
18.31
94.51
5.43
1,749
2.07
36.07
5.32
0.230
406.1
0.0051
0.0076
0.0034
0.0123
0.0031
0.0030
0.0096
0.0299
0.0873
806.9
N/A
81.35
42.35
1.61
520.2
N/A
N/A
BAT 2
4.82
21.17
155.0
123.3
2.72
N/A
3.51
94.99
150.5
11.51
5.56
13.25
94.51
5.43
1,749
7.13
36.07
5.32
0.230
406.1
0.0051
0.0076
0.0034
0.0123
0.0031
0.0030
0.0096
0.0299
0.0873
806.9
N/A
81.35
42.35
1.61
520.2
N/A
N/A
BAT 3
5.10
5.56
118.0
9.70
2.81
N/A
7.18
96.37
185.2
6.27
1.93
9.44
13.96
1.57
1,963
1.27
23.26
2.09
0.300
302.6
0.0023
0.0024
0.0036
0.0179
0.0033
0.0046
0.0098
0.0137
0.0299
0.193
N/A
0.783
9.44
2.00
35.10
N/A
N/A
BAT 4
13.03
13.79
11.64
15.31
2.83
N/A
12.67
125.0
184.4
19.00
1.88
1.71
3.30
1.43
1,963
7.98
29.84
3.25
0.300
388.6
0.0072
0.0062
0.0021
0.0580
0.0034
0.0088
0.0149
0.0257
0.0534
50.08
N/A
7.33
41.50
0.0071
12.75
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
C-68
-------
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9
Table C-75. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Rendering Only (REND)a
Indirect Dischargers
Pollutant of Concern
5-Day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
Fecal coliform bacteria
Ammonia as nitrogen
Carbaryl
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride
Dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand
Dissolved phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrite
Total nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total phosphorus
Total residual chlorine
Volatile Residue
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium
E. Coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Total coliform
cw-Permethrin
frans-Permethrin
PSES1
1,109
86.10
159.3
550,222
51.60
N/Ab
858.9
1,391
185.2
950.0
8.27
13.01
119.2
4.85
1,963
44.12
641.20
8.80
0.124
657.2
0.0047
0.0112
0.0041
0.099
0.0030
0.0055
0.0098
0.0296
0.0937
96,606
N/A
446,021
693,540
56.60
529,494
N/A
N/A
PSES2
4.82
21.17
155.0
550,222
2.72
N/A
3.51
94.99
150.5
11.51
5.56
13.25
94.51
5.43
1,749
7.13
36.07
5.32
0.230
406.1
0.0051
0.0076
0.0034
0.0123
0.0031
0.0030
0.0096
0.0299
0.0873
96,606
N/A
446,021
693,540
56.60
529,494
N/A
N/A
PSES3
5.10
5.56
118.0
404,239
2.81
N/A
7.18
96.37
185.2
6.27
1.93
9.44
13.96
1.57
1,963
1.27
23.26
2.09
0.300
302.6
0.0023
0.0024
0.0036
0.0179
0.0033
0.0046
0.0098
0.0137
0.0299
121,750
N/A
403,744
1,828
2.00
404,239
N/A
N/A
PSES4
13.03
13.79
11.64
404,239
2.83
N/A
12.67
125.0
184.4
19.00
1.88
1.71
3.30
1.43
1,963
7.98
29.84
3.25
0.300
388.6
0.0072
0.0062
0.0021
0.0580
0.0034
0.0088
0.0149
0.0257
0.0534
121,750
N/A
403,744
1,828
2.00
404,239
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
cfu/100 mL
a Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3
b not available
C-69
-------
APPENDIX D
INPUT VALUES TO ESTIMATE ENERGY USAGE AND SLUDGE
GENERATION
D-l
-------
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation
ENERGY USAGE INPUT VALUES
Number of MPP Facilities
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Facility Size
Small
Direct
59
48
6
0
4
Indirect
1003
2940
17
39
568
Non small
Direct
82
19
21
104
16
Indirect
70
234
75
143
209
Data from EPA 1999 Screener Survey
Energy Usage3 for Non Small Direct Dischargers per Treatment Option
40 CFR
432Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
BAT2
316,332,807
7,826,280
9,930,289
166,178,474
4,901,141
BAT3
238,067,261
7,338,834
4,859,038
100,648,346
3,125,891
BAT4
226,294,728
7,119,912
4,450,288
102,658,500
3,116,588
BATS
NAb
NA
NA
103,106,497
2,437,379
a Units are in kWH/yr
bNot applicable
Estimated using CAPDET
Energy Usage3 for Non Small Indirect Discharges per Treatment Option
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
PSES1
299,309,503
147,626,497
71,418,737
404,909,080
135,931,037
PSES2
599,067,236
259,816,154
104,225,644
766,707,568
251,384,650
PSES3
424,113,474
198,576,619
70,057,246
518,761,087
181,888,936
PSES4
393,228,477
192,326,157
65,496,995
500,079,836
176,441,950
Units are in kWH/yr
Estimated using CAPDE
D-2
-------
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation
Total Baseline MPP Energy Usage3 for Non Small Direct Dischargers
40 CFR 432 Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Total Baseline Energy
(KWh/yr)
314,521,360
7,793,105
9,930,289
165,853,063
4,867,236
a Units are in kWH/yr
Estimated using CAPDET
Total MPP Energy Usage3 for Non Small Indirect Dischargers
40 CFR 432 Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Total Baseline Energy
(KWh/yr)
280,799,419
118,919,076
69,596,688
384,558,363
115,134,700
a Units are in kWH/yr
Estimated using CAPDET
D-3
-------
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation
Total MPI Facility Energy3 Purchased
Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Purchased
(KWH/yr)
4,751,145,000
8,642,867,525
798,082,000
1,961,046,285
3,292,702,715
Not-Small Facilities
386
622
143
144
243
Small Facilities
1007
675
97
32
55
a Units are in kWH/yr
(Source: 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers Data)
Note: Census energy use data is not given for Group E-I
Group E-I Total Energy Purchased is based on the following calculation:
Number of Group E-I Facilities w/ 20 or more employess:
Number of Group E-I Facilities w/19 or fewer employess:
Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased per Group E-I Not-Small Facility:
Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased per Group E-I Small Facility:
Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased for all Group E-I Facilities:
Note: Census data combines data for Groups K and L
Facility Counts and Energy Use for Groups K and L are estimated
using ratios from Screener Survey
622
675
13,459,281
401,770
3,642,867,525
Subpart K Facilities from Screener Survey:
Subpart L Facilities from Screener Survey:
Number of Combination Census K&L Facilities w/ 20 or more employess:
Number of Combination Census K&L Facilities w/19 or fewer employess:
Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased for Groups K and L:
296
497
387
87
5,253,749,000
D-4
-------
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation
Total MPI Facility Energy Purchased per Facility
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Total Energy Purchased Per
Small Facility
(KWH/yr)
340,877
401,770
163,290
403,840
401,770
Total Energy Purchased Per
Non Small Facility
(KWH/yr)
11,419,383
13,459,281
5,470,230
13,528,635
13,459,281
a Units are in kWH/facility-yr
Ratio of Energy Use for Not-Small Facilities:Small Facilities: 33.5
Source: EPA 1974 Red Meat TDD (page 133)
Note: Assume the same Ratio of Energy Use for Not-Small Facilities:Small Facilities for Both Meat and Poultry
Note: Assume that Meat Further Processors and Poultry Further Processors
have similar energy requirements
Note: Assume that direct and indirect MPP facilities have similar energy requirements
D-5
-------
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation
SLUDGE GENERATION INPUT VALUES
Number of MPP Facilities
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Facility Size
Small
Direct
59
48
6
0
4
Indirect
1,003
2,940
17
39
568
M, L, VL
Direct
82
19
21
104
16
Indirect
70
234
75
143
209
Data from EPA 1999 Screener Survey
Sludge Generation for Non Small Direct Dischargers
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
BAT2
Nitrification
353,794
6,564
3,655
129,917
3,326
BAT3
Nit./De-Nit.
347,818
6,520
3,531
119,564
3,180
BAT4
P Removal
348,460
6,538
3,531
138,450
3,189
BATS
Filter
NA
NA
NA
138,450
2,417
Sludge Generation for Non Small Indirect Dischargers
40 CFR 432
Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
PSES1
DAF
63,466
2,900
9,552
38,518
2,588
PSES2
Nitrification
291,033
60,670
20,778
226,433
63,573
PSES3
Nit./De-Nit.
250,477
51,197
18,732
201,043
56,154
PSES4
P Removal
253,161
52,645
19,041
201,010
56,593
D-6
-------
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation
Total Baseline MPP Sludge Generated for Non Small Direct Dischargers
40 CFR 432 Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
L
Total Baseline Sludge Generated
(tons/yr)
353,794
6,564
3,655
129,917
3,326
Total Baseline MPP Sludge Generated for Non Small Indirect Dischargers
40 CFR 432 Subcategory
Groupings
A, B, C, D
E, F, G, H, I
J
K
Total Baseline Sludge Generated
(tons/yr)
63,466
2,599
9,520
38,422
D-7
-------
APPENDIX E
ATTACHMENTS FOR COST ESTIMATION (CHAPTER 11)
E-l
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
ATTACHMENT 11-1. DEVELOPMENT OF COST FACTORS TO ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS FROM CONSTRUCTION COST
Capital cost can be categorized into two categories: (1) unit process construction costs;
and (2) other direct and indirect costs. The summation of the above two costs provides the total
capital costs. Often other direct and indirect costs are expressed as a percentage of the
construction costs to determine the capital cost. Similar approach was followed to estimate the
capital costs of the treatment units for the proposed regulation. The construction cost of
treatment units obtained from CAPDET model runs were multiplied by a factor to determine the
capital cost. This section discusses the method used to determine the factor that converts
construction cost to capital cost.
The factor is determined from the costing document of the centralized waste treatment
(CWT) industry (USEPA, 1998). The breakdown of the capital costs as provided in the costing
document of CWT industry (USEPA, 1998) and the selected percentage for the MPP Industry are
shown in table below. The percentage selected are the average of the ranges provided for the
cost items. However, for piping the selected percentage is half the average of the range provided.
Cost Factors Used in Centralized Waste Treatment Industry and the Selected Cost Factors for the
MPP Industry
Cost Item
Equipment
Installation
Piping
Instrumentation & Control
Engineering
Contingency
Percentage Used in CWT
Industry
Technology-Specific
25 to 55 Percent
31 to 66 Percent
6 to 30 Percent
1 5 Percent
1 5 Percent
Cost Item on which The
Percentage is Based
Equipment Cost
Equipment Cost
Equipment Cost
Construction Costa
Construction Costa
Percentage Selected for
MPP Industry
40 Percent
24 Percent
18 Percent
15 Percent
15 Percent
a Construction cost in CWT industry = cost of equipment + installation + piping + instrumentation and control
The unit process construction cost in CAPDET is less than the construction cost for CWT
industry shown in the table above. After reviewing the components that constitute unit process
construction cost in CAPDET (see Section 11.5.1.1 in Chapter 11), EPA determined that the unit
E-2
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
process construction cost in CAPDET is at least equal to the installed equipment cost (equipment
+ installation) and partial cost of piping. Therefore, based on engineering judgement the Agency
selected half the average of the range of percentages provided for piping to estimate capital costs.
The selected percentages for the cost items were converted as a percentage of the unit process
construction cost and is shown in Table 11- 3 in Chapter 11. Summation of the factors for the
cost items shows that the capital cost is 1.69 times the unit process construction cost.
The method of expressing the selected percentages for the cost items shown in the table
above as a percent of unit process construction cost of CAPDET is shown below:
E = Equipment Cost
I = Installation Cost
= 0.4 * E
Therefore,
INS = Installed Cost
= equipment + installation cost
= E + I
=1.4* E
U = Unit Process Construction Cost
Unit process construction cost is equal to the installed cost. Therefore,
U =INS
= 1.4*E
and
E =U/1.4
P = Piping Cost
= 0.24 * E
= 0.17*U
E-3
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
1C = Instrumentation and control cost
= 0.18 *E
= 0.13*U
C = Construction Cost in CWT
= E +1 + P + 1C
= E + 0.4*E + 0.24*E + 0.18*E
= 1.82*E
EN = Engineering
= 0.15*C
= 0.15*1.82*E
= 0.195*U
CONT = Contingency
= 0.15*C
= 0.15*1.82*E
= 0.195*U
CAP = total capital cost
= U + P + 1C + EN +CONT
= U + 0.17*U + 0.13*U + 0.195*U + 0.195*U
= 1.69*U
E-4
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
ATTACHMENT 11-2. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TREATMENT
UNITS AND PERFORMANCE FACTORS
EPA received 241 of the MPP Detailed Surveys (MPP Detailed Survey, 2001) before the
cut-off date of May 29, 2001. Of 241 surveys, the Agency used 200 surveys for the development
of frequency of occurrence and performance factors. The rest 41 surveys were not analyzed
because of one or of the following reasons:
1. some were duplicate facilities,
2. some were not meat processing facility,
3. some have insufficient data, and
4. some were not processed at the time the cost estimation was performed.
EPA will use all surveys including those that were collected after the deadlines in
upcoming analyses for the forthcoming Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and final rule.
E-5
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Performance
Factor3
isinfection
Q
o3
E
or N+DN or
+DN+DP2
Z Z
° ca
s H
o -3
o ca
BC 3
ca a"
— —
fc
O
creen
c/j
o
it
0)
BC
ca
"o u
5 H"
0)
P
ca M
— S
U
§0
0)
a.
ca
0)
o
o
o
o
^
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
p
o
2
3
o<
1
o
o
00
ON
O
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
0<
1
o
p
o
^
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0<
1
ON
r--
o
CO
ON
o
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
0<
1
O
o
00
ON
O
2;
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
CO
3
1
o
o
00
ON
o
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
0<
1
o
p
o
^
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
0<
u
00
CO
o
00
ON
o
2;
00
ON
o
o
o
o
o
g
0<
u
o
o
o
o
^
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0<
1
o
CO
ON
o
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
0<
1
00
CO
o
00
ON
o
2;
00
ON
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
3
1
00
CO
o
00
ON
O
2;
00
ON
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
0<
1
o
o
o
o
^
2;
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
0<
1
o
o
o
00
ON
o
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
0<
1
o
o
o
o
^
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0<
u
o
o
o
CO
ON
o
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
0<
u
o
o
o
00
ON
o
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
3
1
o
o
o
00
ON
o
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
0<
1
CO
CO
o
2;
•^
2;
-^
/L,
f~-
0
CO
CO
0
o
o
Indirect
0<
1
o
o
o
2;
2;
2<
o
o
0
CO
0
t--
0
1
o
o
2;
2;
2<
o
0
o
00
0
o
o
0<
1
CO
CO
o
2;
2;
2<
CO
CO
0
o
o
' — 1
o
o
CO
0<
1
O
2;
2;
2<
(N
0
t--
0
ON
0
CO
3
u
o
o
o
2;
2;
2<
o
0
o
o
' — 1
o
o
CO
0<
u
o
o
o
2;
2;
o
o
o
t--
0
CO
CO
0
o
o
0<
1
o
o
o
2;
2;
o
o
o
o
o
0
CO
0
f-
0
1
o
o
2;
2;
o
o
0
o
00
0
o
o
0<
1
o
o
o
2;
2;
o
o
o
CO
CO
0
o
o
' — 1
o
o
CO
0<
1
s
o
2;
2;
o
0
t--
0
ON
0
CO
3
1
o
o
o
2;
2;
o
IT)
o
o
IT)
0
o
o
' — 1
o
o
CO
0<
1
o
o
o
•^
2;
•^
2;
o
o
o
r--
0
CO
CO
0
o
o
0<
u
o
o
o
•^
2;
•^
2;
O
O
O
O
o
0
CO
0
t--
0
o
O
.2
o
bfi
CD
td
u
T3
O
CO
VH
O
CD
O
cd
g
O
•i-
S
-4— >
H
o
o
I
o
o
CD
cr
CD
VH
PH
td
CS
H
E-6
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Performance
Factor3
isinfection
Q
o3
E
or N+DN or
+DN+DP2
Z Z
° ca
s H
o -3
o ca
BC 3
ca a"
fc
—
creen
c/j
Technology
Option
0)
BC
ca
"o u
5 H"
0)
P
ca M
— S
ir
§d
0)
a.
ca
0)
o
o
£
2;
o
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
0<
1
o
o
o
£
2;
o
o
o
CO
CO
o
o
o
• — i
o
o
CO
0<
1
S
o
£
£
o
o
t--
o
ON
0
CO
1
o
o
o
•^
2;
•^
2;
o
o
o
o
o
o
• — i
o
o
H
o
o
I
o
o
CD
cr
CD
VH
PH
td
CS
H
E-7
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Performance
Factor3
sinfection
Q
o3
E
or N+DN or
+DN+DP2
Z Z
° ca
s H
o -3
o ca
BC 3
ca a"
fc
Q
creen
V)
o
it
0)
BC
ca
"o u
5 £
0)
P
ca M
— S
ir
§0
0)
a.
0)
o
o
ON
o
z,
f-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
OH
3
O
O
O
o
o
z,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
OH
3
&
00
o
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
OH
&
3
&
O
O
ON
O
o
o
t--
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
OH
&
3
&
O
o
o
IT)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
OH
3
&
O
O
O
ON
00
o
o
CN
o
o
o
o
o
CO
OH
3
&
O
O
ON
O
o
o
t--
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
OH
&
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
OH
&
1
o
£
z,
Zi
CO
t--
o
CO
f-
o
o
o
Indirect
OH
3
&
CO
CO
o
£
z,
Zi
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
o
f-
o
OH
3
&
O
O
£
Z,
Zi
o
o
^H
O
o
^H
o
o
(N
OH
&
3
&
O
O
z,
z,
Zi
o
o
^H
O
o
^H
o
o
CO
OH
&
3
&
(N
O
z,
z,
Zi
f-
t~-
o
t--
t--
o
H
o
o
I
o
o
CD
cr
CD
VH
PH
td
9)
2
CS
H
E-8
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
e
t/2
O
.2
U
CO
VH
O
CD
03
CD
£
G
I
H
o
o
I
CJ
CJ
CD
cr
2
l|
H O
KTl
£<
cd
v O-
•-« t*%
Q H
0)
fa
ca M
fe .S
"3 S"
12
S O
1
"S
§
S
o
ON
o
<
z
0
C^J
T-H
o
p
T-H
o
p
p
01
^
o
u
Q
(N
2
•d
u
2
CS
o
f,
ON
O
<
z
ON
IT)
O
o
p
T-H
o
p
p
en
(N
'S,
•d
2
en
o
o
IT)
ON
O
<
z
^
o
o
o
p
T-H
o
p
p
.^
(N
2
•d
2
o
o
<
z
<
z
^
^7
z
o
i^
o
o
o
p
^H
o
•d
hS
(N
2
•d
2
o
o
o
<
z
<
z
o
o
o
o
i^
o
o
o
p
(N
(N
2
•d
2
o
o
o
<
z
<
z
o
o
o
o
IT)
O
o
IT)
o
p
en
(N
'S,
•d
2
o
o
o
<
z
<
z
o
o
o
o
IT)
O
o
IT)
o
p
.^
(N
'S,
•d
2
o
p
"-H
O
p
<
z
o
p
o
p
^H
o
p
p
p
S (2
o
o
o
o
p
<
^
o
o
o
o
p
^H
o
p
p
Tt
1
0<
^
o
If
S (2
en
o
<
z
<
^
^
^7
z
(N
00
o
ON
o
ON
o
^H
o
•d
hS
1
o<
^
o
§ I
^
o
<
z
<
^
IT)
•^j-
O
(N
00
o
ON
o
ON
o
(N
1
0<
^
o
§ 3
1(2
O
o
o
<
z
<
^
o
o
o
(N
00
o
ON
o
ON
o
en
1
0<
^
O
§ 3
1(2
O
O
o
<
z
<
^
o
o
o
(N
00
o
ON
o
ON
o
Tt
1
0<
^
o
C3 >^
ll
, ;
O
S
2
o
43
O
T3
a
o
§ C
o 'd
CO r^
*j 0)
0 T3
^ T3
OJ H
59 ^
c3 O
•^H "crt
^H O
S do
OJ OO i
"S -1 Q
O 0 +
c i ^
.^^ 1.) >^H
K* r~ ] O
^ •" !fl
c/2 ^ -b j_;
1 « § 8
8 5 S "
(5 «! g °
-i 5 H S
< 3 0 G
p CF -^ O
pj 1> c^ 72
§ 1 a &
rC C« .'H D
^ 5-H C CD
^ S z js
GJO o Q ^
^H CT) 1 CT)
'§• ^ Z |
o o ^r -3
& •§ 1 cS
4J | ^ C^ r|
'^ <^ VH O Q
'o o "-1 •'•' a
' 2 2 2
o ^ o o o
z z z z z
E-9
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
erformance
actor3
2- '—
isinfection
Q
0)
E
or N+DN or
+DN+DP2
Z7
11
be S
ea a"
— —
Screen
BC
B §
HO
0)
ea
•B a)
II
0)
P
ea M
— s
-s '%>
t P
§0
0)
a.
ea
0)
o
o
^H
O
^H
"Z
o
i— i
o
o
o
p
o
p
i
3
0<
1
o
o
00
ON
o
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
1
o
o
^H
o
^H
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
u
ON
t--
o
CO
ON
o
£
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
0<
u
o
o
00
ON
o
£
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
3
1
o
o
00
ON
o
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
0<
1
o
o
o
o
^H
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
1
00
CO
o
00
ON
O
"Z
00
_•
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
1
o
o
o
o
^H
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
1
o
CO
ON
o
"Z
_•
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
0<
1
00
CO
o
00
ON
O
"Z
00
ON
O
o
o
p
o
p
CO
3
u
00
CO
o
00
ON
o
"Z
00
ON
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
0<
u
o
o
o
o
^H
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
1
o
o
o
00
o
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
1
o
o
o
o
^H
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
0<
1
o
o
o
CO
o
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
0<
1
o
o
o
00
ON
o
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
3
1
o
o
o
00
ON
O
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
p
o
p
CO
0<
1
o
z,
'Z
KT-
o
0
o
l>
Indirect
o<
u
o
o
z,
"Z
^
0
ON
CO
3
u
o
o
o
£
£
^
CO
CO
0
CO
CO
r--
0<
1
o
o
o
•^
z,
•^
"Z
_•
0
ON
CO
1
o
o
o
£
£
o
1— 1
CO
CO
0
CO
CO
r--
H
o
o
o
6
'+*
o
CJ
CD
cr
£
CS
H
E-10
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
0)
o
e
ca
S*L
0 0
=s -5
CJ a
CM b
a
u
.s
.2
a
0)
E
Q a
i, Q
0 +
Z7
o
fe s
s .S
BG S
ca a"
— —
-^
=
0)
t/5
BC
o
o H
-^•2
aj &
H O
BC
•—
a
% *
an
0)
S>'o
a BC
fe S
•— a.
-o 3
5 ^
§d
0)
a.
H
a
0)
i->
0
o
^
Zs
"Z
i— i
0
<->
0
' — 1
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
CO
CO
0<
u
<->
o
^
Zs
£
1— 1
(N
•xf
0
r--
,_,
ON
i~i
CO
CO
0<
1
<~>
IT)
O
^
Zs
£
r-i
IT)
!->
IT)
0
i— i
0
1— 1
p
CO
CO
0
o
^
Z;
£
^
o
!->
ft
0
1— 1
iri
r--
rS
•^
0<
1
!->
0
o
^
"Z
"Z
^
o
^0
"— '
0
ON
iri
CO
rS
Tt
1
<->
0
O
^
^
^
1— 1
0
CO
CO
0
CO
CO
r--
rS
Tt
(N
0<
1
<-)
0
O
^
^
^
i— i
0
!->
0
' — 1
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
Tt
CO
0<
1
<-)
0
o
^
Zi
"Z
i— i
0
(N
•xf
0
r~
^
ON
rS
Tt
CO
u
<-)
0
o
^
^
^
r-i
<->
<->
fi
0
i— i
0
1— 1
p
•^
CO
(M
0<
u
<->
0
^H
<->
0
^H
^
1— 1
0
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
(N
^)
O
Q
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
, — i
r-
o
, !
o>
o
"Z
i— i
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
(N
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
i->
ft
o
IT1
l~-
o
'Z
i— i
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
(N
(N
OH
>-,
.b
3
(2
i->
0
o
<-)
0
o
^
1— 1
0
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
(N
CO
OH
>-,
in
3
(2
, — i
r-
o
, !
ON
O
"Z
i— i
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
(N
CO
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
i->
0
^H
<->
0
^H
^
1— 1
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
(N
CO
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
i->
0
o
<-)
0
^H
^
1— 1
0
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
CO
OH
^
in
1
CO
' — 1
o
, !
o>
o
"Z
1— 1
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
CO
OH
^
t3
1
f,
O
IT)
O
£
10
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
CO
0
o
<-)
0
o
'Z
i— i
0
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
CO
CO
OH
^
H
3
(2
CO
' — i
O
, !
o>
o
^
1— 1
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
CO
CO
OH
^
in
3
(2
i->
0
o
<-)
0
^H
^
1— 1
0
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
CO
CO
OH
>-,
in
3
(2
i->
0
o
<-)
0
^H
^
1— 1
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
•^
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
^o
0
o
, !
ON
o
"Z
^
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
•^
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
<->
0
o
ft
l~-
o
£
1— 1
0
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
Tt
(N
OH
>-,
t3
1
i->
0
O
<->
0
o
'Z
1— 1
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
•^
CO
OH
>-,
t3
1
^O
0
o
, !
o>
o
^
^
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
•^
CO
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
i->
0
o
<-)
0
^H
^
1— 1
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
•^
CO
0
o
!->
0
^H
o
o
1— 1
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
ir>
OH
>-,
t3
3
(2
CN
0
O
, !
o>
o
o
o
r--
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
ir>
OH
>-,
t3
3
(2
<->
0
o
f,
l~-
o
o
o
1— 1
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
f!
-,
H
3
(2
i->
0
o
<-)
0
o
o
o
1— 1
0
!->
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
f!
CO
OH
>-,
H
3
(2
CN
0
O
, !
o>
o
o
o
r--
0
<-)
0
1— 1
0
1— 1
p
f}
CO
OH
>-,
.b
1
S
t/2
>-.
VH
O
u
T3
O
c«
VH
O
CD
CJ
«
OH o
CD
CD
CJ
CJ
CJ
o
CJ
CD
cr
CD
PH
cu
E-ll
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
erformance
actor3
2- '—
sinfection
Q
0)
—
or N+DN or
+DN+DP2
Z Z
si
11
C3 O<
hJ M
Q
Screen
M
O
1 §
•H
HO
0)
ca
"o u
0)
-frl
3 U
ca M
fe .S
§0
0)
a.
§
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
en
OH
£
3
£
o
o
o
'Z
Z,
Z,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Indirect
OH
3
£
o
o
o
'Z
Z,
Z,
o
o
o
o
o
o
en
en
o
OH
3
£
o
o
'Z
•^
Z,
•^
Z,
o
o
^H
O
p
o
p
OH
£
3
£
o
o
^H
£
•^
!Z
•^
2;
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
en
OH
£
3
£
o
£
!Z
!Z
t--
t--
o
r--
r--
o
ON
o
en
OH
3
£
o
£
!Z
!Z
t--
t--
o
r--
r--
o
(N
ON
O
en
OH
3
(X
O
O
O
z,
z,
o
i— i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
OH
£
3
£
o
o
o
z,
Z,
o
i— i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
en
en
o
OH
£
3
£
o
z,
z,
o
o
o
^H
O
p
o
p
OH
3
£
o
o
o
!Z
!Z
o
o
o
^H
O
p
o
p
en
OH
3
£
(N
O
!Z
!Z
(N
O
r--
r--
o
r--
r--
o
(N
ON
O
en
OH
is
3
£
o
•^
z,
«^
^
(N
O
r--
r--
o
t--
r--
o
(N
ON
O
en
(N
OH
is
3
£
o
o
o
z,
"Z
o
1— 1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
OH
3
£
o
o
o
z,
Z,
o
i— i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
en
en
o
OH
3
(X
O
O
O
z,
"Z
o
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
OH
is
3
£
o
o
o
z,
Z,
o
o
o
^H
O
p
o
p
en
OH
is
3
£
o
o
o
!Z
!Z
o
r--
f-
o
r--
r--
o
(N
ON
O
CO
OH
3
£
o
o
o
z,
Z,
o
o
o
f-
f-
o
o
(N
ON
O
en
(N
OH
3
£
o
o
o
z,
Z,
o
i— i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
OH
is
3
(X
O
o
o
z,
Z,
o
i— i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
en
en
o
OH
is
3
£
o
o
o
z,
Z,
o
o
o
^H
O
p
o
p
OH
3
£
o
o
o
z,
Z,
o
o
o
^H
O
p
o
p
en
OH
3
£
o
o
o
!Z
!Z
o
r--
r--
o
r--
r--
o
(N
ON
O
en
OH
is
3
£
o
o
o
•^
z,
•^
"Z
o
o
o
t--
r--
o
r--
r--
o
(N
ON
O
en
(N
OH
is
3
£
o
IT)
ON
O
£
o
1— 1
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
2
Q
S
•d
X
2
IT)
O
IT)
ON
O
!Z
ON
o
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
S
•d
X
2
en
o
o
ON
o
"Z
o
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
S
•d
X
"S,
o
o
o
'Z
"Z
'"Z
o
o
o
o
o
Indirect
(N
S
•d
X
2
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
8
t/2
u
CJ
CJ
e 2
Ǥ I
I «
OH o
2
H
o
CJ
CJ
o
CJ
cr
2
PH
erformance
actor3
2- '—
sinfection
Q
•—
0)
-*^
'—
N or N+DN or
N+DN+DP2
o'l
a .H
§1
M 3
is a"
— W
'—
<
Q
»creen
Technology
Option
0)
£*
CS
-O cu
IS
0)
SO
r« ^
— s
p
lo
0)
a.
r^
C3
O
§
o
o
o
<
z
<
z
o
o
o
o
o
o
!/">
(N
O
!/">
(N
CO
(N
S
•d
X
§
!/•>
o
o
<
z
<
z
o
o
o
^o
o
•*
t--
o
(N
0\
CO
CO
(N
s
•d
X
§
o
o
o
<
z
<
^
o
o
o
o
o
o
^
3
(2
o
^
CS
rt
u
s
o
o
o
o
o
<
"Z,
o
o
o
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
CO
1
o
0<
>->
3
(2
o
^
CS
rt
u
s
o
o
o
o
o
<
"Z,
o
o
o
o
o
^H
o
p
o
p
-NT
•§
o
0<
^
3
(2
o
^
C3
rf
o
s
o
o
o
<
£
<
^
<
^
o
o
o
o
o
o
p
Indirect
•§
o
0<
^
3
(2
o
^
C3
rf
O
S
o
o
o
<
£
<
^
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
p
o
p
(N
1
o
0<
>->
3
(2
o
^
->
1
o
^
(rf
c3
1)
s
o
o
o
<
£
<
^
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
p
o
p
-NT
1
o
0<
^
3
(2
o
^
C3
cd
o
OJ
VH
CO
o
a
o
-Q
a
T3
03
C
o
"S
C O
^ 'S
5 S
GO C
s ^
S ^
s ^
V5 P!
CD O
•3 cd
^H O
a s
& I
03 ||
^ . o,
se?
o ao ±
T3 B Z
r ^ Q
o u +
« £ Z
T3 "^ . -
ner Survey di
jn for indrect
lenitrification
cost.
i EPA Scree
d equalizatii
ication and c
terformance
rC co :S o
& S a §
S-H OJO II "
t2 c9 2; °*
g)-g Q S
f ^z-B
0 0 y ^
ob £ § 'y
>--3 ^ ^
3 S £ °
0 u 2
° ^s z fi
^ -H (N cri
2222
o o o o
Z Z Z Z
E-13
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
ATTACHMENT 11-3. MPP COST MODEL RESULTS
Table E-3. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the
Technology Options for Non-Small Direct Discharging Facilities
Meat Type
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Model Facility
GroupingCode
Rl
Rl
Rl
R2
R2
R2
R12
R12
R12
R13
R13
R13
R23
R23
R23
R123
R123
R123
R2
R2
R2
R13
R13
R13
R123
R123
R123
R2
R2
R2
R13
R13
R13
PI
PI
PI
PI
P2
Technology
Option
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
5
2
Size
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
SO
SO
S4,805,019
S40,801
S219,589
$11,298,280
SO
SO
SO
$1,318,515
$62,407,672
$77,759,176
$86,867
$263,930
$13,428,162
$1,197,050
$3,044,534
$148,196,608
$2,441
$14,440
$728,549
$746,101
$35,198,172
$43,338,480
$796,937
$2,128,235
$101,300,856
$2,441
$13,383
$666,963
$4,188,223
$171,858,096
$191,899,520
$0
$28,211,594
$38,423,532
$43,328,776
$109,867
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$0
$68,389
$600,155
$83,974
$73,742
$1,190,031
$0
$0
$0
$1,048,562
$6,029,242
$6,922,657
$195,813
$79,640
$1,206,290
$2,418,999
$856,979
$13,012,161
$6,111
$5,772
$94,430
$600,468
$3,352,896
$3,811,846
$1,543,199
$536,065
$8,111,398
$5,794
$5,469
$90,322
$2,730,129
$15,249,847
$16,829,802
$464,331
$2,771,936
$3,388,889
$3,559,653
$157,341
Retrofit
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$0
$0
$98,815
$142,733
$0
$0
$28,083,452
$40,564,987
$118,769
$171,555
$1,370,040
$1,978,947
$6,498
$9,386
$15,839,177
$22,878,812
$957,706
$1,383,353
$6,022
$8,699
$77,336,143
$111,707,762
$12,695,217
$18,337,536
E-14
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Meat Type
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Model Facility
GroupingCode
P2
P2
P2
P12
P12
P12
P12
P13
P13
P13
P13
P23
P23
P23
P23
P123
P123
P123
P123
PI
PI
PI
PI
P2
P2
P2
P2
P12
P12
P12
P12
P13
P13
P13
P13
P23
P23
P23
P23
P123
P123
P123
P123
Technology
Option
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
Size
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$7,961,311
$11,202,192
$12,980,543
$183,111
$7,544,483
$12,174,484
$14,069,858
$94,947
$10,240,157
$13,578,900
$15,686,408
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,625,987
$5,060,322
$5,761,179
$0
$47,160,432
$63,844,072
$71,418,344
$10,987
$1,753,193
$2,533,387
$2,839,889
$102,003
$4,370,816
$6,925,654
$7,814,065
$289,556
$29,404,858
$37,638,488
$41,474,372
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,802,408
$26,355,690
$29,505,104
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$971,382
$1,223,752
$1,263,043
$122,294
$799,360
$1,142,777
$1,196,707
$201,577
$1,023,951
$1,268,555
$1,279,957
$0
$0
$0
$0
$109,992
$453,697
$465,764
$485,638
$771,560
$4,578,185
$5,556,303
$5,831,349
$40,757
$179,738
$222,356
$229,323
$78,470
$436,401
$591,656
$615,822
$630,111
$2,776,481
$3,349,248
$3,333,904
$0
$0
$0
$0
$683,867
$2,393,216
$2,371,851
$2,434,935
Retrofit
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$3,582,590
$5,174,852
$3,395,017
$4,903,914
$4,608,071
$6,656,102
$0
$0
$2,081,694
$3,006,892
$21,222,194
$30,654,281
$788,937
$1,139,575
$1,966,867
$2,841,030
$13,232,186
$19,113,158
$0
$0
$11,611,084
$16,771,565
E-15
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Meat Type
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Model Facility
GroupingCode
PI
PI
PI
PI
P2
P2
P2
P2
P12
P12
P12
P12
P13
P13
P13
P13
P123
P123
P123
P123
M2
M2
M2
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Technology
Option
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
Size
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
large
large
large
very large
very large
very large
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
SO
$21,789,980
$28,721,632
$31,538,728
$21,973
$1,184,120
$1,645,928
$1,899,125
$733,761
$25,833,008
$41,519,708
$45,849,888
$81,529
$7,730,416
$9,884,025
$10,860,911
$0
$8,561,975
$8,713,499
$9,773,011
$30,519
$3,205,753
$9,742,008
$0
$5,529,846
$6,387,821
$0
$6,540,381
$7,439,749
$0
$12,165,567
$13,560,700
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$365,712
$2,085,341
$2,487,245
$2,600,235
$22,342
$156,858
$197,467
$203,594
$498,609
$2,568,780
$3,483,518
$3,605,577
$166,489
$730,819
$880,307
$876,332
$225,998
$791,649
$782,255
$810,217
$110,204
$354,157
$857,795
$113,892
$721,420
$771,669
$139,221
$781,690
$824,591
$259,104
$1,310,686
$1,352,783
Retrofit
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$9,805,491
$14,163,487
$532,854
$769,678
$11,624,854
$16,791,455
$3,478,687
$5,024,770
$3,852,889
$5,565,284
$1,442,589
$2,083,739
$2,488,431
$3,594,400
$2,943,171
$4,251,248
$5,474,505
$7,907,619
Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
E-16
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Table E-4. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the
Technology Options for Non-Small Indirect Discharging Facilities
Meat Type
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Model Facility
Grouping Code
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
R2
R2
R2
R2
R12
R12
R12
R12
R13
R13
R13
R13
R23
R23
R23
R23
R123
R123
R123
R123
R2
R2
R2
R2
R13
R13
R13
R13
R123
R123
R123
R123
R2
R2
R2
R2
Technology
Option
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Size
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
very large
very large
very large
very large
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
SO
SO
SO
SO
$38,330,452
$201,309,152
$199,300,688
$281,684,640
$7,674,552
$109,691,736
$105,932,768
$110,184,632
$2,287,932
$59,993,712
$46,611,616
$47,687,252
$3,588,406
$37,076,732
$30,127,418
$34,521,628
$8,745,909
$109,926,016
$91,036,424
$177,182,640
$655,045
$2,912,704
$3,182,873
$3,873,326
$1,516,879
$40,301,924
$27,905,144
$28,278,274
$5,758,217
$93,439,408
$53,024,956
$103,721,944
$613,868
$2,613,792
$2,917,641
$3,453,399
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,709,886
$25,364,142
$23,456,988
$27,090,436
$998,181
$17,407,204
$9,853,671
$9,662,992
$254,753
$6,771,834
$4,199,786
$4,048,963
$417,189
$5,762,126
$2,774,500
$2,955,317
$726,438
$16,953,628
$8,076,983
$13,376,883
$150,901
$429,330
$433,225
$476,512
$160,959
$4,170,561
$2,463,362
$2,360,095
$440,752
$10,890,032
$4,930,998
$8,166,034
$141,092
$401,263
$412,937
$448,325
Retrofit
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$0
$0
$199,300,688
$281,684,640
$91,985,869
$99,994,413
$46,611,616
$47,687,252
$26,398,992
$31,268,069
$45,518,212
$100,133,552
$3,182,873
$3,873,326
$27,905,144
$28,278,274
$26,512,478
$61,672,110
$2,917,641
$3,453,399
E-17
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Meat Type
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Model Facility
Grouping Code
R13
R13
R13
R13
PI
PI
PI
PI
P2
P2
P2
P2
P12
P12
P12
P12
P13
P13
P13
P13
P23
P23
P23
P23
P123
P123
P123
P123
PI
PI
PI
PI
P2
P2
P2
P2
P12
P12
P12
P12
P13
P13
P13
Technology
Option
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
Size
very large
very large
very large
very large
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$6,142,098
$211,183,984
$135,677,312
$135,718,432
$9,562,528
$115,037,512
$100,356,304
$108,674,464
$30,867,114
$201,298,528
$171,936,096
$231,890,656
$0
$16,303,165
$21,677,976
$24,012,522
$0
$7,641,977
$5,595,342
$5,986,901
$548,934
$8,950,510
$8,626,571
$9,794,832
$672,122
$11,549,023
$9,664,684
$10,266,829
$16,734,425
$200,073,664
$173,983,472
$186,381,744
$2,567,397
$17,001,328
$13,121,277
$19,517,834
$0
$12,009,338
$14,762,752
$15,789,361
$0
$25,428,288
$15,341,535
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$552,927
$18,120,936
$10,966,498
$10,381,650
$1,258,507
$12,767,587
$8,990,328
$9,147,063
$5,828,478
$31,688,606
$20,252,848
$23,024,832
$68,129
$2,956,783
$2,174,673
$2,243,099
$23,373
$1,182,946
$536,207
$538,194
$141,398
$1,388,507
$1,065,967
$1,129,871
$99,076
$1,758,065
$905,141
$905,079
$2,138,543
$22,075,687
$15,252,051
$15,435,507
$314,432
$2,707,538
$1,241,668
$1,414,858
$39,040
$2,187,666
$1,387,720
$1,391,181
$47,540
$3,478,462
$1,376,323
Retrofit
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$135,677,312
$135,718,432
$94,740,851
$104,484,585
$171,936,096
$231,890,656
$15,158,803
$17,928,997
$5,595,342
$5,986,901
$7,945,823
$9,199,445
$8,962,263
$9,783,186
$164,267,147
$179,330,967
$13,121,277
$19,517,834
$10,442,884
$12,067,634
$15,341,535
E-18
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Meat Type
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Model Facility
Grouping Code
P13
P23
P23
P23
P23
P123
P123
P123
P123
PI
PI
PI
PI
P2
P2
P2
P2
P12
P12
P12
P12
P13
P13
P13
P13
P123
P123
P123
P123
M2
M2
M2
M2
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Technology
Option
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
Size
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
very large
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
large
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$15,772,579
$2,091,418
$36,721,092
$29,499,260
$30,831,876
$6,452,889
$164,122,080
$101,593,832
$102,261,784
$7,150,359
$91,395,024
$77,402,288
$81,054,640
$2,999,867
$18,458,508
$16,864,996
$20,471,944
$0
$67,846,544
$79,723,664
$83,178,600
$0
$13,342,282
$8,127,148
$8,339,379
$1,835,588
$46,649,320
$28,844,226
$29,002,166
$30,400,918
$237,813,392
$204,321,312
$337,282,624
$820,897
$16,379,139
$24,948,242
$27,943,370
$904,249
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$1,329,077
$262,429
$5,542,879
$2,685,068
$2,636,290
$659,240
$17,931,432
$8,207,464
$7,864,861
$833,098
$9,882,312
$6,579,022
$6,495,908
$627,089
$2,853,309
$2,120,529
$2,335,519
$181,679
$12,363,762
$7,376,269
$7,263,729
$24,355
$1,838,376
$726,480
$700,884
$187,821
$5,072,465
$2,326,795
$2,228,601
$4,048,072
$35,260,908
$20,264,530
$24,807,622
$250,175
$2,714,552
$3,170,180
$3,303,252
$239,983
Retrofit
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$15,772,579
$27,413,504
$29,511,578
$95,901,807
$100,625,481
$73,150,514
$78,201,521
$16,864,996
$20,471,944
$56,789,942
$64,562,014
$8,127,148
$8,339,379
$27,230,232
$28,544,782
$204,321,312
$337,282,624
$16,153,835
$19,348,984
E-19
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Meat Type
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Model Facility
Grouping Code
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Render
Technology
Option
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Size
large
large
large
very large
very large
very large
very large
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$21,609,332
$31,996,360
$34,866,372
$1,772,274
$44,720,368
$64,101,940
$68,115,184
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$3,370,251
$3,541,991
$3,604,617
$371,875
$6,718,449
$6,345,284
$6,316,723
Retrofit
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$20,806,984
$24,427,572
$41,897,042
$48,330,401
Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
E-20
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Table E-5. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the
Technology Options of Small Direct Discharging Facilities
Meat Type
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Meat
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Model Facility
Category Code
Rl
Rl
Rl
R2
R2
R2
R12
R12
R12
R13
R13
R13
R23
R23
R23
R123
R123
R123
M2
M2
M2
Render
Render
Render
Technology
Option
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Size
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
Incremental
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
0
SO
$7,299,355
$104,984
$104,984
$469,743
$0
$0
$0
$148,233
$148,233
$7,057,751
$0
$0
$0
$61,037
$61,037
$289,539
$54,933
$54,933
$1,665,124
$0
$0
$8,192,232
Incremental
Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$0
$178,736
$1,413,095
$3,486
$235,812
$228,987
$0
$0
$0
$4,969
$146,722
$1,207,726
$0
$0
$0
$2,033
$161,208
$131,410
$1,799
$64,252
$326,958
$0
$172,632
$909,610
Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
E-21
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Table E-6. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the
Technology Options of Small Indirect Discharging Facilities
Meat Type
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Readmeat
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Model Facility
Grouping Code
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
R2
R2
R2
R2
R12
R12
R12
R12
R13
R13
R13
R13
R23
R23
R23
R23
R123
R123
R123
R123
PI
PI
PI
PI
P2
P2
P2
P2
P12
P12
P12
P12
P13
P13
P13
P13
P23
Technology
Option
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
Size
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
Incremental Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$26,895,344
$151,499,760
$152,128,864
$183,388,576
$412,294,080
$1,276,559,616
$1,578,774,784
$1,867,879,936
$91,858,632
$419,484,096
$420,050,720
$498,965,536
$0
$0
$6,334,605
$7,825,042
$2,221,331
$14,641,294
$15,218,554
$20,195,592
$1,073,496
$13,651,828
$13,717,060
$32,517,392
$4,546,294
$16,988,052
$17,149,222
$20,165,204
$55,658,488
$187,852,080
$188,329,104
$221,011,072
$0
$5,595,467
$9,371,482
$11,700,697
$0
$0
$0
$0
$193,859
Incremental Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$3,873,826
$26,848,712
$23,960,492
$25,021,890
$58,444,990
$223,432,938
$238,175,152
$250,308,432
$12,875,693
$71,069,328
$62,482,176
$65,781,584
$0
$135,533
$988,796
$1,049,669
$418,784
$3,224,597
$3,073,139
$3,475,733
$594,234
$2,666,926
$2,593,285
$4,636,849
$902,655
$2,405,367
$2,127,847
$2,257,294
$8,136,523
$29,771,220
$26,325,620
$27,650,150
$33,878
$1,236,450
$1,693,577
$1,774,729
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,837
E-22
-------
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)
Meat Type
Poultry
Poultry
Poultry
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Meat and/or
Poultry
Model Facility
Grouping Code
P23
P23
P23
P2
P2
P2
P2
P23
P23
P23
P23
Render
Render
Render
Render
Technology
Option
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Size
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
small
Incremental Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$2,167,089
$2,417,926
$2,943,681
$115,647,168
$452,671,584
$454,453,536
$538,625,664
$242,585
$2,105,501
$2,120,554
$2,620,976
$2,796,848
$43,635,312
$36,320,992
$39,443,676
Incremental Annual Cost
(1999 dollars/year)
$366,679
$343,616
$364,323
$19,957,532
$76,483,208
$68,212,416
$71,655,976
$53,873
$358,133
$333,495
$375,810
$513,318
$6,030,492
$3,752,576
$3,717,570
Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
E-23
-------
APPENDIX F
AGGREGATED DAILY DATA FOR PROPOSED POLLUTANTS AND
SUBCATEGORIES
F-l
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS NO
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
Episode
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
OLiJ^l_d
Metho<
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
Sample
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
Basel ine
Concentration
14
6
6
93
15
30
11
8
9
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
115
95
191
208
161
0
1
0
1
1
2840
4250
2790
3760
18600
645
1840
1910
2060
1990
1480
2
2
2
2
2
1720
2050
2010
2070
.300
.490
.680
.300
.100
.200
.300
.430
.900
.370
. 150
.375
.280
. 160
. 190
.230
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
. 965
.390
.960
.540
.510
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
CAS_NO
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
Episode
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
OU.J_"_d L-i
Method
405 . 1
405 . 1
405.1
405.1
405 . 1
405 . 1
410.4
410.4
410 .4
410 .4
410.4
410.4
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
410.1
410 . 1
410 .2
410.2
410.2
410 .2
410 .2
410.1
410.1
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
410.2
410 .2
410 .2
410.2
410.2
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
4
5
1
2
3
Basel ine
Concentration
2070 .
3 .
3 .
4 .
4 .
5 .
3900.
4770.
2490 .
7810 .
20000.
3220.
4080 .
1720 .
2730.
2420.
4530 .
40 .
25.
37.
19 .
17 .
18600.
17500.
9700 .
10200 .
36800.
26 .
28 .
36 .
28.
30.
170000 .
5000 .
900000.
1600000.
1600000 .
900000 .
12 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
1600000.
1600000.
1600000 .
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
Value
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
CAS_NO
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
Episode
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
OU.J_"_d L-i
Method
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
300 .0
300.0
300.0
300 .0
300 .0
300.0
353 .1
353 . 1
353 . 1
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
Sample
Day
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
Basel ine
Concentration
1600000
900000
41
80
170
500
1300
1656
331
390
238
801
230
489
543
418
503
478
5
6
93
6
6
2768
1134
499
1986
24739
5
5
6
5
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
3
0
16
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.083
.733
.633
.500
.083
. 167
.667
.833
.333
.667
.500
.917
.000
.833
.000
.167
.167
.333
. 167
.000
.833
.833
.833
.000
.667
.333
.230
.750
.750
.300
.300
.300
.660
. 970
.640
.930
.570
.800
Unit
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL KJELDAHL
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
CAS_NO
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
Episode
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
OU.J_"_d L-i
Method
353 . 1
353 . 1
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
353 . 1
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
353 . 1
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
353 . 1
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
Basel ine
Concentration
22
31
31
33
34
25
19
21
30
64
63
62
62
70
147
24
68
271
63
271
77
26
21
27
18
1
1
2
1
1
171
103
202
212
210
1
1
1
2
2
150
25
69
271
63
. 100
.500
.400
.400
.000
.500
.000
.000
.600
.800
.100
.600
.800
.000
.000
.600
.800
.000
.600
.000
.700
.600
.100
.800
.200
.275
.800
.250
.610
.030
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.315
. 915
.070
.250
.510
.230
.350
.550
.300
. 900
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
CAS_NO
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
Episode
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
OU.J_"_d L-i
Method
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
Sample
Day
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Basel ine
Concentration
271
79
29
24
31
18
18
23
33
33
34
205
128
221
233
240
66
65
63
65
72
94
52
69
53
77
808
11
10
11
10
12
0
1
0
0
0
37
31
35
31
51
15
15
14
.300
.360
.570
.740
.730
.770
.075
.900
.750
.010
.430
.000
.500
.000
.000
.600
. 115
.015
.670
.050
.510
.500
.700
.400
. 100
.200
.000
.700
. 100
.700
.900
.400
.620
.890
.170
.210
.610
.600
.600
.900
. 100
.500
.600
.150
.600
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
CAS_NO
14265442
14265442
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Episode
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6448
OU.J_"_d L-i
Method
365 .2
365 .2
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-2
Sample
Day
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
Basel ine
Concentration
14
15
10
9
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1650
1330
1990
4550
148000
7620
805
855
760
760
700
12
5
7
5
11
1960
. 900
.600
.600
.300
. 180
. 120
.200
.780
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.300
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.01
.01
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte Name
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS_NO
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
CAS_NO
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
Episode
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
Episode
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
OU.J_",
_,d i_cy wj- y
Method
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
— C ^ Li-L L- J. _y ^-'t/ L^Jll— D^IJ.^
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
SP-4+SP-3
- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSESl
Method
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Concentration
2900
2260
1860
7260
5
8
12
10
10
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
Concentration
14
6
6
8
6
6
5
3
7
93
15
30
14
10
15
115
95
191
208
161
2840
4250
2790
2580
640
3290
159
158
325
.300
.490
.680
.320
.310
.310
.490
.205
.410
.300
.100
.200
.250
.735
.200
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.300
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Basel ine
Value
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
Basel ine
Value
0 .20
0 .20
0.20
0.20
0 .20
0 .20
0.20
0.20
0 .20
0 .20
0.20
0.20
0 .20
0 .20
0.20
0.20
0 .20
0 .20
0.20
0.20
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
CAS_NO
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C036
C036
C036
Episode
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
405 . 1
405 . 1
405.1
405.1
405 . 1
405 . 1
405.1
405.1
405 . 1
405 . 1
405.1
410.4
410 .4
410 .4
410.4
410.4
410 .4
410 .4
410.4
410.4
410 .4
410 .4
410.4
410.4
410 .4
410 .4
410.1
410.1
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
1664
1664
1664
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSESl
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
Sample
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Basel ine
Concentration
3760 .
18600 .
645.
187.
139 .
282 .
1720.
2050.
2010 .
2070 .
2070.
3900.
4770 .
2490 .
4570.
3570.
3570 .
4131 .
431.
349.
7810 .
20000 .
3220.
579.
400 .
444 .
18600.
17500.
9700 .
10200 .
36800.
170000.
5000 .
1600000 .
1600000.
1600000.
2300 .
1600000 .
1600000.
1600000.
1600000 .
900000 .
1656 .
331.
390 .
.000
.000
.000
.500
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.083
.733
.633
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
CAS_NO
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
Episode
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
300.0
300 .0
300 .0
300.0
300.0
300 .0
300 .0
300.0
300.0
300 .0
300 .0
300.0
300.0
300 .0
300 .0
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
353 . 1
353 .1
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
351 .3
351.3
351.3
351 .3
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSESl
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
Sample
Day
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
Basel ine
Concentration
293
301
9
5
238
801
230
34
14
7
2768
1134
499
1986
24739
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
25
19
21
30
147
24
68
41
94
80
19
26
19
271
.400
. 167
.885
.900
.500
.083
.167
.892
.613
.800
.167
.333
. 167
.000
.833
.230
.750
.750
.750
.750
.750
.480
.750
.750
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.000
.500
.000
.000
.600
.000
.600
.800
.300
.300
. 900
.850
.400
.300
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
CAS_NO
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
Episode
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSESl
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
Sample
Day
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Basel ine
Concentration
63
271
42
43
53
171
103
202
212
210
150
25
69
42
95
81
21
27
20
271
63
271
43
44
53
205
128
221
233
240
94
52
69
29
47
34
13
27
11
53
77
808
1
2
49
.600
.000
.900
.800
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.230
.350
.550
.050
.050
.650
.330
. 150
.050
.300
. 900
.300
.200
.100
.800
.000
.500
.000
.000
.600
.500
.700
.400
. 900
.900
.800
.250
.600
.600
.100
.200
.000
.510
.285
.400
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
CAS_NO
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Episode
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6444
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
365 .2
365 .2
365.2
365.2
365 .2
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSESl
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
Basel ine
Concentration
37
31
35
31
51
10
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1650
1330
1990
1680
1610
1280
114
160
138
4550
148000
7620
59
51
56
1960
2900
2260
1860
7260
.600
.600
.900
.100
.500
.600
.300
.180
.210
.200
.200
.790
.640
.010
.120
.200
.780
.295
.240
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Analyte Name
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS NO
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
OLiJ^l_d L-<
Metho<
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
350.2
350 .2
350 .2
350.2
405.1
405 . 1
405 . 1
405.1
405.1
405 . 1
405 . 1
405.1
405.1
405 . 1
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
Basel ine
Concentration
6
10
13
10
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
155
139
167
1
1
1
38
40
54
40
39
0
0
1
0
0
94
86
122
5
57
92
0
0
0
1410
1220
1600
1820
1410
600
2020
2130
8
7
.810
.700
.200
.800
.100
.220
. 120
.100
.170
. 130
.080
.784
.464
.238
.000
.000
.000
.600
.300
.600
.600
.800
.610
.435
.220
. 910
.790
.500
.900
.000
.790
.200
.200
.390
.480
.660
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS_NO
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
Episode
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.2
.2
.2
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
. 1
. 1
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
Sample
Day
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
Basel ine
Concentration
6
1656
13297
2945
11
5
2
4340
8400
7190
6320
5770
6
6
8
6
8
2740
3350
5520
3530
2910
4580
4
4
6
2570
2600
2630
2700
2650
1780
3670
5920
34
31
34
4392
2694
3291
21
25
20
10100
21600
.000
.408
.699
.149
.495
.020
.390
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.891
.342
.873
.650
.350
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
CAS_NO
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
Episode
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
410.1
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
410.1
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
410.1
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.2
410.2
410 .2
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
Sample
Day
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
Basel ine
Concentration
18200 .
47200 .
12300.
117.
135 .
112 .
109.
112 .
5550 .
5090 .
7180.
8540.
6720 .
8260 .
41.
45.
55 .
300000 .
1600000.
1600000.
300000 .
300000 .
1600000.
1600000.
1600000 .
26 .
36 .
2 .
1600000 .
407518 .
1180694 .
2 .
2 .
2300 .
1600000.
1600000.
1600000 .
1600000 .
1600000.
13 .
3 .
70 .
2300.
80.
1600000 .
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.610
.789
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
Value
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
NITRATE/NITRITE
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
CAS_NO
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C005
Episode
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
353 . 1
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
Sample
Day
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
Basel ine
Concentration
500000
1600000
1600000
1600000
1600000
2
66
30
230
186
96
122
178
107
160
226
5
6
5
183
57
99
5
5
5
1926
4556
3318
3159
2026
6
6
6
6
5
119
312
651
534
454
868
5
5
24
2
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
. 167
.000
.333
.833
.500
. 167
.667
.667
. 917
.000
.833
.447
.341
.377
.733
.858
.783
.833
.667
.333
.500
.667
.500
.000
.000
.000
.833
.667
.667
.500
.000
.833
.000
.333
.500
.833
.300
Unit
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
CAS_NO
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
300
300
300
300
300
300
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
Basel ine
Concentration
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
73
76
70
0
0
2
177
160
148
0
0
0
0
0
172
165
168
156
159
0
0
0
0
0
0
313
273
282
36
11
153
15
163
1
1
1
399
501
. 160
.890
.160
.120
. 100
. 190
.190
.750
.450
.800
.300
.300
. 154
.500
.500
.000
.010
.010
.040
.010
.020
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.010
.820
.600
.010
.550
.010
.500
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.400
.000
. 985
.645
.840
.757
.210
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
KJELDAHL
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
CAS_NO
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
Episode
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
Sample
Day
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Basel ine
Concentration
420
1
2
1
48
74
173
42
49
11
2
4
4
5
96
103
225
47
56
96
1
2
5
38
13
153
15
163
75
78
72
400
501
423
178
162
149
48
74
173
42
49
183
167
172
. 923
.430
.400
.000
.200
.700
.000
.500
.500
.075
.655
.520
.680
. 190
.400
.000
.000
. 100
.900
.000
.605
. 195
.290
.300
.660
. 100
.590
.190
.735
.095
.640
.057
.510
.077
.930
.900
.000
.210
.710
.040
.510
.520
.075
.655
.520
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
CAS_NO
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
Episode
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
Sample
Day
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
Basel ine
Concentration
160
164
96
103
225
47
57
96
315
275
287
77
85
88
78
78
29
47
93
10
11
12
28
28
122
12
11
11
27
34
32
32
23
31
32
30
32
29
34
27
34
34
27
42
16
.680
. 190
.410
.820
.600
. 110
.450
.010
. 105
. 195
.290
.600
.200
.400
.900
.300
.500
.200
.400
.700
.850
.400
.157
.114
.484
.000
.470
.000
.700
.700
.800
.800
.300
.500
.500
.900
.200
.600
.700
.700
. 100
.700
.100
.400
.850
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_NO
14265442
14265442
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Episode
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6440
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6441
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6440
6440
— ouj_"_d L. t?y i_>j-
Method
365.2
365.2
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
330.5
330.5
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
y=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-l+SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-6+SP-5
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
Sample
Day
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
Baseline
Concentration
14
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
360
420
463
337
233
840
3080
.250
.100
.370
. 100
.370
.160
.240
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.269
.205
.285
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.400
.400
.400
.000
.000
.000
.605
.330
.910
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.01
.01
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
OLij^i_di_-
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
CAS_NO
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C2106
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
. 1
. 1
. 1
9221E
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
Basel ine
Concentration
464 .
0 .
1.
2 .
2 .
94 .
86 .
122 .
1410 .
1220 .
1600.
1820.
1410 .
2060 .
2070.
2070.
1740 .
3100 .
7 .
3 .
3 .
4 .
6 .
2740.
3350 .
5520 .
2570.
2600.
2630 .
2700 .
2650.
2000.
4310 .
3850 .
4880.
4930.
29 .
31 .
25.
23 .
24 .
5550 .
5090.
7180.
300000 .
.000
.330
.250
.980
. 900
.500
.900
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100M
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
CAS_NO
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
353 . 1
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
353 . 1
353 .1
353 .1
353 . 1
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
Basel ine
Concentration
1600000 .
1600000 .
300000.
300000.
1600000 .
1600000 .
1600000.
1600000.
500000 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
80 .
1600000 .
500000.
1600000.
230 .
186 .
96 .
122 .
178 .
337 .
270.
266 .
271 .
580 .
6 .
5.
6 .
6 .
5.
119.
312 .
651 .
2 .
2 .
1 .
2 .
2 .
0.
42 .
0 .
0.
0.
4 .
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
. 167
.000
.333
.833
.500
.333
.833
.500
.500
.333
.000
.667
.000
. 167
.667
.667
.667
.500
.300
.160
.890
. 160
.120
.010
.000
. 110
.080
.080
.710
Unit
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
CAS_NO
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
365
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
Basel ine
Concentration
5
5
7
6
0
0
0
36
11
237
269
255
285
1
1
3
96
103
225
38
13
237
311
255
285
6
7
8
96
103
225
77
85
88
78
78
53
66
83
65
68
3
6
8
7
.840
.460
.140
.970
.010
.820
.600
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.420
.330
.260
.400
.000
.000
.300
.660
.010
.000
.110
.080
. 130
.170
.720
.410
.820
.600
.600
.200
.400
.900
.300
.600
.300
.300
.000
.800
.260
.160
.900
. 950
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_NO
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Episode
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
— ou.j_"_d i_cy wj-
Method
365 .2
365 .2
365.2
365.2
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-6
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Basel ine
Concentration
7
34
27
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
13
12
18
19
2
0
0
0
360
420
463
337
233
1720
2000
1860
1520
1250
4
5
4
4
4
850
640
1020
.700
.700
.700
.100
.370
. 100
.370
.160
.240
. 100
.320
.800
.000
.000
.400
.400
.300
. 900
.150
.400
.400
.400
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.01
.01
.01
.01
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Analyte Name
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS NO
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C003
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
OLiJ^l_d L-<
Metho<
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSESl
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
> .L
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Basel ine
Concentration
6
10
13
10
34
140
199
251
310
464
134
193
246
321
441
94
86
122
1410
1220
1600
1820
1410
2060
2070
2070
1740
3100
945
969
1430
1830
1150
2740
3350
5520
2570
2600
2630
2700
2650
2000
4310
3850
4880
4930
.810
.700
.200
.800
.100
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500
.900
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
CAS_NO
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C005
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
OU.J_"_d L.C'
Method
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
410.1
410 . 1
410 . 1
410.1
410.1
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
1664
353 . 1
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSESl
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
i j.
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
Basel ine
Concentration
1710 .
1590 .
1870.
1850.
1820 .
5550 .
5090.
7180.
300000 .
1600000 .
1600000.
300000.
300000 .
1600000 .
1600000.
1600000.
1600000 .
500000 .
13000.
1600000.
1600000 .
900000 .
1600000.
1600000.
500000 .
1600000 .
230.
186 .
96 .
122 .
178.
337.
270 .
266 .
271.
580.
15 .
13 .
15.
15.
21 .
119 .
312 .
651.
2 .
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.167
.000
.333
.833
.500
.333
.833
.500
.500
.333
.833
.000
.000
.833
.800
.667
.667
.500
.300
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
CAS_NO
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C005
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
C005+C021
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
OUJ_"_d L. t?>
Method
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
365
365
365
365
365
365
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
gory=Red Meat -- Option=PSESl
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
Baseline
Concentration
2
1
2
2
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
11
237
269
255
285
138
158
96
103
225
38
13
237
311
255
285
138
158
96
103
225
77
85
88
78
78
53
.160
.890
. 160
. 120
.010
.000
. 110
.080
.080
.070
.080
.090
.090
.100
.010
.820
.600
.000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.400
.000
.000
.300
.660
.010
.000
.110
.080
.070
.080
.410
.820
.600
.600
.200
.400
. 900
.300
.600
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_NO
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6447
6447
6447
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
— ou.j_"_d i_cy wj-
Method
365 .2
365 .2
365.2
365.2
365 .2
365 .2
365.2
365.2
365 .2
365 .2
365.2
365.2
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
HACK 8167
330.5
330 .5
330 .5
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
160.2
160 .2
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSESl
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
> .L
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Basel ine
Concentration
66
83
65
68
23
24
46
32
32
34
27
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
360
420
463
337
233
1720
2000
1860
1520
1250
253
335
253
263
272
.300
.300
.000
.800
.500
.200
.400
.500
.800
.700
.700
.100
.370
. 100
.370
.160
.240
. 100
.320
.800
.000
.000
.100
.100
. 110
. 100
.100
.400
.400
.400
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte Name
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
CAS_NO
C009
C009
C009
Episode
6447
6447
6447
ou.j_"_di-c;yi_'j- y —
Method
160 .2
160 .2
160.2
l^C^l I'JCdL- ^-'t/ L ^
(continued)
Sample
Point
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
11— irocio j.
Sample
Day
1
2
3
Concentration
850 .
640 .
1020.
.000
.000
.000
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Basel ine
Value
4 .00
4 .00
4 .00
Measure
Type
NC
NC
NC
-------
APPENDIX G
MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
G-l
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
This appendix describes the modified delta-lognormal distribution and the estimation of
the episode-specific long-term averages and variability factors used to calculate the proposed
limitations and standards.1 This appendix provides the statistical methodology that was used to
obtain the results presented in Section 13.
G.I BASIC OVERVIEW OF THE MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL
DISTRIBUTION
EPA selected the modified delta-lognormal distribution to model pollutant effluent
concentrations from the meat products industry in developing the long-term averages and
variability factors. A typical effluent data set from a sampling episode or self-monitoring episode
(see Section 13 for a discussion of the data associated with these episodes) consists of a mixture
of measured (detected) and non-detected values. The modified delta-lognormal distribution is
appropriate for such data sets because it models the data as a mixture of measurements that
follow a lognormal distribution and non-detect measurements that occur with a certain
probability. The model also allows for the possibility that non-detect measurements occur at
multiple sample-specific detection limits.
The modified delta-lognormal distribution is a modification of the 'delta distribution'
originally developed by Aitchison and Brown.2 While this distribution was originally developed
to model economic data, other researchers have shown the application to environmental data.3
The resulting mixed distributional model, which combines a continuous density portion with a
discrete-valued spike at zero, is also known as the delta-lognormal distribution. The delta in the
name refers to the proportion of the overall distribution contained in the discrete distributional
spike at zero; that is, the proportion of zero amounts. The remaining non-zero, non-censored
(NC) amounts are grouped together and fit to a lognormal distribution.
1 In the remainder of this appendix, references to 'limitations' includes 'standards.'
2 Aitchison, J. and Brown, J.A.C. (1963) The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge University Press, pages
87-99.
3 Owen, WJ. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980. "Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data Containing Zeroes
and Left-Censored Values, with Applications to the Measurement of Worker Exposure to Air Contaminants."
Biometrics, 36:707-719.
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
EPA modified this delta-lognormal distribution to incorporate multiple detection limits.
In the modification of the delta portion, the single spike located at zero is replaced by a discrete
distribution made up of multiple spikes. Each spike in this modification is associated with a
distinct sample-specific detection limit associated with non-detected (ND) measurements in the
database.4 A lognormal density is used to represent the set of measured values. This
modification of the delta-lognormal distribution is illustrated in Figure G-l.
Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Censor i ng Type NC ND
Figure G-l.
The following two subsections describe the delta and lognormal portions of the modified
delta-lognormal distribution in further detail.
G.2 CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS OF THE MODIFIED
DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
The discrete portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution models the non-detected
values corresponding to the k reported sample-specific detection limits. In the model, 5
4 Previously, EPA had modified the delta-lognormal model to account for non-detected measurements by
placing the distributional "spike" at a single positive value, usually equal to the nominal method detection limit,
rather than at zero. For further details, see Kahn and Rubin, 1989. This adaptation was used in developing
limitations and standards for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) and pesticides
manufacturing rulemakings. EPA has used the current modification in several, more recent, rulemakings.
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
represents the proportion of non-detected values in the dataset and is the sum of smaller
fractions, 5j, each representing the proportion of non-detected values associated with each
distinct detection limit value. By letting D4 equal the value of the i"1 smallest distinct detection
limit in the data set and the random variable XD represent a randomly chosen non-detected
measurement, the cumulative distribution function of the discrete portion of the modified delta-
lognormal model can be mathematically expressed as:
0
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
The expected value, E(XC), and the variance, Var(Xc), of the lognormal distribution can
be calculated as:
(G-5)
(G-6)
G.3 COMBINING THE CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS
The continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution is combined with the
discrete portion to model data sets that contain a mixture of non-detected and detected
measurements. It is possible to fit a wide variety of observed effluent data sets to the modified
delta-lognormal distribution. Multiple detection limits for non-detect measurements are
incorporated, as are measured ("detected") values. The same basic framework can be used even
if there are no non-detected values in the data set (in this case, it is the same as the lognormal
distribution). Thus, the modified delta-lognormal distribution offers a large degree of flexibility
in modeling effluent data.
The modified delta-lognormal random variable U can be expressed as a combination of
three other independent variables, that is,
U =IUXD+(1-IU)XC (G-7)
where XD represents a random non-detect from the discrete portion of the distribution, Xc
represents a random detected measurement from the continuous lognormal portion, and Iu is an
indicator variable signaling whether any particular random measurement, u, is non-detected or
non-censored (that is, Iu=l if u is non-detected; Iu=0 if u is non-censored). Using a weighted
sum, the cumulative distribution function from the discrete portion of the distribution (equation
1) can be combined with the function from the continuous portion (equation 4) to obtain the
G-5
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
overall cumulative probability distribution of the modified delta-lognormal distribution as
follows,
Pr(f/
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
G.4 Episode-specific Estimates Under the Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
In order to use the modified delta-lognormal model to calculate the proposed limitations,
the parameters of the distribution are estimated from the data. These estimates are then used to
calculate the proposed limitations.
The parameters <5t and 8 are estimated from the data using the following formulas:
where nd is the number of non-detected measurements, dj,j = 1 to nd, are the detection limits for
the non-detected measurements, n is the number of measurements (both detected and non-
detected) and I(...) is an indicator function equal to one if the phrase within the parentheses is
true and zero otherwise. The "hat" over the parameters indicates that they are estimated from the
data.
The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution can be calculated from the data as:
G-l
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
The parameters of the continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution,
ft, and (72 , are estimated by
where ;c; is the i"1 detected measurement value and nc is the number of detected measurements.
Note that n=nd + nc.
The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution can be calculated from the data as:
Finally, the expected value and variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution can
be estimated using the following formulas:
(0-19)
(G-20)
G-8
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
Equations 17 through 20 are particularly important in the estimation of episode-specific
long-term averages and variability factors as described in the following sections. These sections
are preceded by a section that identifies the episode data set requirements.
G.4.1 Episode Data Set Requirements
Estimates of the necessary parameters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be
calculated with as few as two distinct detected values in a data set. (In order to calculate the
variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, two distinct detected values are the
minimum number that can be used and still obtain an estimate of the variance for the
distribution.)
If an episode data set for a pollutant contained three or more observations with two or
more distinct detected concentration values, then EPA used the modified delta-lognormal
distribution to calculate long-term averages and variability factors. If the episode data set for a
pollutant did not meet these requirements, EPA used an arithmetic average to calculate the
episode-specific long-term average and excluded the dataset from the variability factor
calculations (because the variability could not be calculated).
In statistical terms, each measurement was assumed to be independently and identically
distributed from the other measurements of that pollutant in the episode data set.
The next two sections apply the modified delta-lognormal distribution to the data for
estimating episode-specific long-term averages and variability factors for the iron and steel
industry.
G.4.2 Estimation of Episode-specific Long-Term Averages
If an episode dataset for a pollutant met the requirements described in the last section,
then EPA calculated the long-term average using equation 19. Otherwise, EPA calculated the
long-term average as the arithmetic average of the daily values where the sample-specific
detection limit was used for each non-detected measurement.
G-9
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
G.4.3 Estimation of Episode-Specific Variability Factors
For each episode, EPA estimated the daily variability factors by fitting a modified delta-
lognormal distribution to the daily measurements for each pollutant. In contrast, EPA estimated
monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal distribution to the monthly
averages for the pollutant at the episode. EPA developed these averages using the same number
of measurements as the assumed monitoring frequency for the pollutant. EPA is assuming that
all pollutants will be monitored daily.5
G.4.3.1 Estimation of Episode-specific Daily Variability Factors
The episode-specific daily variability factor is a function of the expected value, and the
99th percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to the daily concentration values
of the pollutant in the wastewater from the episode. The expected value, was estimated using
equation 19 (the expected value is the same as the episode-specific long-term average).
The 99th percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to each data set was
estimated by using an iterative approach. First, the pollutant-specific detection limits were
ordered from smallest to largest. Next, the cumulative distribution function, p, for each detection
limit was computed. The general form, for a given value c, was:
P=
(G-21)
where O is the standard normal cumulative distribution function. Next, the interval
containing the 99th percentile was identified. Finally, the 99th percentile of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution was calculated. The following steps were completed to compute the
estimated 99th percentile of each data subset:
5 Compliance with the monthly average limitations will be required in the final rulemaking regardless of the
number of samples analyzed and averaged.
(MO
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
Step 1 Using equation 21, k values of p at c=Dm, m=l,...,k were computed and
labeled pm.
Step 2 The smallest value of m (m=l,...,k), such that pm > 0.99, was determined and
labeled as pj. If no such m existed, steps 3 and 4 were skipped and step 5 was
computed instead.
Step 3 Computed p* = pj - Sj.
Step 4 If p* < 0.99, then P99 = Dj
else if p*_> 0.99, then
P99 =exp
(G-22)
where O"1 is the inverse normal distribution function.
Step 5 If no such m exists such that pm > 0.99 (m=l,...,k), then
P99=exp
-1
0.99-5
/*,
1-6
(G-23)
The episode-specific daily variability factor, VF1, was then calculated as:
P99
VFl=-
E(U)
(G-24)
G.4.3.2 Estimation of Episode-Specific Monthly Variability Factors
EPA estimated the monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal
distribution to the monthly averages. These equations use the same basic parameters, |_i and a,
(Ml
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
calculated for the daily variability factors. Episode-specific monthly variability factors were
based on 30-day monthly averages because the monitoring frequency was assumed to be daily
(approximately thirty times a month). As explained in Section 13.6.2, EPA recognizes that small
poultry facilities are unlikely to operate on weekends and is soliciting comment on whether their
monthly limitations should be based upon 20 days. This section describes the calculations for
monthly variability factors based upon 30-day averages. To calculate the monthly variability
factors based upon 20 days, the same basic procedure is used except that 20-day averages are
used instead of 30-day averages.
Before estimating the episode-specific monthly variability factors, EPA considered
whether autocorrelation was likely to be present in the effluent data. When data are said to be
positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements taken at specific time intervals (such as 1
day or 2 days apart) are related. For example, positive autocorrelation would be present in the
data if the final effluent concentration of HEM was relatively high one day and was likely to
remain at similar high values the next and possibly succeeding days. Because EPA is assuming
that the pollutants will be monitored daily, EPA based the monthly variability factors on the
distribution of the averages of 30 (or 20) measurements. If concentrations measured on
consecutive days were positively correlated, then the autocorrelation would have had an effect on
the estimate of the variance of the monthly average and thus on the monthly variability factor.
Adjustments for positive autocorrelation would increase the values of the variance and monthly
variability factor. (The estimate of the long-term average and the daily variability factor are
generally only slightly affected by autocorrelation.)
EPA has not incorporated an autocorrelation adjustment into its estimates of the monthly
variability factors. In many industries, measurements in final effluent are likely to be similar
from one day to the next because of the consistency from day-to-day in the production processes
and in final effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of wastewater in basins,
holding ponds, and other components of wastewater treatment systems. To determine if
autocorrelation exists in the data, a statistical evaluation is necessary. However, the data used for
the proposal were insufficient for the purpose of evaluating autocorrelation. To estimate
autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for each pollutant would be required with values
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
for every single day over an extended period of time. If such data are available for the final rule,
EPA intends to perform a statistical evaluation of autocorrelation and if necessary provide any
adjustments to the limitations.
In calculating the monthly variability factors, EPA assumed that consecutive daily
measurements were not correlated, and therefore
30 ) = E(U) and Var(u~30)=- (G-25)
where E(U) and Var(u) were calculated as shown in equations 19 and 20. Finally, because
U 30 is approximately normally distributed by the Central Limit Theorem, the estimate of the 95th
percentile of a 30-day mean and the corresponding episode-specific 30-day variability factor
(VF30) were approximated by
P9530 = E (U 30) + [O-1 (0.9 5 )]^Va r (u 30) (G-26)
where O-1(0.95) is the 95th percentile of the inverse normal distribution. By using the
substitutions in equation 25, equation 26 simplified to
P9530 =E(U) +[0"' (0.9 5 )\^Var(u) (G-21)
Then
yF30 = — because E\U,a) = E(u} (G-28)
E(U) ^ '
G.4.3.3 Evaluation of Episode-Specific Variability Factors
Estimates of the necessary parameters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be
calculated with as few as two distinct measured values in a data set (in order to calculate the
variance); however, these estimates can be unstable (as can estimates from larger data sets). As
stated in Section G.4.1, EPA used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to develop episode-
(M3
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
specific variability factors for data sets that had a three or more observations with two or more
distinct measured concentration values.
To identify situations producing unexpected results, EPA reviewed all of the variability
factors and compared daily to monthly variability factors. EPA used several criteria to determine
if the episode-specific daily and monthly variability factors should be included in calculating the
option variability factors. One criteria that EPA used was that the daily and monthly variability
factors should be greater than 1.0. A variability factor less than 1.0 would result in a unexpected
result where the estimated 99th percentile would be less than the long-term average. This would
be an indication that the estimate of <7 (the log standard deviation) was unstable. A second
criteria was that the daily variability factor had to be greater than the monthly variability factor.
All the episode-specific variability factors used for the proposed limitations and standards met
these criteria.
G.5 REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. 1963. The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Barakat, R. 1976. "Sums of Independent Lognormally Distributed Random Variables." Journal
of the Optical Society of America, 66: 211-216.
Cohen, A. Clifford. 1976. Progressively Censored Sampling in the Three Parameter Log-
Normal Distribution. Technometrics, 18:99-103.
Crow, E.L. and K. Shimizu. 1988. Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications. Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York.
Kahn, H.D., and M.B. Rubin. 1989. "Use of Statistical Methods in Industrial Water Pollution
Control Regulations in the United States." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
Vol. 12:129-148.
G-14
-------
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution
Owen, WJ. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980. Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data Containing
Zeroes and Left-Censored Values, with Applications to the Measurement of Worker
Exposure to Air Contaminants. Biometrics, 36:707-719.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category.
Volume I, Volume H. EPA 440/1-87/009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source
Category. EPA-821-B-99-011.
G-15
-------
APPENDIX H
ATTACHMENTS To SECTION 13
H-l
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Subcategory=Poultry - - Option=BAT2
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
Episode
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
Point
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
Episode
Mean
9.16
46 .20
0.25
9.43
1.27
154.00
3293 .33
7668 .33
2 .00
1856 .00
3 .80
1984.00
3720.00
10343 .33
27.60
3096 .00
29.60
18560.00
87500.00
4.63
1250000.00
418 .30
1460000.00
792 .82
423 .25
23 .58
486 .80
5.93
6225.50
1.58
0.30
27.04
2 .55
64.66
26 .02
80.13
201.87
Total
Number
Values
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
2
4
4
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
41
0
1
0
48
828
9594
0
225
0
149
1150
8672
10
1173
3
10979
116672
5
404145
524
313049
748
327
39
45
0
10385
1
0
7
1
3
6
61
119
Obs
Std
Dev
.46
.48
.08
.26
.29
.31
.87
.36
.00
.90
.84
.60
.61
.11
.43
.55
.85
.66
.62
.25
.19
.92
.52
.19
.24
.27
.56
.25
.30
.43
.00
.22
.41
.11
.31
.98
.74
Obs
Median
Mean
Value
Value
6.
30.
0.
9.
1
161.
2840.
3760.
2.
1910.
4.
2050.
3900.
7810.
25.
2730.
28.
17500.
87500.
2.
1250000.
170.
1600000.
390.
238.
6.
489.
5.
1986.
0.
0.
31.
2.
63.
25.
68.
271.
.68
.20
.23
.37
.39
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.63
.50
.00
.67
.83
.00
.75
.30
.40
.97
.10
.50
.80
.00
9
46
0
9
1
154
3293
7668
1856
3
1984
3720
10343
27
3096
29
18560
87500
12
1250000
418
1460000
792
423
93
486
6
6225
3
27
2
64
26
80
201
NC
.16
.20
.25
.43
.27
.00
.33
.33
.00
.80
.00
.00
.33
.60
.00
.60
.00
.00
.50
.00
.30
.00
.82
.25
.83
.80
.33
.50
.23
.04
.55
.66
.02
.13
.87
4
41
0
1
0
48
828
9594
225
0
149
1150
8672
10
1173
3
10979
116672
404145
524
313049
748
327
45
10385
7
1
3
6
61
119
Std
Dev
NC
.46
.48
.08
.26
.29
.31
.87
.36
.90
.84
.60
.61
.11
.43
.55
.85
.66
.62
.19
.92
.52
.19
.24
.56
.30
.22
.41
.11
.31
.98
.74
Min
Value
NC
6.49
15.10
0.16
8.15
0.96
95.00
2790.00
645.00
1480.00
3.00
1720.00
2490.00
3220.00
17.00
1720.00
26.00
9700.00
5000.00
12.50
900000.00
41.50
900000.00
331.73
230.17
93.83
418.33
6.33
499.17
3.23
16.80
0.57
62.60
19.00
24.60
63.60
Max Min
Value Value
14
93
0
11
1
208
4250
18600
2060
5
2070
4770
20000
40
4530
36
36800
170000
12
1600000
1300
1600000
1656
801
93
543
6
24739
3
33
3
70
34
147
271
NC ND
.30
.30
.38
.30
.54
.00
.00
.00
2 .00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50 2.00
.00
.00
.00
.08
.08
.83 5.92
.83
.33 5.67
.83
.23 0.75
0.30
.40
.93
.00
.00
.00
.00
Max
Value
ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
2 .00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
2.00 /100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
6 .17 MG/L
MG/L
6 .00 MG/L
MG/L
0.75 MG/L
0.30 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Total
Episode Number
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Episode Point
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
6443
6444
6445
6445
6448
6448
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
SP-2
SP-3
SP-3+SP-2
SP-1
SP-4+SP-3
SP-2
Mean Values
1
34
1
179
81
202
28
36
66
205
72
312
0
11
15
37
7
0
0
0
0
0
1656
53390
8
776
9
3248
.59
.28
.81
.60
.71
.17
.63
.83
.47
.62
.20
.77
.70
.36
.17
.54
.03
.70
2 2
.20
.20
.20
.67
.00
.00
.00
.10
.00
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Median
Dev
0
24
0
45
63
119
7
24
3
45
21
429
0
0
0
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
330
81949
3
57
2
2279
.47
.59
.61
.87
.32
.74
.29
.29
.49
.16
.04
.05
.70
.88
.44
.28
.10
.47
.04
.00
.00
.00
.05
.04
.32
.81
.61
.19
Mean
Value
Value
1
26.
1.
202.
69.
271.
33.
29.
65.
221.
69.
77.
0.
11.
15.
35.
9 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1650.
7620.
7 .
760.
10.
2260.
.61
.60
.92
.00
.55
.30
.01
.57
.05
.00
.40
.20
.61
.70
.15
.90
.30
.78
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1
34
1
179
81
202
28
36
66
205
72
312
0
11
15
37
7
0
0
1656
53390
8
776
9
3248
NC
.59
.28
.81
.60
.71
.17
.63
.83
.47
.62
.20
.77
.70
.36
.17
.54
.03
.95
.30
.67
.00
.00
.00
.10
.00
Std
Dev
0
24
0
45
63
119
7
24
3
45
21
429
0
0
0
8
5
0
330
81949
3
57
2
2279
NC
.47
.59
.61
.87
.32
.74
.29
.29
.49
.16
.04
.05
.70
.88
.44
.28
.10
.24
.05
.04
.32
.81
.61
.19
Min
Value
1
18.
1.
103.
25.
63.
18.
18.
63.
128.
52.
53.
0.
10.
14.
31.
1
0.
0.
1330.
4550.
5
700.
5.
1860.
NC
.03
.20
.07
.00
.35
.90
.08
.77
.67
.50
.70
.10
.17
.10
.60
.10
.18
.78
.30
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Max
Value
2
77
2
212
150
271
34
79
72
240
94
808
1
12
15
51
10
1
0
1990
148000
12
855
12
7260
NC
.25
.70
.51
.00
.23
.30
.43
.36
.51
.60
.50
.00
.89
.40
.60
.50
.60
.12
.30
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
O Ul^^Jd I
Total
Episode Number
Episode Point
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
Mean Values
5
9
6
13
46
154
214
3293
2170
203
7668
1984
1637
3720
3903
474
10343
18560
801150
87500
1600000
1460000
7
792
297
19
423
6225
0
1
0
0
0
26
21
80
72
.37
.16
.98
.40
.20
.00
.10
.33
.00
.00
.33
.00
.17
.00
.33
.33
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.89
.82
.28
.10
.25
.50
.99
.58
.75
.30
.30
.02
.85
.13
.17
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
2
2
2
5
2
3
2
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
-eyw j
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
-y— r w u. j- L. j. y
Obs
Std
Dev
2
4
1
2
41
48
96
828
1371
72
9594
149
2160
1150
577
93
8672
10979
1129744
116672
0
313049
2
748
5
14
327
10385
0
1
0
0
0
6
3
61
27
.11
.46
.16
.35
.48
.31
.04
.87
.75
.50
.36
.60
.12
.61
.35
.28
.11
.66
.50
.62
.00
.52
.82
.19
.49
.09
.24
.30
.42
.43
.00
.00
.00
.31
.95
.98
.56
- - Wp L. J.W11 — ft
Obs
Median
Mean
Value
Value
5
6.
6.
14.
30.
161.
159.
2840.
2580.
187.
3760.
2050.
431.
3900.
3570.
444.
7810.
17500.
801150.
87500.
1600000.
1600000.
7.
390.
297.
14.
238.
1986.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
25.
19.
68.
80.
.49
.68
.31
.25
.20
.00
.30
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.89
.63
.28
.61
.50
.00
.75
.75
.75
.30
.30
.50
.85
.80
.90
5
9
6
13
46
154
214
3293
2170
203
7668
1984
1637
3720
3903
474
10343
18560
801150
87500
1600000
1460000
9
792
297
19
423
6225
1
3
26
21
80
72
NC
.37
.16
.98
.40
.20
.00
.10
.33
.00
.00
.33
.00
.17
.00
.33
.33
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.89
.82
.28
.10
.25
.50
.48
.23
.02
.85
.13
.17
Std
Dev
2
4
1
2
41
48
96
828
1371
72
9594
149
2160
1150
577
93
8672
10979
1129744
116672
0
313049
748
5
14
327
10385
6
3
61
27
NC
.11
.46
.16
.35
.48
.31
.04
.87
.75
.50
.36
.60
.12
.61
.35
.28
.11
.66
.50
.62
.00
.52
.19
.49
.09
.24
.30
.31
.95
.98
.56
Min
Value
3.
6.
6.
10.
15.
95.
158.
2790.
640.
139.
645.
1720.
349.
2490.
3570.
400.
3220.
9700.
2300.
5000.
1600000
900000.
9.
331.
293.
7.
230.
499.
1.
3.
19.
19.
24.
41.
NC
21
49
31
74
10
00
00
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
.0
00
89
73
40
80
17
17
48
23
00
30
60
30
Max
Value
7
14
8
15
93
208
325
4250
3290
282
18600
2070
4131
4770
4570
579
20000
36800
1600000
170000
1600000
1600000
9
1656
301
34
801
24739
1
3
34
26
147
94
NC
.41
.30
.32
.20
.30
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.89
.08
.17
.89
.08
.83
.48
.23
.00
.40
.00
.30
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
5.90 5.90 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.75 0.75 MG/L
0.75 0.75 MG/L
0.75 0.75 MG/L
0.30 0.30 MG/L
0.30 0.30 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
Episode
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
6443
6443
6443
6444
6444
6448
Episode
6335
Point
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
Point
SP-2
Episode
Mean
46 .73
201.87
179.60
22 .84
81.71
72 .92
47.03
202 .17
205.62
17.48
72 .20
37.53
17.73
312 .77
37.54
0.81
7.03
0.20
0.25
0.70
0.20
137.50
1656 .67
1523 .33
55.50
53390.00
3248 .00
Episode
Mean
15.12
o ui^^jd L-eyw j. }
Total
Number Num
Values ND
3 0
3 0
5 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
5 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
5 0
3 0
3 0
3 2
3 1
3 1
5 5
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
'— £-WU-LL.J.y Wp L. J.W11 — £"OI
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Median
Dev
5.88
119.74
45.87
3 .78
63 .32
27.56
5.88
119.74
45.16
8 .80
21.04
9.31
27.43
429.05
8 .28
0.19
5.10
0.01
0.05
0.47
0.00
22 .75
330.05
213 .62
4.27
81949.04
5 0 2279.19
Total Obs
Number Num Std
Values ND
5 0
Dev
10.85
Value
43.80
271.00
202.00
21.33
69.55
81.65
44.10
271.30
221.00
13.25
69.40
34.80
2.29
77.20
35.90
0.79
9.30
0.20
0.24
0.78
0.20
138.00
1650.00
1610.00
56.00
7620.00
Mean
Value
NC
46 .73
201.87
179.60
22 .84
81.71
72 .92
47.03
202 .17
205.62
17.48
72 .20
37.53
17.73
312 .77
37.54
0.81
7.03
0.21
0.27
0.95
137.50
1656 .67
1523 .33
55.50
53390.00
2260.00 3248.00
Obs Mean
Median Value
Value
10.80
NC
15.12
Std
Dev
NC
5.88
119.74
45.87
3.78
63.32
27.56
5.88
119.74
45.16
8.80
21.04
9.31
27.43
429.05
8.28
0.19
5.10
0.04
0.24
22.75
330.05
213.62
4.27
81949.04
2279.19
Std
Dev
NC
10.85
Min
Value
NC
42.90
63.60
103.00
20.05
25.35
42.05
43.20
63.90
128.50
11.60
52.70
29.90
1.51
53.10
31.10
0.64
1.18
0.21
0.24
0.78
114.50
1330.00
1280.00
51.00
4550.00
1860.00
Min
Value
NC
6.81
Max Min
Value Value
53
271
212
27
150
95
53
271
240
27
94
47
49
808
51
1
10
0
0
1
160
1990
1680
59
148000
7260
NC ND
.50
.00
.00
.15
.23
.05
.80
.30
.60
.60
.50
.90
.40
.00
.50
.01
.60
.21 0.20
.30 0.20
.12 0.20
0.20
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
Max Min
Value Value
34
NC ND
.10
Max
Value
ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.20 MG/L
0.20 MG/L
0.20 MG/L
0.20 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Max
Value
ND Unit
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Total
Episode Number
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
Episode Point
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
Mean Values
0
0
1
154
0
42
0
101
51
1492
7
1583
6
5966
6
6404
4
3870
3673
2630
33
3790
22
3459
117
21880
47
5940
7840
820000
21
1600000
768
1062737
493
1600000
.13
.15
.00
.16
.79
.78
.51
.13
.73
.00
.00
.33
.30
.42
.80
.00
.67
.00
.33
.00
.00
.00
.33
.70
.10
.00
.17
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.80
.30
.00
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
Num
ND
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Median
Dev
0
0
0
13
0
6
0
18
43
227
1
853
4
6381
1
1522
1
1461
844
49
1
2072
2
861
10
14876
7
1098
980
712039
17
0
1326
604928
1010
0
.05
.06
.00
.96
.30
.65
.14
.47
.46
.31
.00
.37
.69
.69
.10
.41
.15
.13
.18
.50
.73
.61
.74
.62
.47
.73
.15
.23
.00
.32
.54
.00
.75
.39
.54
.00
Mean
Value
Value
0.
0.
1.
155.
0.
40.
0.
94.
57.
1410.
7.
2020.
5
2945.
6.
6320.
4 .
3350.
3530.
2630.
34.
3670.
21.
3291.
112.
18200.
45.
5550.
8260.
300000.
26.
1600000.
2.
1180694.
70.
1600000.
.13
.12
.00
.78
.79
.30
.48
.50
.20
.00
.00
.00
.02
.15
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.65
.87
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.79
.00
.00
0
0
1
154
0
42
0
101
51
1492
7
2075
6
5966
7
6404
5
3870
3673
2630
33
3790
23
3459
117
21880
47
5940
7840
820000
31
1600000
2300
1062737
493
1600000
NC
.13
.15
.00
.16
.79
.78
.51
.13
.73
.00
.50
.00
.30
.42
.00
.00
.00
.00
.33
.00
.00
.00
.50
.70
.10
.00
.17
.00
.00
.00
.25
.00
.00
.80
.30
.00
Std
Dev
0
0
13
0
6
0
18
43
227
0
77
4
6381
1
1522
1
1461
844
49
1
2072
2
861
10
14876
7
1098
980
712039
6
0
604928
1010
0
NC
.05
.06
.96
.30
.65
.14
.47
.46
.31
.71
.78
.69
.69
.15
.41
.41
.13
.18
.50
.73
.61
.62
.62
.47
.73
.15
.23
.00
.32
. 72
.00
.39
.54
.00
Min
Value
0.
0.
1.
139.
0.
38.
0.
86.
5.
1220.
7.
2020.
2.
1656.
6.
4340.
4.
2740.
2910.
2570.
31.
1780.
21.
2694.
109.
10100.
41.
5090.
6720.
300000.
26.
1600000
2300.
407518.
3.
1600000
NC
08
10
00
46
44
60
39
90
79
00
00
00
39
41
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
65
34
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
.0
00
61
00
.0
Max
Value
0
0
1
167
1
54
0
122
92
1820
8
2130
11
13297
8
8400
6
5520
4580
2700
34
5920
25
4392
135
47200
55
7180
8540
1600000
36
1600000
2300
1600000
2300
1600000
NC
.17
.22
.00
.24
.22
.60
.66
.00
.20
.00
.00
.00
.50
.70
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.35
.89
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
1.00 1.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
6 .00 6 .00 MG/L
600.0 600.0 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
6 .00 6 .00 MG/L
MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
20.00 20.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
2.00 2.00 /100MLS
/100MLS
2.00 2.00 /100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Total
Episode Number
Analyte
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
Episode Point
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
Mean Values
32
1233333
1600000
162
5
164
5
113
6
2997
11
361
618
2
73
0
162
0
164
0
289
0
0
23
1
110
1
440
5
77
3
141
66
25
75
110
.67
.33
.00
.77
.92
.83
.79
.39
.07
.60
.89
.28
.94
.13
.67
.16
.00
.92
.00
.02
.50
.48
.19
.75
.82
.47
.61
.63
.62
.58
.03
.47
.67
.98
.49
.63
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
2
3
3
Num
ND
1
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Median
Dev
32
635085
0
53
0
59
0
64
0
1078
11
269
219
0
2
0
14
1
6
0
21
0
0
17
0
82
0
53
3
54
1
72
25
17
2
82
.08
.30
.00
.24
.08
.86
.06
.21
.25
.08
.21
.23
.29
.15
.83
.05
.81
.07
.52
.01
.27
.42
.31
.32
.17
.48
.72
.52
.19
.76
.98
.42
.87
.42
.74
.46
Mean
Value
Value
30.
1600000.
1600000.
178.
5
160.
5.
99.
6.
3159.
5.
312.
534.
2.
73.
0.
160.
0.
165.
0.
282.
0.
0.
23.
1
153.
1.
420.
4 .
49.
2.
103.
56.
25.
75.
153.
.00
.00
.00
.50
.92
.67
.78
.38
.00
.50
.50
.67
.00
.16
.75
.19
.50
.30
.00
.01
.00
.60
.01
.75
.84
.00
.43
.92
.68
.50
.20
.00
.90
.98
.74
.10
48
1233333
1600000
162
164
113
6
2997
11
361
618
2
73
0
162
2
164
0
289
0
0
23
1
110
1
440
5
77
3
141
66
25
75
110
NC
.00
.33
.00
.77
.83
.39
.50
.60
.89
.28
.94
.13
.67
.16
.00
.15
.00
.02
.50
.71
.55
.75
.82
.47
.92
.63
.62
.58
.03
.47
.67
.98
.49
.63
Std
Dev
25
635085
0
53
59
64
1078
11
269
219
0
2
0
14
6
0
21
0
17
0
82
0
53
3
54
1
72
25
17
2
82
NC
.46
.30
.00
.24
.86
.21
.08
.21
.23
.29
.15
.83
.05
.81
.52
.02
.27
.16
.32
.17
.48
.69
.52
.19
.76
.98
.42
.87
.42
.74
.46
Min
Value
30.
500000.
1600000
96.
107.
57.
6.
1926.
5.
119.
454.
1.
70.
0.
148.
2.
156.
0.
273.
0.
0.
11.
1.
15.
1.
399.
2.
42.
1.
96.
47.
13.
72.
15.
NC
00
00
.0
33
17
34
50
83
33
67
83
89
80
10
00
15
00
01
00
60
55
50
65
40
43
76
66
50
61
40
10
66
64
59
Max
Value
66
1600000
1600000
230
226
183
6
4556
24
651
868
2
76
0
177
2
172
0
313
0
0
36
1
163
2
501
11
173
5
225
96
38
78
163
NC
.00
.00
.00
.17
.67
.45
.50
.67
.83
.50
.00
.30
.45
.19
.50
.15
.00
.04
.50
.82
.55
.00
.99
.00
.40
.21
.08
.00
.29
.00
.00
.30
.10
.19
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
2.00 2.00 /100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
MG/L
5.83 6 .00 MG/L
MG/L
5.73 5.86 MG/L
MG/L
5.83 6 .00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.30 0.30 MG/L
MG/L
0.01 0.01 MG/L
MG/L
0.01 0.01 MG/L
0.01 0.01 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
1.00 1.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Total
Episode Number
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Episode Point
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
6447
6335
6440
6440
6441
6441
6442
6442
6447
6447
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-3
SP-2
SP-5+SP-4
SP-3
SP-6+SP-5
SP-l+SP-3
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
SP-5+SP-4
SP-1
Mean Values
163
441
169
77
292
141
66
81
11
56
11
59
31
30
14
32
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
362
12
2273
28
1133
22
3332
19
836
.61
.55
.62
.60
.53
.94
.86
.68
.65
.70
.49
.58
.34
.26
.73
.17
.73
.25
.20
.20
.23
.22
.20
.20
.62
.40
.00
.60
.33
.33
.00
.81
.20
.00
.17
.67
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
1
2
5
5
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Median
Dev
14
53
8
54
20
72
25
4
0
32
0
54
1
4
1
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
4
1244
17
274
3
465
2
190
.98
.19
.70
.77
.46
.54
.77
.83
.87
.99
.50
.47
.15
.68
.92
.88
.65
.12
.00
.00
.05
.04
.00
.00
.29
.00
.00
.80
.25
.56
.77
.82
.11
.10
.84
.35
Mean
Value
Value
162.
423.
167.
49.
287.
103.
57.
78.
11.
47.
11.
28.
31.
32.
14.
34.
34.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
360.
12.
2900.
18.
1213.
22.
3340.
20.
850.
.90
.08
.66
.52
.29
.82
.45
.90
.85
.20
.47
.16
.50
.80
.25
.10
.70
.24
.20
.20
.21
.20
.20
.20
.61
.40
.00
.00
.50
.00
.50
.91
.00
.00
.00
.00
163
441
169
77
292
141
66
81
11
56
11
59
31
30
14
32
34
0
0
0
0
362
12
2273
28
1133
22
3332
19
836
NC
.61
.55
.62
.60
.53
.94
.86
.68
.65
.70
.49
.58
.34
.26
.73
.17
.73
.29
.25
.27
.62
.60
.33
.33
.00
.81
.20
.00
.17
.67
Std
Dev
14
53
8
54
20
72
25
4
0
32
0
54
1
4
1
3
7
0
0
0
87
4
1244
17
274
3
465
2
190
NC
.98
.19
.70
. 77
.46
.54
. 77
.83
.87
.99
.50
.47
.15
.68
.92
.88
.65
.10
.06
.29
.80
.25
.56
. 77
.82
.11
.10
.84
.35
Min
Value
149.
400.
160.
42.
275.
96.
47.
77.
10.
29.
11.
28.
29.
23.
13.
27.
27.
0.
0.
0.
0.
233.
8.
840.
17.
827.
19.
2580.
16.
640.
NC
.00
.06
.68
.51
.20
.41
.11
.60
.70
.50
.00
.11
.60
.30
.10
.70
.10
.16
.21
.27
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
.83
.00
.00
.00
.00
Max
Value
178
501
183
173
315
225
96
88
12
93
12
122
32
34
16
34
42
0
0
0
0
463
16
3080
48
1359
27
3820
21
1020
NC
.93
.51
.08
.04
.11
.60
.01
.40
.40
.40
.00
.48
.50
.70
.85
.70
.40
.37
.29
.27
.91
.00
.50
.00
.50
.68
.00
.00
.50
.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.10 0.10 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
0.20 0.20 MG/L
MG/L
0.40 0.40 MG/L
1.00 1.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
Episode
6447
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
Point
SP-3
Point
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
Episode
Mean
1510.00
Episode
Mean
1.87
15.12
272 .80
101.13
4.60
1492 .00
2208 .00
3870.00
26 .40
2630.00
3994.00
5940.00
21.50
820000.00
1380000.00
1233333 .33
5.90
162 .77
345.30
361.28
6 .02
2 .13
8 .46
0.48
2 .00
23 .75
261.50
- i)UJJUdl
Total
Number
Values
3
(continued)
Obs Obs
Num Std Median
ND
0
Dev
227.16
- Subcategory=Red Meat
Total
Number
Values
4
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
4
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
2
4
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
Obs
Std
Dev
1.30
10.85
123 .99
18 .47
1.82
227.31
518 .33
1461.13
3 .44
49.50
1199.76
1098 .23
39.00
712039.32
491934.96
635085.30
0.22
53 .24
134.63
269.23
1.03
0.15
18 .75
0.42
1.09
17.32
20.42
Value
1410.00
-- Option=l
Obs
Median
Value
2.08
10.80
251.00
94.50
4.00
1410.00
2070.00
3350.00
25.00
2630.00
4310.00
5550.00
2.00
300000.00
1600000.00
1600000.00
6.00
178.50
271.50
312.67
5.84
2.16
0.08
0.60
1.42
23.75
262.00
Mean
Value
NC
1510.00
3AT3
Mean
Value
NC
1.87
15.12
272 .80
101.13
5.00
1492 .00
2208 .00
3870.00
26 .40
2630.00
3994.00
5940.00
80.00
820000.00
1380000.00
1233333 .33
6 .17
162 .77
345.30
361.28
6 .02
2 .13
10.57
0.71
2 .00
23 .75
261.50
Std
Dev
NC
227.16
Std
Dev
NC
1.30
10.85
123.99
18.47
1.83
227.31
518.33
1461.13
3.44
49.50
1199.76
1098.23
712039.32
491934.96
635085.30
53.24
134.63
269.23
1.03
0.15
20.96
0.16
1.09
17.32
20.42
Min
Value
NC
1350.00
Min
Value
NC
0.33
6.81
140.00
86.90
3.00
1220.00
1740.00
2740.00
23.00
2570.00
2000.00
5090.00
80.00
300000.00
500000.00
500000.00
6.17
96.33
266.50
119.67
4.71
1.89
0.08
0.60
1.33
11.50
237.00
Max
Value
NC
1770.00
Max
Value
NC
2 .98
34.10
464.00
122 .00
7.00
1820.00
3100.00
5520.00
31.00
2700.00
4930.00
7180.00
80.00
1600000.00
1600000.00
1600000.00
6 .17
230.17
580.33
651.50
7.14
2 .30
42 .00
0.82
3 .26
36 .00
285.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
3 .00 3 .00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
2.00 2.00 /100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
5.67 6 .00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.01 0.01 MG/L
0.01 0.01 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Analyte
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Episode
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
Point
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-6
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
Point
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
Episode
Mean
141.47
7.34
25.98
272 .05
141.94
6 .79
81.68
67.40
32 .17
13 .23
0.25
0.84
0.40
4.20
362 .60
1670.00
836 .67
Episode
Mean
267.00
15.12
272 .80
101.13
1264.80
1492 .00
2208 .00
3870.00
1768 .00
2630.00
3994.00
- i)UJJUdl
Total
Number
Values
3
3
2
4
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
(continued)
Obs
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
2
0
0
0
Std
Dev
72 .42
1.30
17.42
32 .67
72 .54
2 .21
4.83
10.63
3 .88
6 .96
0.12
0.67
0.00
0.45
87.80
294.28
190.35
- Subcategory=Red Meat --
Total
Number
Values
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Obs
Std
Dev
119.16
10.85
123 .99
18 .47
370.71
227.31
518 .33
1461.13
117.13
49.50
1199.76
Obs
Median
Value
103.00
7.17
25.98
270.10
103.82
7.70
78.90
66.30
34.10
13.40
0.24
1.00
0.40
4.00
360.00
1720.00
850.00
Option=PS
Obs
Median
Value
246.00
10.80
251.00
94.50
1150.00
1410.00
2070.00
3350.00
1820.00
2630.00
4310.00
Mean
Value
NC
141.47
7.34
25.98
272 .05
141.94
6 .79
81.68
67.40
32 .17
13 .23
0.29
0.74
4.33
362 .60
1670.00
836 .67
ES 1
Mean
Value
NC
267.00
15.12
272 .80
101.13
1264.80
1492 .00
2208 .00
3870.00
1768 .00
2630.00
3994.00
Std
Dev
NC
72.42
1.30
17.42
32.67
72.54
2.21
4.83
10.63
3.88
6.96
0.10
0.92
0.58
87.80
294.28
190.35
Std
Dev
NC
119.16
10.85
123.99
18.47
370.71
227.31
518.33
1461.13
117.13
49.50
1199.76
Min
Value
NC
96.40
6.13
13.66
237.01
96.41
3.26
77.60
53.60
27.70
2.15
0.16
0.10
4.00
233.00
1250.00
640.00
Min
Value
NC
134.00
6.81
140.00
86.90
945.00
1220.00
1740.00
2740.00
1590.00
2570.00
2000.00
Max
Value
NC
225.00
8 .72
38 .30
311.00
225.60
8 .90
88 .40
83 .30
34.70
19.90
0.37
1.80
5.00
463 .00
2000.00
1020.00
Max
Value
NC
441.00
34.10
464.00
122 .00
1830.00
1820.00
3100.00
5520.00
1870.00
2700.00
4930.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.10 0.10 MG/L
1.00 1.00 MG/L
0.40 0.40 MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
Total
Episode Number
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Episode Point
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
6335
6335
6335
6447
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-4
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
Mean Values
5940
1142600
820000
1380000
1233333
16
162
345
361
0
2
8
0
148
23
261
141
148
25
272
141
31
81
67
32
0
0
0
0
275
362
1670
836
.00
.00
.00
.00
.33
.29
.77
.30
.28
.09
.13
.46
.48
.00
.75
.50
.47
.08
.98
.05
.94
.88
.68
.40
.17
.10
.25
.84
.40
.20
.60
.00
.67
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
4
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
Num
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Median
Dev
1098
700445
712039
491934
635085
3
53
134
269
0
0
18
0
14
17
20
72
14
17
32
72
9
4
10
3
0
0
0
0
34
87
294
190
.23
.43
.32
.96
.30
.29
.24
.63
.23
.01
.15
.75
.42
.14
.32
.42
.42
.15
.42
.67
.54
.24
.83
.63
.88
.00
.12
.67
.00
.35
.80
.28
.35
Mean
Value
Value
5550.
1600000.
300000.
1600000.
1600000.
15.
178.
271.
312.
0.
2.
0.
0.
148.
23.
262.
103.
148.
25.
270.
103.
32.
78.
66.
34.
0.
0.
1.
0.
263.
360.
1720.
850.
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.83
.50
.50
.67
.09
.16
.08
.60
.00
.75
.00
.00
.08
.98
.10
.82
.50
.90
.30
.10
.10
.24
.00
.40
.00
.00
.00
.00
5940
1142600
820000
1380000
1233333
16
162
345
361
0
2
10
0
148
23
261
141
148
25
272
141
31
81
67
32
0
0
0
275
362
1670
836
NC
.00
.00
.00
.00
.33
.29
.77
.30
.28
.09
.13
.57
.71
.00
.75
.50
.47
.08
.98
.05
.94
.88
.68
.40
.17
.11
.29
.74
.20
.60
.00
.67
Std
Dev
1098
700445
712039
491934
635085
3
53
134
269
0
0
20
0
14
17
20
72
14
17
32
72
9
4
10
3
0
0
34
87
294
190
NC
.23
.43
.32
.96
.30
.29
.24
.63
.23
.01
.15
.96
.16
.14
.32
.42
.42
.15
.42
.67
.54
.24
.83
.63
.88
.10
.92
.35
.80
.28
.35
Min
Value
5090.
13000.
300000.
500000.
500000.
13.
96.
266.
119.
0.
1
0.
0.
138.
11.
237.
96.
138.
13.
237.
96.
23.
77.
53.
27.
0.
0.
0.
253.
233.
1250.
640.
NC
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.33
.50
.67
.07
.89
.08
.60
.00
.50
.00
.40
.07
.66
.01
.41
.50
.60
.60
.70
.11
.16
.10
.00
.00
.00
.00
Max
Value
7180
1600000
1600000
1600000
1600000
21
230
580
651
0
2
42
0
158
36
285
225
158
38
311
225
46
88
83
34
0
0
1
335
463
2000
1020
NC
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.80
.17
.33
.50
.10
.30
.00
.82
.00
.00
.00
.00
.08
.30
.00
.60
.40
.40
.30
.70
.11
.37
.80
.00
.00
.00
.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.01 0.01 MG/L
0.01 0.01 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.10 0.10 MG/L
0.10 0.10 MG/L
1.00 1.00 MG/L
0.40 0.40 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
CAS_NO
7664417
COOS
C004
C2106
C036
7782505
C009
CAS NO
7664417
7664417
COOS
COOS
C004
C004
C2106
C036
C036
C009
C009
CAS_NO
7664417
COOS
C004
C2106
C036
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
£"WU-L L. J. y
Episode
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
6445
- Subcategory=Poultry
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6443
6444
6443
6444
6443
6444
6443
6443
6444
6443
6444
WpL. J.W11— D.tt. ±4
Method
350.2
405.1
410.2
9221E
1664
330.5
160.2
Option=BAT2
Method
350.2
350.2
405.1
405.1
410.4
410.4
9221E
1664
1664
160.2
160.2
Subcategory-Poultry -- Option-BAT2
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
MG/L
Episode
6448
6448
6448
6448
6448
Method
350.2
405.1
410.1
9221E
1664
Est . 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
LTA V.F. V.F. V.F.
0.250 2.051 1.126 1.103
2.000
28.024 2.271 1.147 1.120
4.625
23.583
0.220
8.143 2.426 1.161 1.131
recessing- ur er
Est. 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
LTA V.F. V.F. V.F.
0.295
1.407
3.573
10.931
35.305
107.354
4.625
45.503
29.004
17.494
1057.618
- - Processing=Rendering
Est. 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
LTA V.F. V.F. V.F.
4.122
2.164
168.925
5.601
334.962
-------
Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Analyte
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
CAS_NO
C009
CAS_NO
C036
C036
CAS NO
C036
C036
CAS NO
C036
CAS NO
7664417
7664417
Unit Episode
MG/L 6448
Unit Episode
MG/L 6443
MG/L 6444
- Subcategory=Poultry
Unit Episode
(continued)
Method
160.2
- Option=PSESl
Method
1664
1664
Option=PSESl
Method
MG/L 6443 1664
MG/L 6444 1664
Subcategory-Poultry -- Option-PSESl
Unit Episode Method
MG/L 6448
Unit Episode
MG/L 6440
MG/L 6441
1664
-- Option-BAT2
Method
350.2
350.2
Est .
LTA
34.383
Est.
LTA
5.000
21.391
-- Processing=Further --
Est.
LTA
23.512
12.057
Est.
LTA
183.742
Est.
LTA
0.130
1.000
1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
V.F. V.F. V.F.
1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
V.F. V.F. V.F.
4.337 1.321 1.262
1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
V.F. V.F. V.F.
4.337 1.321 1.262
1-Day 20-Day 30 -Day
V.F. V.F. V.F.
1-Day 20-Day 30 -Day
V.F. V.F. V.F.
2.261 1.146 1.119
-------
Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte CAS_NO
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND COOS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND CO04
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
(continued)
Unit
Episode Method
7664417
7664417
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
C004
C004
C004
C004
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C036
C036
C036
C036
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
C009
C009
C009
C009
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
350.2
350.2
405.1
405.1
405.1
405.1
410.2
410.4
410.1
410.2
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
1664
1664
1664
1664
330.5
330.5
330.5
330.5
160.2
160.2
160.2
160.2
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode Method
6335
6335
6335
350.2
405.1
410.1
0
0
8
9
7
5
33
22
136
52
21
1503
1524
35
5
5
6
18
0
0
0
0
13
40
24
22
Est .
LTA
.888
.516
.267
.480
.601
.188
.016
.382
.354
.041
.747
.957
.496
.319
.917
.792
.067
.802
.200
.232
.200
.811
.365
.282
.104
.976
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
14
4
5
1
2
2
3
1
1
-Day
V.F.
.307
.788
.310
.568
.474
.927
.130
.333
.216
.398
.273
.796
.224
.254
.726
.878
.188
.272
.361
.414
20-Day
V.F.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
8.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
150
099
048
340
061
103
020
045
032
055
255
924
362
397
084
201
139
234
050
057
30-Day
V.F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.123
.081
.039
.278
.050
.084
.016
.037
.026
.045
.208
.470
.296
.324
.069
.164
.113
.191
.041
.047
- Processing=Further
0
4
47
Est.
LTA
.516
.736
.337
1
-Day
V.F.
20-Day
V.F.
30-Day
V.F.
-------
Attachment 13-2. Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further
(continued)
Analyte CAS_NO
FECAL COLIFORM C2106
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Unit Episode Method
/100MLS 6335 9221E
MG/L 6335 1664
MG/L 6335 HACK 8167
MG/L 6335 160.2
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2
Unit
Episode Method
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
C004
C004
C004
C004
C2106
C2106
C2106
C2106
C036
C036
C036
C036
7782505
7782505
7782505
7782505
C009
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
6441
6442
6447
6440
350.2
350.2
350.2
350.2
405.1
405.1
405.1
405.1
410.1
410.1
410.1
410.1
9221E
9221E
9221E
9221E
1664
1664
1664
1664
330.5
330.5
330.5
330.5
160.2
Est .
LTA
298.696
13.245
0.645
19.246
Processing=Rendering
Est.
LTA
1.286
1.286
1.286
1.286
7.011
7.035
6.820
5.333
37.525
37.094
117.176
47.337
455.435
768.000
1194.777
455.435
11.565
11.546
11.589
14.997
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.645
12.632
1-Day
V.F.
1-Day
V.F.
2 .261
2 .307
1.788
1.310
4.568
1.474
1.927
1.130
1.333
1.216
1.398
2 .273
14.796
4.224
5.254
1.726
2 .878
2 .188
20-Day
V.F.
30-Day
V.F.
2 0-Day
V.F.
150
099
048
340
1.061
1.103
1.020
1.045
1.032
1.055
1.255
8.924
1.362
1.397
1.084
1.201
1.139
30-Day
V.F.
1.123
1.081
1.039
1.278
1.050
1.084
1.016
1.037
1.026
1.045
1.208
7.470
1.296
1.324
1.069
1.164
1.113
-------
Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Analyte
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_NO
C009
C009
C009
CAS NO
7664417
COOS
C2106
C036
C005
C021
C005+C021
14265442
C009
CAS NO
7664417
COOS
C2106
C036
C005
C021
C005+C021
14265442
C009
:> u.j_"^ct i_cy w j. y — J7.e<_i i«i
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
- Subcategory=Red
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Subcategory=Red
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
/100MLS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Cct L.
Episode
6441
6442
6447
Meat -
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
Meat - -
Episode
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
6335
Wp L. J.W11— D^J. ^
(continued)
Method
160.2
160.2
160.2
- Option-BAT3
Method
350.2
405.1
9221E
1664
353.1
351.3
351.3
365.2
160.2
Option-BAT3
Method
350.2
405.1
9221E
1664
353.1
351.3
351.3
365.2
160.2
rj-w^ceej-iiy — i^eniuie i. j.iiv.
Est .
LTA
29.384
22.238
19.246
recessing
Est.
LTA
3.754
6.851
92.604
5.900
7.893
2.077
7.378
7.864
4.925
-- Processing=Further
Est.
LTA
2.343
4.683
22.385
5.900
6.043
2.077
7.378
8.422
4.207
t
1-Day
V.F.
3 .272
1.361
1.414
1-Day
V.F.
6 .485
2 .400
1.475
2 .823
1.485
2 .350
1.347
1-Day
V.F.
6 .485
2 .400
1.475
2 .823
1.485
2 .350
1.347
20-Day
V.F.
1.234
1.050
1.057
2 0 - Day
V.F.
1.508
1.158
1.064
1.196
1.065
1.154
1.041
2 0 - Day
V.F.
1.508
1.158
1.064
1.196
1.065
1.154
1.041
30-Day
V.F.
1.191
1.041
1.047
30-Day
V.F.
1.415
1.129
1.053
1.160
1.053
1.126
1.033
30-Day
V.F.
1.415
1.129
1.053
1.160
1.053
1.126
1.033
-------
Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering
Est. 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F. V.F.
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 2.343
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND COOS MG/L 6447 405.1 8.346
FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6447 9221E 22.978
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6447 1664 7.772
NITRATE/NITRITE COOS MG/L 6447 353.1 6.043
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 MG/L 6447 351.3 2.077
TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 MG/L 6447 351.3 7.378
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 MG/L 6447 365.2 6.965
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6447 160.2 4.207
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSESl -- Processing=First
Est. 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F. V.F.
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 1092.514 2.614 . 1.145
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 37.409 1.525 . 1.057
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSESl -- Processing=Further
Est. 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F. V.F.
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 15.086 2.614 . 1.145
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 7.816 1.525 . 1.057
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSESl -- Processing=Rendering
Est. 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day
Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F. V.F.
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 99.697
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6447 1664 19.573
-------
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations
Option=BPT2
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Daily
Limit
20-Day
Limit
1.1051
1.1127
1.0753
3.3247
1.3244
1.1162
1.1147
- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First
1-Day
V.F.
Daily
Limit
20-Day
Limit
30-Day
Limit
1.3244
1.1314
123.9116
19.7548
Baseline
Value
Baseline
Unit
Daily
Limit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
C036
C009
CAS Number
5.0
4.0
Baseline
Value
MG/L MG/L
MG/L MG/L
Baseline
Unit Unit
37.2537
9.7600
LTA
5.2542 1.3973
2.4260 1.1610
1-Day 20 -Day
V.F. V.F.
1.3244
1.1314
30-Day
V.F.
195.7382
23.6780
Daily
Limit
52 . 0540
11.3311
20 -Day
Limit
49.3381
11 . 0428
30-Day
Limit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
1.4147
1.1290
1.1198
1.3244
1.1314
Option=BAT3
LTA
2.3426
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
Baseline
Unit
Daily
Limit
20-Day
Limit
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Daily
Limit
-------
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Option=BAT3
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Daily
Limit
30-Day
Limit
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Baseline
Value
Baseline
Unit
Option=PSESl -- Processing=Firs
LTA
13.1953
Daily
Limit
-------
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Baseline
Unit
LTA
17.7848
Daily
Limit
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Baseline
Unit
LTA
183.7416
Daily
Limit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Daily
Limit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
Baseline
Unit
Daily
Limit
-------
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Baseline
Unit
1-Day
V.F.
Daily
Limit
20-Day
Limit
30-Day
Limit
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Baseline
Unit
Daily
Limit
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Baseline
Unit
LTA
47.3372
Daily
Limit
Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering
Baseline Baseline
Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Baseline
Value
Baseline
Unit
1.1451
1.0573
Daily
Limit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Baseline
Unit
Daily
Limit
20-Day
Limit
1.1451
1.0573
-------
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations
Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily
Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 99.6971 2.6138 . 1.1451
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 19.5734 1.5253 . 1.0573
-------
Attachment 13-4. Production Values
Meat
Poultry
First Processing
Further Processing
Meat Cutting
Rendering
First Processing
Further Processing
Rendering
Independent Rendering
322.8 gal/1000 Ib LWK1
555.4 gal/1000 Ib FP2
130.4 gal/1000 Ib FP
346.0 gal/1000 Ib RM3
1,289 gal/1000 Ib LWK
315.7 gal/1000 Ib FP
346.0 gal/1000 Ib RM
346.0 gal/1000 Ib RM
^ive Weight Killed
2Finished Product
3Raw Material
-------
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering
Production-
normalized
LTA
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Meat Type=Poultry
CAS Number
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
-------
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations
Meat Type=Poultry
Option=BAT3
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
First Processors
Fi
Fi
Fi
Fi
Fi
Fi
Fi
Fi
Fi
Production-
normalized
LTA
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
iber
'21
2
Genera]
Further
Further
Further
Further
Further
Further
Further
Further
Further
Further
_ Proce
Proces
Proces
Proces
Proces
Proces
Proces
Proces
Proces
Proces
Proces
ss
sors
sors
sors
sors
sors
sors
sors
sors
sors
sors
Produi
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Ib FP
Meat Type=Poultry
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Production-
normalized
LTA
-------
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Meat Type=Poultry
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Processing=Further
Production-
normalized
LTA
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Production
Unit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
Further Processors
Further Processors
Further Processors
Further Processors
Further Processors
Further Processors
Further Processors
Further Processors
1000 Ib FP
lb/1000 Ib FP
-------
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations
Meat Type=Red Meat
-- Processinq=Further
Analyte
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering
Production-
normalized
LTA
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
gal/1000 Ib RM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
NITRATE/NITRITE
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Production
Unit
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
gal/1000 Ib FP
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Production-
normalized
General Process Production Production Unit LTA
First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 Ib LWK 0.114 0.145
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations
Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2
Process!ng=Further
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
General Proces
Further Process
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FECAL COLIFORM
Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering
Production-
normalized
LTA
-------
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Meat Cutters
Production-
normalized
LTA
Meat Cutters
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Production-
normalized
Daily Limit
CAS Number
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Processing=Further
-------
Attachment 13-5 . Production-Normalized Limitations
Production
Unit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Production
Production Unit
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Meat Cutters
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL CO 36 Meat Cutters
-------
APPENDIX I
40 CFR PART 432
i-i
-------
PART 432—MEAT PRODUCTS POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouse
Subcategory
Sec.
432.
10 Applicability; description of the simple slaugh-
terhouse subcategory.
11 Specialized definitions.
12 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
1.14
432.13 [Reserved]
43:
432
432
432
Pretreatment standards for existing sources.
15 Standards of performance for new sources.
16 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
17 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouse
Subcategory
432.20 Applicability; description of the complex slaugh-
terhouse subcategory.
432.21 Specialized definitions.
432.22 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.23 [Reserved]
432.24 Pretreatment standards for existing sources.
432.25 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.27 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart C—Low-Processing Packinghouse
Subcategory
432.30 Applicability; description of the low-pro cess ing
packinghouse subcategory.
432.31 Specialized definitions.
432.32 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
[Reserved]
Pretreatment standards for existing sources.
Standards of performance for new sources.
Pretreatment standards for new sources.
Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart D—High-Processing Packinghouse
Subcategory
432.40 Applicability; description of the high-processing
packinghouse subcategory.
432.41 Specialized definitions.
432.42 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.43 [Reserved]
432.44 Pretreatment standards for existing sources.
432.45 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.46 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.47 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart E—Small Processor Subcategory
432.50 Applicability; description of the small processor
subcategory.
432.51 Specialized definitions.
432.52 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.53^32.54 [Reserved]
432.55 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.56 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.57 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart F—Meat Cutter Subcategory
432.60 Applicability; description of the meat cutter sub-
category.
432.61 Specialized definitions.
432.62 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.63 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically
achievable.
432.64 [Reserved]
432.65 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.66 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.67 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon Meats
Processor Subcategory
432.70 Applicability; description of the sausage and
luncheon meat processor subcategory.
432.71 Specialized definitions.
432.72 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.73 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically
achievable.
432.74 [Reserved]
-------
§432.10
432.75 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.76 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.77 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart H—Ham Processor Subcategory
432.80 Applicability; description of the ham processor
subcategory.
432.81 Specialized definitions.
432.82 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.83 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically
achievable.
432.84 [Reserved]
432.85 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.86 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.87 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart I—Canned Meats Processor
Subcategory
432.90 Applicability; description of the canned meats
processor subcategory.
432.91 Specialized definitions.
432.92 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.93 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically
achievable.
432.94 [Reserved]
432.95 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.96 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.97 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Subpart J—Renderer Subcategory
432.100 Applicability; description of the Tenderer sub-
category.
432.101 Specialized definitions.
432.102 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available.
432.103 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically
achievable.
432.104 [Reserved]
432.105 Standards of performance for new sources.
432.106 Pretreatment standards for new sources.
432.107 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollution control
technology.
AUTHORITY: Sees. 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306 (b) and
(c), and 307(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c),
1316 (b) and (c), 1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L.
92-500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217.
SOURCE: 39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart A—Simple
Slaughterhouse Subcategory
§432.10 Applicability; description of
the simple slaughterhouse sub-
category.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the production of red
meat carcasses, in whole or part, by simple
slaughterhouses.
§432.11 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "slaughterhouse" shall mean a
plant that slaughters animals and has as its main
product fresh meat as whole, half or quarter car-
casses or smaller meat cuts.
(c) The term "simple slaughterhouse" shall
mean a slaughterhouse which accomplishes very
limited by-product processing, if any, usually no
more than two of such operations as rendering,
paunch and viscera handling, blood processing,
hide processing, or hair processing.
(d) The term "LWK" (live weight killed) shall
mean the total weight of the total number of ani-
mals slaughtered during the time to which the ef-
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or
any period of thirty consecutive days.
(e) The term "ELWK" (equivalent live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of the total
number of animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable
materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in
addition to those derived from animals slaughtered
on site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall mean those
components of process waste water amenable to
measurement by the method described in "Meth-
ods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,
page 217.
-------
§432.12
§432.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
(a) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to on-
site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or
by-product processing of carcasses of animals
slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part after application of the best practicable con-
trol technology currently available:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000kg LWK)
BODS 0.24 0.12
TSS 0.40 0.20
Oil and grease 0.12 0.06
Fecal coliform (1) (1)
pH H P)
English units (pounds per
1,000 Ib LWK)
BODS 0.24 0.12
TSS 0.40 0.20
Oil and grease 0.12 0.06
Fecal coliform (1) (1)
pH H P)
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
BODS
TSS ..
BODS
TSS ..
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0.04 0.02
0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0 04 0 02
0.08 0.04
(c) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
processing of blood derived from animals slaugh-
tered at locations other than the slaughterhouse,
which may be discharged by a point source sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition
to the discharge allowed by § 432. 12(a):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
BODS
TSS ..
BODS
TSS ..
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0 04 0 02
0.08 0.04
English unite (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0.04 0.02
0.08 0.04
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.
2Wthin the range 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of
hides derived from animals slaughtered at loca-
tions other than the slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by §432.12(a):
(d) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of material de-
rived from animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged
by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by
§432.12(a):
-------
§432.14
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
BODS 0.06 0.03
TSS 012 006
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
BODS 0.06 0.03
TSS 012 0 06
(e) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the slaughter-
house, which may be discharged by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addi-
tion to the discharge allowed by § 432. 12(a):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
BODS 0 02 0 01
TSS 0.04 0.02
pH 0) 0)
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
BODS 0.02 0.01
TSS 0 04 0 02
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
June 29, 1995]
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard
BODS Do
TSS Do
Oil and grease Do.
[40 FR 6446, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33964,
June 29, 1995]
§432.15 Standards of performance for
(a) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or by-product processing of car-
casses of animals slaughtered on-site which may
be discharged by a new source subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart: the limitations shall be as
specified in §432.12(a), with the exception that in
addition to the pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by that subsection, discharges of ammo-
nia shall not exceed the limitations set forth
below:
Effluent limitations
A f H 'I
Effluent characteristic Max mum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metre units (kilograms per
1,000 kg LWK)
Ammonia 0 34 017
1,000 Ib LWK)
Ammonia 0.34 0.17
§432.13 [Reserved]
§432.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this subpart that
introduces process wastewater pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with
40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
(b) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the processing of blood derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a
new source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part, in addition to the discharge allowed by
§§432.15(a) and 432.12(c):
-------
§432.21
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0.06
0.03
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
(c) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the wet or low temperature rendering
of material derived from animals slaughtered at lo-
cations other than slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a new source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by §§432.15(a) and 432.12(d):
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
Ammonia
0.10
0.05
(d) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the dry rendering of material derived
from animals slaughtered at locations other than
the slaughterhouse which may be discharged by a
new source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part, in addition to the discharge allowed by
§§432.15(a) and 432.12(e):
English unite (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0.03 Ammonia
0.04
0.02
[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]
§432.16 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403.
[60 FR 33964, June 29, 1995]
§432.17 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.12 of this subpart for the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart B—Complex
Slaughterhouse Subcategory
§432.20 Applicability; description of
the complex slaughterhouse sub-
category.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the production of red
meat carcasses, in whole or part, by complex
slaughterhouses.
§432.21 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
-------
§432.22
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "slaughterhouse" shall mean a
plant that slaughters animals and has as its main
product fresh meat as whole, half or quarter car-
casses or smaller meat cuts.
(c) The term "complex slaughterhouse" shall
mean a slaughterhouse that accomplishes extensive
by-product processing, usually at least three of
such operations as rendering, paunch and viscera
handling, blood processing, hide processing, or
hair processing.
(d) The term "LWK" (live weight killed) shall
mean the total weight of the total number of ani-
mals slaughtered during the time to which the ef-
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or
any period of thirty consecutive days.
(e) The term "ELWK" (equivalent live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of the total
number of animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable
materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in
addition to those derived from animals slaughtered
on site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall mean those
components of process waste water amenable to
measurement by the method described in "Meth-
ods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,
page 217.
§432.22 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
(a) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to on-
site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or
by-product processing of carcasses of animals
slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part after application of the best practical control
technology currently available:
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000kg LWK)
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
0.42 0.21
0 50 0 25
0.16 0.08
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib LWK)
0 42 0 21
0 50 0 25
0.16 0.08
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.
2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of
hides derived from animals slaughtered at loca-
tions other than the slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section:
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
BODS.
TSS ...
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.04
English unite (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
BODS.
TSS ...
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.04
(c) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
processing of blood derived from animals slaugh-
tered at locations other than the slaughterhouse,
which may be discharged by a point source sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition
-------
§432.25
to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this
section:
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Effluent characteristic
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
;nt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
BODS
TSS
BODS
TSS
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
0.04 0.02
0.08 0.04
(d) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of material de-
rived from animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged
by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by
paragraph (a) of this section:
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
BODS
TSS
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0 06 0 03
0.12 0.06
English unite (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0.06 0.03
012 0 06
BODS 0.02 0.01
TSS 0.04 0.02
English unite (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
BODS 0 02 0 01
TSS 0.04 0.02
[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974,
as amended at 45 FR 82254, Dec. 15, 1980; 60 FR
33964, June 29, 1995]
§432.23 [Reserved]
§432.24 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this subpart that
introduces process wastewater pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with
40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard
pH No limitation.
BODS Do.
TSS Do.
Fecal coliform Do.
[40 FR 6446, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
§432.25 Standards of performance for
(e) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the slaughter-
house, which may be discharged by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addi-
tion to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a):
new sources.
(a) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or by-product processing of car-
casses of animals slaughtered on-site which may
be discharged by a new source subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart: The limitations shall be as
specified in § 432.22(a), with the exception that in
addition to the pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by that subsection, discharges of ammo-
nia shall not exceed the limitations set forth
below:
-------
§432.26
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg LWK)
Ammonia
0.48
0.24
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib LWK)
(b) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the processing of blood derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a
new source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part, in addition to the discharge allowed by para-
graph (a) of this section and §432.22(c):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
Ammonia
0.06
0.03
(c) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the wet or low temperature rendering
of material derived from animals slaughtered at lo-
cations other than the slaughterhouse, which may
be discharged by a new source subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and
§432.22(d):
Effluent characteristic
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
;nt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
Ammonia
0.10
0.05
English units (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
0.10
0.05
(d) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the dry rendering of material derived
from animals slaughtered at locations other than
the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a
new source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part, in addition to the discharge allowed by para-
graph (a) of this section and §432.22(e):
Effluent characteristic
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
;nt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0.04
0.02
English unite (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]
§432.26 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403.
[60 FR 33965, June 29, 1995]
§432.27 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
-------
§432.32
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.22 of this subpart for the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart C—Low-Processing
Packinghouse Subcategory
§432.30 Applicability; description of
the low-processinj
•-processing
subcategory.
packinghouse
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the production of red
meat carcasses in whole or part, by low-processing
packinghouses.
§432.31 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "packinghouse" shall mean a
plant that both slaughters animals and subse-
quently processes carcasses into cured, smoked,
canned or other prepared meat products.
(c) The term "low processing packinghouse"
shall mean a packinghouse that processes no more
than the total animals killed at that plant, normally
processing less than the total kill.
(d) The term "LWK" (live weight killed) shall
mean the total weight of the total number of ani-
mals slaughtered during the time to which the ef-
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or
any period of thirty consecutive days.
(e) The term "ELWK" (equivalent live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of the total
number of animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable
materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in
addition to those derived from animals slaughtered
on-site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall mean those
components of process waste water amenable to
measurement by the method described in "Meth-
ods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,
page 217.
§432.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
(a) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to on-
site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or
byproduct, processing of carcasses of animals
slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part after application of the best practicable con-
trol technology currently available:
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000kg LWK)
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease .
Fecal coliform ..
pH
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
Fecal coliform
PH
0.34
0.48
0.16
0.17
0.24
0.08
English units (pounds per
1,000 Ib LWK)
0.34
0.48
0.16
(1)
(2)
0.17
0.24
0.08
(1)
(2)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.
2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of
hides derived from animals slaughtered at loca-
tions other than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section:
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
BODS.
TSS ...
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.04
(c) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
-------
§432.34
processing of blood derived from animals slaugh-
tered at locations other than the packinghouse,
which may be discharged by a point source sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition
to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this
section:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Effluent characteristic
TSS
BODS
TSS
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0.04 0.02
0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0.04 0.02
0.08 0.04
BODS .
TSS ...
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.02
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
BODS
TSS ...
002
0.04
[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, as amended at 60 FR
June 29, 1995]
§432.33 [Reserved]
§432.34 Pretreatment standards
0.01
0.02
33965,
for
(d) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of material de-
rived from animals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be discharged
by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by
paragraph (a) of this section:
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this subpart that
introduces process wastewater pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with
40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Pollutant or pollutant property
pH
BODS
TSS
Fecal coliform
Pretreatment standard
No limitation.
Do.
Do
Do
Do.
BODS.
TSS ...
0.06
0.12
0.03
0.06
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
BODS.
TSS ...
0.06
0.12
0.03
0.06
(e) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the packing-
house, which may be discharged by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addi-
tion to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of
this section:
[40 FR 6447, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
§432.35 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or by product processing of car-
casses of animals slaughtered on-site which may
be discharged by a new source subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart: The limitations shall be as
specified in § 432.32(a), with the exception that in
addition to the pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by that subsection, discharges of ammo-
nia shall not exceed the limitations set forth
below:
10
-------
§432.37
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg LWK)
Ammonia
0.48
0.24
English units (pounds per
1,000 Ib LWK)
(b) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the processing of blood derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other than the
packinghouse, which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in
addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a)
of this section and §432.32(c):
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
Ammonia
10.06
0.03
(c) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the wet or low temperature rendering
of material derived from animals slaughtered at lo-
cations other than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a new source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and
§432.32(a).
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
Ammonia
0.10
0.05
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
0.10
0.05
(d) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the dry rendering of material derived
from animals slaughtered at locations other than
the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a
new source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part, in addition to the discharge allowed by para-
graph (a) of this section and §432.32(e):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0.04
0.02
English unite (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]
§432.36 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403.
[60 FR 33965, June 29, 1995]
§432.37 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
11
-------
§432.40
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.32 of this subpart for the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart D—High-Processing
Packinghouse Subcategory
§432.40 Applicability; description of
the high-processing packinghouse
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the production of red
meat carcasses, in whole or part, by high-process-
ing packinghouses.
§432.41 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "packinghouse" shall mean a
plant that both slaughters animals and subse-
quently processes carcasses into cured, smoked,
canned or other prepared meat products.
(c) The term "high-processing packinghouse"
shall mean a packinghouse which processes both
animals slaughtered at the site and additional car-
casses from outside sources.
(d) The term "LWK" (live weight killed) shall
mean the total weight of the total number of ani-
mals slaughtered during the time to which the ef-
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or
any period of thirty consecutive days.
(e) The term "ELWK" (equipment live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of the total
number of animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable
materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in
addition to those derived from animals slaughtered
on-site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall mean those
components of process waste water amenable to
measurement by the method described in "Meth-
ods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,
page 217.
§432.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
(a) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to on-
site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or
byproduct processing of carcasses of animals
slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part after application of the best practicable con-
trol technology currently available:
Effluent characteristic
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
;nt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg LWK)
BOD5+
TSS+
pH
BOD5+
TSS+
pH
0 48 0 24
0 62 0 31
0 26 013
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib LWK)
0 48 0 24
0 62 0 31
0 26 013
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.
2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
+The values for BODJ and suspended solids are for
average plants, i.e., plants with a ratio of average weight
of processed meat products to average LWK of 0.55. Ad-
justments can be made for high-processing packing-
houses at other ratios according to the following equa-
tions:
(v—0.4)
(v—0.4)
where
v-kg processed meat products/kg LWK.
(b) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of
hides derived from animals slaughtered at loca-
tions other than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section:
12
-------
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
BODS
TSS
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30 Effluent characteristic
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0.04 0.02 BODS
0.08 0.04 TSS
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0 04 0 02 BODS
0.08 0.04 TSS
§432.44
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0.06 0.03
0.12 0.06
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0 06 0 03
0.12 0.06
(c) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
processing of blood derived from animals slaugh-
tered at locations other than the packinghouse,
which may be discharged by a point source sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition
to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this
section:
(e) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the packing-
house, which may be discharged by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addi-
tion to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of
this section:
Effluent characteristic
BOD5
BOD5
TSS
Effluent limitations
Maximum ^Sfor to" Effluent characteristic
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0.04 0.02 BOD5
English units (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
0.04 0.02 BOD5
0.08 0.04 TSS
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
0.02 0.01
0.04 0.02
English units (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
0.02 0.01
0.04 0.02
(d) The following limitations establish the quan-
tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of material de-
rived from animals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be discharged
by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by
paragraph (a) of this section:
[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
§432.43 [Reserved]
§432.44 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this subpart that
introduces process wastewater pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with
40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
13
-------
§432.45
Pollutant or pollutant property
pH
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
Fecal coliform
Pretreatment standard
Do
Do.
Do.
Do.
[40 FR 6447, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
§432.45 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or byproduct processing or carcasses
of animals slaughtered onsite which may be dis-
charged by a new source subject to the provisions
of this subpart: The limitations shall be as speci-
fied in § 432.42(a), with the exception that in addi-
tion to the pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by that subsection, discharges of ammonia
shall not exceed the limitations set forth below:
Effluent characteristic
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
;nt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000kg LWK)
Ammonia
0.80
0.40
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib LWK)
Effluent characteristic
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
;nt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0.06
0.03
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
(c) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the wet or low temperature rendering
of material derived from animals slaughtered at lo-
cations other than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a new source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and
§423.42(d):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
English unite (pounds per
1,000 Ib ELWK)
(b) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the processing of blood derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other than the
packinghouse, which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in
addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a)
of this section and §432.42(c):
(d) The following standards of performance es-
tablish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this section and at-
tributable to the dry rendering of material derived
from animals slaughtered at locations other than
the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a
new source subject to the provisions of this sub-
part, in addition to the discharge allowed by para-
graph (a) of this section and §432.42(e):
14
-------
§432.55
Effluent characteristic
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
Ammonia
0.04
0.02
English units (pounds per
1,000lb ELWK)
0.04
0.02
[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]
§432.46 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403.
[60 FR 33965, June 29, 1995]
§432.47 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.42 of this subpart for the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart E—Small Processor
Subcategory
SOURCE: 40 FR 905, Jan.
noted.
1975, unless otherwise
§432.50 Applicability; description of
the small processor subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the production of fin-
ished meat products such as fresh meat cuts,
smoked products, canned products, hams, sau-
sages, luncheon meats, or similar products by a
small processor.
§432.51 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "small processor" shall mean an
operation that produces up to 2730 kg (6000 Ib)
per day of any type or combination of finished
products.
(c) The term ' 'finished product'' shall mean the
final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts,
hams, bacon or other smoked meats, sausage,
luncheon meats, stew, canned meats or related
products.
§432.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
20 10
2.4 1.2
1.0 0.5
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal conforms
20
24
1.0
0)
(2)
1 0
1 2
0.5
(1)
(2)
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 No limitation.
[40 FR 905, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
§§432.53—432.54 [Reserved]
§432.55 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of performance estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollut-
ant properties, controlled by this section, which
15
-------
§432.56
may be discharged by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
Effluent characteristic
BOD5
TSS
pH
Fecal conforms
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
10 05
1.2 0.6
05 025
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
10 05
12 06
0.5 0.25
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 No limitation.
§432.56 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a new source
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Pretreatment standard
No limitation.
Do.
Do.
Do
Do
[40 FR 905, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
§432.57 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
the following limitations establish the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, con-
trolled by this section, which may be discharged
by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart after application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology:
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
pH
Fecal conforms
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal conforms
Effluent limitations
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of
daily values
for 30 con-
secutive
days shall
not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
1.0
1.2
0.5
(1)
(2)
0.5
0.6
0.25
(1)
(2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib
of finished product)
1.0
1.2
0.5
(1)
(2)
0.5
0.6
0.25
(1)
(2)
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 No limitation.
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart F—Meat Cutter
Subcategory
SOURCE: 40 FR 906, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise
noted.
§432.60 Applicability; description of
the meat cutter subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the fabrication or manu-
facture of fresh meat cuts such as steaks, roasts,
chops, etc. by a meat cutter.
§432.61 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "meat cutter" shall mean an oper-
ation which fabricates, cuts, or otherwise produces
fresh meat cuts and related finished products from
livestock carcasses, at rates greater than 2730 kg
(6000 Ib) per day.
(c) The term ' 'finished product'' shall mean the
final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts in-
cluding, but not limited to, steaks, roasts, chops, or
boneless meats.
16
-------
§432.66
§432.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]
§432.64 [Reserved]
§432.65 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of performance estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollut-
ant properties, controlled by this section, which
may be discharged by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
Effluent characteristic
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliforms
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliforms
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
0.036 0.018
0.044 0.022
0.012 0.000
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
0.036 0.018
10.044 0.022
0.012 0.006
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
BOD5
TSS
pH
Fecal coliforms
0.036
0044
0012
0.018
0.022
0.006
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
PH
0030
0.036
0.012
(2)
0.015
0.018
0.006
(2)
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
[40 FR 906, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
§432.63 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
The following limitations establish the quantity
or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable:
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
§432.66 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a new source
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Pollutant or pollutant property
BODS
TSS
pH
Fecal coliform
Pretreatment standard
No limitation.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Milligrams per liter—effluent
Ammonia
8.0 mg/l
4.0
[40 FR 906, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,
June 29, 1995]
17
-------
§432.67
§432.67 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.62 of this subpart for the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart G—Sausage and Lunch-
eon Meats Processor Sub-
category
SOURCE: 40 FR 907, Jan.
noted.
1975, unless otherwise
§432.70 Applicability; description of
the sausage and luncheon meat
processor subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the manufacture of fresh
meat cuts, sausage, bologna, and other luncheon
meats by a sausage and luncheon meat processor.
§432.71 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "sausage and luncheon meat proc-
essor" shall mean an operation which cuts fresh
meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, smokes or otherwise
produces finished products such as sausage, bolo-
gna and luncheon meats at rates greater than 2730
kg (6000 Ib) per day.
(c) The term ' 'finished product'' shall mean the
final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts in-
cluding steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,
bacon or other smoked meats (except hams) such
as sausage, bologna or other luncheon meats, or
related products (except canned meats).
§432.72 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
BOD5
TSS
pH
Fecal coliforms
0.56
0.68
0.20
0.28
0.34
0.10
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease ....
pH
Fecal coliforms ...
0.56
0.68
0.20
0.28
0.34
0.10
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
[40 FR 907, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,
June 29, 1995]
§432.73 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
The following limitations establish the quantity
or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable:
[Milligrams per liter—effluent]
Effluent characteristics
Ammonia
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
80 mg/l
mt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
4.0
[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]
§432.74 [Reserved]
§432.75 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of performance estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollut-
ant properties, controlled by this section, which
18
-------
§432.82
may be discharged by a new sources subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
BOD5
TSS
pH
0.56
0.68
0.20
(2)
0.28
0.34
0.10
(2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease ..
PH
Fecal conforms .
0.48
0.58
0.20
(1)
(2)
0.24
0.29
0.10
(1)
'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
§432.76 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a new source
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliform
Pretreatment standard
Do.
Do.
Do
Do.
[40 FR 907, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,
June 29, 1995]
§432.77 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.72 of this subpart for the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart H—Ham Processor
Subcategory
SOURCE: 40 FR 908,
noted.
Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise
of
§432.80 Applicability; description
the ham processor subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the manufacture of hams
alone or in combination with other finished prod-
ucts by a ham processor.
§432.81 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "ham processor" shall mean an
operation which manufactures hams alone or in
combination with other finished products at rates
greater than 2730 kg (6000 Ib) per day.
(c) The term "finished products" shall mean
the final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts
including steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,
smoked or cured hams, bacon or other smoked
meats, sausage, bologna or other luncheon meats
(except canned meats).
§432.82 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
19
-------
§432.83
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
DH
Fecal coliform
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliform
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
0.62 0.31
0.74 0.37
0.22 0.11
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
0.62 0.31
0.74 0.37
0.22 0.11
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
[40 FR 908, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,
June 29, 1995]
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
BODS
TSS
pH
Fecal coliform
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
0.62 0.31
0.74 0.37
0.22 0.11
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
0.62 0.31
0.74 0.37
0.22 0.11
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
§432.86 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
§432.83 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
The following limitations establish the quantity
or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable:
[Milligrams per liter—effluent]
Effluent limitations
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a new source
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed—
Pollutant or pollutant property
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliform
Pretreatment standard
No limitation.
Do
Do.
Do
Do.
[40 FR 908, Jan.
June 29, 1995]
3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,
8.0 mg/l
4.0
[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]
§432.84 [Reserved]
§432.85 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of performance estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollut-
ant properties, controlled by this section, which
may be discharged by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
§432.87 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.82 of this subpart for the best
20
-------
§432.95
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Sub pa it I—Canned Meats
Processor Subcategory
Effluent limitations
SOURCE: 40 FR 909, Jan.
noted.
1975, unless otherwise
§432.90 Applicability; description of
the canned meats processor sub-
category.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the manufacture of
canned meats alone or in combination with any
other finished products, by a canned meats proc-
essor.
§432.91 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "canned meat processor" shall
mean an operation which prepares and cans meats
(such as stew, sandwich spreads, or similar prod-
ucts) alone or in combination with other finished
products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 Ib.)
per day.
(c) The term "finished products" shall mean
the final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts
including steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,
hams, bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, bo-
logna or other luncheon meats, stews, sandwich
spreads or other canned meats.
§432.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
BODS
TSS
pH
Fecal coliform
0.74
0.90
0.26
(1)
0.37
0.45
0.12
(1)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliform
0.74
0.90
0.26
0.37
0.45
0.13
'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
[40 FR 909, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,
June 29, 1995]
§432.93 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
The following limitations establish the quantity
or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable:
[Milligrams per liter—effluent]
Effluent characteristic
Efflue
Maximum
for any 1
day
8 0 mg/l
mt limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
40
[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]
§432.94 [Reserved]
§432.95 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of performance estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollut-
ant properties, controlled by this section, which
may be discharged by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
21
-------
§432.96
Effluent characteristic
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
0.74 0.37
0.90 0.45
0.26 0.13
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
finished product)
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
PH
Fecal coliform
0.74
0.90
0.26
0.37
0.45
0.13
'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
§432.96 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a new source
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliform
Pretreatment standard
No limitation.
Do
Do.
Do
Do.
[40 FR 909, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,
June 29, 1995]
§432.97 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,
any existing point source subject to this subpart
shall achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction at-
tainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
tions shall be the same as those specified for con-
ventional pollutants (which are defined in
§401.16) in §432.92 of this subpart for the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
Subpart J—Renderer Subcategory
SOURCE: 40 FR 910, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise
noted.
§432.100 Applicability; description of
the Tenderer subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
discharges resulting from the manufacture of meat
meal, dried animal by-product residues (tankage),
animal oils, grease and tallow, perhaps including
hide curing, by a Tenderer.
§432.101 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general defi-
nitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
(b) The term "renderer" shall mean an inde-
pendent or off-site rendering operation, conducted
separate from a slaughterhouse, packinghouse or
poultry dressing or processing plant, which manu-
factures at rates greater than 75,000 pounds of raw
material per day of meat meal, tankage, animal
fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may cure cattle
hides, but excluding marine oils, fish meal, and
fish oils.
(c) The term "tankage" shall mean dried ani-
mal by-product residues used in feedstuffs.
(d) The term "tallow" shall mean a product
made from beef cattle or sheep fat that has a melt-
ing point of 40°C or greater.
(e) The term "raw material" or as abbreviated
herein, "RM", shall mean the basic input mate-
rials to a renderer composed of animal and poultry
trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals,
feathers and related usable by-products.
§432.102 Effluent limitations guide-
lines representing the degree of ef-
fluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avail-
able.
(a) Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through
125.32, and subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b) of this section, any existing point source sub-
ject to this subpart shall achieve the following ef-
fluent limitations representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently avail-
able (BPT):
22
-------
§432.105
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
BODS
TSS
pH
Fecal coliform
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of raw
material)
034 017
0 42 0 21
0.20 0.10
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
raw material)
0.34 0.17
0.42 0.21
020 010
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
(b) The limitations given in paragraph (a) of
this section for BOD5 and TSS are derived for a
Tenderer which does no cattle hide curing as part
of the plant activities. If a Tenderer does conduct
hide curing, the following empirical formulas
should be used to derive an additive adjustment to
the effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS.
BODJ Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=[8.0x
(number of hides)/kg of raw material]
(lb/1,000 Ib RM)=[17.6x(number of hides)/lbs of raw
material]
TSS Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=[11.0x
(number of hides)/kg of raw material]
(lb/1,000 Ib RM)=[24.2x(number of hides)/lbs of raw
material]
[40 FR 910, Jan. 3, 1975; 40 FR 11874, Mar. 14, 1975,
as amended at 60 FR 33966, June 29, 1995]
§432.103 Effluent limitations guide-
lines representing the degree of ef-
fluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available
technology economically achiev-
able.
The following limitations establish the quantity
or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable:
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of raw
material)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib of
raw material)
[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]
§432.104 [Reserved]
§432.105 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of
this section, the following standards of perform-
ance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants
or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
which may be discharged by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
Effluent characteristics
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
Ammonia
pH
Fecal conforms
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
Ammonia
pH
Fecal conforms
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 kg of raw material)
018 0 09
.22 .11
.10 .05
.14 .07
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
English units (pounds per
1,000 Ib of raw material)
0.18 0.09
.22 .11
.10 .05
.14 .07
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 Maximum at anytime 400 mpn/100 ml.
(b) The standards given in paragraph (a) of this
section for BOD5 and TSS are derived for a ren-
derer which does no cattle hide curing as part of
the plant activities. If a Tenderer does conduct hide
curing, the following empirical formulas should be
used to derive an additive adjustment to the stand-
ards for BOD5 and TSS.
23
-------
§432.106
BODJ adjustment (kilograms per 1,000 kg of raw
material)=
8.0x(number of hides)/kilograms of raw material
(pounds per 1,000 Ib of raw material)=
17.6x(number of hides)/pounds of raw material
TSS adjustment (kilograms per 1,000 kg of raw
material)=
11. Ox(number of hides)/kilograms of raw material
(pounds per 1,000 Ib of raw material)=
24.2x(number of hides)/pounds of raw material
[42 FR 54419, Oct. 6, 1977]
§432.106 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollutants into a pub-
licly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this section which may be discharged to
a publicly owned treatment works by a new source
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
pH
Fecal coliform
Pretreatment standard
Do
Do.
Do.
Do.
[40 FR 910, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,
June 29, 1995]
§432.107 Effluent limitations guide-
lines representing the degree of ef-
fluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best conventional
pollution control technology.
(a) Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through
125.32, and subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b) of this section, the following limitations estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollut-
ant properties, controlled by this section, which
may be discharged by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart after application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology:
Effluent characteristic
BODS
TSS
pH
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
Fecal conforms
oH
Effluent limitations
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of
daily values
for 30 con-
secutive
days shall
not ex-
ceed —
Metric units (kg/kkg of
raw material)
0.18
0.22
0.10
(1)
(2)
0.09
0.11
0.05
(1)
(2)
English units (lb/1,000 Ib.
of raw material)
0.18
0.22
0.10
(1)
(2)
0.09
0.11
0.05
(1)
(2)
1 Maximum at any time: 400 mpn/100 ml.
2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) The limitations given in paragraph (a) of
this section for BOD5 and TSS are derived for a
Tenderer which does no cattle hide curing as part
of the plant activities. If a Tenderer does conduct
hide curing, the following empirical formulas
should be used to derive an additive adjustment to
the effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS.
BODJ Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=3.6x(number of hides)/
kg of raw material
(lb/1,000 Ib RM)=7.9x(number of hides)/lbs of raw
material
TSS Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=6.2x(number of hides)/kg
of raw material
(lb/1,000 Ib RM)=13.6x(number of hides)/lbs of raw
material
[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
24
-------
APPENDIX J
EXAMPLES OF CALCULATING MPP LIMITATIONS AND
STANDARDS
j-i
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Example 1: Determine the maximum monthly BPT BOD5 limit for a complex slaughterhouse
that operates 280 days per year and slaughters on average 700 cattle (1,000
Ib/head) and 1,000 hogs (225 Ib/head) on-site per day.
Solution 1: First calculate the amount of live weight killed (LWK) on-site.
On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 Ib/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 Ib/head)
= 925,000 Ib-LWK/day
= (925,000 Ib-LWK/day) x (280 days/year) = 259 million Ib-LWK/year
This facility is a complex slaughterhouse (Subpart B) and is subject to 432.22(b)(l) (i.e.,
facility slaughters on-site more than 50 million Ib-LWK per year) which is set equivalent to
432.22(a)(l) for BOD5, TSS, O&G, and fecal coliform bacteria.
The facility does not taken any material from an outside source so there is no adjustments
to the maximum monthly BPT BOD5 limit [0.21 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD5/l,000 Ib-
LWK)]. This monthly BPT BOD5 limit is taken from 432.22(b)(l), which is equivalent to
432.22(a)(l) for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform bacteria.
J-2
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Example 2: Determine the maximum monthly BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a sausage
processor that operates 280 days per year and produces 200,000 pounds of
finished product (on average per day).
Solution 2: First calculate the annual amount of finished product (FP).
Annual FP = (200,000 Ib-FP/day) x (280 days/year) = 56 million Ib-FP/year
This facility is a sausage processor (Subpart G) and is subject to 432.73(b) (i.e., the
facility generates more than 50 million Ib-FP per year). The maximum monthly average limit for
ammonia (as N) is 0.0153 kg-ammonia-N/kkg-FP (or lb-ammonia-N/1,000 Ib-FP). [Note: The
units for 432.63(b) and 432.73(b) were incorrectly given as "mg/L (ppm)". These units should
read "Pounds per 1,000 Ibs (or g/kg) of finished product."]
J-3
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Example 3: What are the maximum monthly average BOD5 and TSS BPT mass-based limits
for a High-Processing Packinghouse which slaughters 100 million LWK pounds
per year and that has an average processed meat products (Ib) to average LWK
(Ib) ratio (v) of 0.65.
Solution 3: This facility is a high-processing packinghouse (Subpart D) and is subject to
432.42(b)(l) (i.e., facility slaughters more than 50 million Ib-LWK per year)
which is set equivalent to 432.42(a)(l) for BOD5, TSS, O&G, and fecal coliform.
Therefore, use the 432.42(a)(l) adjustment equation as follows:
v = 0.65
lb-BOD5 / 1,000 Ib-LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v - 0.4) = 0.21 + 0.23 (0.65 - 0.4) = 0.2675
~ 0.27 lb-BOD5 / 1,000 Ib-LWK
lb-TSS/1,000 Ib-LWK = 0.28 + 0.30 (v - 0.4) = 0.28 + 0.30 (0.65 - 0.4) = 0.355
~ 0.36 lb-TSS/ 1,000 Ib-LWK
Note: The maximum daily BOD5 and TSS BPT limits are twice the maximum monthly
average BOD5 and TSS BPT limits.
J-4
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Example 4: What are the maximum monthly average BOD5 and TSS BPT limits for an
independent rendering facility which handles 206,000 Ib of raw material (RM) per
day, operates 280 days per year, and also cures 100 hides.
Solution 4: This facility is a independent Tenderer (Subpart J) and is subject to 432.102 (i.e.,
facility uses raw material at rates greater than 10 million pounds per year, see
432.101(b)). As this facility also cures hides, use the incremental adjustment
equations provided in 432.102(2) as follows:
Adjusted BPT Max. Monthly Limits = 432.102(a) BPT Max. Monthly Limits + 432.102(2)
Incremental Hide Curing BPT Adjustments
432.102(a) BPT BOD5 Max. Monthly Limit = 0.17 lb-BOD5/l,000 Ib-RM
432.102(a) BPT TSS Max. Monthly Limit = 0.21 lb-TSS/1,000 Ib-RM
BOD5 Incremental Hide Curing Adjustment = [17.6 x (No. of Hides)]/lb-RM
= [17.6xlOO]/206,000
= 0.0085 lb-BOD5./l,000 Ib-RM
TSS Incremental Hide Curing Adjustment = [24.2 x (No. of Hides)]/lb-RM
= [24.2 x 100]/206,000
= 0.012 lb-TSS/1,000 Ib-RM
Adjusted BOD5 BPT Max. Monthly Limit = (0.17 lb-BOD5/l,000 Ib-RM) + (0.0085 Ib-
BODj/l,000 Ib-RM)
= 0.1785 lb-BOD5/l,000 Ib-RM
Adjusted TSS BPT Max. Monthly Limit = (0.21 lb-TSS/1,000 Ib-RM) + (0.012 lb-TSS/1,000
Ib-RM)
= 0.222 lb-TSS/1,000 Ib-RM
Note: The maximum daily BOD5 and TSS BPT limits are twice the maximum monthly
average BOD5 and TSS BPT limits.
J-5
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Example 5: Determine the maximum monthly average BPT BOD5 limit for a complex
slaughterhouse that also performs hide, blood, and dry rendering. The complex
slaughterhouse operates 280 days per year, slaughters on-site (on average per day)
700 cattle (1,000 Ib/head) and 1,000 hogs (225 Ib/head) and also processes (on
average per day) 300 hides, 10,000 gallons of blood, and 200,000 Ib of raw by-
products (offal and bone) for dry rendering from an off-site source.
Solution 5: This facility is a complex slaughterhouse (Subpart B) and is subject to
432.22(b)(l) (i.e., the facility slaughters on-site more than 50 million Ib-LWK per
year) which is set equivalent to 432.22(a)(l) for BOD5, TSS, O&G, and fecal
coliform bacteria.
Because this facility also cures hides and dry renders blood and offal and bone, use the
incremental adjustments provided in 432.22(b), which are set to be equivalent to the incremental
adjustments provided in 432.12(a). The incremental BPT BOD5 and TSS adjustments for
Subparts A, B, C, and D are calculated using the following table.
Table EX-5. MPP BOD5 and TSS Adjustment Factors for BPT Limits
Processing
Hide
Blood
Wet Rendering
Dry Rendering
Daily Max BPT,
kg/kkg-ELWKb
BOD5
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.02
TSS
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.04
Monthly Max BPT,
kg/kkg-ELWKb
BOD5
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
TSS
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.02
Notes
a
a
a
a
Source: 432.12(a)
a These BOD5 and TSS BPT adjustment factors are for Subparts A, B, C, and D. They are used according to the
following relationships:
Adjusted Effluent Limit = On-site Kill Effluent Limit + Incremental Adjustment to On-site Kill Limit
where:
Incremental Adjustment to = (Adjustment Factor x (Total weight of source animals as kka-ELWK)
On-site Kill Limit from Table EX-5) (On-site kkg-LWK)
b If the weight of the off-site source animals (i.e., equivalent live weight killed (ELWK)) which generated the
materials for blood processing, rendering, or hide processing is not known, estimate the ELWK by the use of the
J-6
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
following relationships (Source: U.S. EPA, Red Meat Development Document, EPA-440/l-74-012-a, February,
1974, page 140):
For Blood:
Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (liters of blood) x (0.028) or (gal of blood) x
(0.108)
Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (kg of blood) x (0.029) or (Ib of blood) x (0.013)
For Rendering Material:
Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (kg of rendering materials) x (0.0067) or
(Ib of rendering materials) x (0.003)
For Cattle Hides:
Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (No. of hides) x (0.45)
Use the given values and the adjustment factors and relationships to calculate the required
BPT limits.
On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 Ib/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 Ib/head)
= 925,000 Ib-LWK/day
= 419,573 kg-LWK/day = 419.6 kkg-LWK/day
ELWKblood = (10,000 gal) x (0.108) = 1,080 kkg-ELWK
= (200,000 Ib) x (0.003) = 600 kkg-ELWK
ELWKhides = (300 hides) x (0.45) = 135 kkg-ELWK
BOD5 Incremental Adjustment = (0.02 kg-BOD5/kkg-ELWK) x (1,080 kkg-ELWK/419.6
kkg-LWK)
for Blood Processing (BOD5 IAblood)
= 0.051kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK
BOD5IAhides = (0.02 kg-BOD5/kkg-ELWK) x (135 kkg-ELWK/419.6 kkg-LWK)
= 0.006 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK
Tn
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
BOD5 lA^^ = (0.01kg-BOD5/kkg-ELWK)x(600kkg-ELWK/419.6kkg-LWK)
= 0.014 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK
£BOD5IA = BOD5IAblood + BOD5 IAhldes + BOD5 lA^^
= 0.051 + 0.006 + 0.014
= 0.071 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD5/l,000 Ib-LWK)
On-site Kill Effluent Limit for BOD5 = 0.21 [Taken from 432.22(b)(l) which is equivalent
to 432.22(a)(l) for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal
coliform bateria.]
Adjusted BOD5 Effluent Limit = 0.21 + 0.071
= 0.281 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD5/l,000 Ib-LWK)
J-8
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Example 6: Determine the maximum monthly average BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a
high-processing packinghouse that operates 280 days per year, slaughters on-site
(on average per day) 700 cattle (1,000 Ib/head) and 1,000 hogs (225 Ib/head),
produces (on average per day) 200,000 pounds of final fresh products resulting
from the further processing of meat carcasses, and renders (on average per day)
370,000 pounds of raw material.
Solution 6: First calculate the amount of live weight killed (LWK) on-site.
On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 Ib/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 Ib/head)
= 925,000 Ib-LWK/day
= (925,000 Ib-LWK/day) x (280 days/year) = 259 million LWK pounds/year
This facility is a high-processing packinghouse (Subpart D) and is subject to 432.43 (i.e.,
the facility slaughters on-site more than 50 million Ib-LWK per year). The 432.43 BAT limits are
set to be equivalent to the 432.13 BAT limits. The incremental BAT adjustments for Subparts A,
B, C, and D are calculated using the following table.
Table EX-6. MPP Adjustment Factors for BAT Limits
Regulated
Parameter
Ammonia (as N)
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Daily Max BAT
Further Processing
kg/kkg-FP
0.0704
0.0965
0.0917
Rendering
kg/kkg-RM
0.0438
0.0601
0.0472
Monthly Max BAT
Further Processing
kg/kkg-FP
0.0153
0.0396
0.0439
Rendering
kg/kkg-RM
0.0096
0.0247
0.0226
Notes
a
a
a
Source: 432.13
aThese BAT adjustment factors are for Subparts A, B, C, and D are used according to the following relationships:
Adjusted Effluent Limit = On-site Kill Effluent Limit + Incremental Adjustment to On-site Kill Limit
where:
Incremental Adjustment to = (Adjustment Factor x (Further Proc. Products or Rendering RM in kkg)
On-site Kill Limit from Table EX-6) (On-site kkg-LWK)
On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 Ib/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 Ib/head)
= 925,000 Ib-LWK/day
= 419,573 kg-LWK/day = 419.6 kkg-LWK/day
J-9
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Further Processing Products = 200,000 Ib-FP/day
= 90.7 kkg-FP/day
Rendering Raw Material = 370,000 Ib-RM/day
= 167.8 kkg-RM/day
Ammonia-N Incremental
Adjustment for Further = (0.0153 kg-NH3-N/kkg-FP) x (90.7 kkg-FP/419.6 kkg-LWK)
Processing (NH3-N IApp)
= 0.003 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK
NH3-NIARM = (0.0096 kg-NH3-N/kkg-RM) x (167.8 kkg-RM/419.6 kkg-LWK)
= 0.004 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK
£NH3-NIA = NH3-NLV + NH3-NIARM
= 0.003 + 0.004
= 0.007 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 Ib-LWK)
On-site Kill Effluent Limit = 0.0143 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK
[Taken from 432.43, which is equivalent to 432.13.]
Adjusted NH3-N Effluent Limit = 0.0143 + 0.007
= 0.0213 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 Ib-LWK)
J-10
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Example 7: Determine the maximum monthly average BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a
poultry first processor that operates 280 days per year, slaughters on-site (on
average per day) 100,000 chickens (5.5 Ib/head), produces (on average per day)
300,000 pounds of final fresh products resulting from the further processing of
poultry carcasses, and renders (on average per day) 220,000 pounds of raw
material.
Solution 7: First calculate the amount of Live Weight Killed (LWK) on-site.
On-site LWK = (100,000 chicken/day) x (5.5 Ib/head) = 550,000 Ib-LWK/day
= (550,000 Ib-LWK/day) x (280 days/year) = 154 million LWK pounds/year
This facility is a poultry first processor (Subpart K) and is subject to 432.113. The
432.113 BAT limits are set equivalent to the 432.112 BPT limits. The applicable BAT limits for
this facility are found in 432.112(b), because this facility slaughters on-site more than 10 million
Ib-LWK per year. The incremental BAT adjustments are calculated using the following table.
Table EX-7: MPP Adjustment Factors for BAT Limits
Regulated
Parameter
Ammonia (as N)
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Daily Max BAT
Further Processing
kg/kkg-FP
0.0400
0.0548
0.0431
Rendering
kg/kkg-RM
0.0771
0.0601
0.0472
Monthly Max BAT
Further Processing
kg/kkg-FP
0.0087
0.0226
0.0206
Rendering
kg/kkg-RM
0.0168
0.0247
0.0226
Notes
a
a
a
Source: 432.112
a These BAT adjustment factors are used according to the following relationships:
Adjusted Effluent Limit = On-site Kill Effluent Limit + Incremental Adjustment to On-site Kill Limit
where:
Incremental Adjustment to = (Adjustment Factor x (Further Proc. Products or Rendering RM in kkg)
On-site Kill Limit from Table EX-7) (On-site kkg-LWK)
On-site LWK = 550,000 Ib-LWK/day
= 249,476 kg-LWK/day = 249.5 kkg-LWK/day
J-ll
-------
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards
Further Processing Products = 300,000 Ib-FP/day
= 136.1kkg-FP/day
Rendering Raw Material = 220,000 Ib-RM/day
= 99.8 kkg-RM/day
Ammonia-N Incremental
Adjustment for Further = (0.0087 kg-NH3-N/kkg-FP) x (136.1 kkg-FP/249.5 kkg-LWK)
Processing (NH3-N IApp)
= 0.005 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK
NH3-NIARM = (0.0168 kg-NH3-N/kkg-RM) x (99.8 kkg-RM/249.5 kkg-LWK)
= 0.007 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK
£NH3-NIA = NH3-NLV + NH3-NIARM
= 0.005 + 0.007
= 0.012 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 Ib-LWK)
On-site Kill Effluent Limit = 0.0356 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK
[Taken from 432.113 which is equivalent to 432.112(b)(l) as
this facility slaughters on-site more than 10 million Ib-LWK
per year]
Adjusted NH3-N Effluent Limit = 0.0356 + 0.012
= 0.0476 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 Ib-LWK)
J-12
------- |