EPA-W1-77/031E
GROUP 1, PHASE I
PROPOSED
Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES LIMITATIONS AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORWNCE STANDARDS FOR THE
RBCERER
SEGMENT OF THE
MEAT PRODUCTS AND RENDERING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
APRIL 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D,C, 20460
-------
SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
and
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
'(Remand)
for the
RENDERER
SEGMENT OF THE
MEAT PRODUCTS AND RENDERING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Andrew W. Briedenback
Assistant Administrator for Water and
Hazardous Materials
Robert B. Shaffer
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
William M. Sonnett
Project Officer
April 1977
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
17 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, it 60604-3590
-------
ABSTRACT
The study presented herein was conducted in response to a
directive from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit to review and revise if necessary, the promulgated
New Source Performance Standards and to restudy and update
the cost of achieving these standards for the Renderer
Segment of the Meat Products and Rendering Processing Point
Source category. In the course of making the study, the
1983 limitations were also reviewed. This document is a
supplement to the original, "Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Renderer Segment of the Meat Products and
Rendering Processing Point Source Category." (January,
1975} .
The rendering plants considered in this study are those that
process animal by-products at an independent plant site. In
this study five models of rendering plants were considered
for the purposes of costing the required waste water control
technology and for assessing the economic impact of the
controls on new plants. These models are based on plant
size (i.e., amount of raw material processed per day) and on
type of cooker (batch versus continuous).
This study sets forth various waste water control
technologies available to meet the 1983 limitations and the
New Source Performance Standards and the cost of these
technologies based upon the most recent and representative
cost information available. An economic analysis was
conducted to determine the effect implementation of the
proposed new source performance standards would have on the
viability of the industry.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
IV Supplemental Data Summary 9
Industry Subcategorization 10
Industry Profile 12
Water Use and Waste water Characterization 16
Control and Treatment Technology 19
Performance of Existing Treatment Systems 23
Capital Costs 27
V Response to Court Remand 37
Recommended New Source Performance Standards
and 1983 Limitations 37
Required Control and Treatment Technology 41
In-Plant Controls 42
End-of-Process Treatment Technology 44
Cost of Required Treatment Technology 45
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
IV-1 Catch-Basin Skimmer/Settler Cost
Curves 30
IV-2 Dissolved Air Flotation Cost
Curves 31
IV-3 Aerobic Lagoon Cost Curve 32
IV-4 Septic Tank Cost Curve 33
IV-5 Aerated Lagoon Cost Curve 34
IV-6 Anaerobic Lagoon Cost Curve 35
vn
-------
TABLES
Number Page
III-1 Promulgated Effluent Limitations 5
IV-1 Operating Characteristics 14
IV-2 Raw Material Distributions 15
IV-3 Type of Discharge by Category 17
IV-4 Water Use Summary 18
IV-5 Raw Waste Water Characterization 20
IV-6 Waste water Flow Statistics by
Condenser Type and Discharge Type 21
IV-7 Treatment Systems 22
IV-8 Direct Dischargers - Survey Data 2U
IV-9 Direct Dischargers - Government Data 2U
IV-10 Effluent Data for Plants not Discharging 25
IV-11 Dissolved Air Flotation Effluent Data 26
IV-12 Long-Term Data Summary 28
V-1 Effluent Data for Direct Discharging
Plants 39
V-2 Effluent Data for Non-Direct Discharging
Plants HQ
V-3 Estimated Costs for Extended Aeration 52
V-4 Estimated Costs for Aerated-Aerobic
Treatment 53
V-5 Estimated Costs for Anaerobic-Aerobic
Treatment 54
V-6 Estimated Costs for Anaerobic-Aerated-Aerobic
Treatment 55
V-7 Construction and Operating and Maintenance
Costs for Mixed Media Filter 56
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
An extensive survey of a substantial portion of the Renderer
Segment of the Meat Products and Rendering Processing Point
Source Category (i.e., the independent rendering industry)
was conducted pursuant to the remand from the U.S Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The data from this survey,
along with other available information were then reviewed
and analyzed in detail. The results were used to re-define
the waste water pollution control technologies available to
meet New source Performance Standards for the Independent
Rendering Industry.
The data collected substantiate that rendering plant waste
waters are indeed very biodegradable and can be successfully
treated with biological treatment, m particular, a form of
activated sludge—extended aeration was found capable of
producing a very high quality effluent. Lagoon systems,
which are used extensively in this industry are also capable
of effective performance in treating rendering plant waste
Wdt^ v-JL O •
Mixed-media filtration can be used to upgrade effluents from
the biological treatment systems. The performance of mixed-
media filtration following biological treatment has been
amply demonstrated at an independent rendering plant.
The industry is very active in implementing water reuse and
conservation practices. Such practices as recycling and/or
reuse of treated waste waters are currently being used at
several plants as an effective means of reducing or
eliminating the discharge of pollutants. Practically all
newer plants and most plants undergoing in-plant
modifications have chosen to use air-cooled or shell and
tube condensers. This has resulted in large reductions in
*i^° T WaSte waters that have to be treated and
discharged. Water conservation at several plants has
Sfrtt! Jhem .t0 reduce dramatically the quantities of
wastes discharged without making substantial changes to
their treatment systems.
On the basis of this study it is concluded that new source
performance standards can be more stringent than those
previously promulgated. Similar control levels are
recommended for 1983 limitations for existing sources using
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA).
The standards and limitations can be achieved using adequate
-------
biological treatment in conjunction with widely practiced
water conserving in-plant controls.
The estimated construction and operating costs set forth in
this report are indicative of the most current and
representative cost data for pollution control technology
within this industry. Costs are tabulated for conventional
biological treatment systems with and without filtration
using June 1976 dollars. The economic analysis indicates
effluent control requirements on new source plants will not
impede industry growth.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon an extensive review of available data it is
recommended that the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and the 1983 limztations for existing sources listed below
be implemented for the independent rendering industry.
Pounds Discharged in Effluent Per Within
1000 Pounds of Raw Material Processed the
BOD 5
Suspended
Solids
3J- .
Oil &
Grease
rtetnqe
Ammonia
Nitrogen pH
M?N IUU/ml
Fecal
Col i form
°-09 0.11 0.05 0.07 6.0-9.0
UOO
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
On January 3, 1975, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) promulgated final regulations for the renderer
subcategory of the meat products and rendering processing
point source category These regulations set forth the
limitations that existing plants in the industry are to meet
by 1977 and by 1983, and the new source performance
standards to be met by any new plants constructed after the
effective date of the proposed regulations. The promulgated
regulations were as follows:
Table III-1 Promulgated Effluent Limitations
Pounds Per 1000 Pounds
(lb/1000 Ibs = kg/kkg)
of Raw Material (RM) Processed
1977
1983
NSPS
BOD5_
0.17
0.07
0.17
TSS
0.21
0. 10
0.21
Oil 8
Grease
0.10
0.05
0. 10
Ammonia
Nitrogen
-
0.02
0. 17
pH
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
Fecal
Coliform
400
400
400
In addition these regulations exempted all small plants
processing less than 75,000 pounds of raw material (RM) per
day. r
The industry's trade association, the National Renderers
Association, challenged the New Source Performance Standards
in the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On
August 30, 1976, the Court issued its decision, which
remanded the NSPS for additional technical and economic
analyses.
Court Findings
In reviewing the New Source Performance Standards for the
independent renderers, the Court determined that EPA should
reconsider its exclusion of capital cost for equalization
tanks, air flotation systems and pumps and piping to
recirculate condenser water. Furthermore, the Court advised
EPA to reconsider the size and design of lagoon systems in
light of the apparent need for additional in-plant controls
-------
to meet NSPS. The role and significance of lining lagoons
was also questioned.
Although the Court supported the EPA's analysis of the
economic impact on controls for existing plants, it found
that EPA's failure to project after-tax net income and cash
flow for small, medium, and large new plants was
inappropriate to the analysis on the economic impact of New
Source Performance Standards. The Court therefore,
instructed EPA to reevaluate the economic impact of New
Source Performance Standards using the most current control
technology costs.
Finally, the Court pointed out that the New Source
Performance Standards should be clearly based upon the best
available demonstrated technology. In this regard, the
Court suggested a complete review of the fact that the new
source standards allowed less stringent levels of effluent
control than did the 1983 existing source guidelines.
Objectives and Scope of the Report
The objective of this report is to provide responses to the
remand from the Court. It is designed to review,
reconsider, and fully justify:
1. New Source Performance Standards for the renderer
subcategory.
2. Technology required to meet the standards adopted.
3. Cost of the required control technology based on
recent representative data and the impact of new
source performance standards on the economic
viability of new pla.nts.
To obtain information required to respond to the remand a
survey was made of the industry. A questionnaire sent to
industry plants requested information on in-plant
operations, the technology used to control process wastes,
the cost and performance of these systems, and the costs of
in-plant equipment and raw materials used in processing.
Much of the information from the survey was used in this
report. Survey data was also used by the Agency to develop
an economic analysis of the proposed new source performance
standards as they affect new, direct-discharging,
independent rendering plants.
-------
Section IV that follows summarizes the data and information
that were used to respond to the Court remand. Section V
answers the questions raised in the Court remand,
establishes New Source Performance Standards and 1983
limitations (BAT) , defines the recommended pollution control
technology and details the costs of this control technology.
-------
SECTION IV
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA SUMMARY
The information presented here is intended to supplement,
not replace, information provided in the original
Development Document. The information was largely obtained
from a survey of independent renderers, the open literature,
equipment manufacturers, consulting engineering firms.
Environmental Protection Agency regional offices, and State
and local pollution control agencies.
The bulk of the information was obtained through a
questionnaire survey. About 350 plants were contacted in
the survey and about 240 responded. Of these, 148 provided
sufficient information to be used in this study and only 44
provided waste water effluent information. The list of
contacts was provided by the National Renderers Association,
Inc. (NRA) .
Long-term performance data on the treatment of waste
waters were obtained primarily through regional EPA offices
and State pollution control agencies. A summary of long-
term operating data for four rendering plants is included in
this section.
A field sampling survey was conducted on January 26 and
27, 1977, at one plant, for which there was long-term data
to verify the performance of an extended aeration treatment
system. During this visit, the EPA project officer and
contractor and a representative from the NRA met with the
president and owner of the plant to discuss waste water
treatment, trends in processing operations, and various
economic issues.
Equipment manufacturers and representatives, including
several prominent suppliers to the industry, provided
considerable cost data on equipment and waste water
treatment components. This information was used to
supplement or verify the survey information used in
estimating the cost of the required treatment technology. A
partial list of those contributing is:
F. M. c. Environmental Systems Division
Itasca, Illinois
Perry Grubb Associates
Minneapolis, Minnesota
-------
Dorr-Oliver Co.
Chicago, Illinois
Infilco Degremorvt Inc.
Richmond, Virginia
Clow Waste Treatment Division
Florence, Kentucky
Richards of Rockford
Rockford, Illinois
Industry Subcategorization
The original study found that rendering operations differ
materially from meat processing, packinghouses and poultry
processors. The study presented in the original Development
Document also found there was no justification for subdiving
the industry into different segments for the purpose of
setting limitations and standards. The following factors
were considered: waste water characteristics and
treatability, raw materials, final products, manufacturing
processes (operations), processing equipment and size, age
and location of production facilities.
The data and analyses of the current study confirmed the
following information and findings presented in the original
Development Document:
1. Waste waters from all rendering plants contain the
same general constituents and are amenable to treatment by a
variety of biological treatment concepts.
2. A clear independent relationship was disclosed that
all types of raw materials may be expected to result in
similar organic (BOD5) discharges.
3. The final products are generally the same for all
plants.
4. Close similarities were present in waste loads
regardless of processes or equipment employed.
5. Basic manufacturing processes were found to be
consistent throughout the industry. Hide curing, where
practiced, contributes waste loads over and above those from
the basic manufacturing processes. An adjustment factor to
the basic effluent limitcitions is provided to account for
this added load.
10
-------
6. No consistent relationship was found between BOD5
waste load and size. Age was also not found to be a factor.
Newer plants use both batch and continuous systems and also
use shell-and tube and air condensers more frequently than
barometric legs. However, in recent years some older plants
have replaced batch systems with continuous systems and
barometric leg condensers with air or shell and tube
condensers. Examination of raw waste water characteristics
relative to plant location revealed no apparent relationship
or pattern. The above indicated subcategorization of the
industry was not required.
In contrast to the above, the economic analysis required
that many of the above factors be taken into consideration
as they are relevant to economic viability. For example,
the raw materials used in a rendering plant may not be
germaine to the amount of waste load generated but, they are
a significant factor in determining profitability. Raw
material costs and product yields differ according to the
composition of the raw material input. Whether a rendering
plant uses the continuous system or the batch system is
important because investment costs for continuous plants are
higher than batch plants.
To be able to take the above and other pertinent factors
into consideration, model plants were developed for the
economic analysis. There plants reflected size, type of
rendering and type of raw materials processed. This
approach allowed for a detailed economic analysis of the
industry.
It is obvious that this analysis had no connection with
setting pollution control effluent limitations and
standards. Rather its objective was to determine what
impact the limitations and standards would have on the
viability of the model rendering plants. The models
considered important to the analysis by the economic
contractor are shown below.
For the purposes of grouping survey data and information and
for estimating the cost of the treatment technology required
to achieve the new source .performance standards, the
independent rendering industry was classified by size and by
type of processing equipment. Basically the processing
equipment differs in the type of cookers used which are of
two types: (1) batch and (2) continuous. Plant size varies
somewhat with the amount of raw materials processed. To
recognize these variations batch plants were sized small,
medium and large and continuous, large and extra large. The
11
-------
following is a tabular summary of the plant types with
typical characteristics for each.
Plant Types
Range of Raw Materials
Processed Per Day Typical
kkg RM/day
(1000 Ib RM/day)
kkg RM/day
(1000 Ib RM/day)
Small Batch (SB)
Medium Batch (MB)
Large Batch (LB)
0-34
(0-75)
34-113.5
(75-250)
over 113.5
(over 250)
16.8
(37)
53.6
(118)
133.5
(294)
Medium Continuous (MC)
Large Continuous (LC)
up to 113.5
(up to 250)
113.5 to 204.3
(250-450)
76.3
(168)
162
(357)
Industry Profile
The industry estimated in 1973 that the number of
independent renderers was 350. This number still appears to
be an accurate estimate based upon a 1976 listing of
independent renderers provided by NRA.
A projected distribution of plants based on survey data
is given below. This assumes there are 350 plants in the
industry and that they are distributed in a way similar to
that determined for the 148 renderers included in this
study.
12
-------
Type of Plant
Batch
Small
Medium
Large
Number of Plants
From Survey Projected
67
35
7
158
83
17
Continuous
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Batch and Continuous
11
11
8
26
26
19
21
350
Table IV - I was developed from survey data and shows
typical operating characteristics for various types of
rendering plants. These characteristics include the number
of cookers typically being used in a plant, the average
amount of raw material processed per day, the average number
of hides handled daily by the indicated number of plants,
and plant working hours. Note the large fraction of plants
handling hides are small and medium batch plants and medium
and large continuous plants. Also note that the raw
materials processed per day are in the expected size range
but are not always in agreement with the typical values
choosen for the purposes of costing the required treatment
technology. This is especially true for the large batch
model because two of the seven large batch plants have very
large production levels (1,700,000 and 3,072,000 pounds per
day) . Without these two plants, the average production
would be 484,000 pounds per day.
The survey data in Table IV-2 lists the percent by weight of
the various raw materials processed in each model. The
number of plants that reported processing each type of raw
material is also indicated. This table shows that:
(a) Small batch plants process mainly packinghouse
materials, shop fat and bone, and dead animals.
13
-------
(b) Medium batch and continuous plants process all
varieties of materials.
(c) Large batch plants largely process packinghouse
materials, shop fat and bone, and poultry
materials.
(d) Large continuous plants process mainly
packinghouse, and shop fat and bone materials.
The waste water disposal methods reported by 137
independent renderers are given in Table IV - 3. The table
shows that over 50 percent of the plants discharge to
municipalities; 30 percent practice no discharge, 20 percent
via impoundment (evaporation/percolation) , and 10 percent
via irrigation and underground infiltration systems.
Approximately 17 percent of the 137 plants are currently
direct dischargers. Compared with the value of 26 percent
reported in the original Development Document, there appears
to be a trend away from direct discharging of waste waters
by the independent rendering industry. Table IV - 3 also
shows that a large number of small and medium batch plants
treat their waste waters to achieve no discharge. This
would imply that small and medium batch plants can afford to
treat process waste water and that the most favorable
approach is to use no-discharge systems. Several plants are
now achieving no discharge by treating and recycling all
waste waters. This is the first time EPA studies have
identified total recycle as a feasible method of handling
waste water in the independent rendering industry.
Waste water Characterization
Raw Waste water
Water is used in the rendering industry for condensing
cooking vapors, plant cleanup, truck and barrel washing,
odor control and for boiler makeup water.
The waste water generated by the rendering process consists
primarily of condensed cooking vapors (condensate), cooling
water used for condensing cooking vapors, and cleanup water.
Waste water is considered "raw" following in-plant primary
treatment such as catch basins or mechanical
skimmer/settlers.
The quantity of waste water generated in a rendering plant
is a very important parameter because it largely determines
the size of the treatment system needed by the plant. Table
-------
TABLE IV-1
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Number of cookers
(typical)
Raw Materials
(1000 Ib/day)
Hides (number per
day)
(number of
plants reporting)
Operating Periods
(hours/day)
(days/week)
Small
2-3
28.4
30
39
10.4
5.3
Batch
Medi urn
4-7
139.4
118
19
18.8
5.4
Plants
Large
11
1027
50
1
18.4
5.4
Medium
1
111
285
8
11.3
5.3
Continuous Plants
Large
1-2
346
294
6
15.8
5.3
Extra-Large
1-2
608
631
3
17.1
5.3
Batch and
Continuous
3-5 B, 1 C
230
421
2
15.3
5.1
Number of Plants
67
35
11
11
SURVEY DATA
-------
TABLE IV-2
RAW MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION, AVERAGE PERCENT BY WEIGHT
(Number of Plants Processing the Raw Material Source)
Raw Material
Source
Packinghouse
Shop fat & bone
Restaurant Grease
Blood
Dead Animals
Poultry Offal
Poultry Feathers
Batch Plants
Small
%
31.8
29.4
9.7
1.2
22.0
3.8
2.1
(No.
\ *^f * /
(46)
(53)
(41)
(8)
(34)
(6)
(3)
Medium
%
40.0
16.0
5.5
4.0
10.2
15.2
9.1
No.)
(27)
(22)
(18)
(ID
(20)
04)
(11)
%
7
16
1
0
5
41
28
Large
.9
.4
.0
.0
.0
.4
.3
No.
(2)
(3)
(2)
(0)
(1)
(1)
(5)
Continuous Plants
Medium
2°7.0
31.7
12.2
2.9
12.8
8.2
5.2
No.
(8)
(10)
(9)
(3)
(7)
(4)
(2)
y lar.*e .'
30.9
41.2
4.8
1.0
8.2
12.4
1.5
\NO . /
(10)
(10)
(7)
(3)
(6)
(4)
(2)
SURVEY DATA
-------
TABLE IV-3
TYPE OF DISCHARGE BY MODEL
no discharge
Irrigation
and Total Percent
Plants Treating
Wastewater*
r.iam. i.ype anu ii ze m rect Lity impoundment Underground Plant Tntai
BATCH
Small
Medium
Large
CONTINUOUS
Medium
Large
Extra -Large
BATCH AND CONTINUOUS
Medium
Large
TOTAL
PERCENT OF TOTAL
6
6
1
0
1
3
5
1
23
27
21
0
3
8
7
2
2
70
16.8
18
7
0
2
1
1
0
0
29
51.1
11
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
15
21.2
62
34
1
6
11
13
7
3
137
10.9
45.3
24.8
.7
4.4
8.0
9.5
5.1
2.2
100
100
Number
35
13
1
3
3
6
5
1
67
PprrPnt*
I C I V*CI f I.
56.5
38.2
100.
50.
27.3
46.2
71.4
33.3
*Sum of Direct,.-and No Discharge
SURVEY DATA
-------
TABLE IV-4
WASTE WATER FLOW SUMMARY
Reporting
Number of Average Flow
Plants 1/kkg RM gal/I OOP TOM Comment
144 8351 1001 All reporting plants
Reporting plants with flow
128 3346 401 less than 20,000 1/kkg RM
SURVEY DATA
-------
IV-1 shows the average waste water flow value for the 144
plants for which both a flow and production rate were
reported in the survey. It is 1001 gal/1000 Ib RM. Also
shown is the value when 16 of the plants that reported
excessive flow rates of greater than 20,000 1/kkg (2400
gal/1000 Ib RM) or more are excluded. This average flow
rate of 401 gal agrees very well with the average flow rate
of 403 gal per 1000 Ib RM reported in Table 6 of the
original Development Document. Reported flows greater than
20,000 1/kkg RM are considered high and indicative of very
poor inplant practices. Therefore, the data summaries are
frequently presented both for flows greater and less than
20,000 1/kkg RM.
Table IV-5 summarizes raw waste water characteristics
for the 22 plants that provided flow, production and waste
water analytical information in the survey. The table lists
data for plants with flow rates greater than and less than
20,000 1/kkg RM (2400 gal/1000 Ib RM) . The average raw
waste water values for the plants with flows less than
20,000 Ib/kkg RM agree well with those shown in Table 6 of
the original Development Document. The table shows that the
average BOD^, TSS and o&G values increase considerably when
the average includes the plants having flows greater than
20,000 Ib/kkg RM.
The survey showed that raw waste water flow rate is
directly related to the type of condenser used for
condensing the cooker vapor. The data of Table IV-6
dramatically illustrate this. Plants employing air-cooled
condensers are shown to produce the least flow (i.e., one
sixth the value for barometric leg condensers). The waste
water flow rate for plants using shell-and-tube condensers
is also much less than that for barometric leg condensers
The data of Table IV-6 illustrate why air-cooled condensers
and shell-and-tube condensers are the recommended choices.
These condensers do not require pumps and piping for
recalculating water for condensing, as is necessary with
barometric leg condensers.
Control and Treatment Technology
In the survey, 55 plants reported using secondary waste
water treatment components. The systems used by the various
types of rendering plants are shown in Table IV-7 by plant
code number. The plants are also identified as to method of
waste water disposal; direct refers to those discharging to
receiving streams, other refers to indirect methods which
include impoundment, irrigation, and total recycle. This
table shows nine combinations of biological treatment
19
-------
TABLE: iv-s
RAW WASTE WATER CHARACTERIZATION
r umx 1
TLUH K.U/KK.U KPI (ID/1UUI
1/kkgRM gal/lOOOlbRM BODS " SS"
AVERAGE
STD DEV.
AVERAGE
STD DEV.
1
5
7
14
18
21
29
38
51
65
69
70
76
83
90
100
104
105
112
122
144
160
7790
785
16700
13900
2130
3910
2430
4170
1850
57600
34500
1870
634
1150
935
1890
9370
668
734
10300
1200
2290
8314
13900
4346
4875
933.
94.1
2000.
1667.
255.
468.
291.
500.
222.
6900.
4130.
224.
76.
138.
112.
227.
1123.
80.
88.
1230.
144.
274.
966.
1660.
521.
584.
6.70 5.75
i.65 .40
3.13 3.20
3.47 2.78
27.0 20.6
3.92 .82
.50 .50
1.46
2.46 1.20
32.8 18.6
18.9 64.7
.42 .13
2.92 1.49
1.22 .90
1.31 .54
7.43
2.4 1.09
.23 .23
.26 .20
2.71 2.02
.31
.26 .30
4.71 5.53
7.83 14.93
2.36 1.29
2.08 1.46
O&G NH
2.40
.01
1.22
10.6
.22
.01
.92
9.25
14.3
.16
.32
.35
.56
.66
.17
.20
1.22
.20
.34
1.81
3.77
.56
.62
.90
.14
.52
.54
.52
.54
15 RM) —-
-N CODS
3.47
PH
7.5
8.2
7.
6.5
7.45
7.6
NOTE
34
7
7.7
7.
7.4
6.9
8.
2.02 8.
8.
7.5
1
5
2.75 7.53 3
1.03 .51 3,6
2.75 7.60 4
1.03 .44 4,6
NOTES: 1- not used in averaging, processes fleshed hides only
2- flow over 20,0001/kkgRM
3- all reporting plants
4- flows less than 20,0001/kkg RM
5- Chemical Oxygen Demand
6- standard deviation
*These are the plants that reported all of the following: flow production and
analytical data.
SURVEY DATA
-------
TABLE IV-6
DAILY WASTEWATER FLOW STATISTICS BY CONDENSER TYPE AND DISCHARGE TYPE*
FORMAT OF EACH CELL IS AS FOLLOWS:
(NUMBER OF DATA POINTS!
IMEAN FLOWCLITER/KG) |
I STANDARD DEVIATION |
I MINIMUM FLOW VALUE |
tMAXIMUM FLOW VALUE
SHELL AND TUBE
BAROMETRIC LEG
AIR CONDENSER
OTHER
2 OR MORE OF ABOVE
SUMMARY FOR COLUMN
IDIRECT
1
1.671
0.173
1.001
2.009
3
32.772
28.315
2.381
58.118
3
0.761
0.683
0.318
1.550
1
20.029
20.029
20.029
1
0.935
0.935
0.935
12
10.687
18.761
0.318
58.118
(LAND
1
0.971
0.971
0.971
2
21.197
23.215
5.060
37.931
1
0.626
0.626
0.626
1
11.119
17.970
0.626
37.931
(SUBSURFACE
1
11.307
11.307
11.307
__
1
11.307
11.307
11.307
(NO DISCHAR (MUNICIPAL
6
6.691
13.555
0.390
31.335
7
6.221
9.001
0.535
26.038
1
2.837
3.715
0.668
8.398
3
5.853
1.930
0.171
9.011
3
2.023
0.109
1.897
2.086
23
5.161
8.116
0.171
31.335
18
1.638
(OTHER
15.158 |
0.071 1
65.312
16
18.792
16.566
1.871
57.533
11
2.956
6.115
0.063
22.255
6
12.956
17.767
0.908
18.529
6
15.256
27.272
0.181
69.515
57
10.279
17.031
0.063
69.515
I 1
0.612
0.612
0.612
1
1.013
1.013
1.013
2
0.813
0.281
0.612
1.013
ISUM'RY-ROW
1 PO
\ C.J
1.528
13.227
0.071
65.312
30
16.682
17.290
0.535
58.118
19
2.162
5.127
0.063
22.255
10
11.533
11.171
0.171
18.529
11
9.053
20.562
0.181
69.515
99
9.025
15.112
0.063
69.K15
If a plant listed more than one type of discharge, they are not included in this chart.
-------
TABLE IV-7
WASTE. TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE PLANTS DISCHARGING TO MUNCIPAL SYSTEMS)
ANAEROBIC ANAEROBIC
AEROBIC ANAEROBIC ANAEROBIC AERATED ACITVATED ACT SLUDGE
ANAEROBIC AERATED AERATED AERATED AEROBIC AEROBIC AEROBIC SLUDGE AEROBIC TOTAL
DIR OTHER DIR OTHER DIR OTHER DIR OTHER DIR OTHER DIR OTHER DIR OTHER _DIR OTHER DIR OTHER
2,80
97,123
182
109*
118
19
BATCH:
SMALL
MEDIUM
LARGE
CONTINUOUS;
MEDIUM
LARGE
BATCH & CONTINUOUS:
MEDIUM
LARGE
3,181
93*
100*
107*
108*
4,36
58
153
SIZE &/or TYPE
UNKNOWN 89
TOTAL 9
47
4 2
116
1 1 5
*- EXEMPLARY PLANTS
(1) TO STREAM
(2) NO DISCHARGE
185* 9,11
4_3 45,95
Lii
27,56
178,63
79,96
122
JL15_
25,90
32
108
5 5
2 8
29* 64,157
103*
202*
75
21
11
59*
200*
33*
180*
114 117
7211
3
6
1
2
115 7
2 55
SURVEY DATA
-------
systems being used. The majority of the no dischargers with
lagoon systems are using anaerobic, anaerobic-aerobic, and
aerobic lagoons. Eighteen of the 21 lagoon systems used by
small batch plants are achieving a no-discharge status by
impoundment. in addition, there are at least six small
batch plants that are known to use septic tanks and
drainfields to achieve no discharge; no other subcategory is
known to use septic tanks and drainfields for handling
process waste waters. Also note that direct discharging
plants tend to use multiple components systems such as
anaerobic-aerobic lagoons and aerated-aerobic lagoons.
Performance of Existing Treatment Systems
The characteristics of the waste waters discharged to
receiving streams by 22 rendering plants that have secondary
treatment systems are given in Tables IV-8 and IV-9. These
data are based on information obtained from both the survey
questionnaire (Table IV-8) and governmental agencies (Table
IV-9). Data for plants numbers 29, 90, 103, 106, 107, and
122 were obtained from both sources. The data presented in
the tables for these plants are not always in agreement.
The government agency data includes more past information
and may not be as current as that from the survey. To
exemplify this, note the higher government flow rate data
for plant number 29 compared with the survey data (1080
versus 291 gal/1000 Ib RM). Investigation indicates that
relatively recent changes and improvements in inplant
controls and waste treatment methods are responsible. This
is only reflected in the more current survey data shown in
Table IV-8. Also the reduction in flow rate for plant 29
from 9040 to 2430 1/kkg RM was accompanied by a reduction in
the BOD5 content of the treated waste from an average of
0.5U lb/1000 Ib RM to 0.085 Ib. If is for just such a
reason that survey data were considered important.
Also shown in Tables IV-8 and IV-9 are the average and
standard deviations of all listed values. In the summarized
data for plants with flows less than 20,000 1/kkg correlates
quite well with the data presented in Table 27 of the
original Development Document, particularly when the
suspended solids value for plant number 7 of Table 27 (SS of
4.4 kg/kkg RM, lb/1000 Ib RM) is omitted.
For comparison purposes, data for rendering plants
treating their waste waters but not discharging them to
streams are shown in Table IV-10. This data compares
favorably with that for the direct dischargers indicating
23
-------
that no unusual technology is being used by direct
dischargers.
Many of the rendering plants discharge their wastes to
municipal systems. Often rhe municipality requires the
renderer to pretreat its waste (with catch basins or
dissolved air flotation) so as to reduce the strength of the
waste to levels amenable to treatment by the municipal
plant.
Survey data for rendering plants using dissolved air
flotation as a pretreatment device prior to discharging
wastes to municipal systems is shown in Table IV-11. Again
the listed data are summarized for all plants and for only
those plants having waste water flows less than 20,000 1/kkg
RM (2400 gal/1000 Ib RM). In general, the data clearly
indicates higher pollutant discharge levels occur when the
waste flow is high (e.g., greater than 10,000 1/kkg RM or
1200 gal/1000 Ib RM) . This confirms the importance of
controlling flow rate.
Some long-term treatment performance data was available
for four exemplary plants. It is summarized in Table IV-12.
Shown are the average of all values, the standard deviation
(which is an indication of the degree of scatter of the
individual data points about the average) , the high and low
values and the number of data points of each data set. The
data cover periods of time from 9 to 15 months and indicate
that treatment systems are able to maintain high performance
levels on a consistant basis.
In addition to the long-term data available for plant
180, the most recent four months of the data illustrate the
effectiveness of a mixed-media filter. These data show the
filter influent BOD5 of 0.0082 kg/kkg RM was reduced to
0.0062 and the influent TSS of 0.020 kg/kkg RM to 0.0071
kg/kkg RM.
Capital Costs
For the purposes of conducting assessments of cost and
economic impact, it was necessary to derive updated capital
costs of various waste water treatment components, both
primary and secondary. These costs were established from
information provided by the survey. In order to utilize
survey information, it was considered necessary to have the
following three items of information for each treatment
component; size, installed cost, and year of installation.
Unfortunately, in many cases where a treatment component was
specified, one or more of the above items were not provided.
-------
TABLE IV-8
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUMMARY OF SURVEY DATA
PLANT -
_ci nu
kg/kkgRM
NO. 1/kkgRM gal/ 10001 bRM BODS
29 2430 291. 7018"
43
59
69
90
103
106
107
122
185
AVERAGE
STD
DEVIATION
AVERAGE
STD
DEVIATION
55400
1490
34500
935
1670
348
1000
10300
2220
11030
18760
2550
3210
7000.
179.
4130.
112.
200.
41.7
120.
1230.
266.
1357.
2343.
305.
382.
4.08
.021
5.16
.375
.083
.014
.040
.318
.033
1.021
1.918
.121
.142
SS
.525
2.92
.0354
.52
.004
.083
.018
.040
.205
.059
.411
.895
.084
.085
(Ib/lOOOlbRM)
O&G I
.024
2.79
.17
.050
.001
.005
.451
.010
.438
.963
.090
.178
W3-N pj
7
6
7
5
.128 11
7
7
7
7
.128 7
1
.128 8
1
H NOTE
78
.9
.7
.5
.2
.5
.5
.5
.5
.678
.5
.10
.37
1
1
2
2
3
3
NOTES: 1- flow over 20,0001/kkgRM
2- all reporting plants 1/kkgRM
3- flows less than 20,OOOL/KKGRM
TABLE IV-9
DIRECT DISCHARGERS EFFLUENT DATA
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT DATA
PLANT
NO.
13
19
25
29
90
103
106
107
122
200
201
202
pi nu
1/kkgRM
14300
7620
6400
9040
4170
1620
278
429
6030
445
5800
254
GAL/1000#RM
1710.
913.
767.
1080.
500.
194.
33.3
51.4
722.
53.3
695.
30.5
kg/kkgRM (Ib/lOOOlbRM)
BOD5
.222
.335
.543
.539
.103
.220
.033
.042
.385
.052
.200
.038
SS
.Mo
.335
.359
.457
.450
.202
.216
.124
.269
.073
.250
.036
O&G
.101
.294
.019
.096
.138
.019
.036
NH3-N
.265
.283
.303
.00024
.022
.035
AVERAGE 4700
STD DEVIATION 4380
562. .226 .248 .100 .151
524. .188 .135 .097 .146
25
-------
TABLE IV-10
EFFLUENT DATA FOR PLANTS NOT DISCHARGING
INDIRECT DISCHARGE
PLANT FLOW KG/KKGRM (#/1000#RM)
NO. L/KKGRM GAL/1000//RM BODS SS O&G
108 976 117 .012 .019 .002
NO DISCHARGE (FINAL LAGOON SAMPLE)
f L.ANT
NO.
33
93
100
109
AVERAGE
STD
DEVIATION
L/KKGRM
1040
3670
1890
390
1750
1420
r ijuw
GAL/1000//RM
125
440
227
46.7
210
170
JN.VJ/ Is.
BODS
.019
.121
.091
.117
.087
.047
ft.
-------
TABLE IV-11
DAF* UNITS - EFFLUENT DATA
PLANT FLOW-— kg/kkgRM (Ib/lOOOlbRM)
NO. l/kkgRM"gaT/10001bRM BOD5 SS 0&G NH3-N
52
57
60
67
82
138
156
163
16400
96.0
44100
13400
19500
25600
707
835
251
1961
11.5
5288
1600
2333
3069
84.7
100
30.1
16.3
0.22
46.6
9.33
48.6
19.2
1.23
0.51
0.17
8.17
.082
27.6
6.67
38.9
9.0
0.28
0.16
0.07
3.27
.049
15.9
2.67
5.83
0.07
0.08
.002
5.8
6.98
8.
7
8.5
7.2
AVERAGE 13400
STD DEVIATION 15000
AVERAGE 5280
STD DEVIATION 7520
*Dissolved Air Flotation
1609 15.8 10.1 3.5 7.2
1801 19.4 13.9 5.4 .9
631 4.63 2.57 1.02 7.38
898 6.73 3.79 1.52 1.18
NOTE
3
3
4
4
NOTES: 1- flow over 20,0001/kkgRM
2- not strictly rendering
3- all reporting plants
4- plants with flows less than 20,0001/kkgRM that render only
SURVEY DATA
27
-------
TABLE IV-12
LONG-TERM TREATED WASTEWATER DATA-SUMMARY
PARAMETER FLOW 1 /kkg gal/1000 1b —kg/kkg RM (lb/1000#RM) —
O&G NH3-N
.052*
60
ro
CO
PLANT NO. 180
AVERAGE
STD DEVIATION
LOW VALUE
HIGH VALUE
NO. OF SAMPLES
PLANT NO. 185
AVERAGE
STD DEVIATION
LOW VALUE
HIGH VALUE
NO. OF SAMPLES
PLANT NO. 200
AVERAGE
STD DEVIATION
LOW VALUE
HIGH VALUE
NO. OF SAMPLES
PLANT NO. 202
AVERAGE
STD DEVIATION
LOW VALUE
HIGH VALUE
NO. OF SAMPLES
(SAMPLE DATES
1600
638
78.7
5150
382
(SAMPLE DATES
2230
1
(SAMPLE DATES
445
354
134
1050
6
(SAMPLE DATES
323
226
77
796
10
11-75 to
192
76.5
9.43
617
7-75 to
267
11-75 to
53.3
42.9
16.1
126.2
10-75 to
38.7
27.1
9.2
95.4
BOD5
1-77)
.0082
.0042
.0028
.0188
64
3-76)
.034
.030
.0067
.098
12
12-76)
.052
.033
.020
.098
6
12-76)
.038
.021
.010
.091
15
TSS
.020
.019
.00067
.20
381
.059
.030
.0089
.116
12
.073
.061
.027
.189
6
.036
.018
.005
.067
15
0098
0076
0022
022
10
019
010
0089
037
6
0
0
.022
.013
.0055
.037
5
.035
.019
.005
.059
10
*For period of 4-76 through 1-77 value was 0.003 lb/1000 Ib. RM.
-------
Cost curves were developed from complete data sets,
organized by type of treatment components. The installed
costs were derived for the various model plants using 150
gallons per 1000 Ib RM and associated BOD5_ loadings for
treatment system design. These figures were inflated to
June 1976 dollars using EPA1s "Sewage Treatment Plant and
Sewage Construction Cost Indexes." Costs per unit size
(e.g., $/gal of waste water treated) were divided into a
limited number of size groups for each treatment component.
Each such subset of data was then analyzed as follows: 1)
wherever sufficient data existed, both the high and low
values were excluded to minimize bias in averages and 2) the
remaining data were averaged and used. Cost curves were
generated using these average values. The resulting cost
curves are shown in Figures IV-1 through IV-6 for catch
basins (grease traps with no mechanical skimmers),
skimmer/settlers (catch basins with mechanical skimmers)
dissolved air flotation, aerobic lagoons, septic tanks,
aerated lagoons, and anaerobic lagoons. It should be noted
that the cost curve for aerated lagoons had to be developed
using data from other than survey sources, because the
survey data were far too limited and scattered. Additional
non-survey information, obtained from equipment
manufacturers and distributors, were used to confirm the
cost curves for skimmer/settlers and dissolved air
flotation. When increased by 35 percent to account for
estimated installation expenses, these data agreed well with
the curves developed from the survey data. It was to
demonstrate this agreement that the curves shown in Figures
IV-1 and IV-2 for skimmer/settlers and dissolved air
flotation were included in this report. A curve for septic
tanks (a technology found common to many very small meat
plants of all types) was also included for information and
comparative purposes only. It is hoped that these curves
will be of use to future studies. In addition note that no
cost curves were developed for activated sludge or mixed-
media filtration, since only one complete set of data were
received for each. However costs were obtained from many
manufacturers for package-type activated sludge and extended
aeration units. The costs for these units were much lower
than those developed in Section V of this report for
extended aeration built to specification. The lower costs
of package treatment systems were not used; although, in the
future such systems may be in use. The approach taken in
this report assures a conservative evaluation.
29
-------
14T
12"
FIOURE IV-1
CATCH BASIN— SKIMMER/SETTLER COST CURVES
(Cost updated to 6-76 dollars)
CO
o
10-•
36
o
CATCH BASIN WITH
MECHANICAL SKIMMERS
ae
UJ
•x.
4-t-
CATCH BASIN WITH NO
MECHANICAL SKIMMER
—— Batted upon survey data
— —— Baned upon supplier data
4-
j ' > ' • ' 1b 12
WASTE WATER Volume (Thousands of Gallons)
14
16
18
-------
35T
FIGURE IV-2
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (OAF) COST CURVES
(COSTS UPDATED TO 6-76 DOLLARS)
30--
25--
20--
15--
i
u_
o
s
10"
V
V
V
V
Baaed upon survey data
Based upon supplier data
V
V
5*" *
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
246
SEPTIC TANK WASTE WATER Volume
8 10
(Thousands of Gallons)
12
14
50
175
-------
.03T
FIGURE IV-3
AEROBIC LAGOON COST CURVE
(Costs updated to 6-7P dollars)
SURVEY DATA
.02--
0
-\ - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1
J
\
f-
H
-4-
18
H h-
20
4 6 8 10 12 14
LAGOON WASTE WATER Volume (Millions of Gallons)
16
22
-------
.03-"
CO
CO
.02--
o
>
a:
FIGURE IV-4
SEPTIC TANK COST CURVE
(Costs updated to 6-76 dollars)
SURVEY DATA
0
1 1 1 1
4 6
OAF WASTE WATER Volume ( Thousands of Gallons)
8
1C
-------
08T
06--
04--
ioa
FIGURE IV-5
AERATED LAGOON COST CURVE
(Costs updated to 6-76 dollars)
DATA FROM SUPPLIERS ETC.
LAGOON WASTE WATEPVolume (Millions of Gallons)
34
-------
03--
FIGURE IV-6
ANAEROBIC I-AGOON COST CURVE
(Costs updated to 6-76 dollars)
SURVEY DATA
OJ
on
02--
5
o
01--
0
1 2 3
LAGOON WASTE WATER Volume ( Millions of Gallons)
-t-
4
-------
SECTION V
Responses to Court Remand
This section summarizes findings on the technical issues
before the court. Economic impact is presented in the
supplemental report titled "Economic Analysis of Effluent
Guidelines (NSPS) on the Independent Rendering Industry
Updated to 1976 Conditions."
The following are discussed in this section:
1. The recommended New Source Performance Standards,
their supporting rationale and the 1983 effluent
limitations.
2. The control technology applicable to meeting the
New Source Performance Standards and 1983
limitations.
3. The costs of the required control technology.
New Source Performance Standards and 1983 Effluent
Limitations ~~~
The effluent limitations that must be achieved by new
sources are termed "New Source Performance Standards." The
New Source Performance Standards apply to any source for
which construction starts after the publication of the
proposed regulations.
The recommended standards are listed below. They are based
on performance information for plants demonstrating good in-
plant and end-of-process control technology. in developing
these standards consideration was given to process and
operating options, type of cooker (batch versus continuouSf
variations * S1Ze' ^ tO in~Plant control technology
The standards of performance considered attainable for new
follows• Wlthin the independent rendering industry are as
37
-------
Pounds Discharged in Effluent Per Within
1000 Pounds of Raw Material Processed the
(lb/1000 Ibs = kq/kkq> Ranae
BOD 5
0.09
Suspended
Solids
0.11
Oil &
Grease Ammonia pH
0.05 0.07 6.0-9.0
MPN 100/ml
Fecal
Colif orm
400
These limitations are also recommended for the best
available technology economically achievable (1983 effluent
limitations guidelines) .
The recommended new source standards and 1983 limitations
are considered achieveable and reasonable because a number
of existing rendering plants are currently achieving them.
Table V-I presents effluent discharge data for nine direct-
discharging, exemplary operations that collectively are
achieving the limitations. Six of the nine plants are
meeting the limitations for those parameters for which data
are available. Plant 180, which is utilizing the extended
aeration form of activated sludge, has achieved the best
treatment performance of the nine plants listed. The
performance of this plant was also verified by field
sampling results. This performance reflects management's
interest in the daily operation of the treatment system.
The final filtered effluent from this plant is known to be
even better than that shown in Table V-l (see Section IV) .
On an average the filters reduced the BOD5_ and TSS by about
50 percent.
The average waste water flow for the nine exemplary direct
discharging plants is 1267 liters/kkg RM (152 gal/1000 Ib
RM). The industry average for all survey plants is 8890
liters/kkg RM (1067 gal/1000 Ib RM) . The survey data shows
that the type of condensers being used to condense the
cooking vapors by all but one of the exemplary plants are
shell-and-tube and air-cooled. Since the air-cooled
condensers use air for cooling and since the cooling water
for shell-and-tube condensers does not contact the
contaminated condensate the waste water flow rate for these
plants can be at a minimum. in our study it was found that
in-plant equipment that allowed attainment of low waste
water flows (approximately 150 gallons per 1000 Ib RM or
less) was the principal reason that the nine plants achieved
low pollutants mass loading levels in their discharges.
Six other exemplary plants that treat waste waters but are
not direct dischargers are shown in Table V-2. The average
38
-------
values listed for BOD5, TSS and oil and grease (O&G) and
ammonia meet or are close to the new source limitations.
Table IV-12 shows long range data for four of the exemplary
plants Three of these plants achieve the recommended
limitations utilizing treatment components typically found
in the industry today and without tertiary treatment The
exemplary rendering plants include all size subcategories?
have high performance condensers and were found to process a
variety of raw materials.
Required Controls and Treatment Technology
Based upon survey information and known existing in-plant
operating conditions and end-of -process waste water
treatment performance, the following three approaches appear
Q™ D f mOSt feasible for achieving the recommended New
Source Performance Standards and 1983 limitions.
1. Use of process equipment that allows the unit waste
water flow to be at or below 1250 liters/kkg RM
(150 gal/1000 Ib RM) . The waste waters are
amenable to complete biological treatment system
following in-plant primary treatment.
2. Where the unit waste water flow is high, a high
degree of in-plant primary treatment followed by a
high efficiency complete biological treatment
system will be required. Possibly a mixed-media
filter will be needed following the biological
s
3. Go to a no discharge system. Land application is
typi cal .
The first approach is typical of the exemplary plants
currently achieving or approaching NSPS. No known plants
None^Sr^L1"66^^ NSPS bY followi^ the second approach.
f^Jh A ' however' is using mixed-media fillers to
further reduce pollutant load in the discharge. The third
in tf aS±ble aS at >•**** 29 plLts reporteS no
in the survey questionnaire.
The first approach mentioned above is the one that appears
rjsf of thf S16- „ Zt haS been Pr°ven' and ifc is available.
Use of the second approach to meet the standards is not
reaure the l wou
a?t 11"6 n efficiencv ™* Performance
39
-------
-pi
o
TABLE V-l
EFFLUENT DATA FOR DIRECT DISCHARGING PLANTS
Plant
Number
185
29
103
107
202
59
106
180
200
Plant
Type
SB***
MB
MB
MB
MB***
Condenser
Type
Barometric
Leg
Air
Shell &
Tube
Shell &
Tube
Air
Shell &
LC Tube
LC
Large
B&C***
X-L
B&C***
Air
Air
Shell &
Tube
Wastewater Flow
1/kkg RM
(gal/1000 Ib RM)
2223 (266)
2430 (291)
1667 (200)
1000 (120)
254 (30.5)
1491 (179)
348 (41.7)
1542 (186)
444 (53.3)
AVERAGE 1267 (152)
STANDARD DEVIATION 804 (96)
Effluent Parameters ikg/kkg_ RM)*
BOD5^
0.033
0.085
0.083
0.040
0.038
0.021
0.014
0.0082
0.052
0.042
0.028
Suspended
Solids
0.059
0.225
0.083
0.040
0.036
0.035
0.018
0.020
0.073
0.065
0.064
Oil &
Grease
0.01
0.024
0.050
0.005
0.001
0.019
0.018
0.018
Ammonia
Nitrogen
0.035
0.052**
0.022
0.036
0.015
Principal
RM Source
Shop fat,
Packing-
house
Poultry
Offal
Poultry
Offal &
Feathers
Packing-
house
— : — ;
Packing-
house
Poul try
Offal
Shop Fat
Shop Fat,
Packing-
house
Poultry
* kg/kkg RM = lb/1000 Ib RM
** For period of April 1976 through January 1977, kg NH3__-N/kkg RM = 0.003
*** The values for the effluent parameters shown for plants 180, 185, 200, and 202
are averages for periods of time from just less than one year to slightly greater
than one year.
SURVEY DATA
-------
TABLE V-2
EFFLUENT DATA FOR NO DISCHARGE PLANTS
Plant
Number
93
TOO
109
33
108
V
Plant Condenser
Type Type (
Barometric
MB Leg
Shell &
MB Tube
Shell &
MB Tube
Shell &
Tube &
M B&C Air
Shell &
LC Tube
AVERAGE
STANDARD DEVIATION
lastewater Flow Effluent Parameters (kg/kkg RM)*
1/kkg RM BOD5 Suspended Oil & Ammonia
gal/1000 Ib RM) Solids Grease Nitrogen
3704.9 (444.4) 0.12 0.084 0.033 0.066
1895. (227.3) 0.09 0.044
388.5 (46.6) 0.12 0.078 0.078
1041. (125) 0.019 0.067 0.062
972.0 (116.6) 0.012 0.019 0.002
1600.3 (192.0) 0.064 0.053 0.041 0.064
1293.5 (155.1) 0.052 0.033 0.032 0.003
Principal
RM Source
Dead
Animals
Shop Fat &
Packing-
house
Packing-
house
Poultry &
Shop Fat
Packing-
house
* kg/kkg RM = lb/1000 Ib
SURVEY DATA
-------
require rigorous design and operation of treatment equipment
and systems.
* At this flow the BOD!?, TSS and ammonia levels would have
to be reduced to 1/3 those acceptable at the exemplary flow
of 150 gal/1000 Ib RM.
In-Plant Controls
The major in-plant control applicable to meeting limitations
was use of air-cooled or non-contact vapor condensers rather
than barometric-leg condensers. With this type of in-plant
equipment waste water flows of less than 1250 liters per kkg
RM (150 gal/1000 Ib RM) are readily attainable. As
illustrated in Table IV-6, the average flow rate for the
direct discharging plants using air-cooled condensers or
she11-and-tube condensers is 760 1/kkg RM (91.2 gal/1000 Ib
RM) and 1668 1/kkg RM (200.2 gal/1000 Ib RM), respectively.
Table IV-6 shows the value for barometric-leg condensers is
32,772 1/kkg RM (3927 gal/1000 Ib RM) . A similar
distinction based on condenser type was also found for the
entire industry. Based on the survey over 15 plants now
have air-cooled condensers and over 30 plants have shell-
and-tube.
The prime advantages of reducing the process waste water
flow were found to be:
(1) The size of waste water treatment control
components can be reduced when process waste flows
are reduced.
(2) With lowered flows, the survey shows the mass
amounts of pollutants in the final discharge are
reduced.
This approach permits achievement of the limitations without
having to install tertiary or advanced treatment, e.g.,
mixed-media filtration, following secondary treatment.
In addition to achieving an exemplary waste water flow, good
water conservation practices such as those outlined in the
original Development Document, must also be observed. As
discussed below flow equalization will be required prior to
activated sludge treatment systems.
The term primary treatment if; used to designate the in-plant
process used to separate the reclaimable grease from
processing wastes. It is being done effectively with
skimmer/settler type catch basins with a forty minute
-------
detention time. Dissolved air flotation is not required to
meet NSPS or 1983 limitations. Discussion of this primary
type of treatment is given below.
Flow Equalization
Fluctuations in flow in the independent rendering industry
are usually not large. Continuous cookers, as the name
imples, approximate a steady state operation. Hence waste
waters resulting from the condensing of cooking vapors also
approximate a steady state condition, i.e., a constant flow
rate, with a series of batch cookers the situation is only
slightly different. The normal operating procedure is to
sequentially load and empty batch cookers. Thus the flow
rate will vary somewhat but it will not experience extreme
fluctuations. Any fluctuations that do occur can be
adequately dampened by the large holding capacity of the
typical lagoon treatment system. However, flow equalization
is needed to prevent possible surges from upsetting
activated sludge systems.
Very few rendering operations use flow equalization even
though many plants indicated in the survey that they do.
Follow-up inquiries to these facilities revealed certain
respondents to the survey were assigning credit for flow
equalization to wet wells, sumps, catch basins, and
mechanical skimmer/settlers. Although these devices do
provide a limited degree of retention time they are not its
equivalent. Adequate flow equalization consists of a
holding tank with sufficient capacity to reduce large
fluctuations in flow and waste load. The tank should have a
capacity which allows the flow to be equalized over 16 to 24
hours and should be equipped with some sort of agitation to
prevent solids separation. The equipment is relatively
inexpensive.
Because of the 1 to 3 days detention time in extended
aeration systems, they are not as sensitive to surges as
normal activated sludge plants where detention times are
often 8 hours or less. However, good operating practice
dictates use of flow equalization to assure upsets do not
occur. In addition, it can be shown that flow equalization
allows a smaller aeration basin to be used, requires less
aeration and thus less energy, and by damping surges aids
final clarification.
Limited flow equalization was used at only one of the
fifteen identified exemplary plants. The detention time
reported for this case was only 8 hours. This information
-------
reaffirmed that flow equalisation is not required with
lagoon systems.
Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) units have only recently been
put to use by the industry. The units are relatively
expensive to install and operate. For optimum performance
chemical addition and careful operation are often required.
The recovered float not only contains chemicals but is very
high in water content (typically 95 percent). Thus, it is
not desirable in many cases to recycle this captured
material. This is not to say that DAF units are not useful.
In certain cases, such as with city dischargers, DAF units
may be the best approach to pretreating the waste to meet
the municipal standards.
Although these devices have the potential for being the most
effective type of primary treatment available, data from the
survey showed that, in general, these units are not
performing in actual operation any better than are well-
operated skimmer/settlers. This is evident from data for
DAF units and for raw waste characteristics presented in
Section IV. The raw waste data primarily represent the
effluent from skimmer/settlers. Note in Table IV-II that
there are four DAF units doing a very good job. However,
all of these units are preceded by skimmer/settlers and
discharge to municipal systems.
End-of-Process Technology
The end-of-process treatment technology found effective in
achieving NSPS and 1983 limitations includes the extended
aeration form of activated sludge and certain combinations
of lagoons. The lagoon systems found capable of meeting the
standards were:
1. Mechanically aerated - aerobic lagoons.
2. Anaerobic - aerobic lagoons.
3. Anaerobic - mechanically aerated - aerobic lagoons.
It has been assumed for costing purposes only that mixed
media filters will ,be required after the lagoon systems.
Since catch basins and skimmer/settlers are considered part
of the in-plant processing, they are not included in end-of-
process technology.
-------
Other systems may of course be capable of adequately
treating the waste waters. The above lagoon and activated
sludge systems are recommended because specific rendering
plants were found to be meeting the standards where these
end- of -process systems were used. in addition, the above
type lagoons are known to be effective in treating wastes
from other segments of the meat industry. It is known, for
example, that lagoon systems can be very effective in
treating waste water effluent from meat packinghouses. On-
going monitoring and testing show that at least 3 different
lagoon systems in the meat processing industry can reduce
pollutants to the low levels shown in Table V-I for plant
180. This plant uses the extended aeration form of
activated sludge for treatment. That lagoon systems
treating waste water effluents from rendering plants can be
as effective is yet to be documented.
Table IV-7 lists all the independent rendering plants that
reported using waste water treatment systems. The Table
shows that the recommended treatment technology for meeting
the standards and limits is being used by twenty-five of the
fifty-five plants listed and by nine of the fourteen
exemplary plants. The list also shows that of the eighteen
direct-discharging plants answering the survey, thirteen
used the recommended treatment technology. The other
treatment systems listed in Table IV-7 such as anaerobic
lagoons or aerobic lagoons are normally used to provide a
low or intermediate degree of treatment such as might be
required prior to introducing a rendering plants discharge
into a municipal treatment system. The control and
treatment section of the original Development Document gives
additional information on the above treatment systems.
The Court also raised the question as to whether the lagoons
treating rendering wastes require linings. A survey
indicated lining of lagoons is not required by law in any of
havlna Jh C°f acted- These eleven states include those
having the greatest number of independent rendering
operations (see Section IV) . six of the eleven states
contacted had restrictions on lagoon seepage ra?e, and
frequently require some soil testing prior to lagoon
construction to insure compliance. The allowable seepage
0 ab°Ut 94° t0 64'000 1/ha/day (100-6800
m StateS also s^^st the use of
Cost of Treatment Technology
-------
The capital costs along with the operation and maintainance
costs for each of the four recommended end-of-process
treatment systems are presented in Tables V-3 through V-6
(extended aeration, aerated-aerobic, anaerobic-aerobic and
anaerobic-aerated-aerobic lagoons). Costs are based on
June, 1976 dollars and are given for the five models of
plant studied in the economic analysis. The extra large
continuous type plant was not analyzed. No impact would be
anticipated because the next smaller plant of this type was
not impacted.
The costs listed in Tables V-3 through V-6 were based upon
the most conservative cost information obtained in the
survey. When not available from survey information, cost
data was obtained from consulting engineering firms, the
literature and equipment suppliers. The waste treatment
technology costs do not include in-plant primary equipment.
For the purposes of this report primary equipment consists
of catch basins and dissolved air flotation units or any
other device used to collect and recycle grease. This
equipment was included in the economic impact analysis as
part of the production facilities costs. All renderers,
regardless of the method used for disposing of waste water,
utilize primary treatment. The primary equipment is
feasible from an economic standpoint and is not. unique to
direct-discharge plants.
The mixed-media filters that were included in the cost
analysis were designed to accommodate flow rates three times
that of the exemplary (3750 1/kkg RM). A unit will thus be
able to handle an average 24-hour waste flow in 8-hours if
conditions dictate.
The total costs for equiping, constructing, operating and
maintaining tertiary mixed-media filters in conjunction with
the recommended lagoon systems are shown in Table V-7. As
mentioned previously filters are not required to meet
recommended limitations when the exemplary waste flow and
recommended control and treatment technology are used.
However, when the waste water flow is significantly greater
than the exemplary rate of 1250 1/kkg RM, it has been
assumed for costing purposes that filters (or a comparable
cost option such as further expanded biological treatment)
will be required.
Construction Cost Basis
Many factors were taken into consideration when the
determinations were made for the model treatment plant
construction costs listed in Tables V-3 through V-6.
-------
The design and sizing of the model treatment plants were
based on a waste water flow rate of 1250 1/kkg RM (150
gal/1000 Ib RM). This flow is representative of rendering
plants using air-cooled or shell and tube condensers for
condensing cooking vapors. Design was also based on
treating wastes with the following pollutant loads- 2 15 ka
BOD5/kkg RM, 1.13 kg TSS/kkg RM, 0.72 kg oil and grease/kkg
RM and 0.30 kg ammonia/kkg RM. These values compare
favorably with the survey data for BOD5, TSS and OSG
presented at the bottom of Table IV- 5. The ammonia value is
within the two ammonia values of 0.90 and 0.14 kg/kkg RM
reported in the Table. in addition to waste treatment plant
costs, total construction costs also include land values and
engineering and contingency fees. Land was valued at
$2,000/acre. Sufficient land is included in all estimated
costs to provide an adequate buffer zone around all end-of-
process treatment components and to allow space for
additional treatment components (e.g. tertiary treatment)
Engineering and contingency fees were based on increasing
the cost of construction by 25 percent when construction
costs are less than $25,000, an increase by 10 percent when
costs are greater than $25,000. These percentages have been
found acceptable in the construction industry for covering
the costs associated with engineering and contingency fees
and spillways, piping, etc. More specific information on
construction costs for each of the four recommended
treatment systems follows.
Extended Aeration
The estimated construction cost determined for the extended
aeration system includes a 24-hour flow equalization tank, a
concrete-lined aeration basin, floating aerators, a package-
type air lift clarifier, a prefabricated fiberglass chlorine
contact basin with the associated chlorine delivery system
and a sludge holding tank and drying beds.
The aeration basin was designed for a loading rate of 30 5
Ib BOD5/1000 cu ft. This provides a detention of 3.6 days
which compares very favorably with the 3-day detention time
in the aeration basin at exemplary plant number 180. The
basin is to be located below ground level, and to have a
concrete lining. The excavation costs were determined to be
S4/cu yd and lining with concrete costs to be $33.33 sq yd
The aeration basin is to have two feet of freeboard.
The aeration requirements were based on the equipment
manufacturers design factors of 3.2 Ib oxygen/hp-hr, 0.3 Ib
/1S ^oS?K (MiXed L±quor Volatile suspended
and 0.2 Ib BOD5/day/lb MLVSS. (These factors are
a
47
-------
equivalent to 1 hp-hr/2.13 Ib BODS). To accommodate
possible production changes in the processing plant with
attendant fluctuation in BOD5_, sufficient aeration
horsepower was provided to handle the model plant BODS load
in 8 hours. The cost of aerators, including their support
system, was obtained from a noted equipment supplier.
The final clarifiers operate on the air-lift principle and
were designed for the accepted overflow rate of 1.63 1/sq
ft/day (1400 gal/sq ft/day) . Costs for the prefabricated
clarifiers were provided by a well known manufacturer of
waste treatment systems. These systems are less expensive
than the standard type of clarifier because they have air
lifts rather than mechanical drive systems and have a life
expectancy of 20 years rather than the 50 for the standard
models. The performance of both types is satisfactory and
comparable. The cost for a second, standby blower, is also
included.
The sludge drying bed included as part of the total
treatment package is to consist of a shallow excavated
lagoon lined with reinforced plastic. The bed is to be
provided with a plastic pipe under drain system covered with
sand and gravel. The system cost was determined by using
$6/cu yd for excavation, $l/sq ft for lining, $12/cu yd for
sand and gravel and 10 percent of the construction cost for
piping.
Aerated-Aerobic Lagoons Systems
The model aerated lagoons for this system are designed to
reduce the BODS load from the typical 2.15kg/kkg RM to 0.25
kg/kkg at process waste flow of 1250 1/kkg RM (150 gal/1000
Ib RM) . The aerated lagoon volume for each model was
determined by using the typical production rate, the maximum
exemplary waste water flow rate of 1250 1/kkg RM and a
detention time of 9.5 days. The detention time was
calculated using the following equation:
(Effluent BODS) = ( 1 )
(Influent BODS) (1+Kt)
where K is an efficiency constant and was assumed to be
0.8/day and t is in days.
Lagoon design provided for the desired side wall slopes of 3
in the horizontal to one in vertical, a botton-of-the-lagoon
length to width ratio of 2 to 1, and a three foot freeboard.
-------
The aerated lagoon construction costs shown in Table V-4
were determined using $U/cu yd for excavation and $l/sq ft
for lining.
The horsepower requirements for oxygen transfer were
assessed using the following factors: 1.06 Ib oxygen/lb
BODS, 1 hp-hr/3.2 Ib oxygen, a BODS influent rate equal to
the daily BODS load applied over an eight hour period. This
latter parameter increases the hp requirement by a factor of
three over the case where the BODJ5 rate is set equal to the
daily BODS load equalized over 24 hours.
The horsepower requirement is provided by anywhere from 2 to
6 floating aerators, depending upon the type of rendering
plant and the mixing needs of lagoons. Aerator costs were
determined using cost data provided by a well known supplier
of aeration equipment.
The costs determined as outlined above were verified for
each of the rendering plant models. This was done by
comparing the costs with those ascertained from
questionnaire cost curves data as presented in the cost
curves of Section IV. The agreement is very good.
The aerobic lagoon, which follows the aerated lagoon in the
system under discussion is designed to treat an influent
BODS load of 0.25 kg/kkg RM at 1250 1/kkg RM. The size of
the lagoon is based on applying the BODS load at a rate of
20 Ib BOD5/day/acre. The lagoon is to have a nominal water
depth of 5 feet with an allowable working range of 2 to 5
feet. At a water depth of 5 feet, the detention in the
aerobic lagoon ranges from 137 days for the small batch to
160 days for the large continuous model. If the aerobic
lagoon depth is lowered to 2 feet in the fall and allowed to
accumulate waste water until the depth is again 5 feet, a no
discharge status is achieved for periods ranging from 90
days for the small batch plant to 99 days for the large
continuous plant. This is the usual practice in the
industry when there is an ice cover on the lagoons. These
detention and accumulation times do not account for the
effect of precipitation, evaporation or percolation. The
overall lagoon depth is 7 feet. The side walls slope at a
horizontal to vertical ratio of 3 to 1. Costs of the
aerobic lagoons as shown in Table V-4 were determined using
the design volumes and the unit cost for aerobic lagoons
presented in Section IV.
Anaerobic-aerobic Lagoons
-------
TABLE V-3
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR EXTENDED AERATION
MODEL
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
Basin $
Aerators
Flow Equali-
zation
Final
Clarifier
Sludge Holding
Tank
Sludge Drying
Bed
Chi ori nation
Engineering,
Contingency Fees
Piping, Spill-
way, Etc.
Land
TOTAL $
OPERATING &
MAINTENANCE
COSTS
Labor $
Power
Wastewater
Analysis
Maintenance &
Supplies
Small
10,245
3,000
1,350
5,700
913
4,419
1,530
2,716
2,716
1,500
34,089
9,360
2,500
619
1,629
Batch
Medi urn
$ 18,740
6,000
4,150
8 ,,600
960
13,131
1,710
5,329
5,329
2,000
$ 65,949
$ 12,480
4,000
1,238
3,197
Continuous
Large
$ 32,510
10,000
9,350
15,750
1,230
31,363
1,960
10,216
10,216
4,000
$126,595
$ 15,600
15,000
1,857.6
6,130
Medium
$ 23,469
7,000
5,900
10,100
1,010
18,341
1,800
6,762
6,762
3,300
$ 84,444
$ 14,040
11,000
1,857.6
4,057
Large
$ 35,475
13,200
11,800
17,250
1,460
55,819
2,050
13,711
13,711
4,500
$169,036
$ 18,720
16,500
1,857.6
8,227
TOTAL $ 14,108 $ 2:0,915 $ 38,587.6 $ 30,954.6 $ 45,304.6
50
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS
TABLE V-4
FOR AERATED-AEROBIC TREATMENT
MODEL
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
Aerated Lagoon $
Aerators
Aerobic Lagoon
Engineering,
Contingency Fees
Piping, Spill-
way, etc.
Land
Small
7,514
3,000
12,231
5,686
5,686
3,000
Batch P'
Medium
$ 15,403
6,000
39,035
6,043
6,043
7,000
I ants
Large
$ 28,264
15,000
87,591
13,085
13,085
14,000
Continuous Plants
Medi urn Larcfp
$ 19,156
9,000
51,575
7,967
7,967
8,000
$ 32,462
18,000
101,510
15,197
15,197
16,000
TOTAL
$37,117 $79,524 $171,025 $103,605 $198,366
OPERATING &
MAINTENANCE
COSTS
Labor
Wastewater
Analysis
Power
Maintenance
& Supplies
TOTAL
$ 1,560
619
1,140
1,706
$ 5,025
$ 1,872
1,238
3,626
2,851
$ 9,587
$ 2,496
1,857.6
7,671
7,128
$ 19,152.6
$ 2,184 $ 2,808
1,857.6 1,857.6
4,780 14,816
4,277 8,554
51
-------
TABLE V-5
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC-AEROBIC TREATMENT
MODEL
Batch~l*1ant5 '_Z.~ Continuous Plants
Small Medium Large Medium
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
$ 1,942 $ 5,398.5 $ 11,069 $ 7,308 $ 12,852
Aerobic Lagoon 18,135 54,535 121,850 75,743 137,872
?o1t?ngenc?'Fees 5,019 5,993 13,292 8,305 15,072
5,019 5,993 13,292 8,305 15,072
Land 3,160 10,000 18,000 11,000 20,000
TOTAL $ 33,275 $ 81,919.5 $177,503 $110,661 $200,868
OPERATING &
MAINTENANCE
COSTS
Labor $ 1,248 $ 1,248 $ 1,872 $ 1,560 $ 2,184
619.2 1,238 1,857.6 1,857.6 1,857.<
Maintenance
& Supplies 1,506 3,596 7,975 4,983 9,043
TOTAL $ 3,373.2 $ 6,082 $ 11,704.6 $ 8,400.6 $ 13,084
52
-------
The anaerobic lagoon portion of this system was designed to
reduce the BOD5 load from the typical 2.15 kg/kkg RM to 0.37
at the exemplary flow rate of 1270 1/kkg RM (150 gal/1000 Ib
RM). The lagoons were sized using a BOD5 loading of less
than 176 kg/100 cu liters (11 lb/1000 cu ft) or a detention
time of 12.7 days. Costs presented in Table V-5 were
obtained using the design volumes and the anaerobic lagoon
cost curve presented in Section iv.
The aerobic lagoons were designed using the same criteria as
were used in designing the aerobic lagoons for the aerated-
aerobic treatment systems. However, since the influent BODS
load is larger for the system under discussion the lagoon
volumes are greater. The detention times are also greater.
Detention times range from 213 days for the small batch
rendering plant to 243 days for the large continuous
rendering plant. The accumulation times, (i.e. the time it
takes to raise the lagoon depth from 2 to 5 feet while there
is no discharge) range from 138 days for the small batch
model to 150 for the large continuous model.
The aerobic lagoons were costed using the design volumes and
the unit cost curve for aerobic lagoons from Section IV.
Anaerobic-Aerated-Aerobic Lagoons
In this system the anaerobic lagoons are designed to reduce
the BOD5 load from the typical 2.15 kg/kkg RM to 0.37 kg/kka
RM. This is the same waste reduction requirement used in
designing and costing the anaerobic lagoons for the
anaerobic-aerobic lagoon systems. Hence, the costs are as
cited earlier for the same type rendering plant. The
aerated lagoons were designed to further reduce the BODS
load to 0.25 kg/kkg. This load is then applied to the
aerobic lagoon. This is the same design load as used in
designing and costing the aerobic lagoons for the aerated-
aerobic lagoon systems. The construction costs for these
aerobic lagoons will therefore be the same for corresponding
types of rendering plants. y
The aerated lagoons were designed using the same parameters
and criteria as used for designing the aerated lagoons for
the aerated-aerobic lagoon systems. This resulted in a
design detention time of 15 hours. A one day detention was
US €?Q *
The aerated lagoons were costed using $4/cu yd for
excavation and $0.80/sq ft for lining, cost curves could
not be derived from the survey information because
insufficient data on aerated-aerobic systems w^s £?oviSS!"
53
-------
TABLE V-6
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC-AERATED-AEROBIC TREATMENT
MODEL
Batch Plants
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
Anaerobic
Lagoon $
Aerated Lagoon
Aerobic Lagoon
Engineering,
Contingency Fees
Piping, Spill-
way, etc.
Land
TOTAL $
OPERATING &
MAINTENANCE
COSTS
Labor $
Was tewater
Analysis
Power
Maintenance
& Supplies
TOTAL $
Small
1,942
1,184
12,231
3,839
3,839
2,300
25,335
1,560
619
143
1,151
3,473
Medium
$ 5,400
2,017
39,035
4:,645
4,645
5,500
$ 61,242
$ 1,872
1,238
143
2,787
$ 6,040
Large
$ 11,069
4,178
87,591
10,284
10,284
13,000
$136,406
$ 2,496
1,858
300
6,170
$ 10,824
Continuous Plant
Medium
$ 7,308
3,000
51,515
6,182
6,182
7,600
$ 81,787
$ 2,184
1,858
300
3,709
$ 8,051
Large
$ 12,852
4,947
101,510
11,931
11,931
15,000
$158,171
$ 2,808
1,858
300
—* '
7 ,159
$ 12,125
-------
TABLE V-7
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS WITH MIXED MEDIA FILTER
Aerated-Aerobic Anaerobic-Aerated-Aerobic Anaerobic-Aerobic
Construction
SB (1)
MB (2)
LB (3)
MC (4)
LC (5)
$ 41,214
$104,244
$217,105
$135,525
$255,006
Operating &
Maintenance
$ 5,230
$11,598
$22,180
$15,198
$31 ,432
Construction
$ 31,650
$ 85,962
$182,486
$113,707
$214,811
Operating &
Maintenance
$ 3,789
$ 7,276
$13,128
$ 9,650
$14,960
Construction
$ 38,172
$106,639
$223,583
$142,581
$257,508
Operating &
Maintenance
$ 3,618
$ 7,318
$14,010
$10,000
$15,900
(1) Small Batch
(2) Medium Batch
(3) Large Batch
(4) Medium Continuous
(5) Large Continuous
-------
Operating and Maintance Cost Basis
Operating and maintance costs include labor, power, waste
water analysis, and maintance and supplies. Labor is costed
at $6/hr. and power at $0.035/kwh. The waste water
pollutant parameters and costing data for analysis are as
follows: BOD5/J18.60; total suspended solids (TSS) /$<4. 80 ;
oil and grease (O&G)/S22.00; coliform count/$6.00 and pH/no
charge. Total cost per set is $51.60. The number of
analyses per year included in the costs ranged from 12 sets
for small batch plants to 36 sets for large continuous
plants. Maintance and supplies were costed at the accepted
level of five percent of construction costs less land costs.
56
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Economic Analysis of Effluent Guidelines, Independent Rendering Industry
update to 1975 Conditions," Prepared for EPA, Washington, B.C. 20460
by Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 727,
Manhattan, Kansas 66502, August 1976.
2. EPA 660/2-74-012, "Treatment of Cheese Processing Wastewaters in
Aerated Lagoons, May 1974.
3. EPA-430/9-75-003, "Costs of Wastewater Treatment By Land Application,"
June 1975. Note: Data points from curve of capital cost versus flow,
Figure 16, page 69.
4. EPA-440/1-75/046, "Development Document for Interim Final and Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialties Segment of the Canned and
Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Point Source Category, October 1975.
Note: Data from Table 96, page 326.
5. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., Adams, Carl, E., et al., "Pretreatment of
Industrial Wastewaters for Discharge Into Municipal Systems," published
by Aware Inc., P.O. Box 40284, Nashville, Tennessee 37204, October 1976.
6. Data prepared by or for the North Star Division of Midwest Research
Institute.
7. Parker, Leon C., "Estimating the Cost of Wastewater Treatment Ponds,"
Pollution Engineering p. 32-37, November 1975.
8. Contact report of call to Peter Kiewit and Sons, Washington, D.C. by
Andy Kolyn of EPA.
9. Bckenfelder, W. Welsey, "Water Quality Engineering," Barnes and Noble,
Inc., New York, 1970, p.. 179-183.
10. Richards of Rockford, Rockford, Illinois.
11. Clow Waste Treatment Division, Florence, Kentucky.
12. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., and Barnard, J. L., "Treatment-Cost Relationship
For Industrial Wastes," Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 67, No. 9.
13. "Recommend Standards for Sewage Works," 1973 Revised Edition published
by the Health Education Service, P.O. Box 7283, Albany, NY 12224.
------- |