1 Library EP. PC n I
Survefl]. rco & A”1 ’ - -
WASTE TREAT NT PLANT EFFICIENCY STUDY
MAPLE WOOD POULTRY CO ANY
BELFAST, MAINE
SEPTEMBER 13, 1972

-------
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT EFFICIENCY STUDY
MAP LEWOOD POULTRY COMPANY
BELFAST, MAINE
SEPTEM3ER 13, 1972
On April 19, 1972, the Maplewood Poultry Company and the
United States Government signed a consent decree requiring construction
and operation of a liquid waste treatment plant at the company’s
facility in Belfast, Maine, by July 1, 1972. (See Appendix A)
At the request of the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I (EPA), Enforcement Division, the Surveillance and Analysis
Division (S/A) evaluated the treatment plant and the quality of its
effluent. During a preliminary visit, Mr. Stephen Glass, Acting
Treatment Plant Operator, conducted a tour of the treatment plant and
granted permission to sample the treatment plant on September 13, 1972.
The liquid process waste from the Maplewood plant is no longer
discharged raw to Belfast Bay. Prior to discharge, this waste passes
through a series of screens and a flotation treatment process. The
company’s sanitary waste presently goes directly to Belfast Bay,
however in accordance with the consent decree this sewer line must be
connected to the city sewer system within thirty days of the date that
a connection is made available to the company.
Processing Plant
The Maplewood Poultry Company processes and packages approximately
100,000 birds per day into various types of poultry and poultry meat
products. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the processing plant.
The live birds are received in wooden crates, removed by hand andchung
by the feet on two parallel conveyor lines.
During the first stage of processing the birds are killed, bled,
scalded and defeathered. A USDA minimum over flow rate of one quart per
bird per day in the scalders creates a large quantity of waste, which is
very high in fats, feathers, and some blood. A trough carries the waste
from the killing and defeathering room to the screen room, where a
circular vibrating screen removes the feathers.
As the birds are eviscerated, during the next step in the process, the
offal and viscera creates about one—third of the pollutional loading of the
process. The evisceration waste is carried by water down a flume to the
primary and secondary rotary screens. While in the flume, the water picks
up large quantities of blood, grease, solids and soluable materials.

-------
DEFEAT HER
—>
RENDERING
PLANT
F— ”
PROCESS
FIGURE I
FLOW
DIAGRAM
RECEIVING
!
KILLING
4
j BLEEDING
I
SCALDING I
V
VIASH
V
-I SCREENS
EVISCERATION
1
WASH I
I
— -
—,
CHILLING
PACKING
WASH DOWN
-
ICE MACHINE

-------
Following evisceration, the birds are washed and chilled in a cold
water bath, which has a USDA minimum over flow rate of two quarts per
bird per day. This phase in processing also creates large quantities
of waste water.
The birds are packed in ice or frozen for shipment or cooked and
used in various poultry meat products.
At the end of the killing process a nightly washdown begins.
During this period, the processing lines are completely washed with the
resulting waste water following the same flow paths as that of the
killing process.
On September 13, 1972, the killing process started at 0700 hours and
ended at 1800 hours. Of the 79,596 birds processed, 74,132 were broilers
(birds grown eight to nine weeks with a liveweight of approximately 3.5
pounds), 4,484 were roasters (slightly older than broilers and over four
pounds), and 984 were fowl (old egg laying birds, generally over three
years old). The washdown operation started at 1800 hours and proceeded
until 0500 hours on September 14, 1972.
Waste Treatment Plant
The Maplewood Poultry Company Waste Treatment Plant is a flotation
treatment system. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the treatment
process. As the evisceration and dressing room waste enters the treatment
plant, it passes through a primary and secondary 40 mesh rotary screen.
The primary screen removes offal and reject birds. The secondary screen
removes small pieces of viscera and other small scraps. A separate line
carries the defeathering waste to a circular vibrating screen, which removes
the feathers. See Appendix C for photographs of the screens. Following the
screen room, the waste passes through a collection manhole and bar rack on
its way to the main treatment plant. A bar conveyor carries the solids
removed by the screens to a truck for shipment to Pine State By — Products,
Portland, Maine for rendering operations. Generally two trucks per day are
filled.
A wet well collects the waste entering the treatment plant and
equalizes the flow to the flotation tank. In case of emergency, an overflow
basin (located adjacent to the wet well) supplies approximately fifteen
minutes of storage.
As the waste is pumped to the flotation tank, alum and a polymer
(cyanamid 836A) are added. Alum and cyanamid are flocculants used to aid
in the flotation of solids. The chemical feed rate is set twice a day;
once in the morning prior to the killing process and once in the after-
noon prior to the cleanup process. Upon entering the flotation unit the
waste is retained in the center tank f or approximately one and one—half
minutes where flocculation occurs. Recycled clarified wastewater (20%
of the effluent from the flotation unit), which is saturated with air in a
2

-------
FIGURE 2
SAT URATIO N
TANK
FLOW DIAGR 1 AM
WASTE TREIATMENT PLANT
MIAPLEW000 POULTRY COMRANY
DEFEATHERING
SCREEN
PRIMARY
SCREEN
FLOTATION
UNIT
POLYMER
S ECO NA R V
SCREEN
BAR
RACK
WET
WELL
CHLORINE
CONTACT
CHAMBER
SLUDGE RETENTION
TANKS

-------
pressurization tank at 80 psi, is mixed with the flocculated wastewater
as it enters the bottom of the flotation unit. The retention time is
approximately one hour. The float formed in the outer portion of the
flotation tank is allowed to accumulate to approximately six inches,
before it is periodically removed by rotating scraper. The sludge is
then pumped to three dewatering and storage tanks. This sludge is also
periodically sent to Pine State By — Products.
Following the flotation unit, the waste is chlorinated as it flows to
the chlorine contact chamber. The design contact time is approximately
26 minutes. The original design called for a mechanical scraper inttbe
contact chamber, which was not installed. The sludge flows to a sludge
hopper which is vacuumed out. According to FIr. Glass, sludge build—up
in the chlorine contact chamber is not a problem.
At this point the waste passes over a 900 V—notch veir and is
discharged through a corrugated steel pipe to a submerged outfall in
Belfast Bay. The V—notch veir and continuous flow recorder were checked
and found to be accurate.
Sampling Information
On September 13, 1972, EPA personnel sampled the Maplewood Poultry
Company Waste Treatment Plant. Sample collection and analysis was done
in accordance with the Mapiewood Poultry Company consent decree. Five—
day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ), total suspended solids and total
coliform bacteria were determined by Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater , Thirteenth Edition. Total oil and grease was
determined by E. _ _ A. Methods for Chemical An4ysis of Water and Waste,
1971 . EPA Region I chain of custody procedures were maintained on all
samples.
On September 13, 1972, two four hour composite samples were collected
at the treatment plant effluent, as the waste passed over the V—notch weir
(MPOE). The first four hour composite period started at 0845 hours and
ended at 1245 hours, with samples being collected every half hour starting
at 0900 hours and ending at 1230 hours. The first composite represented
the killing process waste. The second four hour composite period started
at 1745 hours and ended at 2145 hours, with samples being collected every
half hour starting at 1800 hours and ending at 2130 hours. The second
compositerepresented the cleanup period waste. The composite samples
consisted of eight grab samples collected at one—half hour intervals in
one—half gallon glass jars with aluminum foil under the cover and composited
proportionate to flow (for every cubic foot per second of flow over the
weir 1000 mis of sample were added to the composite). The compositing was
done at the end of each sampling period into a five gallon glass container.
The composite samples were analyzed for BOD 5 , total suspended solids, and oil
and grease and used to indicate the total daily loading rate.
3

-------
BOD 5 reduction through the treatment plant and BOD 5 concentrations of
the effluent were measured by a grab sample taken at the influent to the
treatment plant (MPOI) and an hour later a grab sample was taken at the
effluent from the treatment plant (MPOE). This was done four times during
both sampling periods.
At one—half hour intervals during both sampling periods, five grab
samples were collected at the effluent V—notch weir (MPOE) and analyzed
to indicate the oil and grease concentration of the effluent. All oil and
grease samples were placed in oil and grease sample jars, with aluminum
foil under the cover, and fixed with two mis of 1:1 sulfuric acid (H 2 S0 4 ).
At one—half hour intervals during both sampling periods, eight grab
samples were collected at the effluent V—notch weir (MPOE) and analyzed to
indicate the suspended solids concentration of the effluent.
At one hour intervals during both sampling periods, five grab samples
were collected at the effluent V—notch weir (MPOE) and analyzed for coliform
bacteria to indicate the coliform bacteria density of the effluent.
The chlorine residual was measured with a chlorine comparator at one—
half hour intervals during both sampling periods, at the effluent (MPOE).
All samples at the treatment plant influent (KPOI) were collected using
a galvanized steel bucket. The bucket was thoroughly rinsed with the waste
before use. The samples were transferred from the bucket to plastic bottles.
All samples collected at the treatment plant effluent (MPOE) were collected
by hand dipping the sample container directly into the waste as it passed
over the V—notch weir.
Following collection, EPA personnel transported the samples to the field
laboratory where BOD 5 and coliform bacteria samples were incubated and
suspended solids were filtered. EPA personnel also transported BOD 5 ,
suspended solids and oil and grease samples to S/A Laboratory for completion
of analyses.
Results
The results from the laboratory analyses can be found in Table 2.
Table 3 compares the consent decree discharge limitations to the evaluated
results of Table 2, as stipulated by the consent decree. The results
discussed in this section are as calculated by stipulations in Section VI
of the consent decree.
The average flow rate from the treatment plant was found to be 0.73 mgd.
This flow rate was found by averaging the flow rates at one—half hour
intervals over 24 hours.
Total suspended solids concentration at the effluent V—notch weir (MPOE)
ranged from a low of 12.0 mg/i to a high of 73.4 mg/i, with an average of
30.1 mg/i. Thus the maximum discharge concentration of 100 mg/l was not
violated. The consent decree also stipulates that suspended solids concen-
trations must be less than 50 mg/l 90% of the time. Since two out of fourteen
4

-------
suspended solids concentrations were in excess of 50 mg/i (59.0 mg/i
and 73.6 mg/i) this limitation was met only 85.7% of the time. The
total daily loading ratio for total suspended solids at station MPOE was
4.0 pounds per 1000 birds processed, which is below the consent decree
limitation of 7.5 pounds per 1000 birds processed.
The BOD 5 concentrations at station MPOE ranged from a low of 93.0
mg/i to a high of 101.5 mg/i, with an average of 97.2 mg/i. The consent
decree limitation of 120 mg/i was not violated.
The consent decree called for 85% BOD 5 removal through the treatment
plant. The results ranged from a low of 55.6% to a high of 89.0%, with
an average of 74.2%, which constitutes a violation of the consent decree.
Due to the possible presence of chlorine in the BOD 5 seed sample
(collected at the treatment plant influant, MPOI), during the cleanup
period, me BOD 5 analyses results contain M values (presence of material
varified but not quantitated). The presence of chlorine was suspected
due to the use of a chlorine based detergent during cleanup and possible
toxic conditions during BOD 5 analyses. This condition was not observed
until BOD 5 analyses had been completed and Mr. Glass varified the use of
the chlorine based detergent.
Oil and grease concentrations at station NPOE ranged from a low of
28.3 mg/l to a high of 46.4 mg/i, with an average of 34.2 mg/i. All samples
analyzed for oil and grease were, in violation of the consent decree
limitation of 25.0 mg/i. The total daily loading for oil and grease was
218 pounds per day. This constitutes a violation of the 150 pounds per day
discharge limitation.
The consent decree limitation for coliform bacteria is 100 coliforms
per 100 ml of sample. Tw of the ten analyses done showed a violation.
The bacteria count ranged from a low of less than 10 to a high of 5,300
coliforms per 100 ml of sample, with an average of 1,160 coliforms per
100 ml of sample. The high bacteria counts coincided with a low chlorine
residual. With a chlorine residual of 0.25 mg/i the bacteria count peaked
at 5,300 per 100 ml. When the chlorine residual increased to 2.5 mg/i the
bacteria count dropped to less than 10 per 100 ml of sample. The chlorine
residual ranged from a low of 0.15 mg/i to a high of 2.5 mg/i.
General Observations
When the sampling crew arrived in Belfast on September 12, 1972, a
large amount of foam and what appeared to be oil and grease was on the
surface of Belfast Bay. The discharge line was broken in a number of
places and floating on the surface. A large amount of foam, which appeared
to contain oil and grease, was being produced by the discharge. See
Appendix C for photographs. As the tide went out, this material was washed
seaward and deposited along the shore line. The quantity of foam was
sufficient to cause a noticeable discoloration of the receiving waters, which
5

-------
constitutes a violation of the consent decree. The amount of foam being
created changed with processing within the plant. During the lunch break
and washdown, the foam dropped off drastically. Dr. Frank Woodard of
Environmental Engineering Service Inc., the consultant f or the Maplewood
Poultry Company, was present during sampling and it was his opinion that the
foam was due to air entrainment in the waste. Dr. Woodard plans to eliminate
this problem by the construction a new submerged discharge line.
Installation of this line is scheduled to begin on September 18, 1972.
The effluent from the treatment plant was red in color and contained a
small amount of visible solids, however the color of the effluent was not
sufficient to cause discoloration of the receiving waters.
As of September 13, 1972, no municipal sewer connection had been made
available to the plant. The consent decree specifies that the plant’s
sanitary waste must be connected to a municipal sewer within 30 days of the
date that this connection is made available . This connection should be
available in November of 1972.
Conclusions
The Maplewood Poultry Company Waste Treatment Plant is in violation of
the consent decree, however a comparison of the July and August 1972 monthly
analysis (as submitted by the Maplewood Poultry Company) indicates a
significant improvement in the discharge characteristics. See Appendix B
for the July and August monthly analyses.
During the September 13, 1972 sampling and the month of August 1972,
a significant violation occurred in the total coliforin bacteria density.
More than 75% of the time the coliform count ranged from 300 to 5,200
coliforms per 100 ml above the consent decree limitation. This violation
could be attributed to insufficient cleaning of the chlorine contact chamber
or a low chlorine dosage. Acceptable coliforin counts occurred with a
chlorine residual of approximate 2.0 to 2.5 mg/i, where high coliforni counts
occurred with a chlorine residual of 1.0 mg/i or less.
Since the start of operation in July of 1972, slight violations of the
oil and grease concentration and total daily loading and percent reduction
of BOD 5 through the treatment plant have persistently occurred, however this
situation has progressively improved.
As with any new waste.treatment plant, a start up period is required
to bring the treatment plant to peak operating efficiency. As of
September 13, 1972, the Maplewood Poultry Company Waste Treatment Plant had
not obtained effluent waste characteristics that conform to the consent
decree limitations.
6

-------
TABLE 1
STATION LOCATION
MAPLEWOOD POULTRY COMPANY WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
STATION DESCRIPTION
MPOI Influent to Maplewood Poultry Company Waste
Treatment Plant, at collection manhole.
MPOE Effluent from Maplewood Poultry Company Waste
Treatment Plant, at 900 V—notch weir.

-------
SCREEN
MAPLE VJO OD PROCESSING PLANT ROO i
___ , c MPOI ________
TREAThEN 7
PLANT
MPOE
—- --r-’---
\
LINE—
LFAST SAY 11 P IER RUINS DISCHARGE \
I I
I I
FIGURE 3
L_J
STATION LOCATION
MAPLEWOOD POULTRY
COMPANY

-------
SAMPLE ANALYSES
ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS OF MEASURE
Analyses Reported Description Units of Measure
Temperature Sample temperature Degrees centigrade (°C)
BOD 5—day 5—day biochemical milligrams per liter
oxygen demand, incubated (mg/i)
at 20°C
Total coliforms Total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters
Fecal coliforms Fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters
Total nonfilterable Total suspended solids mg/i
residue
Fixed nonfilterable Inorganic suspended solids mg/i
residue
Chlorine residual’ mg/i
Oil and grease Hexane extractable mg/i as oil and grease
Letters preceding a reported value denote the following:
K — actual value is known to be less than value given
M — presence of material verified but not quantitated
I — data inconsistent with other known data

-------
- TABLI.
ANALYTICAL DATA
MAPLEWOOD POULTRY COMPANY, BELFAST, MAINE, SEPTEMBER 13, 1972
Station
No.
Time
(Hrs.)
Lab Code
No.
Temp.
(°C)
Residue
(mg/i) BOD Oil and Crease
Fixed Nf it. (mg l) (mg/i)
Coliform
Bacteria
Chlorine Residual
mg/i
Total
Nf it.
Total
Fecal
MPOE
0907
36006
17.5
23.5
3.2
650
8
1.0
0930
36007
17.5
21.4
4.6
—
—
1.0
1000
36009
18.0
26.7
1.4
150
33.5
830
30
1.0
1030
36010
17.5
11.5
1.0
29.6
—
—
,
0.25
1100
36012
17.7
12.6
1.7
53
27.0
430
10
0.5
1130
36013
17.0
16.9
0.6
31.0
—
—
0.25
1200
36015
17.5
18.4
3.5
133
32.0
1700
42
0.5
1230
36016
18.0
14.4
2.8
—
—
.
0.15
1300
36017
19.6
—
I
—
570
10
0.25
*Comp
36004
—
16.7
5.4
63.4
28.2
MPOE
1800
36020
17.6
33.9
1.0
5300
130
0.25
1830
36021
17.5
24.5
5,9
.
0.15
1900
36023
17.5
21.5
5.5
N
27.2
400
K10
0.5
1930
36024
19.0
30.3
8.0
31.4
—
—
0.5
2000
36026
19.5
68.2
16.0
N
33.1
1700
330
0.5
2030
36027
19.5
78.7
22.1
57.6
1.0
2100
36029
18.8
40.6
8.0
N
35.1
K1O
K10

-------
TABLE 2 (Cont’d)
ANALYTICAL DATA
MAPLEWOOD POULTRY COMPANY, BELFAST, MAINE, SEPTEMBER 13, 1972
Station Time Lab Code Temp. Residue (mg/1 ) BOD Oil and Crease Coliform Bacteria Chlorine Residual
No. (Hrs.) No. (°C) Total Nf it. Fixed Nf it. (m 1) (mg/i) Total Fecal mg/i
MPOE 2130 36030 19.0 29.4 8.9 1.5
2200 36031 18.7 M — K10 K10 2.5
36018 52.4 8.8 M 35.8
MPOI 0905 36005 15.0 680
1000 36008 17.5 480
1100 36011 19.0 300
1200 36014 23.5 380
MPOI 1800 36019 17.0 I
1900 36022 23.5 750
2000 36025 20.5 N
2100 36028 18.0 M —
*Composite of samples taken every half hour between the hours of 0900 and 1300 on 9/13/72.
**Composite of samples taken every half hour between the hours of 1800 and 2200 on 9/13/72.

-------
TABLE 3
CONSENT DECREE VIOLATIONS
MAPLEWOOD POULTRY COMPANY, BELFAST, MAINE, SEPTEMBER 13, 1972
CONSENT DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
DECREE Max. Mm. Average
PARA TERS LIMITATIONS
I. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (S.S.)
A. At any time
concentration (mg/i) 100.0 73.4 12.0 30.1
total daily loading (If/bOO Birds processed) 7.5 — — 4.0
B. % of the time concentration not exceeding 90% — 85.7%*
50.0 mg/i
C. % of the time total daily loading ratio 90% Data not available
not exceeding 3.75/1/1000 birds processed
II. FIVE—DAY BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD 5 )
A. At any time
concentration (mg/i) 120.0 101.0 93.0 97.2
% Reduction through treatment plant 85.0 89.0 55•5* 74.2*
B. Weekly average
concentration (mg/i) 100.0 Data not available
III. OIL AND GREASE
A. At any time
concentration (mg/i) 25.0 46.4* 28.3* 34.2*
total daily loading (/1/day) 150.0 218.1*
IV. TOTAL COLIFORN BACTERIA
A. At any time
density (total colifornis/lOOmi of sample) 100 5730* K1O K1160*
V. DISCOLORATION OF RECEIVING WATERS None Large amount of foam *
containing oil and gre ase
* Indicates violation of consent decree discharge limitations
(see discussion of results)

-------
APPENDIX A
CONSENT DECREE

-------
UNITED STATES DISThICT COURT
DISTRICT OF II/ I E
NORTIlEP N DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF A RIcA, )
)
Plaintiff 3 ).
)
v. Civil No. 1892
NAPLEWOOD POULTRY COMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
________________)
DECREE
The Complaint was filed herein on April 27,..197•l,
and plaintiff and defendant by their respective attorneys
S
have consented without.t:rial ctr adjudication of any issue of
fact or law herein to the entry o this ecr e, and this -
- - - I: -
Decree does not cpnstitute any evidence or ad ission by any
jarty hereto with respect to any issue of fact or law hcrdin:
•
NOW, THEREFORE, b fo e the taking of any testimony,
and upon the p1. adings, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
I
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter
-he.rcin and of the parties cons nting hereto. The Complaint
- -
states a claim upon - hich relief ma be granted against the
defendant. -
II
‘The prcvisioris of this Dccree shall apply to the
I apl wood Poultry Co q arLy,- its officers, directors, agents,
servants, em;loyees, successors and assigns, and all perso-

-------
-
firms and corporations acting under, through or for it; ii
a
addition, the provisions of this Decree shall apply to all
persons,firms and co’rporations having actual notice of such
order by personal service or otherwise who are in active
concert or privity with the Maplewood Poultry Company, its
officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, successors
or assigns, or ll persons, firms and ëofporatipn.s acting
under, through or for it.
III
As used in this Dècree:
(A) “BOD” sha].l mean five (5) day biochemical
oxygen demand as determined by Method 219, page
489, Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Was tewaters , 13th Edition, 1971 American
Public Health Association New York, New York
10019 (hereinafter- ‘ Standard Methods’ ).
• (B) “Coliforin per 100 ml.” shall refer to
the number of coliform bacteria that are present
in 100 mi11i1it ers of a liquid as determined by
Method 408 A, page 679, Standard Methods.
(C)• “Co-’pany” shall mean Naplewood Poultry
• Company.
(D) “Concentration” shall mean the weight
of any given material present in a unit volume
of liquid.

-------
.3-
(E) “Discharge” shall mean any flow of
liquid matter or deposit of solid Smatter from
•the plant (other than sanitary sewage from
washroonis and toilets of the plant> into the
nav4able waters of the United States or
tributaries of such waters.
• (F) “Material” shall mean.the organic.
and inorganic substances which are subject to
the discharge limitations of this Decree, i.e.,
BOD, coliform bacteria, offal matter, oil and
grease, and suspended solids.
(G) “Oil and grease” shall mean hexane
extractable matter as determined by the
appropriate test set forth on page 217, E.P.A.
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes , 1971, Environm?ntal Protection Agency,
Water Quality Office, Analytical Quality Contr ol
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(H) “Outfall” shall mean any structure,
pipe, flume or ditch which carries a diséharge.
(I) “Plant” shall mean the poultry
processing plant operated by the Company and
located in Belfast, Maine.
(J) “Total daily loading” shall mean the
total amount of a given ‘material passing through
aflof the outfal]s at the plant in a 24-hour day.

-------
-4-
(K) “Total suspended solids” shall mean
nonfilterable residue as determined by Method
224 C, page ‘537, Standard Methods.
(L) “Treatment facility” shall mean that
facility for treating water-borne wastes which
the Company plans to install adjacent to, and
as part of, the pl int and which is de cribcd
by the Final Report, Naplewood Poultry, Waste
Tred tment Study , attached hereto as Appendix A
.Iv
Asof. and after ,the date this Decree becomes -
effective, th Company shall not make or permit any discharge
t-ltat is not, prior to leaving the plant, filtéreèi through a
40 mesh wire scre n (screen with 40 openings to the inch) to
r ’emovevisible matter; furthermore; all screens used tofi].te
discharges in compliance with this paragraph shall be maintained
at all times so as to maximize the removal of such matter.
On or before June 1, 1972, the Company shall have
completed construcèion of a treatment facility which will
‘eliminateat a minimum all discharges not in conformance with
the provisions of paragraph VI of this Decree. Final plans
a d specifications for such treatment facility were submitted
by the Company to he United States Attorn y for the District
o Maine on October 4,- 1971. Said plans includa the following:

-------
-5-
DRAWING NO. TITLE
Mi’—7 1-l-2 Influent Pump Well
MP-71-2-2 Preliminary Layout
IIP-71--3-2 Foundation Details
MP-7l-4- Building Foundation
MP-71-5-l Layout
MP-71-6-1 Chlorinat4on Tank
MP-71-7-l Flow Diagram
In adc1itioi , Specifications for Plain and Reinforced Concrete
Effluent Treatment System and Specifications for a Flotation
Treatment System, plus equipment specifications were submitted.
Said plans and specifications were e amined and commented
upon by representatives of the Regional Office, Region I, of
the Environmental Protection Agency, but such examination and
cbmmentary in no respect constitute either an approval of
defendant’s selection of a design fo such treatment facility
or an assurance that such treatment facility will be adequate
to meet the discharge requirements of paragraph VI of this
Decree, and it is specifically understood by the parties to
this Decree that the discharge requirements of paragraph VI
shall be the controlling performance rqquirer cntc.
VI
Cdmmen ing June 1, 1972, the Company shall not make
or permit any discharges which:
(a) have a concenbration excecding
50 mg/i or a total daily loading ratio from

-------
6 -
all outfa1ls excecding 3.75 po rnds of tot a1
suspended solids per 1000 birds i rocessed
907 of the time and at any time exceed
100 mg/-i or a total daily loading ratio
from.all outfalls exceeding 7.5 pounds of
total - suspended soli s for 1000 birds
processed;
(b) have a concentration exceeding
25 mg/i ox a total daily loading from ll
•o it alls exceeding 150 pounds of grease and
oil;
(c) -ha e a- conform bacteria count
exceeding 100 coliform per -1.00 ml.;
(d) -contain toxic substances;
(e) will cause noticeable disco1orat on-
of the receiving water ; and/or
(f) - have a concentrati:m exceeding
120 mg/i or a weekly average concentratiàn -
exceeding 100 mg/i of BOD.
I pddition, BOD reduction (treatment facility influent minus
treatment facility effluent) shall be no less than 85°h at all.-
times. However, if the newly-installed treatment facility is
i ot operating within the discharge limits of thi s paragraph
-.
by June 1, 1972 because of unfoLesecable mechanical failure,
the discharge requirements of this paragraph shall not become
effective until July 1, 1972; and., the burden of proof shall

-------
—7—
be on the Company to establish that there was an unforeseeable
meáhanical failure which was the sole cause of the unsatisfactory
operation.
The, niinitnum sampling requirements to prove iolati6ns
of the discharge fequirements of this Decree are, as follows: -
(1) a violation of any of the concentration requirements of
this paragraph may be established on the basis of the average
of two (2) samples taken at least a half-hour apart at the
sam location on the same day, (2), a violation of any of the
total daily loading requirei -r ents of this paragraph may be
established on the basis of a composite of eight (8) samples
• aken at half-hour intervals at the same location over a period
of four (4) hours, (3) a violation of the BOD r duction require-.
nient of this paragraph may be established on the basis of one
S S
ample of the influent and one sample of the effluent of the
treatment facility, the sample, of the effluent to be taken
one hour after the sample of the influent is taken, and (4)
a violation of the coilform bacteria count requirement of this
paragraph may be establ.ished the basis of a single sample.
VII
In order to eliminate the deposit into navigable
waters of the United States or tributaries of such waters
of sanitary sewage from washrooms and toilets of the plant,
the. Company, 30 th ys from the time the City of Belfast makes
available to the Company a connection to the municipal sewage
trcatment system presently tinder coastruction, shall be enjoincd

-------
-8-
from making or pprmitt .ng the deposit of any sanitary sewagô
fr.oni washrooms and toilets o2 the plant into navigable waters
of the United States çr tributaries ófsuchwaters other than
through the Belfast municipal sewage treatrnent system.
V) II
For purposes of this Decree, the limitations on
‘discharges specified in parag aph VI shall be suspended with
regard to accidental discharges. “Acci dental dis harge&’ shall
be defined as including all discharges caused by forces or
circumstances beyond the control of the Company, includ ng,
but not limited to, power outages, acts of-Cod, abotage, war
S •
or ript, but,as.exclutling, inter.alia, discharges caused by
negligence or attributable to b] akdown of equipment there such
breakdown is caused by lack of proper maintenance or where major
auxiliary or backup equipment or .supplies should reasonably
have been provided by the Company and were not so provided.
The burden of 7roof shall always be on the Company to establish
that any discharge was an accidental discharge.
.Ix -
Commencing June 1, l972 the Company shall (1) take
or causo to be taken, at least once each week while the plant
is in full operatior (including the washdown period), a
nine-sample composite of the discharge from each of the outfalls
at the plant and analyze or cause to be analyzed such samples -
for concentration of tot ’.l suspencI ed solids, oil and grease
and-BOD; (2) take or cause to be taken at least once each

-------
. 9...
&ty uhile th.’ /pl it i ii £ttll o ,c ition (i ciudin the . lidc n
pz .ri i)) c t :o p o COI GLt of t c i f1uc it
1 coo .tc 02 the ofEiu r t of the trc t z nt aciiity (the Z1rM
oi th two s tz ,1cs o2 o 1 c nt to bo ta cn on t o z tcr
the firzt o2 the inflt ciit) a d iyzo or c tu!e to be
n Jjed’c h Luch p1c 2o DOD; (3) toko or cause i:o b
t kcn t IGa t twice e h ek t 1ca t one hour p tle
.
the plei t iu i’. full opr tion (ii c1ur1.th the t;athdot n pc iod),
a grc.b r ple of the iSC1 O fro n each of £ out al1s t
the L laltt n i an 1yz cr c ti c to be analyzed such s r. plo
for th ’. colifo;: cca’:. i pcr 100 i 1.; and (6) oz ito , by u3in
c po c ie 1y it taUcd r ii orin d vico, nd roco d ily
the tot 1 vo1i. uo of the di ci r e f].ow rcz the pL .nt. I .t
the c of c ch rccc th, the Co a y sball &cnd a ittc.n
i ed by a pro c ic ial c inc2r) to the Unltcd tz tc Attoruc y
for the Di 1:rLct of aim zind to the flc rjLonr l d ini tr tor
of R on I of the invir ntal ?rotec ton tgc cy ccn ciiiizig
(a) the racults o ! such naly es, (b) the cIcdly total c iar c
flow £ro the p]. nt and (c) th3 total iiu ber of birds pi-oc sscd
per day.
A ‘n i pie co: io3 Ito” for the purpo c o2 this -
p ra h ch ii be a ccr ;o ite of nine 1c ti ken at half-hcu
i vi1 ; over a pc ric of at 1ca t four hours. A “t - plc
co 7 o it&’ f r thc pu j c oc of thic p rap chail be
cc z o itz of t ;o r 1tz1j)1o3 tcik n a halfhour A “g b s ’.r icf

-------
10 -
for purposes of this paragraph shall be an individual instan-
• taneous sample.
x
For the purpose of insuring cornplian e with this
Decree, duly a ithorized employees and agents of the United
• St Ttes Governme -it shall be per nitted to enter the plant to
measure or-Cause--to be measured the concentrations and rates
of flow of the discharges at the plant and 14ie influent and
f fluent of the tre itment facility, provided su h employees.
and 1 agenuis present themselves at proper entry places t’o the
plant an shbw suitable identification.
- -X I-
This ecree is not arid shali.not be.interpr ted to
be.thè ermit for discharge of refuse matter required by
Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33U.S.C.
§407); nor shall it in any way affect the Company’s obligation
to secure a peri iit from the Corps of c.ginee s under that
Section, nor shall it be interpreted, in any way,to affect
or waive’ ny of the conditions or requirements that may be
imposed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers as
- •‘‘
conditions for the issuance of such a permit.
XI I
This Decree shall inno way relieve the Company
of its obligation to comply with any other local, State or
Federal law in anyway related to the substance of this
Decree.

-------
— 11 -
X II I
The provisions of para&raphs IV, V, VI and IX of this
Decree shall terminate on January 1, 1973, uiless prior to
that date (A) one of the parties, after giving ten days written
notice to the oth r party, petitions this Court to continue
in force such provisions anc establishes either that at -
that time the appropriate agency of the Federal Government
responsible for issuing discharge permits under the authority
of Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.
§407) or superseding statutdry authoiity is unable tb issue
such permits, or that such provisions of this Decree should
• e continued inforce for any other compelling reason, or
(B) the parties, with the approval of this Court, mutually
I -
consent to continue in force such provisions; any Court order
ontiuuing in force such provisions shall identify the duration
of the• continuance.
In the event the provisions of paragraphs IV, V and
VI of this Decree remain in force after January 1, 1973, the
Company, after that date and for the duration of the continuance,
shall, in place of the report ng requirements of paragraph IX
of this Decree, (1) take or cause to be taken, at least once
during each of three weeks out of eac1 month while the plant
is in full operation (including the washdown period), a
nine-sampl& composite of the discharge from each of the outfells
at the plant and analyze or cause’to be analyzed such samples
for concentration of total suspended solids and BOD; (2) take

-------
- 12 -
or cause to be taken, on at least one Uay each month at a
h lf-hour interval while the plant is in full operation (includ:i
the washdown period), two grab samples of the discharge from
each of the outfalls at the plant and analyze or cause to be
analyzed such samples for concentration of oil and grease and
for the coli orrn count per 100 ml.; and (3) monitor, by using
a permanently installed monitoring device, and record daily
the total volunie of the discharge floTá from the p.lant. At the
end of each month of such sampling, the Company shall send a
wx!itten répo t, signed by a professional engineer, to the
Ur ited States Mtorney for the District of Maine arid to the
Regional Administrator of Region I of the Environmental Pro ectic
Agency containing (a) the results of such analyses, (b) tltC
daily total discharge flow from the.plant and •(c) the total
number of birds processed per day. The definitions of a “nine-
sample composite” and “grab sample” are the same for this
paragraph as for paragraph IX.
XIV
This Decree and the jurisdiction of this Qourt ovc r
this matter shall terminate either four months from the time
the City of Belfast makes available to the Company a conn ctiori
to the municipal sewage tr atment system.prcsently üñder
construction (paragraph VII of this Decree) or when the
provisions of paragraphs IV, V and VI. of this Decree terminate
(on January 1, 1973 or, by Court order, on a subsequent date),
whichever is later.
XV .
Until this Decree termin tes pursuant to the
provisior s of paragraph XIV, jurisdiction is retained by th:is

-------
Court for the purpose of enabling any of the parties to this
e
final judgment to apply to this Court at any time for any
such further orders and direètions as may be. necessary or
appropriate.
DATED: Portland, Maine
1972
EDWARD T. GIGNOUX
United States District Judge
We hereby consent to the entry of the foregoing
final judgment.
THE UNITED STATES OF ANERICA, Plaintiff
KENT FRIZZ LL .BY: _____________________
Assistant Attorney General PETER MILLS
United States Attorney
WALTER KIECHEL, JR.
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General JOHN B. WLODKOWSKI
Assistant United States
W P TIN CREEN Attorne
chic.E, Pollution Control
Section
JMiES R. MOORE
Attorney
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
MAPLEWOOD 1 OULTRY COMPANY, Defendant
BY
ITS

-------
APPENDIX B
MONTHLY ANALYSIS FOR JULY AND AUGUST, 1972
AS SUBMITTED BY THE MAPLEWOOD POULTRY COZVIPANY

-------
.“ ‘ •. ‘
PQULTF Y COMPANY
% A D R;.I C OF
L V i pouLT: Y
;: • DCLFAS7. ‘ A!NE
Septez ’oer 19, 1972
.4- .
r. e e
.1. S. District Attorney
156 Federal Street
rort;lnnd , Maine
Dear iir:
In compliance with the dictates of our recently
signed Consent Decree, Civil #1892. we herewith s bi it
laboratory analyses of our waste water treatment aci1iy
performance for the month of August, 1972.
Very truly yours,
NAPLEWOOD POULTRY co •:p, :Y

Albert N. Edwards
Operator

-------
ecr. 9
‘ L “
.r ”T)’ 7 V ’
• e—
I LAINE
350—A Wood Lane
Veazie, Name 04401
September 19, 1972
hr. Peter 1i1is
U. S. fli trict Attorfley
156 Federal Street
Portland, Maine
Dear Sir:
I have reviewed the results of the tests submitted
herewith and supervised some o the sampling.
To the best of iiy knowledge, this report is true
and accurate.
Very truly yours,
TL Z T
\ jank1in E. Woodarcl, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Civil Engineering

-------
Nort/zeast Laboratory Services
P .O. BOX 262 WATZ 1VILLC, MAINE 04901
TLL. 73-34OS
CCLTJ0 TEST th’JLTIPLE TIJflE ? hC,D)
Ioat 1’rob b .o Io. Linit
. i o /iooZr.
I tct t /11/72 p” 24 OOO
E c t clurI2. / 1,400
flXOClIE1 1ICM. OX’1G D 1 D (5 d &yo t 20°C)
— Sc i . I if 0 9/5/72” V 160
H2 — Sa!x p..i f . 9/5/72” V 60
to lczborato y diff .:u1 yG %Z3 c -o i ot riblo to p vido dGt o Sc 1c t 5
La

-------
L
- 73- 400
72,600
t una
•..,a .Wrn_,.. _.NrrdTn.,
70.?00 ___
- ,—.s
72,64 ?
•
-r fl I—A .c. ‘—‘.Ct&.O&,........
6 ,400
67 600
—-----—-
—
-..—-. — —-—
ih1’
t3t cY) PCC s O
•L ) J
•1 i
•1 ————..
t 5 ‘±?3,038
Ncproce in :.
,Not Processing.
7- 721,217
65,400
Not ProcessinR
; i
75,1.00
823,803
L.. 2 9 L
I’! 676,488
719,898
Z3 698,080
—-—
636,097
- 2J)00
I L
/ ‘.Not Processing
t3.4 r
i ..,.
2 .
. t Pi ocessing .. .
2 - 6248 —- -
• 702,950 •
3 660 ,
_:az- -—-- -
70, 500

-------
COPY
MAPL WOOD POULTRY COMPANY BELFAST.333. 15 0
DEALERS AND RAISERS OF.
LIVE POULTRY
BELFAST. MAINE 04915
August 11, 1972
Nr. Peter Mills
U. S.. District Attorney
156 Federa]Y Street
Portland, Maine
Dear Sir:
f In compliance with the dictates of our recently
signed Consent Decree, Civil #1892, we herewith submit
laboratory analyses of our waste water treatment facility
performance Lox’ the month of July, 1972.
Very truly yours,
• S MAPLEWOOD POULTRY COMPANY
1 onald 15 J Pitch
Opetator

-------
Eiivh nnienta1 Engineering Services, Inc.
!. 0. BOX 192 ORONO, MAINE 04473
TELEPHONC 207 942.4902
OTIS j. sp ou • INVESTIGATIONS
URIGANKA M. GHOSH • PLANNING
MILI.ARD W. I4AU.. • DESIGN
FRANKLIN E. W000ARD August 22, 1972 • REPORTS
Regional Administrator of Region 1
Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts
Dear Sir:
I have supervised the taking of samples re orted on herein
and have supervised some of the analyses. To the best of my know-
ledge, the report is accurate.
The performance of the treatment plant is improving steadily.
Several in-plant changes are being made to help assure that the con-
ditions of the consent decree are met at all times..
E. Woodard, Ph.D.
FEW/old
Enclosures

-------
- - -- L
c i S
•
t

S
C,
..? _ S47

1 _ ç g E a_—.
___
l .

‘- ‘ I
Sc
J ,
•___.__- .L .#
a
±IV .
- - c s s€-

— -
.__j %QQ_
_7!J , 1Q_
7! • O
a.
t._a., ..eflr. b- —
• I.’) — - •— ‘c ”
I. C,
t 1 __

? t _____ ________ - -
? G - O ___
,vaaflssr”’ a
23 ___ E C 5
‘ ———-...•—
z4 LLL Q_ ----
Z ___
z _ _ — -
- iT --
. L.LU._ ---
- - -
3 —
? OC
t ) j C( SC )
• _i ’_ _ _ __’__• —.-—- •.‘
- ___
d7c
I;_

-------
— . t3c .”)
/
(. j ’ / s3 O
: - :;:;:;::‘ i::
. :J.
L ilI I____


- ._._ ___ - -
___ -—
-
- J .______.
i jl .2 _J i L_
I__ ic L L
• _ J J_____L
I’.’ / c p
t?
lJ
H ±_ .QJ?.._ I 1 -
“
:; . -tV r’,r,,
I
. co
I. CO
S
LL O O
___ :4 ,
._* - - -
—
I
I.
1 •
II. COO

-------
1 S.s.
(.‘ / ‘)
/ /& 1 I
is s.
i &?
&) ‘ LiJ )
.1 .
‘;“
—-
t 1 _ 1 I .
f
- — .. -
0
59o
ji c c .
.
-1- 0
i3c. O
— — - ‘ • _. _ .t . fl - - . .. OS -‘-


- —
•
• 1 __i Q - Q 2lVJ
%‘ lJ
1
1.
1t_ __
- - . bc i_
I\t ILlJ
• .; •
• __i L L
L T ( 1 c .t 4.
oo•
—-
— •—•—-———
— •
—————-—— --e___.-
—
——
-
, s
—
-—— *
zi 1

-
.-----
-
—
. J_ __
-
S
0 c 0
16O
_ 2’ -c-

-------
• P )
—-
• -. --— ..•-•.
gO
F
I

-------
,,vf
7J0 I
-
9o
/3 (
2 J
-
•
? % i I;?
7:5 5
So. .I- ’oI
c 000
__ 0
- -.-- -
T T

-------
. .,rLr T 1Ii1 t j Pcn 4
.9,c,t’r,j,_ ‘ R i: ‘ . eç 1:ô c Aui n n I;
—
--
.
——
—
.1
.
•


1
.
:


2 S mo.COm .T.r.
1 -

h/i)

640
C,
i .’Re :

i
I
—
.5,S.


.
O/t .


.-
-RC A t-

.
I —
i..6 /


.
-.———————-.-
.
“ ‘ ‘
—
.
—
.2L2
12 Samp.Comp.F4 160
Samp.Comp.Ir [ 1100
Sainp.Comp.Ef 80
.--
ess tnn
) S unp.Comp.E J0
. Sn! .GrabTn
p500
.9 O0
- --——

‘
.
— -
—
$______
--
.
‘—-
.

24000.
—
—___
.
• _ • __ J _ ’ S imp.Grab

_) mD.Co 11p. .±u
I
480
-100 ?9OO(
2400
. 5.. . I
u1ty refri”crntOr.

-------
‘ ‘ c?c V c ç Fô i _ ir 1; J(Y
: 15 It
1.6 ‘ •“ “ mr
.
T. t4 J(
‘60 9
— i3ôt) %i ’ ?,>, (Li:c /
13L0 (cI) 7/ ’)
—. — — — — — I
8 2 n n.Grn1 Tr.!
2 rnp.Cr b Ef r 1 - —-
9 2 S irnp.Comp.In 800 .
Samo.Co nD. 120 o T 1 ii
j Sarnp.Corno.Eiir 50 40
) SamP.Corn .4 80 1
.10? SaTnp.CocnD.T 960 .812 :1
10 SnrnD.C m . 4 180 -. —
i7 ’

1200 Poor results because o
ioo T faulty refrige tor.
I_______________________
IIIIII [
•.
—
.
11 ’
“ “ 520
.
.
.
1 1
4tt
.1kg”
14
4
15
“ “ “ 1 0
It It
“ EN 1
2 Sarnp Grab
tt it E 4
2S mp.Con1p.Irk. 1 20
•
i40.89
I

L
r.
j

•..
i__
j__240O0
2400
.
.
- -
.
£
,-
880
120 ..86 5(I
I

-------
/ )C,L.’f ’ • ç ç flu u s 1 YP
JR-c
L972
5 P/? P&I
o
—
------a- —
C, .,
I” K ’i’1
13 c ()
i:s,s. R A E
(. / 7) 7T5 s:.
1
/ O 7 (
. 16
16
2 Samp.Grab Ir e
E 1
-— —.
—
- -
24000
-
.
18
‘. 21
21
S D. Om1D . ,f ______
2 Sarno.GrabI4 .
Eff
10 - 50
•.i______
.
-
.
ooo ..
2400 . . -
-
. :.

.
. 22
. -
-
2Sa np.Cornp.In ’ 480
-
Eff 120
7500
— .
-

- —
.
---__
-
-- —
. 23
2 Samp.GrabTr

.
11000
15
. —. --
••
. 242
9 Samp. omp.E 40
2 SPmo.Co p. (___
Ef.4 40 9523
S3mp.Gornp.Ir: f 760
80 P947
100
-
..•
1
-

50
.
.-
..

.
- -
- .
n.,. L
.2t,
2Sarnp.Cosnp.IrQ
.
. 60
--
95OO
-.
--
-
.
.
-
•
.
28
2S mp. Coirip .
_____ Ef 4
920
100
1 ,
T’ t r 1 j 1 f’c; :

-------
LI
I.
‘ f2c ç ç - 1 - ____
.T ‘ I ftti i j Ci A 4.
- —- ———-—-.-——- ——-—. ..————.
- i3o’)
(/0
.29 SanmGrabIrf
— Eff
• 0 S i Gr h Tn _______
-
—
% ‘
13c0
-—
T ss
(, ./ 9
a—

— ——
/ )
c -,--- -————, . . . .-.-
.
..
-.

24000
------ .- -- -.
- - -
• - Ef j
-
.29 Sario Corm 80
Ef± lLL0
)
•84O
:
- -•- -—.-- — -
—— —
2400 - -•. -. I ..
— -
—
r_______________________
—
:. 0
:. 31
S mn.Cornn,FfC -
Samn.Ccrn.Tnf’j, -
:
-
— . •_____
-
.
-.- • •••
E fl Test
5 & 5\ No
Pcsults
3eeinc
osed 1 tter.
-
—
—
— —-.
.
— - --—
-
-
—
C
— --.
1 1
. -C
[
—
—
-
-
-
--
J__
-
-. •
—
--
-
-
•
—
- .
—
. -.
-.
r

-------
APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHS

-------
r
a.,.

:T: : ± J TL : 2
>
:— • :.
—.-- ,—
—
- .Y-
L - - .. -‘
-. -.
-. V
) -
4

- - -—• ----—
.
‘4’ . .
i
F
•‘:
U’
..-- —‘
j
I
PROCESSING WASTE
PRIOR TO SCREENING
INFLUENT TO THE PRIMARY 40
MESH SCREEN
WET WELL UNDER THE PRIMARY
40 MESH SCREEN
• -- —. - - — - -
/4,
k.
\ ._1•

-------
r •-——
SECONDARY 40 MESH SCREEN
1/
ii
i’ /
‘I
./
I.
DEFEATHERING SCREEN
WASTE WATER AFTER PASSING
THROUGH. DEFEATEERING SCREEN
, F
II I
, _p.
,4
I
‘ I
‘I
•1 4
$1 i
1:

- f
— — -.- — — -
I
F.

-------
STATION MPOI, INFLUENT TO
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT AT
COLLECTION MAN1 OLE
WET
WELL
—
—-.
1
F:
—
U ‘
OVERFLOW
T
1. ,je /
.i.: / ‘ : /
/ :// IF / f 1’
I 4,I
J/ 4 / , . ;/ / F, ,,,
/ j.F F •/, / ,; F:
; / , 1; / / ‘ 1/ I /
/ / .4 /
I
F’ 7
- ,,c’ . /
_ ,, !
.1
1
‘ J ! f
... ‘* _a*d
V
L
t
I.
WET WELL SHOWING EMERGENCY
fl-F

-------
r - -—----- — -—
1
4 ’
, i
‘4’.
: :
c L
L4
• :
v ‘ -‘ ‘ - -
.
J
3
I . 1$ I
-•
I
1
t
DRY WELL
it
I
1 ,
4,
L ¼
,
- r .
41 4 ’ ,f
4 .
4, f ’ .‘
4.
__ a
CHEMICAL FEED tThUTS
CONTROL PANEL AND
LABORATORY AREA

-------
•1
T
II
/
/
— - . — --
\
- -
ç ..
I t A. —
7/
SLUDGE REMOVAL UNIT ON TOP
OF FLOTATION TANK
1_
.
1
., \ ,
, -(,:
— L 1
-a ‘— __l_I.- ’ - - - - . — -
—- ‘w: ” • b -
---V
a
-I
4-
c
4
SLUDGE BY-PASS PIThIPS
SLUDGE DEWATERING AND
STORAGE TANK
$
4

-------
Remaining photographs will be forwarded by December 8, 1972.

-------