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. ------- |