Libraz7 - t.PA Sur iei. ce & tiviSlOn Poultry Processinc Co any, Waste Treat ncnt Plant arcli 13, 1973 Efficiency Study, epteriber 14, 1973 lAS Thomas V • Bovine, Ciief Technical Operations Section Cnclosed are three copies of the report on the Waste Treatment Plant Efficiency Study for the Poultry Proces8ing Company, Belfast, atne, conducted on 5cptet er 14, 1972 (two for your use and one for tae State of lame). As atated in the report, the Poultry Procescing Company is still in violation of their state discharge license, however the quality of the effluv nt iia v’.ade a marked improvement since 1911. Appendix B of this report is a copy of a ne oraitdwa which was sent to you on September 19, 1972. Included in this c enoranduin was a description of a sludge disposal lagoon systen, which was being utilized by the Poultry Processing Company. The 1agoo s do not present a water pollution problem, however, discussions with local residents revealed that the lagoons present an aesthetic problem. Therefore, pending the issue of a discharge permit, I recot aend that the company be contacted about their sludge disposal program. If at this ti c the lagoons havt not been backfiUed, the conpany should be advised to do so i iediacely. 1yron 0. Knudson, Chief Surveillance Branch Enclosures cc: E. V. Fitzpatrick RA/kmb/3/13/73 ------- WASTE TREATMENT PLANT EFFICIENCY STUDY POULTRY PROCESSING COMPANY BELFAST, MAINE SEPTEMBER 14, 1972 ------- WASTE TREATMENT PLANT EFFICIENCY STUDY POULTRY PROCESSING COMPANY, BELFAST, MAINE, SEPTEMBER 14, 1972 At the request of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region I (EPA), Enforcement Division, the Surveillance and Analysis Divi- sion (S/A) evaluated the Poultry Processing Company’s waste treatment plant and the quality of its effluent. Poultry Processing Company, dba Penobscot Poultry Company, is a poultry packing plant located in Belfast, Maine. The case against the company was closed by the U. S. Attorney on April 18, 1972, with the understanding that it could be reactivated if the constructed treatment plant produces an unsatisfactory effluent. During a reconnaissance survey on August 17, 1972, Mr. Bruce Chandler treatment plant operator, conducted EPA personnel on a tour of the treat- ment plant and Mr. Herbert Hutchins, general manager of the Poultry Processing Company, granted permission to collect samples on September 14, 1972. The liquid process waste from the poultry processing 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, which started operation during the spring of 1971. The company’s sanitary waste presently goes directly to Belfast Bay. On August 11, 1972, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection traced an unlicensed sanitary sewer to the Poultry Processing Company’s plant. Mr. Hutchins was notified of the situation and ordered to connect to a municipal sewer immediately. As of September 14, 1972, this ------- this discharge had not been connected to a municipal sewer system. See Appendix A for a copy of this notification. Processing Plant The Poultry Processing Company processes and packages 70,000 to 100,000 birds per day into various types of poultry and poultry meat products. Figure 1 shows a rchematic diagram of the processing plant. The live birds are received in wooden crates, removed by hand, and hung by the feet on two parallel conveyor lines. The birds are then transported to the first stage of processing where they are killed, bled, scalded, and defeathered in the New York room. A USDA minimum overflow rate of one quart per bird per day from 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 New York room to the screen room where a rotary screen removes the feathers. During evisceration, the next step of the process, the removed offal and viscera creates about one—third of the pollutional loading of the total process. The evii ceration znste is carried by water down a 100 foot long flume to a second rotary screen. While in the flume, the water picks up large quantities of blood, grease, solids, and soluble materials. Following evisceration, the birds are washed and chilled in a cold water bath, which has a USDA minimum overflow rate of two quarts per bird per day. 2 ------- ‘ KILLING ‘I ! BLEEDING SCALDING ‘ EVISCERATION WA.S H WASTE TO TREATMENT PLANT SCREENS PROCESS FIGURE FLOW V WASTE DI AGRAM TO TREATMENT PLANT RECEIVING DEFEAT HER — ‘U { -, V WASH • 1’ WATER SUPPLY STORAGE J IR NDERING I I I PLANTJ CHILLING ‘I’ PACI< INC A WASH DO V/N ICE MACHINE ------- At this point 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. The resulting waste water follows the same flow paths as the waste from the killing process. On September 14, ].972, the killiiig process started at 0700 hours and ended at 1600 hours. Of the 74,600 birds processed, 45,000 were broilers (birds grown eight to nine weeks and having a live weight of approximately 3.5 pounds), 21,000 were roasters (slightly older birds than broilers and over four pounds), 4,000 were fowl (old egg—laying birds, generally over three years old), and 4,600 were capons (castrated roosters). The washdown operation started at 1600 hours and continued until 0500 hours on September 15, 1972. Waste Treatment Plant Poultry Processing Company’s waste treatment plant is a flotation treatment system. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the treatment process. As the evisceration waste enters the treatment plant, it passes through a 40—mesh rotary screen wh.ich removes offal, viscera and reject birds. A separate line carries the defeathering waste to a second rotary screen which removes the feathers. (See Appendix D for photographs of the screens). The screened solids and feathers are sent to the adjacent room where they are rendered into chicken feed. 3 ------- z- r ‘. : , ‘. r— ’ i ; -% S AT U AT ION V V lnfl, - . I I SLUCGZ TENTION V ;V .I - . j F ’V — — C — - -— __VV -. -— I .— I V -. ;; i • ‘ \ r I c FLOT ATION U N T TA N K ‘. .,: 1’ COMF NY I I — ------- Liquid wastes leaving the screen room combine in a fifty—foot long covered rectangular channel. Approximately half-way down the channel, alum and the polymer Cyanimid 836A are added. Alum and Cyanimid 836A are flocculants used to aid in the flotation of solids. An aluminum lad- der, which acts as a baffle, has been placed inside the channel to insure proper mixing of the chemicals. From the rectangular channel, the waste enters a wet well which collects the waste 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. Upon entering the flotation unit, the waste is retained in a center tank for approximately one and one—half minutes where flocculation occurs. Re- cycled clarified waste water (2O of the effluent from the flotation unit), saturated with air, is mixed with the flocculated waste water as it enters the bottom of the flotation unit. The waste and recycled water are detained for approximately twenty minutes. The float formed in the outer portion of the flotation tank is allowed to accumulate to approxi- mately six inches before it is periodically removed by a rotating scraper. As of September 14, 1972, this sludge was pumped to a tank truck and shipped to a land disposal site which is described in Appendix B. Follow- ing the flotation unit is a chlorine contact chamber which provides a contact time of approximately one hour. The flotation tank and the chlorine contact chamber are cleaned manually every two weeks if needed. Exiting the contact chamber, the waste passes over a standard contracted rectangular weir and discharges through an old municipal sewer line and submerged outfall to Belfast Bay. 4 ------- Sampling Information On September 14, 1972, EPA personnel sampled the Poultry Processing Company’s waste treatment plant. The Maplewood Poultry Company has a similar plant also located in Belfast, Haine. The Maplewood facility was sampled on September 13, 19721, for compliance with a consent decree between the Maplewood Poultry Company and the U. S. Government. In order to compare the two similar facilities, to be published in a separate report, sample collection and analysis was done In accordance with the Maplewood Poultry Company consent decree. Five—day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids and total coliform bacteria were determined by Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water , Thirteenth Edition. Total oil and grease was deter— mdthed by EPA Methods for Chemical Analyses of Water and Waste 1971 . On September 14, 1972, two four—hour composite samples of the treatment plant effluent were collected at the rectangular weir (PPOE). The’first four—hour composite period represents the period from 0845 hours to 1245 hours and is typical of wastes during the killing process. Samples were collected every half hour starting at 0900 hours and ending at 1230 hours. The second four—hour composite period represents the period from 1745 hours to 2145 hours and is typical. of w istes during the cleanup process. Samples were collected every half hour starting at 1800 hours and ending at 2130 hours. The composite samples consisted of eight grab samples collected at one—half hour intervals. These grab samples were placed in 3,000 milliliter glass jars with aluminum foil, under the oover, tagged and iced inmtediately. At the end of each sampling period, the grab samples were composited 5 ------- proportional to flow into a five—gallon glass container. The final ooinposite samples were analyzed for BOD 5 , total suspended solids, and oil and grease, and used to represent the total daily loading. BOD 5 reduction through the treatment plant was determined by collecting a grab sample at the influent to the treatment plant (PPOI) and one hour later collecting a grub sar ple at the effluent (PPOE). This wag done four times during both sampling periods. The B aD 5 concentration of the effluent was measured by grab samples taken at the effluent at one- hour intervals. At one—half hour intervals during both sampling periods, eight grab samples were collected at the effluent rectangular weir (PPOE) and analyzed to indicate the suspended solids concentration of the effluent. At one—half hour intervals during both sampling periods, give grab samples were collected at the effluent rectangular weir (PPOE) and analyzed to indicate the oil and grease concentration of the effluent. At one—half hour intervals durln both sampling periods, five grab samples were collected at the effluent rectangular weir (PPOE) and analyzed to indicate the coliform bactcria deri i.ty of the effluent. The chlorine residual in the effluent was measured with a chlorine comparator at one—half hour iniervals during both sampling periods. All samples at the treatment plant influent (PPOI) were collected using a galvanized steel bucket. The t,’.icket was thoroughly rinsed with the waste before use. Samples were transferred from the bucket to plastic bottles. All samples collected at the treatment pi.ant effluent (PPOE) were collected by hand dipping the appropriate sample container directly into the waste as it passed over the rectangular weir. 6 ------- Following collection, EPA personnel transported the samples to the field laboratory and to the S/A laboratory for the appropriate analyses. EPA Region I chain—of—custody procedures were maintained at all times to insure the integrity of the wrnples. Results The results from the labotalory arLalyses can be found in Table i. Table 2 compares the results from the July 27, 1971 survey 2 , the state license requirements (See Appendix C f or a copy of the State of Maine license), and the evaluated results of Table 1. Since the continuous flow recorder was not operating properly on the sampling date, the head on the weir was measured each time a sample was collected. From the head readings, the calculated flow rates were averaged over the two separate four—hour composite periods. The average flow rates were 700 gpm during the kill period and 393 gpm during the cleanup period. On September 14, 1.972, a total discharge of approximately 0.68 MGD occurred. A comparison of sampling results from the 1971 survey and the 1972 survey shows a significant decrease in oil and grease, total suspended solids and total coliform bacteria. During the killing process, total sus- pended solids concentration dc?crenced 93.8% (from 546 mg/i to 33.9 mg/i). During this same period, oil 3nd grease concentrations decreased 89.8% (from 386 mg/i to 38.9 mg/i). Iuring the cleanup period, total suspended solids concentrations sho .ied a s].IF,)it .Linproveiiient and oil and grease con- centrations remained fairly consiE;tent. The total suspended solids and oil and grease total daily loadings have been decreased by approximately 66% and 7 ------- 55%, respectively. The total coliform bacteria has been decreased from a daily average of approximately ]..5 million in 1971 to 773 per 100 ml of sample in 1972, with the chlorine residual remaining fai±ly consistent. During both sampling surveys, the chlorine residual varied from 0.1 mg/l to 2.0 and 2.5 mg/i, with high coliform bacteria densities occurring simultaneously with low chlorine, residuals. During the 1972 sampling, the coliform bacteria density remained at an acceptable level when the chlorine residual was maintained in the range of 1.5 mg/i or greater. Since all BOD 5 analyses at Station PPOE are N values (presumptive evidence of presence of material) due to technical sampling difficulties, no comparison can be made. These improvements in the effluent waste characteristics could be attributed to two changes within the treatment process. Asseries of baffles have been installed in the chlorine contact chamber to drnsure proper mixing and subsequently reduced the colif arm bacteria density of effluent. However, during the 1972 sampling, 60% of the coliform analyses exceeded 100 per 100 ml of sample. The second change included the con- version of the flocculent soda ash to a polymer (Cyanimid 836A) . Summary and Conclusions As was the case in 197], the Pou]try Processing Company waste treatment plant effluent violates the State of Name “Waste Discharge License t ’, issued on February 28, 1969. However, the quality of the effluent from the treatment pJ. tnt: h s shown a marked improvement since the July 27, 1971 sampling. Total suspended solids and oil and grease total daily loadings have been decreased by approximately 667. and 55% respectively. 8 ------- The total coliform bacteria has been decreased from a daily average of approximately 1.5 million in 1971 to 773 per 100 ml of sample in 1972. As discussed in the “Results” section of this report, other component concentrations have significantly decreased. ¶1 ------- SAMPLE ANALYSES ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS OF MEASURE Analyses Reported Description Measured In Temperature Sample temperature Degrees centrigrade (°C) BOD 5—day 5—day biochemical oxygen Milligrams per/liter demand, incubated at 20°C (mg/i) Total coliforms Total coliform bacteria Per 100 milliliters density Feca]. coliforms Fecal coliform bacteria Per 100 miiiiliterB density 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. L — Actual value is known to be greater than value given. N — Presumptive evidence of presence of material. R — Sample lost. ------- TaV ” T 1 ANALYT tL DATA POULTRY PROCESSING COMPANY, BELFAST, MAINE, SEPTEMBER 14, 1972 0900 0930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 36034 36035 36037 36038 36040 36041 36043 36044 36045 Coliform Bacteria Total Fecal 47.6 45.6 35.3 34.6 25.3 20.7 27.5 24.4 N Chlorine Residual (mg/i) R R R R R R R R N *Cornp 55.7 50.9 49.5 46.7 46.7 36032 N 4,900 350 420 820 670 33.9 110 k5 5 10 30 R 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.25 0.1 N 1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 2100 2130 2200 36047 36048 36050 36051 36053 36054 36056 36057 36058 38.9 Station No. Time Lab. Code (hrs.) No. Temp (°C) Residue (mg/i) BOD (mg/i) Oil & Grease (mg/i) Total Fixed Nf it. Nf it. PPOE 20.3 19.8 20.0 19.5 19.7 19.8 20.0 20.0 20.5 — — — — — N — PPOE 20.0 21.2 22.5 21.5 21.5 21.0 21.0 21.0 R R R R R R R 59.3 — — — — — — PPOI 20.5 23.5 20.0 20.0 — — — — — — — — PPOI 23.5 20.5 21.0 21.0 — — — — — — — — *Composite of samples taken every half hour between the hours of 0900 and 1300 on 9/14/72. 25.2 57.0 96.0 77.8 67.4 54.0 40.2 105.3 N **Comp N 36059 51.9 48.3 39.1 45.3 37.0 N 0900 1000 1100 1200 20 530 klO 10 10 51.4 36033 36036 36039 36042 N k5 10 k5 ki0 klO R N 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.25 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 39.3 1800 1900 2000 2100 — 900 — 2250 — 480 — 230 36046 36049 36052 36055 — 1750 — 1000 — 420 — N **Composjte of samples taken every half hour between the hours of 1800 and 2200 on 9/14/72. ------- LE 2 COMPARISON OF 1971 and 1972 SAMPLING AND EIC LICENSE LIMITATIONS POULTRY PROCESSING COMPANY, BELFAST, MAINE, SEPTEMBER 14, 1972 Poultry Processing Co. Poultry Processing Co. State of Maine PARAMETERS Discharge Characteristics Discharge Characteristics License 9/14/72 7/27 to 7/28/71 Limitations Max. Mm. Avge. Max. Mm. Avge. See Appendix C I. Total Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/i) 86.9 23.0 48.8 546 118 333 No Limitation Total Daily Loading 238.4 L711 No Limitation (pounds/day) II. Floatable and Settleabie None solids III. Oil and Grease Concentration (mg/i) 53.3 41.1 46.9 386 19.2 148.7 None Total Daily Loading (pounds/day) 222 488 None IV. Total Coliform Bacteria Density (total coliform/ 100 ml of sample) 4900 K1O 773 L2,000,000 200 J1,500,000 100.0 V. Discoloration of receiving waters None None VI. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand - Total Daily Loading (pounds/day) Data not available 816 500 Hourly Loading Rate “ “ 600 (Pounds/day) ------- TABLE NO. 3 STATION LOCATION POULTRY PROCESSING COMPANY, BELFAST, MAINE STATION DESCRIPTION PPOI Influent to the Poultry Processing Company waste treatment plant, prior to chemical feed. PPOE Effluent from Poultry Processing Company waste treatment plant, at the rectangular weir. ------- • • I. / / I 1 ’ I PROC ESS G BELFAST COMPANY rr ATM Z NT PLANT / / PRO CESS NG PLT PPOI I I 1 / / / / / / / / / / / I SALT WATER PUMP HOUSE - - • FtGURE 3 STAIION POULTRY LOCAT QN ------- REFERENCES U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Studies Section’s report on: 1.) “Waste Treatment Piant Efficiency Study, Maplewood Poultry Company,” September 13, 1972. 2.) “Industrial Waste Survey, Poultry Processing Company, Water Pollution Control Facility,” July 27, 1971. ------- APPENDIX A Notification of Unlicensed discharge of Untreated Sanitary Waste ------- STAlE OF MAINE DEPART ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUGUSTA, MA1N 04330 August 14, 1972 Mr. Herbert Hutchings, General Manager Poultry Processing, Inc. Belfast, Maine Dear Mr. Hutchings: Subject: Sanitary Waste Thank you for the cooperation you and your plant manager displayed during our dye tests on August 11th. - Naturally, we did not pour dye into every toilet in the city. The accessible houses, however, in the vicinity of Poultry Processing toge- ther with the potato plant and the wood working plant were checked out. All appears to go into the municipal system. The only dye appearing in the sewer outlet in question is that which was poured into the men s toilets at Poultry Processing (red dye), and blue dye which was poured into the toilet of your office building, across the street from your plant, by your plant manager. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that there is reason to believe that you have an un1icens d discharge of untreated sanitary waste which is in direct violation of Title 38 of the Maine Revised Statutes. We feel that this discharge should and can be connected to the municipal system at once and expect a signed statement from the City when conn- ection is made. This Department will have to certify pursuant to Section 21 (b) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, your treated industrial discharge in connection with your application for a Discharge Permit from the Corps of Engineers. On a State level, we have to consider all discharges from your facility even though sanitary waste is excluded from the Refuse Act. It will be impossible for us to approve of your request for certification when an unlicensed discharge is taking place and State law is being violated. The same consideration applies to the present untreated discharge from your rendering operation, which I understand will be connected into your waste treatment plant in the near future. ------- 1r. Herbert Hutchings We suggest that arrangements be started immediately to connect your sanitary discharge into the municipal system and at the same time allev- iating your present discharge from the rendering operation. If you have any questions about this, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, K. .Lennart Rost, P.E. Chief,. Division of Industrial Services Bureau of Water Quality Control KLR:sib cc: :tlr. William Lunt, City Manager, Belfast • Division of Enforcement and Licensing ------- APPENDIX B Report on land dump site for float formed on flotation unit. ------- Allyn 1!emenvay, Attorney September 19, 1972 Legal Review Section David 11. Stonefield, Chief Technical Studies Section Poultry Processing Company’s T)ui p Site (drying lagoons), Belfast, Maine During a conversation uilh obcrt ‘ioun , o mcr of Young’s Lobstcr Pound, located in i3eltast, Haitc, Mr. Young commented on a dump site that Poultry Proccsaing Company was using to dispose of waste material from thc r procc sing plant. This dump 1 site is used for disposal of sludge from the flotation unit of the Poultry Processing Co;dpany waste treatment. During certain times of the year, this clump site gives off a tremendous amount of ordor. 1 any of the local residents have conplaincd about thin situation and according to Hr. Young, nothing has been done. During a reconnaissance survey of the Poultry Processing Company on August 17, 1972, Hr. Bruce Chandler, Treatment Plant Operator, indicated that the sludge fro i their flotation unit was sent to the rendering room at the Poultry Processing Plant. Hr. Herbert Hutchins, Prcrrident of Poultry l’roccssing Company, was contacted for per iission to observe this dump site. Hr. hutchins was out of town, therefore, Mr. 1 o i handled the request. Hr. Koshi refused to allow EPA pcr .onnel to enter the property. At this time, hr. Wlodko rski, A ;i:;ta it U. 8. Attorney in Portland, Name, was contacted. Hr. 1lodLowsk . coiitrctcd Hr. Hutchins and permission to observe the dump site was grantad. On September 15, 1972, 1 ob tt AL ;OOd, Sanitary Engineer, accompanied by Hr. Koski, visited the dunp nLt . The du ftp site is locatcd on Poors Hill Road in the to :rx of i ci Cdst. aine. The. rlui ’p site con- sists of about eight s1 idgc dryirii. 1a rmn: (c1 out 200 cquare feet per hole). The fill fron the c ]; oorr hns licun p1 iccd around each lagoon. Sludge froii the i;te tVeatThCL t p1.z nt mid at times, egg nd parts of W1 tC chlicL n:; .. [ C piaccri in these lagoons. There were no s1pn. of run—off or l acha :r f o:n thu lngooi . The closest flotiing water t,as located bouL 1/2 nile away. Although no 1iqu d waste in flowing diructly •lnto thU s(:ream, during a heavy rain it is inevitable that some run—off fror tiiL area will reach the stream. ------- According Co Mr. Ko hi, the du.ip site approved by the EIC, Statc of ! aine, prior to use, :hichi started appro cinrnte1y 1 1/2 years ago. The Poultry Processing Company 1; in the proce’ of building an di!it]on to their rcnderin roon. Thii ; aidition will handle the wasie iiatcrial hich is currcntl.y ‘ i n placcd in these drying lagoons. According to Mr. Ko i i, this addition will start operation during the wcek of Septc ber 18, 1972. On September 19, 1972, Jlii (‘ray of the FtC, Statc of Maine, zas contacted about this dunt ) ;ite. According to Jim crey, the EIC has flO jurisdiction in this Cfl i2. The dump site is on private property and does not affect a body of iater. For this same reason, the EtC has not issued a permit for the drying lagoons. Jim Cray indicated that the only u y thc t Poultry Processing could be forced to back fill the lagoons, is if a complaint was filed, stating that these lagoons are a public nuisance. 1e recommend that Poultry Proccscing Company convcrt this dump to an adequate sanitary landfill operation. If upon our request they are not willing to do so then appropriate enforcement action should be initiated, possibly under public nuisance framework as is being used as part of the Sau! us Dunp case. Photographs will be foruarded uhen available. - 1 ) cc: Earl Andcrsor 1 Thomas Devinc RAtwood/jrnk 9/20/72 ------- APPENDIX C State of Maine Waste Discharge License ------- STATC OF MAINE WATER AND AIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AUQU6TA. I.IAINC 04330 WASTE DISC1 [ M GE LICENSE POULTRY PROCESSING. IICOIU’OflATEJ) ia hereby granted a licensa (fla a of Percon, Corp., }iu icipa1ity, etc.) fron the State of Maine, Water and Air Eovironn enta1 Improvement Cotission, as provided by Title 38, thapter 3, Section 414, Revised Statutes of 1964, as amended, to discharge to the PENOBSCOT BAY at BELFAST, MAINE the fo11o ing WASTE FROM A POULTRY TRBATl•T. 1T PLLNT , of the quantity’ and characteristics and aub cct to con— ditiona designated below: a. That the waste discharge will not exceed 800,000 gallons per day at a maximum rate of 2.0 million a11ous per day. b The i—day, b .o neraieai o:ty on de iand is limitod to 230O per day from the data of this lice e until secondary traattneut is provided as specified in this Lic flGfl. c. No flodtablo or sottloablo ;olid is to be diocharged. d. No material, ifl any way to:1c i to bQ diceharged. e. Co1iforu count of the effluorit m t not c cced 100 M.P.N. per l.OO c or an equivalent don ity. f. Virtually al]. greace I c to be removctd prior to discharge and blood can be d sc1iargod otly ir tho c ; i ic; that do not cause notice- able discoloration in the rccctivlng water. g. Not later than June 30, 1970, cecondary treatment facilities riust be under construction to be in oprcration not ).cter thcu January 1, 1971. h. Following the putting into crvicc or tha zecondary phase of mcnt, the 5—day, biochemical oxjccn de ar.d load Ia limited to 500 pounds and the ma:cimu1 pe co b1o rate of D.O.D. discharge for any rb0% 1Y period shall, be 600 pour d3 par day. ------- —2— TE DISC1A GE LICE:IsE CON’T POULT Y PF.CcE SING, INCOI PORATED i. mc prohibition aGainst the dicchar a of floatable colidz, settle— able solids, grease, and blood uill be in effect folloi.zing cocoad ry treatii cnt. Also follo Jiri cccozida y trcat cnt the iet color and turbidity of mz tcrial dizchar ,cd UJ.11 be such that no noticeable dLs— coloration of the rcccivin watc occurs. j. 1easuring devicc3 u’nich iil1 parrn : ready detcr .Lnat1on at the rate of flog of the .-a te follcw rig crc tr c c and withdrawal of cacples .cro to be provided. k. All piano of installations ore to be aub itted to the Coission for approval cll in advance of start of construction. 1. This license does notin any way prcvcnt the conci ncnt of this aato to a nunicipal trentixicat plant prov-.Ldod the decree of trcat sat availai,lo is ai aular to that required by this license. This is not a ncw license. This license was criginally crroneou.sly issued to P nob cot Poultry Conpany instead of the proper legal o .inor -L oultry Proceasin , corporated. GIVEN UNDER OUR HAND AND S .AL 7IIIS 28th D/iX OF Februar — , 1969 . INITLAL LI .NSE X RENEWAL — By; /( t ’t - (Secrc t:irv ) WE & AI ’E VIao } NTAL I ROVENE T -COI ISSICN / • ‘“ ,: ------- APPENDIX 0 Photographs ------- I - : - hi i : ; ,f• 1 ,Ipf’ I’ _____ --- -____ EVISCE TIQN WASTE SC EN c - I , - I WASTECOLLECTION LIT: UNDER THE EVISCER TIC fl I ------- • F. ______ ENT CE TO TREA 1E T : TT WASTE ENTERING WET V1L L •: •— I 3LLECTION MANHOLE PRIOR TO T A?: :cT PL cT ) -. — • - _ w • 1 --- — - -.-—- . - - , .• -•, 1 “ ‘ - — - — •-- -- —•-- •—- -• - e ------- I I CHEMICAL FEi D ‘J ITS I - S c• . DRY WELL 1• I RECYCLE SATURATICY T. YY. ------- -- - r— . ,—, .. —-.. —.. -- —, 4 4 SLUDGE REMQV UNIT ON TOP OF FLOT TIC ; : ::K -- f EFFLUENT FROM rLOT :: La;:: ------- CHLORINE CONTA: CN L : _ ‘1 UNLICEYSED S 2I: I I SEI R DIsc: J — 1. EFFLUENT CT GUL WE: (SA LIXC ST TIQN ?2GE) / Th ------- |