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

-------