ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES Water Supply and Pollution Control U. S, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE ------- DUCK-PROCESSING WASTE Grover L. Morris Water Supply and Waste Treatment Unit Technical Advisory and Investigations Section Technical Services Branch Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control Cincinnati, Ohio ------- The ENVIRONMENT AL HEALTH SERIES of reports was estab- lished to report the results of scientific and engineering studies of man's environment: The community, whether urban, suburban, or rural, where he lives, works, and plays; the air, water, and earth he uses and reuses; and the wastes he produces and must dispose of in a way that preserves these natural resources. This SERIES of reports provides for professional users a central source of information on the intramural research activities of Divisions and Centers within the Public Health Service, and on their cooperative activities with State and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations . The general subject area of each report is indicated by the two letters that appear in the publication number; the indicators are WP - Water Supply and Pollution Control AP - Air Pollution AH - Arctic Health EE - Environmental Engineering FP - Food Protection OH - Occupational Health RH - Rad iological Health Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are provided with reports in the SERIES to facilitate information retrieval. Space is provided on the cards for the user's accession number and key words. Reports in the SERIES will be distributed to requesters, as supplies permit. Requests should be directed to the Division identi- fied on the title page or to the Publications Office, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. ------- CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT v INTRODUCTION 1 SURVEY PROCEDURES 1 DESCRIPTION OF PLANTS 2 PRESENTATION OF DATA 3 DISCUSSION 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT H REFERENCES 13 ------- ABSTRACT Two duck-processing plants located on Long Island were studied to obtain waste load and water use data for comparison with chicken processing data. Weighted averages for both plants studied indicate water use of 23. 6 gallons and waste loads of 0. 0419 pound BOD and 0. 0289 pound of suspended solids per duck processed. Similar values for chicken pro- cessing are 8 gallons of water, 0. 025 pound of BOD, and 0. 013 pound of suspended solids per bird. Comparisons between duck and chicken processing on the basis of 1, 000 pounds of live birds indicate water usage is 3, 600 gallons for ducks and 2, 30Q gallons for chickens; BOD values are 6.4 pounds for ducks and 7. 18 pounds for chickens; and suspended solids values are 28, 9 pounds for ducks and 13 pounds for chickens. Waste water coli- form values were 56,800 per 100 milliliter in plant A and 49,200 per 100 milliliter in plant B. ------- DUCK-PROCESSING WASTE INTRODUCTION The center of duck production activity has historically been located on Long Island where the sandy shores, salt-water coves, and estuaries together with a supply of uncontaminated ground water have, in the past, been abundantly available. Long Island produces 60 to 70 percent of the total ducks processed for market under Federal inspection. * In recent years and particularly since World War II, the influx of people to Long Island has rapidly increased. The development of new areas and the expansion of established areas for houses, busi- nesses, industry, recreational and resort activities, and governmental installations have resulted in increased pressure for water pollution control and in competition for available fresh water. The duck indus- try is also competing for unpolluted water supply and recognizes the increasing importance of water conservation to delay the possible depletion of existing supplies or contamination of these supplies by intrusion of salt water or other materials. Much has been written about the pollution control problems of duck farms, ^ but little information is available pertaining to water use and waste loads associated with duck-processing plants. Recognizing this need for information, the Agricultural Market- ing Service, Poultry Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Public Health Service, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, have cooperated in field studies to secure data from two Long Island processing plants for evaluation. These studies form the basis for this report. Objectives of the study were (1) to measure and evaluate duck- processing plant waste loads and (2) to observe plant operations for possible reduction in total water use by redistribution or by reuse of certain waters presently discharged to waste after one use, or by a combination of redistribution and reuse. SURVEY PROCEDURES Two processing plants, designated A and B, were studied. Weirs and water-level recorders were installed on plant-waste discharge lines for measurement of flow on the days when chemical and bacteriological samples were collected. The chemical samples were collected at 30-minute intervals during the processing and cleanup periods in the plant. Incremental samples were composited to provide one daily sample from each waste source. Bacteriological samples were collected twice each day, at midmorning and midafternoon. ------- Composite samples were examined in the laboratory for bio- chemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), volatile sus- pended solids (VSS), grease, hydrogen ion concentration (pH), ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen, total phosphate, and total coliform by the membrane filter technique (MF). The analyses were performed in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 11th edition, I960. Analytical work was performed by PHS personnel at the Duck Research Laboratory, Eastport, L.I. Supporting field personnel were furnished by both the Agricultural Marketing Service and Public Health Service. DESCRIPTION OF PLANTS Plant A Plant A is a two-line plant designed for processing 1, 200 ducks per line per hour. Ducks are hauled from the farms each morning in semitrailers equipped with two decks and compartmented by use of adjustable and removable partitions located on each deck. At the plant, ducks are unloaded into holding pens, according to ownership, from which they are herded into a runway and hung on traveling shackles. They then proceed through the plant operations in the following order: kill and bleed, electric eye count, scald, defeather, first hot-wax dip, chill, remove wax, second hot-wax dip, chill, remove wax, pin, eviscerate, chill, grade, wrap, weigh, package, freeze, and store. All product processing at this plant is Federally inspected. Liquid blood from the bleed room floor flows into a pit from where it is pumped into a Dempster-Dumpster container outside the building. This blood is hauled to the local dump for disposal. Con- gealed blood remaining on the floor at the end of the day is flushed into waste line No. 1. Feathers are recovered from the dressing area flow-away system by rotary screens and returned to the duck raiser, feet are packaged for shipment to Hong Kong. Heads, trimmings, and viscera are removed from the evisceration flow-away system by rotary screens, passed through a grinder, and then packaged, frozen, and shipped to mink farms. Process liquid wastes are discharged to a settling pond, thence to a second pond. The effluent from pond No, 2 is discharged to an arm of Moriches Bay. Cooling water from refrigeration equipment is discharged to pond No. 2. Sanitary wastes are discharged to a septic tank and absorption field. Plant B Plant B is a single-line operation with a variable production capacity depending upon the number of employees, the operating time, and the section of plant utilized. There are two separate plants on this farm both under Federal supervision: a New York Dressed Kosher operation and a dressing and eviscerating unit. The dressing and eviscerating unit was used for this study. 2 ------- This privately owned plant processes ducks raised by the owners. The ducks are trucked to the plant, unloaded into holding pens, and then herded into a runway and hung on traveling shackles. The processing procedure is as follows: kill and bleed, scald, de- feather, first hot-wax dip, chill, remove wax, second hot-wax dip, chill, remove wax, pin, eviscerate, cleanup, chill, grade, wrap, weigh, package, freeze, store, and ship. All liquid wastes, except blood, are collected in a single outfall line and discharged to ponds. Feathers, feet, viscera, blood, and other parts are handled similarly to the same materials in plant A. PRESENTATION OF DATA Plant A The waste flows from plant A are separated into four categories, since the piping arrangement in the plant provides for four separate discharge lines. Waste line 1 collects wastes from the dressing operation, in- cluding holding, killing, scalding, defeathering, waxing, pinning, grading, packaging, refrigerating, and storing. Waste line 1 dis- charges into pond No. 1. Waste line 2 collects wastes from the evisceration operation, including the head, neck, feet, viscera, and wastes from cleanup and the chill tanks. This waste line discharges to pond No. 1 below the water surface. Waste ±ine 3 collects the sanitary wastes from the plant and office toilets, lavatories, drinking fountains, showers, etc. Waste line 3 discharges to a septic tank and absorption field on the plant grounds. The flow and strength of this waste were not measured. Waste line 4 collects cooling water from the refrigeration com- pressors and condensors. Waste line 4 discharges without further use to pond No. 2. The volume of this waste water was not measured, but was estimated. The total water supply from the two plant wells was metered. Data on water supply and waste discharge volumes are presented in Table 1. Line 2 discharges below the surface of pond No. 1, which makes a direct measurement of flow difficult. Consequently, the outflow from pond No. 1 was measured and the flow from line 2 was computed by difference with an allowance made for pond seepage. Samples from line 2 were withdrawn from the evisceration waste rotary screen pit inside the plant building. Samples from line 1 were collected at the point of discharge to pond No. 1. In manipulation of the raw data to compute pounds of waste and unit values of production, only the waste volume from waste line 1 (dressing operation) and waste line 2 (evisceration operation) were used. The sanitary and cooling water wastes were disregarded since they were not mixed with the other plant wastes and were not sampled. WASTE ------- Table 1. PLANT A, WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE FLOW Date, Water Waste Waste Wa ste Waste March supply, line 1, line 2, line 3, a line 4, a 1964 metered, measured, computed, e stimated, estimated, gP<* gpd gpd gPd gPd 16 491. 700 162,700 236,300 42,300 50, 400 18 402,900 124,600 180,700 47,200 50, 400 19 403,500 129, 200 176, 900 47,000 50,400 23 406, 100 144,000 176, 000 35, 700 50,400 Total 1,704,200 560,500 769,900 172,200 201,600 aNot included in calculations for waste strength and unit values. The BOD and chemical analyses of composite samples from waste lines 1 and 2 are shown in Table 2. Of interest are the lower values of pH, BOD, SS, and phosphate concentrations in the waste from evisceration as compared with those from the waste from dress- ing. The pH value is significantly raised in the dressing waste because of the alkaline blood present and the smaller quantity of water used. The well-water supply has a pH of 6. 2 from well No. 1 and 6. 4 from well No. 2, The average BOD concentration for the 4 days is less in the evisceration waste water owing to She greater volume of water used in the evisceration process. The total pounds of BOD in each waste are, however, comparable since waste line 1 contained 5 5 percent, and waste line 2, 45 percent of the total. Total pounds of SS were similarly distributed, with 57 percent in waste line 1 and 43 percent in waste line 2; the pounds of total phosphate were distributed 67 percent and 33 percent in waste lines 1 and 2, respectively. The amount of grease was considerably greater in the eviscera- tion waste, as would be expected. Total coiform (MF) was signifi- cantly less in the evisceration waste than in the dressing waste. The weighted average of total coliform for all processing wastes was 56, 800 per 100 milliliters, as indicated in Table 3. Unit value relationships of waste discharged, versus product pro- duced, as presented in Table 3, are computed from measured values of waste flow, concentration of pollutants present, and the number of ducks processed. Average volume of waste per duck processed at Plant A was 24. 3 gallons. This is three times the average of 8 gallons per chicken as reported by Porges and Struzeski. ® Comparison of flow on the basis of the average live weight of ducks and chickens indicates 3. 6 gallons per pound of duck and 2. 3 gallons per pound of chicken. The duck waste flow on this equivalent weight basis is only one-and-one-half times greater than the chicken waste flow. 4 ------- 3 > w frj Table 2. PLANT A, LABORATORY AND PHYSICAL DATA Date 3-16-64 W 1 H- 00 t 0- hU 3-19-64 3-23-64 Waste line 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Ducks processed, No. 16, 225 12, 370 12, 026 14, 070 Evise wt, total lb 81. 419 52,494 56, 655 64,254 Waste water flow, gpd 162,700 236, 300 124,600 180,700 129,200 176, 900 144, 000 176, 600 PH 7. 0 6, 6 7. 1 6. 5 7. 4 6. 4 6. 7 6.7 BOD, mg/liter 278 160 276 136 241 175 317 189 SS, mg/liter 217 97 232 130 177 121 203 108 VSS, mg/liter 206 96 188 113 161 115 191 107 Grease, mg/liter 31 78 105 132 28 109 51 178 NH4-N, mg/liter 0. 65 0.05 1.27 0. 07 0. 51 O O 0.78 0. 05 Org-N, mg/liter 43 14 41 13 42 12 44 13 Total PO4, mg/liter 90 35 136 32 191 49 93 31 Coliform (MF), No./100 ml 140,000 7, 600 48, 000 7, 400 56. 000 7, 400 150,000 14, 000 ------- Table 3. PLANT A, UNIT VALUES: WASTE VS PRODUCT Date 3-16-64 3-18-64 3-19-64 3-23-64 Weighted Waste line 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 T otal average Ducks processed, No. 16, 225 12,370 12,026 14, 070 Daily waste flow, gala 162,700 236, 300 124,600 180,700 129,200 176, 900 144,000 176, 600 Gal waste/duck processed 10. 0 14. 6 24. 6 10. 0 14. 6 24.6 10. 7 14. 7 25. 4 10.2 12. 6 22. 8 24. 3 Live wt, lb'5 116,500 75, 000 81,000 91,800 Avg live wt, lb 7. 17 6.06 6.73 6.53 6. 66 Gal/1, 000 lb live wt 1. 395 2, 035 3,430 1, 660 2,400 4, 060 1, 595 2, 185 3,780 1, 570 1, 920 3,490 3, 650 Evis wt, lbc 81,419 52, 494 56, 655 64,254 Avg evis wt, lb 5.02 4. 24 4. 17 4, 57 4. 66 Gal/ 1, 000 lb evis wt 2, 000 2, 910 4, 910 2, 375 3,440 5, 815 2,280 3. 120 5, 400 2, 240 2, 750 4, 900 5, 220 BOD, lb 377 316 693 287 205 492 260 258 518 382 278 660 BOD, lb/ 1,000 live duck 42. 7 39. 8 43. 0 46. 9 43.2 BOD, lb/1, 000 lb live wt 5. 94 6.56 6. 39 7. 18 6. 49 BOD, lb/1, 000 lb evis wt 8. 52 9. 37 9. 15 10.28 9. 27 Live ducks, No. /PE^ 3.91 4.53 3.89 3. 57 3.87 SS. lb 294 192 486 241 196 437 191 179 370 245 159 404 SS, lb/ 1, 000 live duck 30. 0 35.4 30.7 28.7 31.0 SS, lb/1,000 lb live wt 4. 17 5. 83 4.57 4.41 4. 66 SS, lb/1,000 lb evis wt 5.97 8. 32 6.53 6.29 6. 65 Coliform, No./100 ml 56,800 d a o w t) !« O o PJ to CO § O ^Excludes coaling water for refrigeration and water for employee sanitation. ''Live weight computed; multiply eviscerated weight by factor 1.43. cEviscerated weight is scale weight. ------- In the waste flow-away systems of plant A, the BOD was 43 pounds per 1,000 ducks. Similarly, for chicken waste the BOD was 25 pounds per 1,000 chickens. ^ When these values are compared on the basis of average live weight, we obtain values of 6. 5 pounds BOD per 1, 000 pounds duck and 7. 1 pounds BOD per 1, 000 pounds chicken. The SS values are 4. 7 pounds per 1, 000 pounds duck and 3. 7 pounds per 1, 000 pounds chicken. Plant B All the flow-away wastes except blood from processing plant B are screened, collected into a single sewer, and then discharged into open ponds excavated in sandy soil. These ponds have no surface discharge since the waste seeps into the underground sands. One pond is used until the seepage rate decreases to less than the total daily addition of waste, whereupon another pond is used and the first one is allowed to dry. The accumulated solids are removed from the walls and bottom of the dry pond and buried at another location. Exposure of the fresh sand prepares the dry pond for additional service. The water supply to plant B is furnished from wells, but these were not equipped with meters for measuring the quantity used. The waste flow was diverted over a V-notch weir with continuous measure- ment of the head by a water-level recorder. Waste flow values are not given at the request of the plant owner. Laboratory data are shown in Table 4. The BOD concentration is within the range of ordinary domestic sewage whereas SS, ammonia, and coliform are less and the grease and total phosphate concentrations are larger. Table 4. PLANT B, LABORATORY AND PHYSICAL DATA Date 3-19-64 3-20-64 3-25-64 Evis wt, total lb 17,506 16,207 12,114 pH 7.2 7. 0 7. 2 BOD, mg/liter 172 209 261 SS, mg/liter 130 94 105 VSS, mg/liter 123 79 99 Grease, mg/liter 111 67 98 NH4-N, mg/liter 0. 36 0. 84 0. 35 Org-N, mg/liter 16. 8 28. 1 31.0 Total PO4, mg/liter 79 57 83 Coliform, No./100 ml 16, 000 78,000 51,000 Unit values for several relationships between production and waste loads are shown in Table 5. Waste flow varied from 17.7 to 23.4 gallons per duck processed and from 4, 170 to 5, 380 gallons per 1, 000 pounds ready-to-cook duck. WASTE ------- Table 5. PLANT B, UNIT VALUES: WASTE VS PRODUCTS Weighted Date 3 -19-64 3-20-64 3-25-64 T otal ave rage Gal waste/duck processed 19. 4 23. 4 17. 7 20. 1 Avg live wt, lb 6. 67 6. 70 4. 69 6. 00 Gal/1, 000 lb live wt 2, 910 3, 500 3, 760 3, 350 Avg evis wt, lb 4. 67 4. 68 3. 28 4. 21 Gal/1,000 lb evis wt 4, 170 5, 010 5, 380 4, 780 BOD, lb 105 141 142 388 BOD, lb/1,000 live duck 28 41 38 35. 6 BOD, lb/ 1, 000 lb live wt 4. 19 6. 07 8. 21 5. 92 BOD, lb/1, 000 lb evis wt 5. 98 8. 70 11. 70 8. 46 Live ducks, No. /PEa 5. 96 4. 07 4. 39 4. 64 SS, lb 79 64 57 200 SS, lb/1,000 live duck 21. 1 18. 5 15.5 18. 3 SS, lb/1, 000 lb live wt 3. 16 2. 76 3. 29 3. 05 SS, lb/ 1,000 lb evis wt 4. 51 3. 95 4. 71 4. 37 Coliform, No./100 ml 49,200 aPopulation Equivalent (PE) is based on 0. 1 67 pound of BOD per person. The BOD and SS varied from 28 to 41 pounds and 15 to 21 pounds, respectively, per 1, 000 live ducks. Total coliform varied in concen- tration from 16, 000 to 78, 000 per 100 milliliters, with a weighted average of 49, 200 per 100 milliliters for the 3 days when samples were collected. DISCUSSION Study of two duck-processing plants located on Long Island pro- vides data pertaining to water use, waste loads, and general operation. The finished product is a high-quality duck of considerable delicacy. The relatively short processing time of approximately 1-1/4 hours between kill and quick freeze operations, the abundant use of water for cleaning and chilling, coupled with careful inspection and grading, contribute to maintenance of a very high-quality product. Relatively low coliform counts in the flow-away water from the evisceration process indicate careful operation in the removal of viscera, with infrequent rupture of the intestines and possible con- tamination of the carcass. Fortunately at plant A it was possible to determine coliform concentrations separately for evisceration and dressing operations. Measured values in the evisceration waste varied from 7, 400 to 14, 000 coliform per 100 milliliters with a weighted average of 9, 000 per 100 milliliters. Total coliform con- centrations found in composite duck-processing waste varied from 16, 000 to 150, 000 per 100 milliliters with a weighted average (both plants) of 55,700 per 100 milliliters. Water usage in duck-processing plants seems rather high when one compares the waste volume from duck processing with the waste volume in chicken processing. In Table 6 the overall average waste volume for both duck plants was 23. 6 gallons per duck as compared 8 ------- with 8 gallons per chicken processed. When water uses based on waste volumes are compared on the basis of live weight, we have i, 600 gallons per 1, 000 pounds live duck and 2, 300 gallons per 1, 000 pounds live chicken or 57 percent greater usage for ducks. The evis- cerated weight figures are 5, 150 gallons of waste per 1, 000 pounds duck and 2, 890 gallons per 1, 000 pounds chicken or 78 percent greater water usage in duck processing. Table 6. SUMMARY DATA: DUCK AND CHICKEN PROCESSING Duck plant Duck plant T otal-avga A B both Chicken duck plants processing Waste flow, total gal 1, 330, 400 8,000b Birds processed, total No, 54,691 1, 000 Gal waste/bird processed 24. 3 20. 1 23. 6 8 Live wt, total, lb 364,300 3, 480 Avg live wt, lb 6. 66 6. 00 6. 55 3. 48b Gal/ 1, 000 lb live wt 3, 650 3, 350 3, 600 2, 300 Evis wt, total lb 254,822 2,765c Avg evis wt, lb 4. 66 4. 21 4. 58 2.76 Gal/ 1, 000 lb evis wt 5, 220 4, 780 5, 150 2, 890 BOD, mg/liter 213 212 213 374 BOD, lb, total 2, 363 388 2, 751 25 BOD, lb/ 1, 000 live birds 43. 2 35, 6 41. 9 25b BOD, lb/ 1, 000 lb live birds 6. 49 5.92 6. 40 7. 18 BOD, lb/1, 000 lb evis bird 9. 27 8. 46 9. 15 9. 04 Live birds, No./PE^ 3. 87 4. 64 3. 99 6. 68 SS, mg/liter 155 110 147 195 SS, lb, total 1, 697 200 1, 897 13 SS, lb/1,000 live birds 31.0 18. 3 28. 9 13b SS, lb/1, 000 lb live birds 4. 66 3. 05 4. 41 3. 73 SS, lb/ 1,000 lb evis bird 6. 65 4. 37 6. 31 4. 70 Total coliform, No. / 1 00 ml 56, 800 49,200 55,700 ^Weighted averages. bRefe rence No. 6. cEviscerated weight of chickens, 74 percent of live weight, •^Population Equivalent (PE) is based on 0. 167 pound of BOD per person. Reduction in total water used in duck processing could probably be achieved without lowering product quality by adoption of some of the conservation concepts listed below: 1. The clean water from refrigeration compressors and con- densors could be used for boiler make-up water, holding pen cleaning, scald vat, dressing room cleanup, and feather flow-away and evisceration flow-away systems. 2. The chill water used following evisceration could be reused for hardening wax in pinning operations, for scald tank, flow-away flumes in dressing and evisceration operations, and floor washing in holding pens, bleed room, and picking areas. Fine screening of the chill water may be necessary for some of these reuses. WASTE ------- 3. The entire water system should be designed and operated to provide the proper quantity of water at the proper pressure to perform the task required at the various stations on the processing line. This concept could be realized by evaluation of the number, size, and shape of nozzles needed and by control of nozzle pressure by use of pressure-reduc- ing valves. Since the quantity of water discharged through a given orifice is related to the pressure, an incremental saving in water per outlet would add up to a large volume when the great number of nozzles used in the plant is con- sidered. Table 6 provides other comparisons between wastes from duck processing and chicken processing. The BOD concentrations vary widely, but when these are reduced to pounds of BOD per unit of pro- duction the difference is less significant. For example, the pounds of BOD per 1, 000 pounds of eviscerated bird is 9. 15 pounds for ducks and 9-04 pounds for chickens. The pounds of BOD per 1, 000 pounds of live bird were 6. 40 pounds BOD for ducks and 7.18 pounds for chickens. From these data it is possible to establish comparable unit waste values between the processing of ducks and other poultry by making such comparisons on the basis of unit weight. ------- ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the splendid cooperation in this study extended to the Public Health Service by the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture and the Long Island Duck industry. Special recognition is made of the support, cooperation, and advice by Dr. J. R. Harney and Dr. A. G. Wilder, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Dr. Louis Leibovitz, Long Island Duck Research Laboratory; Mr. Fred Buzen, Long Island Duck Farmers Cooperative Inc.; Mr. Ralph Sweeney, New York State Health Department; Mr. Herbert W, Davids, Suffolk County Health Department; Mr. Ralph Porges, Dr. Graham Walton, Mr. Carl Shadix, and Mr. Robert McCullough, Public Health Service, Robert A. Taft Sanitary En- gineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. ------- REFERENCES 1. Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board, U.S. De- partment of Agriculture. 2. Moriches Bay Drainage Basin, New York State WPC Board, Suffolk County Survey Series Report No. 1. January 1951. 3. Gates, C.D. Treatment of Long Island duck farm wastes, JWPCF, 35 (12): 1569. 1963. 4. Alternating lagoon system removes settleable solids from duck wastes. Clean Waters {New York State WPC Board). 2:3. Nov. 1953. 5. Porges, R. , and E.J, Struzeski. Wastes from the poultry pro- cessing industry. Tech. Rept. W62-3. SEC. 1963. 40 pp. GPO 821—607—2 ------- |