# From: "John Starkey" <JStarkey@poultryegg.org>

**To:** "Deborah Bartram" <Deborah.Bartram@erg.com>

**Date:** Wed, Aug 30, 2006 5:16 PM

**Subject:** RE: [NEWSENDER] - Poultry processors wastewater discharge

-Message is from an unknown sender

I appreciate your understanding...and given your intent I see no problem

with you using the earlier email, plus the data from below and attached.

I've attached the raw data table that has the info you wanted. Note, 22

out of 52 (42%) responses either responded to being an "ID" (Indirect

discharger -column B) and/or report a discharge flow to a POTW (Column

S). Note the 42% POTW discharge is lower than the 50% split I indicated

in my earlier email. I think the lower 42% number in the survey is just

a reflection of who decided to return the questionnaires. Given it was a

relatively complicated questionnaire, there would be a greater level of

staffing in general, and technical staffing in particular, at full

treatment facilities than at pretreatment-only plants to put the effort

into completing the questionnaire. Consequently, I still think that a

50/50 split is the better number to use between Indirect and Direct/land

app facilities. It's nowhere near the 67% indirect figure you indicated

had been used in the past.

Note also Columns E and F on Anaerobic lagoons. Not surprisingly, no

Indirects reported the use of an anaerobic. 15 of the 30 Direct

dischargers and/or Land App facilities reported the use of an anaerobic.

So, likely 20-25 % of the total poultry facilities (i.e. directs/land

app and indirects) use an anaerobic.

I'm not sure if the prior estimates distinguished between red meat and

poultry plants. But there are significant differences in both of the

areas you are inquiring about between poultry plants and red meat

(beef/pork). Red Meat tends to have a greater number of "stand alone"

further processing plants (i.e. no slaughter) which generally are

somewhat smaller water users and more likely to be on city sewer. While

poultry also has stand alone further processing plants (as identified in

the survey, rows 53-56, all indirect dischargers), most further

processing (FP) is co-located with the slaughter facility, which are

more likely to have their own complete treatment systems than the stand

alone FP plants. Which brings up the point that the 67% indirect

discharger number used in prior studies may be pretty accurate for red

meat plants. Also, there is a greater usage of anaerobic lagoons in the

red meat industry. For whatever reason, historically, red meat tended to

put in anaerobic lagoons for pretreatment, and poultry plants tended to

put in DAF systems and then later added coagulant/flocculent addition to

the DAF's. Now, as time has moved on, and permits have become ever more

restrictive, and the consequences of not having 100 % compliance,

particularly from a direct discharger became more severe, the trend has

been for poultry plants to add an anaerobic lagoon in addition to the

chemically assisted DAF, thus giving two stages of primary treatment

control to ensure the plant had sufficient capacity to handle a wider

range of influent upsets and still maintain compliance. Similarly,

currently more and more red meat plants, with an existing anaerobic, are

# adding on a DAF, and utilizing coagulant/flocculent addition, for the

same reason.

My red meat info above is largely based on conversations with folks in

that industry, as I've had far less experience there. If you want to

get

a better feel for the red meat side, you should talk to Willis Sneed of

HDR, 402-399-1189; wsneed@hdrinc.com

. If you do talk to Willis, feel free to tell him I referred you, and

that

I want to be sure he recognizes that not only is poultry a leaner meat,

and has superior treatment facilities as evidenced by the tighter ELG

limits for poultry than beef, but now it looks like we release fewer

greenhouse gases!! So, once again, red meat lags behind poultry!

JohnSTABLE E. Plant Wastewater Treatment Processes (PAGE 1/2)Chicken Slaughter FacilitiesWastewaterScreeningDAF FloatAnaerobic DigestionActivated SludgeAerated LagoonFinal ClarifierPolishing PondsDisinf.Direct DischLand AppPOTW Disch.CodeTreatment%VolumeCoveredVolumeNumberVolumeVolumeSurfaceVolumeSurfaceVolumeOperationTypesMoisture(MG)Y or N?Type(MG)of lagoons(MG)(MG)Area (ft2)(MG)Area (ft2)Types(MGD)TypeAcerageVolume (MGD)1.1DD-SWIF-R72BNR5.0230.4205,000SH0.7201.2DD-SW/LASH-F / IF-R65BNR2.50.5645,000CLCP2351.3ID-PT700.9001.4ID-PTIF-R(40 mg/l)0.7001.5DD-LAIF-R(hycor)7828 & 12CP6001.6ID-PTIF-R(hycor)213.8 & 0.80.8001.7DD-LASH16CLF & TG3801.8ID-PTSH601.9ID-PTSH661.10DD-LAIF-R70CR4.927.56515.5CLCP4541.11DD-SWdnr1.12ID-PTIF-R601.5001.13ID-PTIF-R(lyco)901.5301.14IDIF-R651.5001.15ID680.7121.16DD-LAIF-R17NBO,OD3.51.7009,50022CLSI8801.17ID-PTcustom / IF-R75SH0.8001.18DD-LA551230.0045150CP2741.19DD-SWBar Sceens84EA, BO1.011CL1.20DD-SW/LASH89EA, OD0.410.7750.5753,8500.6841.05CLSIunknown1.21DD-SWIF-R / ww729.8YCCA1.250.4255,278Cl gas1.4101.22DD-SWIF-R3.38NEA1.960.3923,739UV0.9201.23DD-SWIF-R18.93NEA1.9628.160.5535,281UV1.7101.24DD-SWIF-R2.5NCMAS1.290.526CL / SD1.2801.25IDIF-R1.4001.26DD-SWIF-R15NEA2.670.6986,648UV1.5101.27DD-SWIF-R13.6YEA2.980.5285,411UV1.3401.28ID-PTIF-R(parkson)701.5001.29DD-LAIF-R15SI1301.30ID-PTIF-R800.6831.31DD-SWCM2.00.4624,420CL gasSB2501.32DD-SW/LA53EA1.50.3703,532CLLagoons4041.33DD-LA18.8YSI5201.34DD-LAIF-R6820YSI3421.35DD-SW/LAIF-R8 acresN8CLSI1851.36DD-SW/LAIF-R900.78N3.70.101SI1211.37DD-SW/LAIF-R1.5Y3.52.2SI501.38ID-PTIF-R842.2581.39ID-PTIF-R840.6891.40DD-SWIF-R8519YSBR6.411.845CL14.061.41ID-PTIF-R1.3331.42DD-SW/LAEA9.512.40.3383,768CLSI5,000Further Processors2.1ID-PTBar Screen709,000 cu.ft.5720.4002.2ID-PT80Terragation32400.1072.3ID-PTIF-R950.03152.4ID-PTIF-R840.317Renderers4.1DD-SWIF-R(hycor)22NEA3.51140.2972,826CL0.5504.2DD-LAIF-R8034.44.33Spray115Turkey Slaughter Facilities5.1DD-SWIF-R78EA1.31.2708,490UVcontract5.2ID-PT800.7905.3IDIF-R0.9855.4DD-SWIF-R2.24YC-SA0.82919.070.2201,963UV*DD-SW :Direct Discharge - Surface Water^IF-R:Internally-fed Rotary#EA:* CL:^ CP:Center PivotDD-LA :Direct Discharge - Land ApplicationSH:ShakerBNRSH:F & TG:Fixed & Traveling GunDD-SW/LA :Direct Discharge - Surface Water/Land AppSH-F:haker FeatherCR:UV:SI:Spray IrrigationID-PT :Indirect Discharge to Sewer - with PretreatmentBOSD:SB:Surface broadcastID :Indirect Discharge to Sewer - with NO PretreatmentOD:CCA:CM:

# Ms. Bartram - I am forwarding you inquiry to John Starkey for his

response.

________________________________

From: Deborah Bartram [mailto:Deborah.Bartram@erg.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:05 PM

To: Elaine Hilliard

Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Poultry processors wastewater discharge - Message

is from an unknown sender

Dear Elaine,

I was hoping you could help me with some research I'm conducting on

wastewater discharge from poultry processors. I'm trying to estimate

the percent of poultry processing wastewater that is discharged

indirectly to POTWs, and the percent of indirectly discharged wastewater

that is pretreated onsite using anaerobic treatment processes (e.g.,

lagoons). I saw that US Poultry and Egg sponsored a survey of

"Wastewater Treatment Practices and Experiences in the Poultry

Processing Industry". However, the papers I have reviewed to date on

this survey do not specifically break out what indirect dischargers do.

Is there someone at your organization that could assist me, or would it

be possible to review the data collected via survey to break out the

indirect dischargers and see what treatment they reported? Thanks so

much!

Deb Bartram

_____________________________________________________ Deb Bartram

Vice President

ERG

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 633-1669

(703) 263-7479 fax

deborah.bartram@erg.com