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! 

John
S

TABLE E. Plant Wastewater Treatment Processes (PAGE 1/2)

Chicken Slaughter Facilities

Wastewater Screening DAF Float Anaerobic Digestion Activated Sludge Aerated Lagoon Final Clarifier Polishing Ponds Disinf. Direct Disch Land App POTW Disch.

Code Treatment % Volume Covered Volume Number Volume Volume Surface Volume Surface Volume

Operation Types Moisture (MG) Y or N? Type (MG) of lagoons (MG) (MG) Area (ft2) (MG) Area (ft2) Types (MGD) Type Acerage Volume (MGD)

1.1 DD-SW IF-R 72 BNR 5.0 2 3 0.420 5,000 SH 0.720

1.2 DD-SW/LA SH-F / IF-R 65 BNR 2.5 0.564 5,000 CL CP 235

1.3 ID-PT 70 0.900

1.4 ID-PT IF-R (40 mg/l) 0.700

1.5 DD-LA IF-R (hycor) 78 2 8 & 12 CP 600

1.6 ID-PT IF-R (hycor) 2 13.8 & 0.8 0.800

1.7 DD-LA SH 1 6 CL F & TG 380

1.8 ID-PT SH 60

1.9 ID-PT SH 66

1.10 DD-LA IF-R 70 CR 4.9 2 7.5 65 15.5 CL CP 454

1.11 DD-SW dnr

1.12 ID-PT IF-R 60 1.500

1.13 ID-PT IF-R (lyco) 90 1.530

1.14 ID IF-R 65 1.500

1.15 ID 68 0.712

1.16 DD-LA IF-R 17 N BO,OD 3.5 1.700 9,500 22 CL SI 880

1.17 ID-PT custom / IF-R 75 SH 0.800

1.18 DD-LA 55 1 23 0.0045 150 CP 274

1.19 DD-SW Bar Sceens 84 EA, BO 1.0 1 1 CL

1.20 DD-SW/LA SH 89 EA, OD 0.4 1 0.775 0.575 3,850 0.684 1.05 CL SI unknown

1.21 DD-SW IF-R / ww 72 9.8 Y CCA 1.25 0.425 5,278 Cl gas 1.410

1.22 DD-SW IF-R 3.38 N EA 1.96 0.392 3,739 UV 0.920

1.23 DD-SW IF-R 18.93 N EA 1.96 2 8.16 0.553 5,281 UV 1.7101.24 DD-SW IF-R 2.5 N CMAS 1.29 0.526 CL / SD 1.2801.25 ID IF-R 1.4001.26 DD-SW IF-R 15 N EA 2.67 0.698 6,648 UV 1.5101.27 DD-SW IF-R 13.6 Y EA 2.98 0.528 5,411 UV 1.3401.28 ID-PT IF-R (parkson) 70 1.500

1.29 DD-LA IF-R 1 5 SI 130

1.30 ID-PT IF-R 80 0.6831.31 DD-SW CM 2.0 0.462 4,420 CL gas SB 250

1.32 DD-SW/LA 53 EA 1.5 0.370 3,532 CL Lagoons 404

1.33 DD-LA 18.8 Y SI 520

1.34 DD-LA IF-R 68 20 Y SI 342

1.35 DD-SW/LA IF-R 8 acres N 8 CL SI 1851.36 DD-SW/LA IF-R 90 0.78 N 3.7 0.101 SI 1211.37 DD-SW/LA IF-R 1.5 Y 3.5 2.2 SI 50

1.38 ID-PT IF-R 84 2.258

1.39 ID-PT IF-R 84 0.6891.40 DD-SW IF-R 85 19 Y SBR 6.4 1 1.8 45 CL 14.061.41 ID-PT IF-R 1.3331.42 DD-SW/LA EA 9.5 1 2.4 0.338 3,768 CL SI 5,000

Further Processors

2.1 ID-PT Bar Screen 70 9,000 cu.ft. 572 0.400

2.2 ID-PT 80 Terragation 3240 0.107

2.3 ID-PT IF-R 95 0.0315

2.4 ID-PT IF-R 84 0.317

Renderers

4.1 DD-SW IF-R (hycor) 22 N EA 3.5 1 14 0.297 2,826 CL 0.550

4.2 DD-LA IF-R 80 3 4.4 4.3 3 Spray 115

Turkey Slaughter Facilities

5.1 DD-SW IF-R 78 EA 1.3 1.270 8,490 UV contract

5.2 ID-PT 80 0.790

5.3 ID IF-R 0.985

5.4 DD-SW IF-R 2.24 Y C-SA 0.829 1 9.07 0.220 1,963 UV

*DD-SW : Direct Discharge - Surface Water ^IF-R: Internally-fed Rotary #EA: * CL: ^ CP: Center Pivot

DD-LA : Direct Discharge - Land Application SH: Shaker BNR SH: F & TG: Fixed & Traveling Gun

DD-SW/LA : Direct Discharge - Surface Water/Land App SH-F: haker Feather CR: UV: SI: Spray Irrigation

ID-PT : Indirect Discharge to Sewer - with Pretreatment BO SD: SB: Surface broadcast

ID : Indirect Discharge to Sewer - with NO Pretreatment OD:

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