United States

Environmental

Protection Agency

Office of Water

Mail Code 4303T

Washington, DC 20460

EPA-821-B-01-007

January 2002

 Development Document for the

Proposed Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for the Meat

and Poultry Products Industry Point

Source Category (40 CFR 432)
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations

 Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry

 Point Source Category (40 CFR 432)

EPA-821-B-01-007

Christine T. Whitman

Adminstrator

G. Tracy Mehan, III

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water

Geoffrey H. Grubbs

Director, Office of Science and Technology

Sheila E. Frace

Director, Engineering and Analysis Division

Marvin Rubin

Chief, Environmental Engineering Branch

Janet Goodwin

Technical Coordinator

Samantha Lewis

Project Manager

Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

Project Engineer

William Wheeler

Project Economist

Jade Lee-Freeman

Project Statistician

January 2002

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4303T)

Washington, DC 20460
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

The Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of Marvin Rubin, Janet

Goodwin, Samantha Lewis, Carey A. Johnston, William Wheeler, Jade Lee-Freeman, and

Beverly Randolph for the development of this technical document. In addition, EPA

acknowledges the contribution of TetraTech Inc., Eastern Research Group, Westat, and Science

Applications International Corporation.

Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors,

subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any

legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of, or the results of such use of, any

information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by

such a third party would not infringe on privately owned rights. References to proprietary

technologies are not intended to be an endorsement by the Agency.

Questions or comments regarding this report should be addressed to:

Ms. Samantha Lewis

Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7149

lewis.samantha@epa.gov
i

CONTENTS

SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Purpose of this Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 Overview of the Mpp Point Source Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.3 Summary of the Proposed Mpp Effluent Limitations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

SECTION 2. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Legal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 Regulatory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2.1 Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available

(BPT)—Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)—Section

304(b)(4) of the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

(BAT)—Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.2.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Section 306 of 

the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.2.1.5 Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources (PSES)—Section

307(b) of the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.2.1.6 Pretreatment Standards For New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(b)

of the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.2.1.7 Best Management Practices (BMPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.2.2 Section 304(m) Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.3 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.2.4 Pollution Prevention Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2.5 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.2.6 Regulatory History of the MPP Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.2.6.1 Meat Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.2.6.2 Poultry Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.3 Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.3.1 Meat Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.3.1.1 Meat Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.3.1.2 Independent Rendering Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2.3.2 Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Contents

ii

SECTION 3. DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Summary of Epa’s Site Visit and Sampling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1.1 EPA Site Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1.2 EPA Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.1.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.1.1.2 Description of Sampling Episodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.1.2.3 Sampling Episode Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.1.2.4 Pollutants Sampled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.2 EPA MPP Industry Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.2.1 Overview of Industry Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.2.2 Description of the Survey Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.2.3 Development of Survey Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.2.4 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.2.5 Survey Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.3 Other Information Collection Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.3.1 Literature Search on Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

3.3.2 Current NPDES Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

3.3.3 Discharge Monitoring Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

3.4 Stakeholder Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

SECTION 4. MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INDUSTRY OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.2 Meat Products Industry Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.2.1 Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.2.2 Meat Processed from Carcasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4.3 Description of Meat First and Further Processing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.3.1 Meat Slaughter and Packing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.3.1.1 Live Animal Receiving and Holding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.3.1.2 Methods Used to Stun Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.3.1.3 Killing and Bleeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.3.1.4 Hide Removal from Cattle and Sheep and Hair Removal from 

Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4.3.1.5 Evisceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4.3.1.6 Washing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

4.3.1.7 Chilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

4.3.1.8 Packaging and Refrigeration or Freezing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

4.3.1.9 Cleaning Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

4.3.2 Meat Further Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

4.3.2.1 Raw Material Thawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
Contents

iii

4.3.2.2 Carcass/Meat Handling and Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

SECTION 5. SUBCATEGORIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Subcategorization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2 Proposed Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2.1 Meat Slaughterhouses and Packinghouses—Subparts A, B, C and D . . . . . . . 5-5

5.2.2 Meat Further Processing—Subparts F, G, H and I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.3 Renderer—Subpart J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.2.4 Poultry First Processing—Subpart K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.2.5 Poultry Further Processing—Subpart L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

SECTION 6. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Meat Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6.2 Poultry Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.2.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.2.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

6.3 Rendering Wastewater Generation and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12

6.3.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12

6.3.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

SECTION 7. SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS AND POLLUTANT PARAMETERS FOR REGULATION . . . 7-1

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.2 Pollutants Considered for Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.2.1 Classical and Biological Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6

7.2.2 Non-conventional Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15

7.3 Selection of Pollutants of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17

7.4 Selection of Pollutants for Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19

7.4.1 Methodology for Selection of Regulated Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19

7.4.2 Selection of Regulated Pollutants for Existing and New Direct 

Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-21

7.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-24
Contents

iv

SECTION 8. WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.2 Primary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.2.1 Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.2.1.1 Static Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8.2.1.2 Rotary Drum Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

8.2.1.3 Brushed Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.2.1.4 Vibrating Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.2.2 Catch Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

8.2.3 Dissolved Air Flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

8.2.4 Flow Equalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

8.2.5 Chemical Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

8.3 Secondary Biological Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

8.3.1 Anaerobic Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

8.3.1.1 Anaerobic Lagoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12

8.3.1.2 Alternate Anaerobic Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

8.3.2 Aerobic Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15

8.3.2.1 Activated Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16

8.3.2.2 Lagoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

8.3.2.3 Alternate Aerobic Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

8.4 Tertiary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25

8.4.1 Nutrient Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

8.4.1.1 Nitrogen Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

8.4.1.2 Phosphorus Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.4.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

8.4.3 Alternate Tertiary Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35

8.4.3.1 Nitrogen Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35

8.4.3.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

8.4.3.3 Removal of Organic Compounds and Specific Ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

8.5 Disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

8.5.1 Chlorination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

8.5.2 Ozonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.5.3 Ultraviolet Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.6 Effluent Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

8.7 Solids Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.8 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Reduction Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

8.8.1 Wastewater Minimization and Waste Load Reduction Practices at MPP 

Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

8.8.2 General Water Conservation and Waste Load Reduction Techniques . . . . . . 8-48
Contents

v

8.8.3 Multiple Use and Reuse of Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

8.8.4 Specific Pollution Control Practices Identified by EPA in Previous

Regulatory Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

8.8.5 Non-Regulatory Approaches to Pollution Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-54

8.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-55

SECTION 9. POLLUTANT LOADINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Baseline Pollutant Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

9.1.1 Sources and Use of Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

9.1.2 Calculation of Average Concentrations from Analytical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

9.1.3 Establishment of Baseline Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

9.1.4 Calculation of Pollutant Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

9.2 Technology Options Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-15

9.2.1 Sources and Use of Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-15

9.2.2 Calculation of Average Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for

First Processing, Further Processing and Rendering Wastewaters . . . . . . . . . 9-16

9.2.3 Development of Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations for each Model

Facility Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-33

9.2.4 Development of Post-Compliance Pollutant Loadings for each Technology

Option and each Model Facility Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-35

9.3 Pollutant Removals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-36

SECTION 10. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1 Energy Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.2 Air Emissions Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3

10.3 Solid Waste Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4

10.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8

SECTION 11. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR THE

PROPOSED REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1 Overview of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.2 Identification of Technology Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.3 Development of MPP Model Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7

11.4 Selection of a Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-9

11.5 Description of Cost Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-10

11.5.1 Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-11

11.5.1.1 Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-11

11.5.1.2 Total Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-14
Contents

vi

11.5.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-15

11.5.2.1 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-15

11.5.2.2 Labor Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-16

11.5.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Material and Supply Costs . . . . . . . . 11-16

11.5.2.4 Chemical Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-17

11.5.2.5 Sludge Disposal Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-17

11.5.2.6 Total Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-17

11.6 Description of the Treatment Units and Selected Design Specifications . . . . . . . . . 11-17

11.6.1 Preliminary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-17

11.6.2 Dissolved Air Flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-18

11.6.3 Equalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19

11.6.4 Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19

11.6.5 Intermediate Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-20

11.6.6 Nitrification—Suspended Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-20

11.6.7 Biological Nitrogen Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-21

11.6.8 Biological Nutrient Removal—3/5 Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-22

11.6.9 Secondary Clarification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-23

11.6.10 Filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-23

11.6.11 Drying Beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-24

11.6.12 Disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-24

11.7 Capdet Model Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-25

11.7.1 Influent Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-25

11.7.2 Effluent Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-26

11.7.3 Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-29

11.8 Other Cost Modeling Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-29

11.8.1 Number of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31

11.8.2 Frequency of Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31

11.8.3 Number of Treatment Units Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32

11.8.4 Performance Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-33

11.9 Derivation of Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-34

11.9.1 Model Facility Costs Without Consideration To Retrofit Costs . . . . . . . . . . 11-36

11.9.2 Model Facility Category Costs With Consideration to Retrofit Costs . . . . . . 11-37

11.10 Estimated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-39

11.10.1 Model Facility Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-39

11.10.2 Regulatory Subcategory Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-40

11.11 Comparison of Model Predicted Cost with Actual Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-41

11.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-51
Contents

vii

SECTION 12. SELECTED TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1

12.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1

12.1.1 BPT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-2

12.1.1.1 BPT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering 

Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-3

12.1.1.2 BPT for Subpart E—Small Processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-4

12.1.1.3 BPT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing 

Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-4

12.1.2 BPT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-5

12.1.2.1 BPT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K) . . . . . . 12-5

12.1.2.2 BPT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L) . . . . 12-7

12.1.3 BPT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J) . . . 12-8

12.2 Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-9

12.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-10

12.3.1 BAT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-11

12.3.1.1 BAT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering 

Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-11

12.3.1.2 BAT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing 

Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12

12.3.2 BAT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-14

12.3.2.1 BAT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K) . . . . . 12-14

12.3.2.2 BAT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L) . . . 12-15

12.3.3 BAT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J) . . 12-17

12.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-18

12.4.1 NSPS Requirements for Meat Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-19

12.4.1.1 NSPS for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering 

Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-19

12.4.1.2 NSPS for Subpart E—Small Processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-19

12.4.1.3 NSPS for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing 

Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-19

12.4.2 NSPS Requirements for Poultry Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-20

12.4.2.1 NSPS for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K) . . . . 12-20

12.4.2.2 NSPS for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L) . . 12-21

12.4.3 NSPS Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities 

(Subcategory J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-22

12.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and New Sources (PSNS) . . . 12-23

12.5.1 POTW Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-24

12.5.2 POTW Pass Through . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-28

12.5.3 MPP Pretreatment Options Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-30
Contents

viii

SECTION 13. LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS: DATA SELECTION AND CALCULATION . . . . . . . 13-1

13.1 Overview of Data and Episode Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

13.2 Data Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-3

13.2.1 Aggregation of Field Duplicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-4

13.2.2 Aggregation of Grab Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-5

13.3 Derivation of Total Nitrogen Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-5

13.4 Derivation of Effluent Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-6

13.4.1 Calculation of Daily Effluent Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-6

13.4.2 Censoring Type of Calculated Effluent Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-11

13.5 Data Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-12

13.6 Overview of Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-13

13.6.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-13

13.6.2 Selection of Percentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-14

13.6.3 Compliance with Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-15

13.6.4 Summary of Proposed Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-16

13.7 Estimation of Concentration-based Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-17

13.8 Estimation of Long-term Average Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-18

13.8.1 Episode-specific Long-Term Average Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-19

13.8.2 Option Long-Term Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-19

13.8.3 Substitution of LTAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-20

13.8.4 Calculation of Poultry BAT-3 Option-Level Long-Term Averages . . . . . . . 13-21

13.8.5 Calculation of Independent Rendering BAT-2 Option-Level Long-Term 

Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-22

13.8.6 Adjustments to Option Long-Term Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-22

13.9 Calculation of Option Variability Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-23

13.9.1 Transfers of Option Variability Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-24

13.10 Summary of Steps Used to Derive Concentration-based Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-25

13.11 Conversion to Production-normalized Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-26

13.11.1 Calculation of Production Normalized Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-26

13.11.2 Significant Digits for Production-Normalized Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-28

SECTION 14. REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1

14.1 Implementation of Part 432 Through the NPDES Permit Program and the National

Pretreatment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1

14.1.1 NPDES Permit Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-2

14.1.2 New Source Performance Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-3

14.1.3 National Pretreatment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-3
Contents

ix

14.2 Upset and Bypass Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-4

14.3 Variances and Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-5

14.3.1 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-5

14.3.2 Economic Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-7

14.3.3 Water Quality Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-7

14.4 Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-7

14.4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-7

14.4.2 Mass-Based Limitations and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-8

14.5 Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-10

SECTION 15. GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1

APPENDIX A. ANALYTICAL METHODS AND BASELINE VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B. SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

APPENDIX C. TABLES TO SECTION 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

APPENDIX D. INPUT VALUES TO ESTIMATE ENERGY USAGE AND SLUDGE GENERATION . . . . D-1

APPENDIX E. ATTACHMENTS FOR COST ESTIMATION (CHAPTER 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

APPENDIX F. AGGREGATED DAILY DATA FOR PROPOSED POLLUTANTS AND

SUBCATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

APPENDIX G. MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

APPENDIX H. ATTACHMENTS TO SECTION 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

APPENDIX I. 40 CFR PART 432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

APPENDIX J. EXAMPLES OF CALCULATING MPP LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
Contents

x

Tables

Table 1-1. Profile and Subcategorization of MPP Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

Table 1-2. Summary of Technologies for Proposed Options for MPP Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

Table 2-1. Summary of Regulatory Levels of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

Table 3-1. MPP Sampled Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

Table 3-2. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

Table 4-1. Composition of Raw Materials for Inedible Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62

Table 6-1. Wastewater Generated in Meat Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Table 6-2. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Meat Facilities per Unit of Production . . . . . . 6-3

Table 6-3. Typical Characteristics of Hog and Cattle Processing Wastewaters . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

Table 6-4. Typical Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Hog and Cattle Processing6-6

Table 6-5. Wastewater Generation in Poultry First and Further Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

Table 6-6. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Poultry Facilities per Unit of Production . . . 6-8

Table 6-7. Typical Characteristics of Broiler First and Further Processing and Turkey First

Processing Wastewaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

Table 6-8. Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler First and Further 

Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

Table 6-9. Wastewater Generation in Broiler Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14

Table 6-10. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Rendering Operations per Unit of 

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

Table 6-11. Pollutant Concentrations for a Dry Continuous Rendering Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17

Table 6-12. Typical Characteristics of Broiler Rendering Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

Table 6-13. Wastewater Characterization of “Typical” National Rendering Association (NRA)

Member Render Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

Table 6-14. Typical Wastewater and Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler

Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

Table 7-1. Priority Pollutant List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

Table 7-2. Pollutants of Concern for Meat Processing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18

Table 7-3. Pollutants of Concern for Poultry Processing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19

Table 8-1. Distribution of Wastewater Treatment Units In MPP Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

Table 9-1. Summary of Imputation Methods Used for Derivation of Baseline 

Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

Table 9-2. Median Flow for Direct and Indirect Dischargers by Model Facility

Grouping and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

Table 9-3. Number of Direct Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size . . 9-11

Table 9-4. Number of Indirect Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size . 9-12

Table 9-5. Baseline Loadings for Direct Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-13
Contents

xi

Table 9-6. Baseline Loadings for Indirect Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14

Table 9-7. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-21

Table 9-8. Data Substitutions for BAT-3 Technology Option Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-23

Table 9-9. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-25

Table 9-10. Data Substitutions for BAT-4 Technology Option Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-26

Table 9-11. Data Substitutions for BAT-5 Technology Option Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-27

Table 9-12. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-28

Table 9-13. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-31

Table 9-14. Flow Fractions Used to Derive Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations . . . . . 9-34

Table 9-15. Technology Option Loading for Direct Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-37

Table 9-16. Technology Option Loading for Indirect Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-39

Table 10-1. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct 

Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2

Table 10-2. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect 

Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2

Table 10-3. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct

Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7

Table 10-4. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect

Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7

Table 11-1. Proposed Technology Options for the MPP Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

Table 11-2. Definition of 19 MPP Facility Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-8

Table 11-3. Cost Factors Used to Estimate Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-15

Table 11-4. Influent Concentrations Used as Model Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-27

Table 11-5. Target Effluent Concentrations Used as Model Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-28

Table 11-6. Model Facility Median Flows for 76 Model Facility Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-30

Table 11-7. Number of Facilities in 19 MPP Facility Groupings by Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31

Table 11-8. Technology Options by Size and Discharge Type Costed for the Proposed 

Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-34

Table 11-9. Estimated Retrofit Costs (As Percent of Nitrification Costs) to Upgrade a

Nitrification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-38

Table 11-10. Definition of 10 MPP Regulatory Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-40

Table 11-11. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small Direct

Discharging Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-42

Table 11-12. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small Indirect

Discharging Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-43

Table 11-13. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Small Direct Discharging

Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-44

Table 11-14. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs of Small Indirect Discharging

Facilities for the Various TechnologyOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-44
Contents

xii

Table 11-15. Comparison of CAPDET Model Prediction of Capital (and Construction) and

Annual Costs with Actual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-45

Table 11-16. Retrofit Capital Costs of Nitrification/Denitrification by Category for the

Proposed Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-47

Table 11-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Nitrogen Removal . . 11-48

Table 11-18. Retrofit Capital Costs Of Nitrification/Denitrification/Phosphorous 

Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-50

Table 11-19. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Phosphorus Removal 11-51

Table 12-1. Removal Efficiencies for Meat Pollutants of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-28

Table 12-2. Removal Efficiencies for Poultry Pollutants of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-28

Table 12-3. Economic Impacts and Toxic Cost-Effectiveness Summary Table for PSES

Option 1, Non-Small Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-30

Table 13-1. Method for Aggregation of Field Duplicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-5

Table 13-2. Procedure for Aggregation of Grab Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-6

Table 13-3. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations

for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering Operations

Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-2 Technology

Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-8

Table 13-4. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations

for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering Operations

Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-3 Technology

Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-8

Table 13-5. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing,

Further Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Direct

Discharging Poultry Facilities (BAT-2 Technology Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-9

Table 13-6. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing,

Further Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Indirect

Discharging Meat Facilities (PSES-1 Technology Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-9

Table 13-7. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing,

Further Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Indirect

Discharging Poultry Facilities (PSES-1 Technology Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-10

Table 13-8. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-11

Table 13-9. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-12

Table 13-10. Substitution Values for Option-Level LTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-21

Table 13-11. Formulas for Calculating BAT-3 Technology Option Level LTA for

Poultry Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-22

Table 13-12. BAT-2 Option LTA Substitutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-23

Table 13-13. Cases where Option Variability Factors Could Not be Calculated . . . . . . . . . 13-25

Table 14-1. Types of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1
Contents

xiii

Figures

Figure 4-1. Location of Small Meat Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Figure 4-2. Location of Non Small Meat Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Figure 4-3. Process Flow in a Meat Slaughtering and Packing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

Figure 4-4. General Process for Meat Cuts and Process Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

Figure 4-5. General Process for Comminuted Meat Products (Sausage, Wieners, Luncheon

Meats, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Figure 4-6. General Process for Hams and Bacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

Figure 4-7. General Process for Canned Meat Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

Figure 4-8. Location of Small Poultry Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

Figure 4-9. Location of Non Small Poultry Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

Figure 4-10. General Process for Poultry First Processing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

Figure 4-11. General Process for Poultry Further Processing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

Figure 4-12. Location of Small Rendering Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59

Figure 4-13. Location of Non Small Rendering Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59

Figure 4-14. General Process for Edible Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61

Figure 4-15. General Process for Inedible Batch Cooking Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-64

Figure 4-16. General Process for Inedible Continuous Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-65

Figure 8-1. General schematic of a static screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Figure 8-2. General schematic of a rotary drum screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

Figure 8-3. Activated Sludge Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17

Figure 8-4. Spray/Flood Irrigation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

Figure 11-1. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 1 (assuming

incomplete nitrification) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

Figure 11-2. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

Figure 11-3. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4

Figure 11-4. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4

Figure 11-5. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5

Figure 11-6. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5

Figure 11-7. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6

Figure 11-8. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6

Figure 11-9. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7
1

Meat products include all animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs, and any meat that is

not listed under the definition of poultry. Poultry includes broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature

chickens, turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches), and smallgame such as quail, pheasants, and

rabbits. This category may include species not classified as “poultry” by USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS) and that may or may not be under USDA FSIS voluntary inspection.

1-1

SECTION 1

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION

This section describes the purpose of the regulation and summarizes proposed

requirements. Section 1.1 describes the purpose of the rulemaking. Section 1.2 presents an

overview of the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) Point Source Category. Section 1.3

summarizes the proposed MPP rulemaking.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS RULEMAKING

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines

and standards (ELGs) for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR 432). 

These proposed ELGs apply to existing and new meat and poultry products (MPP) facilities that

are direct dischargers. Direct discharging facilities directly discharge wastewater to surface

waters of the United States (e.g., lake, river, ocean). This document and the administrative record

for this rulemaking provide the technical basis for these proposed limitations and standards.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MPP POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

The meat and poultry products industry includes facilities that slaughter livestock and/or

poultry or that process meat and/or poultry into products for further processing or sale to

consumers1

. The industry is often divided into three categories: (1) meat slaughtering and

processing; (2) poultry slaughtering and processing; and (3) rendering. Facilities may perform

slaughtering operations, processing operations from carcasses slaughtered at other or their own

facilities, or both. Companies that own meat or poultry product facilities may also own facilities

that raise the animals. These other enterprises (e.g., feedlots) are not covered by the MPP ELGs.

The meat and poultry products industry encompasses primarily four North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes which are developed by the Department of
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation

1-2

Commerce. These NAICS codes include: Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) (NAICS

311611); Meat Processed from Carcasses (NAICS 311612); Poultry Processing (NAICS

311615); and Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing (NAICS 311613).

The MPP industry includes almost 6,770 facilities, of which an estimated 5,657 discharge

process wastewater. (See Table 1-1.) Of these facilities discharging process wastewater, EPA

estimates that 94 percent are indirect dischargers and 6 percent are direct dischargers. The

Agency estimates that approximately 1,113 facilities either discharge no process wastewater or

use contract haulers. See Section 5 for a description of how EPA subcategorized MPP facilities.

EPA estimated engineering compliance costs for each of the technology options for a set

of model sites, and then used these sites to estimate compliance costs for the entire MPP

industry. The Agency also estimated pollutant loadings and removals associated with each of the

technology options. EPA then used the loadings and removals to assess the effectiveness of each

technology option. The Agency used the costs to estimate the financial impact on the industry of

implementing the various technology options. (See “Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source

Category” [EPA-821-B-01-006].) Details on the cost-effectiveness analysis can be found in the

same document. EPA also estimated the water quality impacts and potential benefits for each

technology option. (See “Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category"

[EPA-821-B-01-008].)

Table 1-1. Profile and Subcategorization of MPP Facilities

40 CFR 432

Category Description

Facility Size

Small M, L, VL

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

A, B, C, D Meat First Processors 59 † 1,003 82 † 70

E, F, G, H, I Meat Further Processors 48 † 2,940 19 † 234

J Independent Renderers 6 † 17 21 † 75

K Poultry First Processors 0 39 104 143

L Poultry Further Processors 4 568 16 209

Source: EPA Screener Survey

† Covered under current MPP ELGs (40 CFR 432)
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation

1-3

1.3 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED MPP EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND

GUIDELINES

EPA is proposing regulations for the MPP direct dischargers based on the "best

practicable control technology currently available" (BPT), the "best conventional pollutant

control technology" (BCT), the "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT), and

the best available demonstrated control technology for new source performance standards

(NSPS).

The Agency is proposing revised ELGs for nine of the ten existing subcategories of the

meat products industry, including: simple slaughterhouse, complex slaughterhouse, low

processing packinghouse, high processing packinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and luncheon

meats processor, ham processor, canned meats processor, and renderer. The Agency is also

proposing two new MPP subcategories with effluent guidelines and source performance

standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slaughtering) and further processing categories. 

EPA is not proposing any new or revised effluent limitations guidelines or pretreatment standards

for the small processor category.

Table 1-2 summarizes the proposed technology options that serve as the basis for the

effluent limitations guidelines and standards being proposed today for the meat and poultry

products industry. For descriptions and discussion of the subcategories, see Section 5; for the

technologies, Section 8; for a discussion of the process wastewater generated by these

subcategories see Section 6; and for a discussion of the proposed limits, see Section 13.
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation

1-4

Table 1-2. Summary of Technologies for Proposed Options for MPP Facilities

Subcategory

Regulatory

Level

Technology

Option Technical Components

Subpart A:

Simple Slaughterhouse;

Subpart B:

Complex Slaughterhouse;

Subpart C:

Low-Processing

Packinghouse; and

Subpart D:

High-Processing

Packinghouse

BPT 2 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification.

BAT; NSPS 3 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification and

denitrification.

BCT No Action No revised limitations are proposed.

PSES; PSNS No Action No pretreatment standards are proposed.

Subpart E:

Small Processors

BPT; BCT; BAT;

NSPS 

No Action No revised limitations or standards are

proposed.

PSES; PSNS No Action No pretreatment standards are proposed.

Subpart F:

Meat Cutter;

Subpart G:

Sausage and Luncheon

Meats Processor;

Subpart H:

Ham Processor; and

Subpart I:

Canned Meats Processor

BPT 2 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification.

BAT; NSPS 3 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification and

denitrification.

BCT No Action No revised limitations are proposed.

PSES; PSNS No Action No pretreatment standards are proposed.

Subpart J:

Renderer

BPT; BCT 2 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification.

BAT; NSPS 2 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification.

PSES; PSNS No Action No pretreatment standards are proposed.

Subpart K:

Poultry First Processing

(facilities which

slaughter up to 10

million pounds per year);

and,

Subpart L:

Poultry Further

Processing (facilities

which produce up to

7,000 pounds per year of

finished product)

BPT; BCT 1 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with less efficient

nitrification.

BAT; NSPS 1 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with less efficient

nitrification.

PSES; PSNS No Action No pretreatment standards are proposed.
Section 1. Purpose and Summary of the Regulation

Subcategory

Regulatory

Level

Technology

Option Technical Components

1-5

Subpart K:

Poultry First Processing

(facilities which

slaughter more than 10

million pounds per year);

and,

Subpart L:

Poultry Further

Processing (facilities

which produce more than

7,000 pounds per year of

finished product)

BPT; BCT 3 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification and

denitrification.

BAT; NSPS 3 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary

biological treatment with nitrification and

denitrification.

PSES; PSNS No Action No pretreatment standards are proposed.
2-1

SECTION 2

LEGAL AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND

This section presents background information supporting the development of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) Point Source

Category. Section 2.1 presents the legal authority to regulate the MPP industry. Section 2.2

discusses the Clean Water Act, the Pollution Prevention Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as

amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), and prior

regulation of the MPP industry. Section 2.3 discusses the scope and applicability of the MPP

proposal.

2.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY

The Agency proposes these regulations under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306,

307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342,

and 1361.

2.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.2.1 Clean Water Act

Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to "restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To

achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except in

compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act addresses the problem of water pollution on a

number of different fronts. It relies primarily, however, on establishing restrictions on the types

and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public sources of

wastewater.

Direct dischargers (i.e., those that discharge effluent directly into navigable waters) must

comply with effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standards in National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; indirect dischargers (i.e., those that

discharge to publicly owned treatment works must comply with pretreatment standards. These
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2

 Conventional pollutants are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal

coliform, pH, and oil and grease; toxic pollutants are those pollutants listed by the Administrator under CWA

Section 307(a); nonconventional pollutants are those that are neither toxic nor listed as conventional.

2-2

limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers

based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control

technology. The limitations and standards are summarized below.

2.2.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)—Section 304(b)(1)

of the CWA

EPA defines BPT limitations for discharges of conventional, toxic, and non-conventional

pollutants2

 from existing sources. In specifying BPT, EPA considers the cost of achieving

effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits, the age of equipment and

facilities, the processes employed, process changes required, engineering aspects of the control

technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and

other factors the EPA Administrator deems appropriate (CWA §304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally,

EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of

facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes or other common

characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may

establish BPT limitations based on higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial

category if the Agency determines that the technology is available in another category or

subcategory and can be practically applied.

2.2.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of the

CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA established BCT as an additional level of control for

discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other

factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that BCT limitations be established

in light of a two-part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA published a methodology for the

development of BCT limitations in July. (51 FR 24974, July 9, 1986).
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-3

Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical

oxygen demanding pollutants (measured as BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform,

pH and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The

Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutants on July 30, 1979

(44 FR 44501).

2.2.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)—Section 304(b)(2)(B) of

the CWA

In general, BAT effluent limitation guidelines represent the best existing economically

achievable performance of direct discharging facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. 

The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions,

the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the

control technology, potential process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts

(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. 

The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded to these

factors. An additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. 

Generally, the achievability is determined on the basis of the total cost to the industry and the

effect of compliance with the BAT limitations on overall industry and subcategory financial

conditions. Unlike BPT, BAT limitations may be based upon effluent reductions attainable

through changes in a facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing

performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT limitations may be based upon technology transferred

from a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial category. BAT also

may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not

common industry practice.

2.2.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available

demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most

efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should

represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-4

available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into

consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality

environmental impacts and energy requirements.

2.2.1.5 Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the CWA

PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with,

or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTW. The CWA authorizes EPA to

establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass though POTWs or interfere with

treatment processes or sludge disposal methods. The pretreatment standards are to be

technology-based and analogous to the BAT effluent limitations guidelines.

The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing

categorical pretreatment standards, are found in 40 CFR Part 403. These regulations provide a

definition of pass-through that addresses local rather than national instances of pass-through and

establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic dischargers (52 FR 1586, January

14, 1987).

2.2.1.6 Pretreatment Standards For New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(b) of the CWA

Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through,

interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be

issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate

into their facilities the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same

factors in promulgating PSNS as in promulgating NSPS.

2.2.1.7 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize the Administrator to

prescribe BMPs as part of effluent limitations guidelines and standards or as part of a permit.

EPA’s BMP regulations are found at 40 CFR 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes

EPA to include BMPs in effluent limitations guidelines for certain toxic or hazardous pollutants

for the purpose of controlling “plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-5

drainage from raw material storage.” Section 402(a)(1) and NPDES regulations (40 CFR

122.44(k)) also provide for best management practices to control or abate the discharge of

pollutants when numeric limitations and standards are infeasible. In addition, Section 402(a)(2),

read in concert with Section 501(a), authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a range of permit

conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to ensure compliance with applicable

effluent limitation and standards and such other requirements as the Administrator deems

appropriate. Table 2-1 summarizes these regulatory levels of control and the pollutants

controlled.

Table 2-1. Summary of Regulatory Levels of Control

Type of Site Regulated BPT BAT BCT NSPS PSES PSNS

Existing Direct Dischargers

New Direct Dischargers

Existing Indirect Dischargers

New Indirect Dischargers

X XX

X

X

X

Type of Pollutant Regulated BPT BAT BCT NSPS PSES PSNS

Priority Toxic Pollutants

Nonconventional Pollutants

Conventional Pollutants

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Source: Clean Water Act

2.2.2 Section 304(m) Requirements

Section 304(m) requires EPA to establish schedules for; reviewing and revising existing

effluent limitations guidelines and standards; promulgates new effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. Section 304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers,

which EPA promulgates pursuant to Sections 307(b) and 307(c) of the Clean Water Act.

On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc.,

filed an action against EPA in which they alleged, among other things, that EPA had failed to

comply with CWA section 304(m) (see NRDC v. Browner, civ. no. 89-2980(D.DC.)). Plaintiffs

and EPA agreed to a settlement of that action in a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992.

The consent decree, which has been modified several times, established a schedule by which

EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point source categories identified by name in
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-6

the decree and for eight other point source categories identified only as new or revised rules,

numbered five through 12. EPA selected the meat and poultry products industry as the subject for

New or Revised Rule #11. Under the decree, as modified, the Administrator was required to sign

a proposed rule for the meat and poultry products industry no later than January 30, 2002, and

must take final action on that proposal no later than December 31, 2003.

2.2.3 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program

The CWA requires states to identify waters not meeting water quality standards and to

develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waters (Section 303(d) of the CWA). A

TMDL is essentially a prescription designed to restore the health of the polluted body of water by

indicating the amount of pollutants that may be present in the water and still meet water quality

standards. More than 20,000 bodies of water across America have been identified as impaired .

These waters include more than 300,000 river and shoreline miles and five million acres of lakes.

EPA estimates that more than 40,000 TMDLs must be established.

EPA promulgated a final rule in July 2000 to amend and clarify existing regulations at 40

CFR 130.7 implementing Section 303(d) of the CWA. Those rules require States to identify

waters that are not meeting State water quality standards and to establish TMDLs to restore the

quality of those waters. The July 2000 revisions of the rule established specific time frames

under which EPA will assure TMDLs are completed, and that necessary point and nonpoint

source controls are implemented to meet TMDLs.

On October 18, 2001 (66 FR 53044), EPA established April 30, 2003 as the new effective

date of the July 2000 TMDL rule revisions. EPA believes that this delay of the effective date is

necessary for the Agency to be able to conduct a meaningful consultation with the public, analyze

recommendations of various stakeholders, reconcile concerns about the scope, complexity, and

cost of the TMDL program, and structure a flexible yet effective TMDL program, including a

revised TMDL rule, to meet Clean Water Act goals of restoring the nation's impaired waters.

During this delay, the program will continue to operate under the 1985 TMDL regulations, as

amended in 1992 at 40 CFR Part 130, and EPA and the States and Territories will continue to

develop TMDLs to work towards cleaning up the nation's waters and meeting water quality
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-7

standards. The Agency plans to propose a new, revised TMDL rule during the summer of 2002

and issue a new final rule sometime in 2003.

A TMDL must be developed for waters that do not attain water quality standards. A

TMDL identifies the loading capacity of a waterbody for the applicable pollutant, which is the

greatest amount of a pollutant that a water can receive without exceeding water quality standards. 

The TMDL also identifies the load reduction needed to attain standards and allocates such

reductions to point source dischargers (a wasteload allocation(s)) and nonpoint sources (a load

allocation(s)). Thus, the TMDL is actually a “pollution budget” or water-quality based approach

that will allow the waterbody to achieve water quality standards. Wasteload allocations are

reflected in the NPDES permits written for point sources discharging into the waterbody.

Effluent guidelines are technology-based controls for point source dischargers and are

part of the NPDES permits that point sources must obtain prior to discharging pollutants to

waters of the U.S. EPA is not required to demonstrate environmental benefits of its

technology-based effluent guidelines. It is well established that EPA is not required to consider

receiving water quality in setting technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F. 2nd 1011, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("The Senate Committee

declared that ‘[t]he use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system is

unacceptable"– regardless of the measurable impact of the waste on the body of water in

question. Legislative History at 1425 (Senate Report). The Conference Report states that the Act

‘specifically bans pollution dilution as an alternative to treatment.'" Id. at 284."). The purpose of

such technology-based limits is to "result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal

of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants." See NRDC, 863 F.2d at 1433 (9th Cir. 1988). In

short, the CWA set up both TMDLs and effluent guidelines as complementary regulatory

programs as both are necessary for restoring the quality of the Nation’s waters and for striving

towards the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants.

2.2.4 Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub.L. 101-508,

November 5, 1990), makes pollution prevention the national policy of the United States. This act
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-8

identifies an environmental management hierarchy in which pollution "should be prevented or

reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be reused in an

environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled

should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release

into the environment should be employed only as a last resort..." (Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13103).

According to the Pollution Prevention Act, source reduction reduces the generation and

release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants, or residuals at the source,

usually within a process. The term source reduction "includes equipment or technology

modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,

substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or

inventory control. The term source reduction does not include any practice which alters the

physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance,

pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral to or necessary

for the production of a product or the providing of a service." In effect, source reduction means

reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is otherwise released into the

environment prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal. The Pollution Prevention

Act directs the Agency to, among other things, "review regulations of the Agency prior and

subsequent to their proposal to determine their effect on source reduction" (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C.

13103). This proposed regulation for the MPP industry was reviewed for its incorporation of

pollution prevention as part of the Agency effort. Chapter 8 outlines pollution prevention

practices applicable to the MPP industry.

2.2.5 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure

Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-9

For the purpose of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is

defined as: (1) a small business based on full time employees (FTEs) or annual revenues

established by SBA; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,

town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.

The definitions of small business for the meat products industries are in SBA's

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards were updated effective October 1, 2000.

SBA size standards for the meat and poultry products industry (that is, for NAICS codes 311611,

311612, 311613, and 311615) define a "small business" as one with 500 or fewer employees.

EPA estimates that small businesses own 71 out of 246 facilities that would be regulated

under the rule as proposed. The EPA based this estimate on information from screener survey

and SBA. The Agency assumes that it is unlikely that any small business owns more than one

facility. EPA has fully evaluated the economic impact of the proposed rule on the affected small

companies. None of the facilities owned by small companies have a cost/sales ratio greater than

one percent. For this proposal, EPA is using the ratio of annualized compliance costs to net

income as its central measure of economic achievability. (See Section IV.E of the MPP

Preamble for a definition of this measure.) EPA estimates that, based on its model facilities, 38

of the 71 facilities owned by small companies have cost/net income ratios between five and nine

percent, eight facilities have cost/net income ratios between two and three percent, while the

other 25 facilities owned by small companies have cost/net income ratios less than one percent. 

EPA also calculated the ratio of cost to sales as a supplement to the cost/net income ration. None

of the facilities owned by small companies has a cost/sales ratio greater than 0.52 percent. More

detail on these estimates is provided in the MPP Economic Analysis (EPA-821-B-01-006). After

considering the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, including consideration

of alternative regulatory approaches being proposed, EPA is certifying that this action will not

have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No small

governments are regulated by this action.
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-10

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on them.

EPA is not proposing any new requirements on 5,411 facilities (the vast majority of facilities). 

Most of these are owned by small businesses, and many of the smallest could likely experience

serious economic impacts if requirements were imposed. EPA considered regulating the 731

largest indirect discharging facilities in this group of 5,411 facilities (462 of which are owned by

small businesses). If the costs of Option 1 for PSES standards were imposed on these indirect

discharging facilities, EPA estimates that 235 of the 462 facilities owned by small companies

would have a cost/net income ratio between 1 and 2 percent while the other 227 facilities owned

by small companies would have a cost/net income ratio of less than 1 percent. Thus, even if EPA

had proposed Option 1 PSES standards for the 731 largest indirect dischargers the combined

proposal would not have had a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

EPA has held several teleconferences with representatives of the American Association of

Meat Processors (AAMP) which has almost a third of its association members with less than 10

FTE at the company level. EPA will continue to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed

rule on small entities and issues related to such impacts.

2.2.6 Regulatory History of the MPP Industry

In 1974, EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for meat slaughterhouses and

packinghouse facilities (40 CFR 432 Subcategories A through D), and in 1975, EPA promulgated

effluent guidelines for meat further processing facilities (40 CFR 432 Subcategories E through I)

and independent rendering facilities (40 CFR 432 Subcategory J) in 1975. The Agency proposed

regulations for the poultry industry in 1974, but the rule was never finalized. The following

describes the current regulatory framework for the MPP industry.

2.2.6.1 Meat Facilities

The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat products industry were

developed and promulgated in the 1970's. As described above, there are existing regulations for

the meat slaughtering and processing subcategories and for independent rendering. These
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-11

regulations were issued in phases and are grouped together under 40 CFR 432. Although there is

no definition of "red meat" or "meat" in the existing MPP effluent guidelines, EPA defined these

terms in the previous technical development documents associated with these prior rules as all

animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs, and from any meat that is not listed

under the definition of poultry. EPA is using the term "meat" as synonymous with the term "red

meat." EPA proposes to include the same definition in the revised regulations. The current

regulations for meat cover all aspects of producing meat products from the slaughter of the

animal to the production of final consumer products (e.g., cooked, seasoned, or smoked products,

such as luncheon meat or hams.)

EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS limitations and standards for existing and new meat

slaughterhouses and packinghouses on February 28, 1974 (39 FR 7894). EPA established

separate effluent limitations and standards for existing and new sources for various types of meat

slaughterhouses and packinghouses: Simple Slaughterhouse, Complex Slaughterhouse, Low

Processing Packinghouse, and High Processing Packinghouse (40 CFR 432, Subcategories A

through D).

The Agency promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS limitations and standards for existing and

new meat further processing subcategories and the independent rendering subcategory on January

3, 1975 (40 FR 902). EPA promulgated no PSNS for this segment of the industry in the January

3, 1975 notice. EPA established separate effluent limitations and standards for existing and new

sources for various types of meat further processors and independent renderers: Small Processor,

Meat Cutter, Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor, Ham Processor, Canned Meats Processor,

and Independent Renderer (40 CFR 432, Subcategories E through J).

EPA did not establish any pretreatment standards in the 1974 or 1975 regulations.

The BPT and BAT limitations established in the February 28, 1974 notice were the

subject of litigation in American Meat Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975). The

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the effluent limitations and remanded selected

portions of those regulations. The BPT and BAT regulations remanded by the court were
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-12

subsequently revised or withdrawn. (See 44 FR 50732, August 29, 1979; 45 FR 82253,

December 15, 1980.)

The regulations in the independent rendering subcategory were also the subject of

litigation in National Renderers Association et al., v. EPA, et al., 541 F. 2d 1281 (8th Cir. 1976).

The Court remanded the regulations to the Agency to reconsider the economic impact of the

costs associated with these requirements. The BAT limitations for independent renderers were

not remanded, but EPA reevaluated these limitations nonetheless. On October 6, 1977 (42 FR

54417), EPA promulgated a final rule which revised the BAT limitations and new source

performance standards for this subcategory. In that final rule, the BAT limitations for ammonia,

BOD5, and TSS are less stringent than the original BAT limitations; however, the October 6,

1977 NSPS are more stringent than the original NSPS standards. In the final rule, EPA retained

an exclusion for small facilities (less than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day) from BPT,

BAT, and NSPS

2.2.6.2 Poultry Facilities

EPA proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS limitations and standards for existing and new

poultry slaughterers and processors on April 24, 1975 (40 FR 18150). EPA proposed to

subcategorize the poultry processing sector into five subcategories, distinguished by the animal

or bird being processed and an additional subcategory which applied to further processing. These

regulations were never finalized, since the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act refocused

the Agency's attention on establishing effluent limitations guidelines for industry sectors with

effluents containing toxic metals and organics.

2.3 SCOPE/APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSED REGULATION

EPA is proposing new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards for nine of

the ten subcategories of the (MPP) point source category (40 CFR 432) including: simple

slaughterhouse, complex slaughterhouse, low processing packinghouse, high processing

packinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and luncheon meats processor, ham processor, canned meats

processor, and renderer. The Agency is proposing no new or revised effluent limitations
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-13

guidelines or pretreatment standards for the small processor category. EPA is also proposing two

new MPP subcategories with effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance

standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slaughtering) and further processing subcategories. 

Section 1, table 1-2 summarizes the proposed technology options which serve as the basis

for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards being proposed for the meat and poultry

products industry. For descriptions and discussion of the subcategories, see Section 5; for the

technologies, Section 8; and for a discussion of the process wastewater generated by these

subcategories, Section 6.

2.3.1 Meat Facilities

2.3.1.1 Meat Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities

In 1974, EPA established regulations that apply to the meat slaughterhouses and

packinghouses (40 CFR 432, Subcategories A through D). EPA established regulations in 1975

which apply to meat further processing facilities (40 CFR 432, Subcategories E through I). The

current regulations for meat cover all aspects of producing meat products from slaughtering the

animal to producing final consumer products (e.g., cooked, seasoned or smoked products, such as

luncheon meat or hams). For Subparts F, G, H and I of the existing regulations, EPA established

a production rate threshold of greater than 6,000 pounds of finished product per day, below

which the regulations do not apply. Subpart E of the existing regulations applies to meat further

processors that produce up to 6,000 pounds of finished product per day.

EPA is not proposing to change the existing production rate thresholds in Subparts E

through I in this proposed rule for existing limitations and standards. Also, EPA is proposing 

new production rate thresholds in Subparts A through D and F through I for the proposed

limitations and standards based on current data collected for this rulemaking (see Section 3).

These new production rate thresholds do not affect Subpart E (Small Processors) meat facilities,

as these proposed new production rate thresholds are all higher than the Subpart E production

rate threshold (i.e., 6,000 pounds of finished product per day).
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-14

Based on current survey data, EPA defines small facilities based on their annual

production. EPA defines the following facilities which are currently covered under 40 CFR 432

as small:

• Facilities in Subcategories A, B, C and D that slaughter less than 50 million

pounds (LWK) per year;

• All facilities in Subcategory E;

• Facilities in Subcategories F, G, H and I that produce less than 50 million pounds

of finished product per year; and

• Facilities in Subcategory J that render less than 10 million pounds per year of raw

material.

Most smaller MPP facilities are excluded from the scope of today's proposal for a number

of reasons: (1) small MPP facilities as a group discharge less than 3 percent of the conventional

pollutants (or 35 million pounds/year), 1 percent of the toxic pollutants (or 1.3 million

pounds/year), 4 percent of the nutrients (or 7.5 million pounds/per year), and less than 1.5

percent of the pathogens (or 47 x 109 CFU/year) as compared to all discharges from the entire

MPP industry;(2) EPA determined that only a limited amount of loadings removal would be

accomplished by improved treatment and small facilities; and (3) EPA determined that “small”

MPP facilities would discharge a very small portion of the total industry discharge. Therefore,

EPA is not revising current limitations and standards for small meat facilities. The existing

regulations, however, will continue to apply to those facilities. EPA is, however, setting

limitations and standards for small poultry direct discharging facilities (for whom there are no

existing standards) based on current performance.

The existing regulations apply to all sizes of meat direct dischargers (except for renderers

processing less than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day). The proposed revisions to 40 CFR

432 apply to meat facilities above the new production based thresholds and all poultry facilities

that discharge directly to a receiving stream or other waters of the United States.
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-15

2.3.1.2 Independent Rendering Facilities

In 1975, EPA established regulations (40 CFR 432, Subcategory J) that apply to

independent renderers, defined as independent or off-site operations that manufacture meat meal,

dried animal by-product residues (tankage), animal fats or oils, grease, and tallow, perhaps

including hide curing, by a renderer. The existing regulations establish a size threshold of 75,000

pounds of raw material per day processed. Facilities that process less than this amount are not

subject to the existing regulations.

EPA is proposing to lower this production threshold in these revisions to include all

facilities that render more than 10 million pounds per year of raw material (or approximately

27,000 pounds per day for a facility that operates 365 days per year). EPA is lowering this

production threshold based on data collected for this rulemaking. See the “Economic Analysis of

Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the meat and Poultry Products

Industry Point Source Category” (EPA-821-B-01-006) for a description of EPA's reasons for

setting production thresholds and exempting most small MPP facilities (including all small

rendering facilities that render less than 10 million pounds per year of raw material) from the

proposed revisions to 40 CFR 432. Subpart J applies to the rendering of any meat or poultry raw

material. When rendering is done in conjunction with a meat slaughterhouse or packinghouse,

the rendering wastewater generated is regulated under the limitations for the appropriate meat

slaughtering or packinghouse subcategory (i.e., under Subparts A, B, C, or D).

2.3.2 Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities

EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance

standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slaughtering) and further processing subcategories. 

Poultry includes broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons,

geese, ducks, and small game such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits.

EPA proposed regulations for this segment of the meat and poultry products industry in

1975, but did not finalize them. EPA has reanalyzed this segment of the meat and poultry
Section 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-16

products industry and is proposing today to establish BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations and

standards for existing facilities and new source performance standards for direct dischargers.

EPA proposes to create two new subcategories which would apply to poultry processing

facilities. The first new poultry subcategory is the "poultry first processing" subcategory which

includes the slaughtering and evisceration of the bird or animal and dressing the carcass for

shipment either whole or in parts, such as leg, quarters, breasts, and boneless pieces. These

facilities are commonly known as "ice pack facilities." The second new poultry subcategory is

the "poultry further processing" subcategory which includes additional preparation of the meat

including further cutting, cooking, seasoning, and smoking to produce ready-to-be eaten or

reheated servings. The additions to 40 CFR 432 for poultry being proposed apply to facilities

that discharge directly to a receiving stream and to other waters of the United States.

EPA is proposing to set less stringent effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers

slaughtering up to 10 million pounds of poultry per year and for further processors producing up

to 7 million pounds of poultry per year. See the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent

Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source

Category” (EPA-821-B-01-006) for a description of EPA's reasons for setting production

thresholds. The treatment options proposed for larger poultry slaughtering and further processing

facilities are economically unachievable for small poultry slaughtering and further processing

facilities. Rendering performed in conjunction with a poultry first processing facility would be

subject to the appropriate regulations under the poultry slaughtering (Subpart K).
3-1

SECTION 3

DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

EPA conducted a number of data collection activities in support of these proposed

regulations. Section 3.1 describes EPA’s site visit and sampling program. Section 3.2 describes

EPA’s industry surveys. Section 3.3 describes other information collection activities, including:

literature searches, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and

NPDES discharge monitoring report (DMR) reports. Section 3.4 describes EPA stakeholder

meetings.

3.1 SUMMARY OF EPA’S SITE VISIT AND SAMPLING PROGRAM

3.1.1 EPA Site Visits

During 2000 and 2001, EPA conducted site visits at 15 meat and poultry products (MPP)

processing facilities. Six of these site visits were conducted at meat facilities, seven at poultry

facilities, and two at rendering-only facilities. The purposes of these site visits were to:

(1) collect information on meat and poultry processing operations; (2) collect information on

wastewater generation and waste management practices used by the MPP facilities; and

(3) evaluate each facility as a candidate for multi-day sampling. In addition, EPA conducted

limited sampling during several of the site visits to screen for potential contaminants that may be

found in wastewaters from the different types of meat and poultry processing operations.

In selecting candidates for site visits, EPA attempted to identify facilities representative

of various MPP processing operations, as well as of both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA

specifically considered the type of meat and poultry processing operations, age of the facility,

size of facility (in terms of production), wastewater treatment processes employed, and best

management practices/pollution prevention techniques used. EPA also solicited

recommendations for good-performing facilities (e.g., facilities with advanced wastewater

treatment technologies) from EPA Regional offices and State agencies. The site-specific
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-2

selection criteria are discussed in site visit reports prepared for each site visited by EPA (and can

be found in Section 6.1.4.2 of the Administrative Record for the proposed rule). 

During each site visit, EPA collected information on the facility and its operations,

including: (1) general production data and information; (2) the types of meat and poultry

processing wastewaters generated and treated on-site; (3) water source and use; (4) wastewater

treatment and disposal operations; (5) potential sampling locations for wastewater (raw influent,

within the treatment system, and final effluent); and (6) other information necessary for

developing a sampling plan for possible multi-day sampling episodes. EPA also collected

wastewater samples of influent and effluent at seven of the 15 facilities for screening purposes

only.

3.1.2 EPA Sampling

3.1.2.1 Overview

Based on data collected from the site visits, EPA selected 11 facilities for multi-day

sampling. The purpose of the multi-day sampling was to characterize pollutants in raw

wastewaters prior to treatment, as well as to document wastewater treatment plant performance

(including selected unit processes). Selection of facilities for multi-day sampling was based on

an analysis of information collected during the site visits, as well as the following criteria:

• The facility performed meat and/or poultry slaughtering and/or further processing

operations representative of MPP facilities.

• The facility utilized in-process treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment

technologies that EPA was considering for technology option selection.

• Compliance monitoring data for the facility indicated that it was among the better

performing treatment systems, or that it employed wastewater treatment process

for which EPA sought data for option selection.

Multi-day sampling occurred at six meat facilities and five poultry facilities. EPA

performed multi-day sampling at two facilities, and nine facilities performed the multi-day
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-3

sampling on behalf of EPA. For the nine facilities that performed the sampling, EPA developed

sampling plans that detailed the procedures for sample collection, including the pollutants to be

sampled, location of sampling points, and sample collection, preservation, and shipment

techniques. EPA assisted the nine facilities as necessary (e.g., provided sample bottle labels,

provided assistance in shipping, and in one instance, provided on-site contractor support during

the sampling event).

3.1.1.2 Description of Sampling Episodes

During each multi-day sampling episode, EPA sampled facility influent and effluent

wastestreams. EPA did not collect source water information but will collect additional source

water data after proposal. EPA will use the post-proposal source water data to better characterize

wastewater characteristics for each of the facilities sampled. At some facilities, the Agency also

collected samples at intermediate points throughout the wastewater treatment system to assess

the performance of individual treatment units. Some of the facilities chosen for sampling

perform rendering and/or further processing operations in addition to meat and/or poultry

processing. For facilities that also performed rendering operations or further processing, EPA

sampled wastewater from the rendering and/or further processing operations separately, when

possible.

Sampling episodes were conducted over either a 3-day or 5-day period. EPA obtained

samples using a combination of 24-hour composite and grab samples, depending upon the

pollutant parameter to be analyzed. Depending on the type of wastewater processed and the

treatment technology being evaluated, EPA analyzed wastewater for up to 53 parameters

including conventional (BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH), toxic (selected

metals and pesticides), and nonconventional (e.g., nutrients, microbiologicals) pollutants. When

possible for a given parameter, EPA collected 24-hour composite samples in order to capture the

variability in the waste streams generated throughout the day (e.g., production wastewater versus

clean-up wastewater).

Data collected from the influent samples contributed to characterization of the industry,

development of the list of pollutants of concern and of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA used
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-4

the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent points to analyze the efficacy of

treatment at the facilities, and to develop current discharge concentrations, loadings, and the

treatment technology options for the meat and poultry products industry. EPA used effluent data

to calculate the long-term averages (LTAs) and limitations for each of the proposed regulatory

options. EPA also used industry-provided data from the MPP detailed survey to complement the

sampling data for these calculations. During each sampling episode, EPA also collected flow

rate data corresponding to each sample collected and production information from each

associated manufacturing operation for use in calculating pollutant loadings and

production-normalized flow rates. EPA has included in the public record all information

collected for which the facility has not asserted a claim of Confidential Business Information

(CBI) or which would indirectly reveal information claimed to be CBI.

3.1.2.3 Sampling Episode Reports

EPA used the site visit reports to prepare multi-day sampling and analysis plans (SAPs)

for each facility that would undergo multi-day sampling. The Agency collected the following

types of information during each sampling episode:

• Dates and times of sample collection.

• Flow data corresponding to each sample.

• Production data corresponding to each sample.

• Design and operating parameters for source reduction, recycling, and treatment

technologies characterized during sampling.

• Information about site operations that had changed since the site visit or that were

not included in the site visit report.

• Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) of the sampled wastestreams.

After the conclusion of the sampling episodes, EPA prepared sampling episode reports

for each facility which included descriptions of the wastewater treatment processes, sampling
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-5

procedures, and analytical results. EPA documented all data collected during sampling episodes

in the sampling episode report for each sampled site and has included them in the MPP

Administrative Record. Non-confidential business information from these reports is available in

the public record for this proposal. For detailed information on sampling and preservation

procedures, analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control procedures, see the various

sampling episode reports in the rulemaking record (see Section 6 of the Administrative Record).

3.1.2.4 Pollutants Sampled

The Agency (or facilities, as directed by the Agency) collected, preserved, and transported

all samples according to EPA protocols, as specified in EPA's “Sampling and Analysis

Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants” and in the MPP Quality

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

EPA collected composite samples for most parameters, because the Agency expected the

wastewater composition to vary over the course of a day. The Agency collected grab samples

from unit operations for oil and grease and microbiologicals. EPA gathered composite samples

either manually or by using an automated sampler. The Agency collected individual aliquots for

the composite samples at a minimum of once every 4 hours over each 24-hour period. Oil and

grease samples were collected every 4 hours, and microbiologicals were collected once a day.

Table 3-1 lists the parameters sampled at the majority of the facilities, some of which

have not been identified as pollutants of concern.

EPA contract laboratories completed all wastewater sample analyses, except for the field

measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. EPA or facility staff collected field

measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH at the sampling site. The analytical

chemistry methods used, as well as the sample volume requirements, detection limits, and

holding times, were consistent with the individual laboratory's quality assurance and quality

control plan. Laboratories contracted for MPP sample analysis followed EPA approved analysis

methods for all parameters.
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-6

The EPA contract laboratories reported data on their standard report sheet and submitted

them to EPA's sample control center (SCC). The SCC reviewed the report sheets for

completeness and reasonableness. EPA reviewed all reports from the laboratory to verify that the

data were consistent with requirements, reported in the proper units, and that the data were in

compliance with the applicable protocol. Appendix A provides brief descriptions of each of the

analytical methods.

Table 3-1. MPP Sampled Parameters

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5)

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand (DBOD5)

Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

Total organic carbon (TOC)

Total suspended solids (TSS)

Total dissolved solids (TDS)

Total volatile solids (TVS)

Chloride

Total residual chlorine (TRC)

Ammonia as nitrogen

Nitrate/nitrite

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)

Total phosphorus (TP)

Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP)

Orthophosphate

Oil and grease

Metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium,

 copper, mercury, zinc)

Carbamate pesticide (carbaryl)

Permethrin (cis- and trans-)

Malathion

Stirofos

Dichlorvos

Total coliform

Fecal coliform

Escherichia coli

Fecal streptococci

Salmonella

Aeromonas

Cryptosporidium (meat facilities only)

Quality control measures used in performing all analyses complied with the guidelines

specified in the analytical methods and in the MPP QAPP. EPA reviewed all analytical data to

ensure that these measures were followed and that the resulting data were within the

QAPP-specified acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision. SCC’s review is summarized in

Data Review Narratives that are available in Section 6.1.4.2 of the Administrative Record.

3.2 EPA MPP INDUSTRY SURVEYS

3.2.1 Overview of Industry Surveys

EPA did not have the site-specific technical and economic information required for the

development of technologically achievable regulatory options for the meat and poultry products
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-7

industry. Therefore, EPA used two survey questionnaires to collect site-specific technical and

economic information.

EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25325)

announcing the Agency's intent to submit the meat and poultry products industry survey

Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The

May 1, 2000 notice requested comment on the draft ICR and the survey questionnaires. EPA

received five sets of comments during the 60 day public comment period. Commentors on the

ICR included: National Chicken Council, National Renderers Association, American Meat

Institute, BCR Foods, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. EPA made minor clarifying

revisions to the survey methodology and questionnaires as a result of public comments.

EPA made every reasonable attempt to ensure that the meat and poultry products industry

ICR did not request data and information currently available through less burdensome

mechanisms. Prior to publishing the May 1, 2000 notice, EPA met with and distributed draft

copies of the survey questionnaires to three trade associations representing the meat and poultry

products industry (American Meat Institute, National Chicken Council, and National Renderers

Association). EPA obtained approval from OMB for the use and distribution of two survey

questionnaires: a short screener survey and a more detailed survey.

3.2.2 Description of the Survey Instruments

In February 2001, EPA mailed a short screener survey entitled “2001 Meat Products

Industry Screener Survey” to 1,650 meat and poultry products facilities. The screener survey

consisted of seven questions that elicited site-specific information such as type of animal

processed and processing operation, wastewater disposal method, and the number of full-time

employees at the site and company. EPA used the information collected from the screener survey

to describe industry operations, wastewater generation rates, and wastewater disposal practices.

EPA also used the responses to the site employment question for classifying each facility as small

or not-small according to the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR Part 121.
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-8

EPA designed the second survey to collect detailed site-specific technical and financial

information. In March 2001, EPA mailed the second survey, entitled “2001 Meat Products

Industry Survey,” to 350 meat and poultry products facilities. The detailed survey is divided into

five parts. The first four parts collect general facility and technical data. The first set of questions

request general facility site information. The general facility information questions asked the site

to identify itself, characterize itself by certain parameters (including meat and poultry products

operations, age, and location), and confirm that it was engaged in meat and/or poultry processing

operations. Respondents also indicated whether they use trisodium phosphate (TSP) as a

biocide. Substituting other non-phosphorus based biocides with TSP has the potential to lower

overall phosphorus concentrations in the raw wastewater and treated effluent. The second set of

questions requested analytical and production data including: (1) detailed daily analytical and

flow rate data for selected sampling points; (2) monthly production data; and (3) operating hours

for selected manufacturing operations. Survey respondents were required to provide existing

sampling data and information. The Agency used the analytical data to estimate baseline

pollutant loadings and pollutant removals from facilities with treatment-in-place resembling

projected regulatory options and to evaluate the variability associated with meat and poultry

products industry discharges. The Agency used the production data collected to evaluate the

production basis for applying the MPP proposal in NPDES permits.

The next two sections of the survey focused on wastewater characteristics and current

treatment practices, respectively. Questions regarding wastewater and treatment were designed to

gather: (1) information on the wastewater treatment systems (including diagrams) and discharge

flow rates; (2) analytical monitoring data; and (3) operating and maintenance cost data (including

treatment chemical usage). The outfall information questions covered permit information such

as: (1) discharge location; (2) wastewater sources to the outfall; (3) flow rates; (4) regulated

parameters and limits; and (5) permit monitoring data. The Agency used this information to

calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and standards and pollutant loadings associated with

the regulatory options that EPA considered for this proposal. The Agency also used data

received in response to these questions to identify treatment technologies in place, to determine

the feasibility of regulatory options and potential revision of the subcategorization scheme of the
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-9

meat and poultry products industry, and to estimate compliance costs, the pollutant reductions

associated with the likely technology-based options, and potential environmental impacts

associated with the regulatory options EPA considered for this proposal.

The fifth part of the detailed survey elicited site-specific financial and economic data.

EPA used this information to characterize the economic status of the industry and to estimate

potential economic impacts of wastewater regulations. The financial and economic information

collected in the survey was necessary to complete the economic analysis of the proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for the meat and poultry products industry. EPA requested

financial and economic information for the fiscal years ending 1997, 1998, and 1999, the most

recent years for which data are available.

3.2.3 Development of Survey Mailing List

EPA sent the two meat and poultry products industry survey questionnaires to a random

sample of facilities included in the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) database, and a list of renderers provided by the

National Renderers Association (NRA). The HACCP database provided a list of 7,891 federallyand state-inspected meat and poultry processing facilities. The HACCP database is dated March

9, 2000 for the federally inspected facilities and May 10, 2000 for the state-inspected facilities. 

The entire HACCP database is classified into Large, Small, and Very Small facilities,

corresponding to more than 500 employees, 10-500 employees, and fewer than 10 employees at

the facility level, respectively. The 231 renderers from the NRA list were not classified by size. 

The Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 identified production information (i.e.,

whether a facility was a slaughterer or further processor) for at least 242 of the 292 large facilities

(82 percent) and 1,236 of the 2,381 small facilities (52 percent). No such information was

available for the remaining large and small facilities or for any of the 5,308 very small facilities.

3.2.4 Sample Selection

EPA grouped the facilities into seven strata by the size and the type of meat and poultry

processing operation that takes place in each facility, so that each stratum would encompass
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-10

facilities with similar operations. This grouping (also known as stratification) increases precision

(reducing one source of uncertainty) for estimates of costs, benefits and other quantities. Table

3-2 lists the stratification of the meat and poultry products industry based on employment and

other information from USDA’s HACCP program, the Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory

2000, and the National Renders Association.

Various meat and poultry processors were randomly selected within each grouping. EPA

weighted each survey response to account for facilities not surveyed and to develop national

estimates from the survey responses. EPA deliberately selected the 65 “certainty” facilities to

obtain site-specific information on the top producers for all types of meat and poultry products as

well as facilities identified as good performers by state and regional environmental personnel.

Table 3-2. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Strata

Stratum

(No. of Employees)

Number of Facilities in

Stratum

Screener Survey

Sample Size

Detailed Survey

Sample Size

Certainty 65 0 65

Large Processor

(500)

43 31 3

Large Slaughterer

(500)

190 100 52

Small Processor

(10-499)

1,878 688 62

Small Slaughterer

(10-499)

498 130 69

Very Small Processor

(<10)

5,308 649 57

Renderer 235 52 42

Total 8,217 1,650 350

EPA focused much of its analysis on the characteristics of larger facilities since small

facilities as a group discharge fewer than 3 percent of the conventional pollutants, 1 percent of

the toxic pollutants, 4 percent of the nutrients, and less than 1.5 percent of the pathogens as

compared to all discharges from the entire MPP industry. Moreover, most of these small

facilities are discharging small volumes of wastewater into large urban publicly owned treatment
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-11

works (POTW) systems, which helps minimize impacts. Thus there is minimal impact on

POTW operations or the passing of MPP pollutants of concern through POTWs into waters of

the United States. Consequently, larger facilities were oversampled in the sample design. The

oversampling rate is approximately 6:3:1, meaning that the large facilities were sampled at six

times the rate of the very small facilities, and the small facilities at three times the rate of the very

small. In addition, many of the very small facilities were not eligible for the survey, as they were

no longer in operation. Appendix B provides additional information on how the Agency designed

the survey, developed sample size and extrapolated survey results

3.2.5 Survey Response

Of the 8,217 meat and poultry products industry facilities generating wastewater, 2,000

facilities were mailed either a detailed survey or a screener survey questionnaire. As of October

4, 2001, 1,365 of the 1,650 screener surveys and 300 of the 350 detailed surveys were returned to

EPA. EPA used 962 of the screener surveys and 241 of the detailed surveys which were received

before April 24, 2001 for screener survey and May 29, 2001 for detailed survey, for the

development of various regulatory options. EPA used the cut-off dates in order to process,

synthesize, and analyze the collected data and to develop regulatory options in a timely fashion. 

EPA will use all surveys collected after the deadlines in upcoming analyses for the forthcoming

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and final rule.

3.3 OTHER INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

EPA conducted a number of other data collection efforts to supplement information

gathered through the survey process, facility sampling activities, site visits, and meetings with

industry experts and the general public. The main purpose of these other data collection efforts

was to obtain information on documented environmental impacts of meat and poultry processing

industry facilities, additional data on animal processing waste characteristics, pollution

prevention practices, wastewater treatment technology innovation, and facility management

practices. These other data collection activities included a literature search, a review of current

NPDES permits, and NPDES DMRs.
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-12

3.3.1 Literature Search on Environmental Impacts

EPA conducted a literature search to obtain information on various aspects of the animal

processing industry, including documented environmental impacts, wastewater treatment

technologies, waste generation and facility management, and pollution prevention. EPA

performed extensive internet and library searches for applicable information. The Agency used

the resources of its own environmental library and of the United States Department of

Agriculture’s (USDA) National Research Library to obtain technical articles on environmental

issues relating to the animal processing industry. Researchers also consulted several university

libraries and industry experts during the literature search. As a result, EPA was able to compile a

list environmental impacts associated with the meat and poultry processing industry. The scope

of the literature search included government reports of permit violations and any associated

environmental impacts. EPA has included a summary of the case studies in the Administrative

Record associated with the MPP proposal. The primary sources for the case studies include

newspaper and technical journal articles, government reports, and papers included in industry and

academic conference proceedings.

3.3.2 Current NPDES Permits

EPA extracted information from the Agency’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) to

identify meat and poultry processing industry point source dischargers with NPDES permits. 

This initial extraction was performed by searching the PCS using reported Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) codes used to describe the primary activities occurring at the site.

Specifically, the following SIC Codes were used:

• 2011—Meat Packing Facilities

• 2013—Sausages and Other Prepared Meats

• 2015—Poultry Slaughtering and Processing

• 2077—Animal and Marine Fats and Oils.

EPA identified 359 active meat and poultry product facilities with NPDES permits in the

PCS database. The PCS estimate of MPP direct dischargers is approximately equivalent to the
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-13

screener survey estimate of direct dischargers. For the final rule, EPA will refine its estimates of

direct dischargers to incorporate information from both the PCS database and the screener

survey.

EPA selected a sample from this universe of direct dischargers in the PCS database. The

Agency then reviewed NPDES permits and permit applications to obtain information on

treatment technologies and wastewater characteristics for each of the respective animal

processing and rendering sectors. EPA used this information as part of its initial screening

process to identify the universe of processing facilities that would be covered under the proposal.

In addition, the Agency used this information to better define the scope of the information

collection requests and to supplement other information collected on meat and poultry processing

waste management practices.

3.3.3 Discharge Monitoring Reports

In addition, the Agency collected long-term effluent data from facility DMRs via the PCS

database in an effort to perform a “real world” check on the achievability of the MPP proposal

limits. DMRs summarize the quality and volume of wastewater discharged from a facility under

a NPDES permit. DMRs are critical for monitoring compliance with NPDES permit provisions

and for generating national trends on Clean Water Act compliance. DMRs may be submitted

monthly, quarterly, or annually depending on the requirements of the NPDES permit.

EPA extracted discharge data and permit limits from these DMRs (via the PCS database)

to help identify pollutants of concern (i.e., which pollutants are currently being regulated) and to

identify better performing facilities. Specifically, EPA identified the amount of discharged

ammonia in relation to the respective permit limits. EPA conducted this analysis in part to

identify potential facilities for future sampling, as well as to assist in identifying a selection of

facilities for the certainty component of the detailed survey exercise.

EPA was able to collect DMR information on a total of 176 facilities from four MPP

sectors: 77 meat packing facilities; 17 facilities producing sausages and other prepared meat
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-14

products; 65 poultry slaughtering and processing facilities; and 17 animal and marine fat and oils

facilities. EPA collected 31,311 data points on 83 separate pollutant parameters.

Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with their control authority (e.g.,

POTW) at least twice per year as required under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR

403), while direct dischargers file discharge monitoring reports with their permitting authority at

least once per year. EPA did not collect compliance monitoring reports for MPP facilities that

are indirect dischargers, as: (1) a vast majority of MPP indirect dischargers are small facilities

(i.e., small volumes of wastewater); and (2) this information is less centralized and harder to

collect.

Because DMR and indirect discharger compliance monitoring reports do not provide

information about processes and production, EPA was not able to use these data directly in

calculating the limitations and standards Instead, in the detailed survey, EPA requested that

facilities provide the individual daily measurements from their monitoring (for DMR or the

control authority) with detailed information about their treatment systems and processes. After

further evaluation of the detailed surveys, EPA intends to use the self-monitoring data

corresponding to the proposed treatment options to calculate the final limits and to reassess the

achievability of the limits by well-operated BAT systems. In cases where EPA determines that

improved system operation will allow the limits to be consistently achieved, it will include

additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost estimations for the final rule where it has not

already done so. In following the approach described above, EPA concludes that it will address

issues related to the achievability of the numerical limits by well-operated and economically

achievable treatment systems.

3.4 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

EPA encouraged the participation of all interested parties throughout the development of

the MPP proposal. EPA conducted outreach to the following trade associations (which represent

the vast majority of the facilities that will be affected by this guideline): American Meat Institute

(AMI), American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), National Renderers Association

(NRA), U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, and the National Chicken Council. EPA met on
Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-15

several occasions with various industry representatives to discuss aspects of the regulation

development. EPA also participated in industry meetings and gave presentations on the status of

the regulation development. Summaries of these meetings are in the rulemaking Administrative

Record.

In the development of the surveys used to gather facility specific information on this

industry, EPA consulted with the industry groups and several of their members to ensure that the

information was being requested in an intelligible manner, and that they would provide it in the

form requested.

EPA also met with representatives from USDA to discuss this regulation and how it

might either be affected by or affect requirements on the meat and poultry processing industry

implemented by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA. EPA has met with

representatives from state and local governments to discuss their concerns with meat and poultry

processing facilities and how EPA should approach these facilities in regulation. Summaries of

these meetings are in the Administrative Record. Additionally, EPA Regional and State

pretreatment coordinators were contacted to identify MPP indirect dischargers that were causing

POTW interference or pass through. The results of this limited search is summarized in Section

13 and in the rulemaking Administrative Record. EPA plans to conduct a more systematic and

thorough study of POTWs accepting MPP indirect discharges to better characterize interference

and pass through issues. EPA will present the results of the findings in the forthcoming NODA.
4-1

SECTION 4

MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

This section provides an overview of the meat and poultry products (MPP) industry. 

Section 4.2 provides a general overview of the MPP industry. Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 provide

more detailed information related meat, poultry, and rendering operations, respectively.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The meat and poultry products industry includes facilities that slaughter livestock (e.g.,

cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, and lambs) and/or poultry or process meat and/or poultry into

products for further processing or sale to consumers. In some facilities, slaughter and further

processing activities are combined. The industry is often described in terms of three categories:

(1) meat slaughtering and processing; (2) poultry slaughtering and processing; and (3) rendering. 

A facility may perform slaughtering operations, processing operations from carcasses slaughtered

at the facility or other facilities, or both. Companies that own meat or poultry product facilities

may also own facilities that raise the animals or further process the meat or poultry products into

final consumer goods. Raising of animals, however, is not covered by the meat and poultry

products industry effluent limitations guidelines.

Since the 1970s when EPA issued the existing regulations for the meat and rendering

industry sectors, the meat and poultry products industry has become increasingly concentrated

and vertically integrated through alliances, acquisitions, mergers, and other relationships. This

vertical integration is particularly pronounced in the broiler sector of the poultry industry. Most

of the broiler and other chicken products that reach the consumer have been under the control of

the same company from the hatching through the processing of the birds. Vertical integration is

not seen to the same extent in the meat sector, although there is increasing vertical integration,

particularly in the hog sector.

The meat and poultry products industry encompasses four North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) codes developed by the Department of Commerce. These
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-2

NAICS codes include Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry), NAICS 311611; Meat Processed

from Carcasses, NAICS 311612; Poultry Processing, NAICS 311615; and Rendering and Meat

Byproduct Processing, NAICS 311613.

4.2 MEAT PRODUCTS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

4.2.1 Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry)

Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) (NAICS 311611) includes meat first processing

facilities that slaughter cattle, hogs, sheep, lambs, calves, horses, goats, and exotic livestock (e.g.,

elk, deer, buffalo) for human consumption. Slaughtering (first processing) is the first step in the

processing of meat animals into consumer products. Slaughterhouse operations typically

encompass the following steps: (1) receiving and holding of live animals for slaughter;

(2) stunning prior to slaughter; (3) slaughter (bleeding); and (4) initial processing of animals. 

Slaughterhouse facilities are designed to accommodate this multistep process of first processing. 

In most slaughterhouses, the major steps are carried out in separate rooms.

In addition, many first processing facilities further process carcasses on-site to produce

products such as hams, sausages, and canned meat. Otherwise, carcasses may be shipped to

other facilities for further processing. Also, many first processing facilities include rendering

operations that produce edible products, such as lard, and inedible products, including

ingredients for animal feeds and products for industrial use.

Based on the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers, the animal first processing industry

sector includes 1,300 companies, which operate approximately 1,400 facilities. The industry

sector employs 142,000 people and generates a total value of shipments of $54 billion. Twelve

states reported shipments in excess of $1 billion; Texas, California, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin

contain the largest number of first processing establishments (at least 60 establishments in each

state). Nebraska ranks seventh in the number of facilities located in the state, but it has the

highest number of employees engaged in animal first processing of any state. Nebraska accounts

for almost 17 percent of the value added and 16 percent of total shipments in this industry sector. 

Industry activity is most heavily concentrated in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas.
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-3

The Animal First Processing sector comprises a large number of facilities (72 percent of

the sector) that have fewer than 20 employees. These facilities employ less than 5 percent of the

sector workforce and contribute an even smaller percentage of value added and value of

shipments to this sector. Thirty-nine facilities employ between 1,000 and 2,500 employees and

while constituting 3 percent of the total number of establishments, provide 43 percent of the

industry employment and 46 percent of the value of shipments.

Revised production rate thresholds exclude most smaller meat product processing

facilities from the January 31, 2002, proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 432. Based on the

current screener survey data, EPA is defining small meat facilities as those that produce fewer

than 50 million pounds live weight kill (LWK) per year. See Figures 4-1 and 4-2 for the

distribution of small and non-small (facilities producing more than 50 million pounds (LWK) per

year) meat first and further processing facilities, also, categorized by discharge type, throughout

the United States. 

4.2.2 Meat Processed from Carcasses

Meat Processed from Carcasses (NAICS 311612) includes facilities engaged in

processing or preserving meat and meat by-products (but not poultry or small game) from

purchased meats. These facilities do not slaughter animals or perform any initial processing

(e.g., defleshing, defeathering).

The meat further processing industry sector includes 1,164 companies, which own and

operate about 1,300 facilities. This sector employs about 88,000 people, and the value of

shipments is more than $25 billion, of which $9 billion is value added by manufacture.

California, Illinois, New York, and Texas have the highest concentration of meat further

processing facilities, each with more than 90 meat further processing facilities. The highest

levels of employment, however, are found in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, which

together generate one-third of the meat further processing employment. In Wisconsin more than

half of the meat further processing facilities employ more than 20 workers, and the state also

accounts for the largest share of both total shipments and value added in the industry.
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-4

Figure 4-2. Location of Non-Small Meat Facilities in the United

States (Based on MPP Screener Survey Data).

Figure 4-1. Location of Small Meat Facilities in the United States

(Based on MPP Screener Survey Data).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-5

As with the animal first processing sector, more than half of the meat further processing

facilities employ fewer than 20 workers. The bulk of the employment (54 percent), value added

(55 percent), and total shipments (57 percent) is accounted for by meat further processing

facilities employing between 100 and 500 workers. The difference between the animal first

processing sector and the meat further processing sector is that while the value of shipments in

the animal first processing industry sector is heavily concentrated in the largest facilities, the

value of shipments in the meat further processing sector is more evenly distributed across meat

further processing facilities of all different sizes.

See Figures 4-1 and 4-2 for the locations of small and non-small meat and mixed meat

first and further processing facilities throughout the United States that have been further

classified by discharge type. EPA defines small meat facilities as those producing fewer than 50

million pounds per year (LWK).

4.3 DESCRIPTION OF MEAT FIRST AND FURTHER PROCESSING

OPERATIONS

The meat processing industry produces meat products and by-products from cattle, calves,

hogs, sheep, lambs, horses, and all other animal species except poultry, other birds, rabbits, and

small game. Equine meat production has declined in the United States in the past 5 years. Total

annual production of equine meat was 47,134 head in the year 2000 (USDA, 2001). Most horse

meat is exported to Europe for consumption because of the cultural aversion to horse meat

consumption in the United States. It is not known whether European demand for horse meat will

increase in the future, given concerns about transmissible bovine spongiform encephalopathy in

cattle. 

The processing of animal species other than cattle and hogs accounts for only a small

fraction of total production. The live weight of cattle and hogs slaughtered annually is

consistently more than 90 percent of the total live weight of meat animals slaughtered for the

production of meat products and by-products. Given that there is little difference in the

processing of cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, and horses, only the processing of cattle is described in
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-6

the sections that follow; parallel discussions are provided where cattle and hog processing

procedures differ. 

Meat processing begins with the assembly and slaughter of live animals and may end with

the shipping of dressed carcasses or continue with a variety of additional activities. Meat

processing operations are classified as slaughter (first processing) or further processing

operations or an integrated combination of both. First processing operations include those

operations which receive live meat animals and produce a raw or dressed meat product, either

whole or in parts. In this classification system, first processing operations simply produce

dressed whole or split carcasses or smaller segments for sale to wholesale meat distributors or

directly to retailers. These operations are often prerequisites to further processing activities such

as cutting, deboning, grinding, sausage production, curing, pickling, smoking, cooking, or

canning. Demand for whole or split carcasses gradually has declined since the mid-1970s with a

concurrent increase in demand for a greater degree of carcass cut-up ranging from separation of

whole or split carcasses into front and hind quarters or smaller sections (e.g., “boxed beef”), to

the preparation of packaged, case-ready, fresh cuts of meat. Most first processing operations

today perform some cutting, deboning, and grinding operations. Further processing operations

such as sausage production, curing, pickling, smoking, cooking, and canning can occur on-site or

at off-site facilities.

Therefore, EPA considers the reduction of whole or split carcasses into quarters or

smaller segments (including case-ready cuts, which may be with or without bone and may be

ground) to be part of first processing operations when performed at first processing facilities. 

Conversely, EPA considers the cutting, boning, and grinding operations to be further processing

operations when performed at facilities not also engaged in first processing activities. The

reduction of whole or split carcasses or smaller carcass segments (e.g., “boxed beef”) into caseready cuts at the retail level is an example of a case in which cutting, boning, or grinding would

be further processing.
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-7

4.3.1 Meat Slaughter and Packing Operations 

Common to all meat first processing operations are the series of steps necessary to

transform live animals into either whole or split carcasses. These steps include the assembly and

holding of animals for slaughter; killing, which involves stunning before and bleeding after

killing; hide or hair removal in the case of hogs, evisceration and variety meat (organ) harvest;

carcass washing; trimming; and carcass cooling. Depending on the market served, cutting,

deboning, and grinding and other further processing operations may occur at the same location.

Most meat facilities for which site visits were conducted slaughtered animals 5 days per

week, Monday through Friday. Slaughtering may also be performed on Saturdays during peak

production periods. Employees of meat facilities generally work 8 to 9.5 hours per day, Monday

through Friday, and when necessary 4 to 5 hours on Saturday. Meat facilities generally have two

slaughter shifts per day, one starting at approximately 6 a.m. and the other starting at

approximately 3 p.m. 

Generally, larger meat first processing operations specialize in the processing of one type

of animal (e.g., cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, hogs, or horses). Differences in animal size and

some processing steps preclude the design of processing equipment for multiple animal types. If

a single facility does slaughter different types of meat animals, separate lines, if not buildings, are

used (Warriss, 2000). However, very small meat first processing operations may process several

types of meat animals in a single building. Figure 4-3 shows the general sequence of steps in the

process of transforming live meat animals into carcasses. Detailed descriptions of each of these

steps are given in the following sections.

4.3.1.1 Live Animal Receiving and Holding

Meat processors schedule receipt of live animals for slaughter from producers not only to

provide a continuous supply of animals for processing but also to minimize holding time to no

more than 1 day. This practice eliminates the need for feeding and reduces manure accumulation

in holding pens. However, processors provide water to minimize weight loss. With the 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-8
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-9

relocation of first processing operations to areas of animal production, movement by truck has

replaced rail transportation of live animals.

Holding pens, which allow recovery from shipping-related stress, may be covered or

totally enclosed, especially in cold climates, to provide some protection from extreme weather

conditions but primarily to reduce contaminated runoff from precipitation events. Holding pens

are, however, sources of wastewater resulting from pen washing and drinking water spillage. 

Water pollutant concentrations depend on whether pens are scraped (dry cleaned) prior to washdown to remove accumulated manure. Animals are herded from the holding pens to the killing

area of the processing plant through connecting alleys. These alleys also are sources of

wastewater generated during precipitation events (if uncovered) as well as from cleaning.

4.3.1.2 Methods Used to Stun Animals

Humane slaughter legislation requires that animals be stunned to produce an unconscious

state before killing to reduce pain and suffering. Some exemptions are made for religious meat

processing (e.g., kosher, halal). Cattle typically are stunned by mechanical means using a captive

bolt pistol, percussion stunner, or free bullet to inflict brain trauma and the immediate loss of

consciousness. Electric shock is most commonly used to stun hogs because mechanical stunning

can result in convulsions, making subsequent shackling difficult. Electric shock also is

commonly used to stun sheep, lambs, and calves before killing. 

A less commonly used alternative to electric shock for stunning hogs is exposure to a 70

to 90 percent carbon dioxide environment in a pit or tunnel. Inhalation of a high concentration of

carbon dioxide causes a drop in brain fluid pH and loss of consciousness. Current research is

being performed to evaluate argon as a substitute for carbon dioxide. While stunning with argon

is believed to be less stressful to the animal than using carbon dioxide, use of argon requires

longer exposure periods to achieve unconsciousness (Warriss, 2000). 

4.3.1.3 Killing and Bleeding

Immediately after stunning, shackles are attached to the animal’s rear legs for suspension

from an overhead rail conveyor used to move the carcass through the processing plant. After
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-10

hanging the animals, processors kill them within seconds by severing main arteries and veins in

the neck region to cause death by massive and rapid blood loss (exsanguination). This process is

generally known as “sticking,” and somewhat different techniques are used for cattle, hogs,

sheep, and horses. 

Troughs or gutters collect blood lost following sticking for recovery in the form of

various by-products. If blood is collected for subsequent human consumption in products such as

blood sausage, a hollow knife connected to a special tank under partial vacuum is used. While

approximately 40 to 60 percent of the blood exits the body during bleeding, about 3 to 5 percent

remains in the muscles and the remainder is in held in the viscera (Wilson, 1998). 

Certain religious practices require an alternative slaughter process for cattle. In these

cases, the animal is not stunned prior to slaughter. Instead, the animal is restrained while the

slaughterer makes a transverse cut that severs the major vessels in the throat (Warriss, 2000). 

The Jewish slaughter practice, called Shechita, requires a single cut without pause, pressure,

stabbing, slanting, or tearing. The cut severs the skin, muscles, trachea, esophagus, jugular veins,

and carotid arteries. After bleeding ceases, the slaughterer searches for lung adhesions. The

meat is unfit for consumption if the sores are believed to have been detrimental to the animal

while alive. Next, the removal of blood vessels and sinews, called porging, completes the

slaughter ritual. Halal, the Muslim slaughter practice, is similar to Shechita; the main difference

is that searching and porging do not take place (Wilson, 1998).

Although not common, the slaughtering process may include electric stimulation of the

carcasses to improve meat quality and to facilitate removal of the hide. Typically, this process

calls for a skull probe, which is inserted into the skull of the carcass through the hole from the

captive bolt for 30 seconds (Wilson, 1998). One of the primary goals of electric stimulation is to

prevent cold shortening, which makes the meat less tender. Plants use both high-voltage (>500

volts) and low-voltage (30 to 90 volts) electric stimulation systems (USEPA, 1997).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-11

4.3.1.4 Hide Removal from Cattle and Sheep and Hair Removal from Hogs

Before evisceration, slaughterers remove hides from cattle and sheep, and hair from hog

carcasses to reduce the potential for contamination of the carcasses after evisceration from hair,

dirt, and manure. Hides usually are removed from cattle and sheep mechanically after the

removal of the head, tail, and hooves. The process of hide removal begins with some initial

separation from the carcass manually, using either conventional or air-driven knives, to enable

attachment of mechanical pullers. The pullers then remove the hide by either pulling up from the

neck to the tail or pulling in the reverse direction, which is less common.

On-site hide processing can consist of salting for preservation before shipment to leather

tanning operations, or it can involve washing, defleshing, and salting before shipment. However,

on-site hide processing options also may include curing before shipment for off-site tanning or

complete processing followed by the marketing of tanned hides.

Hogs typically are not skinned. Rather, they are scalded by immersion for about 4 to 5

minutes in hot water having a temperature of about 54 to 60 C (130 to 140 F). The objective of

scalding to relax hair follicles is to facilitate subsequent mechanical hair removal by passing the

carcass between rotating drums with rubber fins or fingers. A constant flow of water washes

away the hair removed from the carcass. Any remaining hair is removed by singeing by passing

the carcass through a gas flame followed by passing the carcass through a water spray for cooling

and washing, and then by manual shaving.

Meat processing facilities usually collect hog hair and other particulate matter from

processing wastewater by screening for rendering before any subsequent on-site or off-site

wastewater treatment. Hog hair also may be recovered, washed, and baled for sale for various

uses, but demand for this material has become quite limited. Also limited is the demand for

pigskin leather, which is why most hogs are not skinned.

4.3.1.5 Evisceration

After hide or hair removal from hogs, the carcasses are washed with water sprays to

remove any manure, soil, and hair present to retard microbial growth and spoilage. This step is
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-12

followed by evisceration to remove internal organs. Evisceration begins with a ventral incision

made manually that spans the length of the carcass, followed by removal of the gastrointestinal

tract (stomach, intestines, and rectum). Then, an incision is made through the diaphragm to

allow removal of the remaining organs (trachea, lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, and spleen).

After evisceration, carcasses are federally or state-inspected for indicators of disease and

suitability for human consumption. Condemned carcasses are segregated with salvage of usable

parts when possible. Following evisceration and inspection, with the possible exception of calf

and lamb carcasses, carcasses usually are split into two halves by sawing them down the middle

of the spinal column.

After evisceration, different organs may be separated for sale as variety meats or pet food

ingredients prior to the removal of viscera from the processing plant; otherwise, viscera are

generally disposed of through rendering. Liver and kidneys are the organs most commonly

harvested from cattle, calf, and lamb viscera; some stomach tissue is harvested from cattle for

sale as tripe. Less common is the harvesting of the thymus from calves for sale as sweet breads. 

Lung tissue also may be harvested for sale as food for mink. 

Variety meat harvesting from hogs is more extensive than from cattle and sheep and

includes not only liver and kidneys, but also the small and large intestine. The former is sold as

chitterlings while the latter is sold as natural casing for sausage. In addition, hog ears and feet,

jowls, and the sphincter muscle may be harvested for sale. 

4.3.1.6 Washing

After carcass inspection and splitting, a second washing takes place to remove blood

released during evisceration, bone dust from carcass splitting, and any other foreign matter

present. Processors may add bactericide such as an organic acid, chlorine, or potassium chloride

to the wash water to reduce microbial populations and the potential for growth and spoilage. 

Acetic and lactic acids in very dilute concentrations (2 to 3 percent) are the organic acids used as

bactericides. Large operations often use automated carcass washing equipment to maintain
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-13

appropriate pressure to maximize efficiency of water use (USEPA, 1997). The time from

stunning to the second and final carcass wash varies to some degree, but it is less than 1 hour. 

Before refrigeration or freezing, all variety meats are washed to remove blood and any

other contaminants. The washing of the small and large intestines of hogs is a very laborintensive process requiring substantial amounts of water to completely removal fecal material. 

4.3.1.7 Chilling

The next step in the meat slaughtering process is carcass chilling to remove residual body

heat to inhibit microbial growth and reduce evaporative weight loss. Carcasses are chilled for at

least a 24-hour period but are chilled for 48 hours over weekends and during weeks with

holidays. Typically, carcass chilling is a two-step process beginning with snap (flash) chilling at

temperatures substantially below freezing to effect a rapid initial rate of reduction in carcass

temperature (USEPA, 1997). After snap chilling, carcasses are moved into chill rooms for the

remainder of the chilling process. Chill room temperatures are maintained at a temperature of 

1 C (34 F) to reduce carcass temperature to no higher than 7 C (45 F) before further handling

(Warriss, 2000). Chilling facilities separate the “dirty” and “clean” sides of meat processing

plants.

4.3.1.8 Packaging and Refrigeration or Freezing

Larger carcass sections usually are packaged in heavy plastic bags, which then may be

placed in cardboard boxes (e.g., “boxed beef”) for shipping. Large quantities of ground meat

also are packaged in heavy plastic bags. Smaller cuts sold as case-ready are placed on Styrofoam

trays, wrapped with thin plastic film, and boxed for shipment. Case-ready cuts also may be

weighed and labeled showing weight and price. The packaging of case-ready cuts usually is a

completely automated process. 

Packaged meats then are refrigerated until and during shipment. Freezing of meats that

have not been further processed is rare given consumer food safety concerns about refreezing

previously frozen meats. However, some meat is frozen before shipment, especially for

commercial use and export markets. 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-14

4.3.1.9 Cleaning Operations

Federal and state regulations require that equipment and facilities used for the first

processing of all animals for human consumption be completely cleaned at least after every 8

hours of operation to maintain sanitary conditions. Therefore, the daily schedule for meat

processing facilities consists of one or two 8-hour production shifts followed by a 6- to 8-hour

cleanup shift. During cleanup, first all equipment, walls, and floors are rinsed to remove easily

detachable particulate matter. Then they are scrubbed and rinsed again to remove detached

particulate matter, detergents, and sanitizing agents used during the scrubbing phase of cleanup

activities. In states where phosphorus-based detergents are banned, phosphorus-based detergent

use in food processing plants is generally exempted, so phosphorus-based detergents are

commonly used. Chlorine solutions and other bactericidal compounds are also commonly used.

4.3.2 Meat Further Processing

As previously discussed, EPA considers the reduction of whole or split carcasses into

quarter or smaller segments as further processing operations when they do not occur in

conjunction with first processing operations. The segments produced include case-ready cuts

with or without bone and ground meat. Other activities, including sausage production, curing,

pickling, smoking, marinating, cooking, and canning, also are considered further processing

operations. 

In the meat industry, further processing activities may be combined with first processing

activities at the same site or they may be stand-alone operations. Where first and further

processing activities occur at the same site, usually some fraction of the carcasses produced is

marketed as fresh meat and the remainder is transformed into processed products. Stand-alone

further processing operations may receive carcasses, or more commonly carcass parts, from first

processing operations for further processing. 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-15

4.3.2.1 Raw Material Thawing

The frozen raw materials received by a meat processing plant are handled in one of three

different ways:

• Wet thawing

• Dry thawing

• Chipping

Materials that are wet thawed are submerged in tanks or vats containing warm water for

the time required to thaw the particular pieces of meat. The devices used for wet thawing include

simple carts with water covering the meat, vats with water flowing in and out with the exit

temperature of the water controlled at 10 to 16 C (50 to 60 F) to avoid heating the outer

surfaces of the meat, and equipment where the meat pieces are suspended in a tank of water and

moved by some conveyance through that tank for a time sufficient to thaw the meat (USEPA,

1974).

Dry thawing involves placing the frozen meat pieces in a refrigerated room at a

temperature above freezing and allowing sufficient time for the particular pieces of meat to fully

thaw (USEPA, 1974).

Chipping involves size-reduction equipment designed to handle frozen pieces of meat and

to produce small particles of meat that readily thaw and can be used directly in subsequent

mixing or grinding operations. This type of thawing is usually associated with the production of

comminuted (flaked) meat products (USEPA, 1974).

Both wet and dry thawing generally are used when the entire piece of meat, or a

substantial portion of it, is required for a finished product, such as hams or bacon (USEPA,

1974).

Wet thawing of raw materials generates the largest quantity of contaminated wastewater. 

The water used to thaw the materials is in contact with the meat and thereby extracts watersoluble salts and accumulates particles of meat and fat. The water used in thawing is dumped
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-16

into the sewer after thawing is complete. The waste load generated in dry thawing is from the

thawing materials dripping onto the floor and from the washing of these drippings into the sewer. 

The waste from the chipping of frozen meat materials includes the meat and fat particles

remaining on the chipping equipment that are washed into the sewer during cleanup. Juices

extruded from the meat product in the chipping process are wasted to the sewer, although it is not

a large wasteload (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.2 Carcass/Meat Handling and Preparation

This operation includes seven different operations that may be involved in handling and

preparing meat materials for subsequent processing, depending on the processing plant. Each of

the seven operations is described separately. All seven operations are usually not required to

produce a processed meat product (USEPA, 1974). These operations are also illustrated in

Figure 4-4. 

4.3.2.2.1 Breaking

Beef is frequently received by meat processors as carcass halves or quarters. Breaking

involves the cutting of these half and quarter carcasses into more manageable sizes for further

handling and preparation following this operation. The waste load originates from the cutting

and sawing and includes small meat and fat particles and relatively little liquid, all of which fall

to the floor and are washed into the sewer during cleanup (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.2.2 Trimming

The removal of excess or unwanted fat and of specific cuts from larger pieces of meat is

done in the trimming operation. The unwanted fat trimmed from meat products is usually

disposed of through rendering. The materials for disposal are collected and stored in drums,

which are picked up by renderers. The waste load generated in trimming might be greater than

that generated by the breaking operation. Trimming requires a greater number of cuts on a

specific piece of meat to obtain the required quality or particular cut desired from the raw
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-17

Figure 4-4. General Process for Meat Cuts and Portion Control

Procedures (USEPA, 1974).

material. The wastewater generated by this operation results from the use of water by the

personnel involved in the operation during the operating day and water required to clean the

equipment and floor of the trimming operation (USEPA, 1974).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-18

4.3.2.2.3 Cutting

In the cutting operation, the larger pieces of meat are cut or sawed for the direct

marketing of the smaller sections or individual cuts, or for further processing in the production of

processed meat products. The solid waste materials generated in cutting are similar to those

produced in trimming, plus the bone dust from sawing the bones. The large pieces are useful in

sausages or canned meats or can be rendered for edible fats and tallows. The waste materials

from the equipment and floor washdown contribute to the waste load of the meat processing

plant (USEPA, 1974). 

4.3.2.2.4 Deboning

Some raw materials are prepared for the consumer by the removal of internal bones prior

to manufacturing particular products such as hams and Canadian bacon. Deboning might also be

performed at the same location as trimming, prior to the production of various meat cuts. The

bones removed in this operation are disposed of through rendering channels. Meat and fat

particles produced from this operation are normally washed into the sewer of a meat processing

plant (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.2.5 Skinning

The removal of the pork skin from a piece of meat can be done by machine or by hand. 

Skinning is most frequently used in the preparation of pork bellies for processing into bacon and

in ham production. The common practice in the industry is to use machines for the skinning

process. The skins removed are disposed of through rendering channels. Other products that

require skinning, such as picnic hams, are manually skinned, frequently at the same time that the

raw hams are deboned. In either type of skinning operation, meat and fat particles are generated

and wasted by falling on the floor or by becoming attached to the skinning equipment. The

subsequent cleanup washes these particles into the sewer. In addition, tempering frequently

precedes pork belly skinning, generating a waste load comparable to that generated by wet

thawing of frozen meat materials by direct meat contact with water (USEPA, 1974).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-19

4.3.2.2.6 Comminution (Mincing, Bowl Chopping, Flaking)

Comminution is the process of reducing large pieces of meat into small pieces for

products such as sausage and hamburger patties. There are three general methods of

comminution: mincing, bowl chopping, and flaking. Each method affects the size and shape of

meat differently, influencing other meat properties. The general processes for comminuted meat

products are illustrated in Figure 4-5. 

Meat is minced by being pushed through a perforated plate positioned against a rotating

knife with a screw auger. The size of perforation varies, depending on the desired meat particle

size. The meat is then broken into very small pieces through bowl chopping. Meat is bowl

chopped by being placed into a rotating bowl and carried by conveyor belt through a set of

vertically rotating knives. Comminuted (flaked) meat is produced when a sharp blade cuts frozen

meat blocks into small flakes.

Hamburger patties are formed of minced or flaked beef traditionally, although other

meats can be used. Reformed steaks are made from comminuted meat that is shaped to resemble

a natural steak. Sausages are made from chopped or comminuted meat and additional

ingredients, which are filled into a casing. The casing can be made from the collagen layer of

animal intestines or from the reconstituted collagen from other animal parts (Warriss, 2000).

4.3.2.2.7 Grinding, Mixing, and Emulsifying

All processed meat products that are not marketed as cuts or as specific items such as

bacon or ham, or used in large pieces, are processed at least through a grinding step to produce a

finished product. Grinding is the first step in reducing the size of meat pieces for use in

processed meat products such as hamburger, or in preparation for further mixing, blending, or

additional size reduction. Grinders are frequently equipped with plates through which meat is

forced or extruded. Grinder plates with holes measuring 1/8 to 3/8 inch are most commonly

used. In addition to size reduction, grinding equipment may be used to prepare a mixture of

various ingredients such as meat products from different types of animals or lean and fatty meat

products. The particle size of the meat ingredients in a product is critical. Larger particle size is
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-20

Figure 4-5. General Process for Comminuted Meat Products (Sausage,

Wieners, Luncheon Meats, etc.) USEPA, 1974).

required for hamburger or fresh pork sausage products. A slightly smaller particle size is

required for manufacturing dry or semi-dry sausages. Various sausages, including wieners and

some luncheon meats, are prepared by a substantial size reduction or comminution of the meat

raw materials. These products involve a stable sausage emulsion whereby the fat droplets or
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-21

globules are uniformly dispersed throughout the mixture so that it will take on a homogenous

appearance (USEPA, 1974).

Equipment is available to the meat processor that blends or mixes the various ingredients,

including the meat materials, to produce stable emulsions. One type of equipment—the “silent

cutter”— uses numerous knife blades spinning at a high velocity to reduce the particle size and to

produce a stable emulsion. The other type of equipment used to produce an emulsion has the

appearance of a common type of dry blender comparable to the ribbon blender (USEPA, 1974).

Control of the type of raw materials used, the sequence of addition, and the time and

intensity of grinding, blending, or emulsifying are all critical to the quality of the finished

product. Some movement of materials is usually involved in these operations because stepwise

processing is required for each batch. This movement is accomplished by pumping or manually

using portable containers (USEPA, 1974). 

Solid waste materials are generated from these operations by spillage in handling and

movement of materials and in cleanup and preparation of equipment for different types of

products (USEPA, 1974).

These manufacturing operations are among the major contributors to the waste load in a

meat processing plant as a result of equipment cleanup. Because the processing step involves

size reduction of lean and fatty materials and the preparation of stable mixtures of meat and other

ingredients, these materials tend to coat equipment surfaces and collect in crevices, recesses, and

dead spaces in equipment. All of these materials are removed in cleanup and washed into the

sewer. This is in contrast to larger particles that can be readily dry-cleaned off a floor prior to

washdown, thereby reducing the raw waste load in the wastewater stream. Any piece of

equipment that is used in any of these operations is cleaned at least once per processing day and

may be rinsed off periodically throughout the day, thereby generating a fairly substantial quantity

of wastewater and contributing to the raw waste load (USEPA, 1974).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-22

4.3.2.3 Tenderizing and Tempering

Meat can be tenderized either by marinating or by being injected with salt solutions or

acids. Meats have been traditionally marinated in vinegar or wine because their acidic properties

break down the muscle structure. Also, the myofibrils swell and hold water, improving

tenderness and juiciness. More recently, solutions, especially calcium chloride solutions, have

been injected into the meat to achieve the same results (Warriss, 2000).

The processing of some meat products can be enhanced by adjusting the temperature or

moisture content prior to a specific processing step. This is particularly true in the production of

bacon from pork bellies. If the pork bellies are to be skinned, tempering in a water-filled vat is

frequently used to improve skin removal. Hams and bacon are frequently tempered following

cooking and smoking by being kept in refrigerated storage long enough for the desired

temperature to develop within the particular product. See Figure 4-6 for the general processes for

hams and bacon. Some meat processors also find it advantageous to allow the cooked bacon slab

to temper in refrigerated storage, following pressing and forming of the slab into the rectangular

shape used in the bacon-slicing machines. The holding of essentially finished products generates

very little, if any, waste load. However, the water-soaking tempering technique employed prior

to skinning pork bellies does generate a waste load comparable to that generated by wet thawing

of frozen meat materials by the direct meat contact and subsequent dumping of this water into the

sewer (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.4 Curing

Curing employs salt compounds to preserve meat and develop a characteristic appearance

and flavor. There are two methods of curing meats—dry curing, which entails rubbing solid salts

into the meat surface, and immersion, a much more common method wherein meat is submersed

into a liquid solution of salts. Injecting brine into the meat and tumbling the meat with rotating

drums often aid in distribution. Other salts, such as potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate, and

sodium nitrite, often substitute for common table salt (sodium chloride) in the brine solution. 

The curing brine typically contains additional substances, including sugars to enhance flavor,
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-23

Figure 4-6. General Process for Hams and Bacon. (USEPA, 1974).

ascorbic acid to prevent discoloration, and polyphosphates to improve the water-holding capacity

of the meat (Warriss, 2000). 

4.3.2.5 Pickle Application/Injection

A pickle or curing solution is prepared with sugar, sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate, and salt

as the main ingredients in water. The pickle solution preparation area frequently is separated

physically within the plant from the actual point of use. Various types of injection are used to

introduce the pickle solution into the interior of a meat product. Pickle solution may also be
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-24

applied by holding the meat product in a curing brine long enough for the pickle to be absorbed. 

Or the pickle may be injected or pumped into hams or similar products by introducing the brine

through an artery or the vascular system, if it is relatively intact. The product may be injected

through numerous needles that penetrate the ham over a large area. Hams, for example, are

usually pumped to 110 or 120 percent of their green (or starting) weight. The injection may also

be done on both sides to ensure thorough and uniform pickling. Following the pickle injection or

application, it is common practice to store the product in tubs with a covering of pickle solution

for some time (USEPA, 1974).

Pickling solutions are high in sugar and salt content, particularly the latter. The large

amount of spillage in this operation comes from runoff from the pickle injection, from pickle

oozing out of the meat after injection, from dumping of cover pickle, and from dumping of

residual pickle from the injection machine at the end of each operating day. These practices

contribute substantially to the wastewater and waste load from a meat processing plant. Many of

the ingredients of pickle solutions represent pollutional material in high concentrations and add

significantly to the raw waste load from the pickle operation. Cleanup of the tubs or vats holding

the product in brine solutions and cleanup of the pickle injection machines is required at least

once per day, or after each use in the case of the vats. This necessity generates additional waste

load and wastewater from a meat processing plant (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.6 Cooking, Smoking, and Cooling

Although smoking has traditionally functioned as a method of preservation by drying the

meat and preventing fat oxidation, it now primarily serves to flavor the meat. Liquid smokes that

contain liquid extract of smoke commonly substitute for real smoke (Warriss, 2000).

Most of the meat products are cooked as part of the standard manufacturing procedure. 

Notable exceptions are fresh pork sausage, bratwurst, and bockwurst. Processed meat products

may be cooked with moist or dry heat. Cooking sausages coagulates the proteins and reduces the

moisture content, thereby firming up the product and fixing the desired color of the finished

product. Large walk-in ovens or smokehouses are in general use throughout the industry. These
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-25

smokehouses are equipped with temperature controls, humidity controls, water showers, and

facilities to provide smoke for smoking products (USEPA, 1974).

The smoking of meat products gives the finished meat product a characteristic and

desirable flavor, some protection against oxidation, and an inhibiting effect on bacterial growth

in the finished product. Smoke is most commonly generated from hardwood sawdust or smallsize wood chips. Smoke is generated outside the oven and is carried into the oven through 

ductwork. A small stream of water quenches the burned hardwood sawdust before dumping the

sawdust to waste. Water overflow from this quenching section is commonly wasted into the

sewer. One plant slurried the char from the smoke generator, piped it to a static screen for

separation of the char from the water, and then wasted the water (USEPA, 1974). 

The actual cooking operation generates wastewater when steam or hot water is used as the

cooking medium, such as in cooking luncheon meats in stainless steel molds. The steam

condensate and hot water are wasted to the sewer from the cooking equipment. It is standard

practice to shower the finished product immediately after cooking to cool it. This practice also

generates a wastewater stream containing a waste load primarily of grease (USEPA, 1974).

Cleanup of the cooking ovens is not done every day, but at the discretion of the plant

management. The typical practice is to clean each oven and the ductwork for the heated air and

smoke circulation at least once a week. This cleaning includes the use of highly caustic cleaning

solutions to cut grease and deposits from the smoking operation that have been deposited on the

walls, ceiling, and ductwork in the ovens. The effluent from such a cleaning operation is

noticeably dark-colored. This color is thought to be the result of creosote-type deposits and fatty

acids from the smoke. The other waste load generated in oven cleanup is the grease from the

walls and floors resulting from cooking the various products (USEPA, 1974).

In total quantity, the waste load and wastewater generated in this cleanup is not

particularly significant. However, there is the noticeable coloration of the wastewater during

cleanup and, depending on the extent of the use of caustic, an increase in the pH of the wastewater (USEPA, 1974).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-26

Facilities cool processed meat products in different ways, depending on the type of

product. Sausage products may be cooled while still in the oven or smokehouse with a spray of

cold water or brine solution. Alternatively, they may be cooled in the aisle immediately outside

the smokehouse to save heat and increase productivity. The brine solution is used to achieve a

lower spray temperature and thereby a more rapid cooling of the product. The brine is

recirculated until it is judged to be excessively contaminated to permit efficient use, at which

point it is usually discharged into the sewer (USEPA, 1974).

Hams and bacon products (Figure 4-8) are not exposed to water but instead are moved

quickly from the smokehouse to a refrigerated room with a very low temperature (-35 C, or

-31 F) and higher-than-normal air circulation to achieve rapid cool-down. The hams and bacon

may drip a small quantity of juice or grease onto the floor of the cold room before the surface

temperature of the product reaches a point that precludes any further dripping. Cleanup of the

floor results in wasting of these drippings into the sewer (USEPA, 1974).

Canned meat products and products prepared in stainless steel molds are usually cooled

by submersion in cold water. The water is usually contained in a tank or raceway, where it may

flow at a very low speed in a direction countercurrent to the movement of the cans or molds. 

Depending on the type of installation and product, it was found that the water used in cooling

need not be dumped and in fact can be continually recirculated with only a nominal amount of

blow-down to remove accumulated solids, just as would be done in operating a boiler. In other

situations, usually where smaller quantities of water are involved and luncheon meat molds are

being cooled, the water is dumped more frequently (up to once a day). This dumping is

necessary because the seal on the molds is not tight enough to prevent leakage of juices and

grease to the exterior of the molds (USEPA, 1974).

The only cleanup of cooling equipment that would generate a waste load is cleanup of the

floors in the cold rooms where hams and bacon are cooled. This load is small in comparison to

others from the plants (USEPA, 1974).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-27

4.3.2.7 Mechanically Recovered Meat

Mechanically recovered meat (MRM) is meat separated from bone by first grinding it to

produce a paste. The paste is then forced through a perforated stainless steel drum to separate

meat and bone particles. High-pressure air also can be used to remove meat from bone (Warriss,

2000).

4.3.2.8 Canning and Retorting

Canning is another method of preserving and packaging meat for convenient

consumption. After meat is sealed in a container, it is heated using steam under pressure at a

temperatures of at least 116 C (240 F) to achieve adequate sterilization. However, lower

temperatures are used in the canning of cured ham because sterilization by heat is not necessary

because of the bactericidal effect of curing agents. Containers used for meat canning usually are

steel, which may be coated with tin or a temperature-resistant plastic polymer (Warriss, 2000). 

See Figure 4-7 for the general processes used for canning meat products.

The containers used to hold the canned meat products must be prepared before filling and

covering. The cans are thoroughly cleaned and sterilized. The wet cans are transported from the

preparation area to the processing area for filling and covering. Water is present all along the can

lines from preparation to filling and covering. The cans go through one last steaming just before

they enter the can filling machine (USEPA, 1974).

Can filling is a highly mechanized high-speed operation. It requires moving the meat

product to the canning equipment and delivering that product into a container. The high speed

and the design of the equipment result in an appreciable amount of spillage of the meat product

as the cans are filled and conveyed to the covering equipment. At the can covering station, a

small amount of steam is introduced under the cover just before the cover is sealed to create a

vacuum within the can when it cools. This steam use also generates a quantity of condensate,

which drains off the cans and equipment onto the floor.

The operation of the filling and covering equipment results in a substantial quantity of

wastewater containing product spills that is wasted to the sewer. Canning plants that have more
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-28

Figure 4-7. General Process for Canned Meat Products (USEPA, 1974).

than one filling and covering line have a waste load that is roughly proportional to the number of

such lines in use (USEPA, 1974).

All of the equipment is washed at least once per day at the end of the processing period. 

If a can filling machine is to be used for different products during the day, it is usually cleaned

between product runs. Meat products are frequently canned with gravy-type sauces, or the meat
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-29

product itself has been comminuted to a small particle size and mixed to produce a flowable

mixture. This type of canned product results in a greater contamination of equipment wash water

because of the tendency of the product mixture to coat surfaces it comes in contact with and to

fill all dead spaces and crevices in the equipment. The equipment is highly mechanized with

many moving parts and is designed to be cleaned intact rather than being dismantled first, as is

grinding and mixing equipment. Cleaning the equipment while it is intact requires a highvelocity water stream or steam to remove all food particles from the equipment. The tendency of

operating personnel is to use greater quantities of water than necessary to clean the equipment. 

This practice results in large quantities of wastewater with substantial waste loads from canning

operations (USEPA, 1974). 

The equipment used in transporting the meat product to the can filling equipment also

must be cleaned after it has been used on a specific product, and it is always cleaned at the end of

the processing day. This equipment is usually broken down, and the product characteristics that

contribute to large waste loads, as described above, also generate large waste loads in cleanup of

the transport equipment (USEPA, 1974).

Some ham products are canned by manually placing ham pieces in cans. Manpower is

used in place of mechanical equipment because the pieces are randomly sized and the packer is

able to create a full, uniform appearance for the canned product. A small amount of gelatin is

added to provide moisture to the product. The quantity of waste generated from this type of

operation probably is somewhat less than that from high-speed canning equipment (USEPA,

1974).

4.3.2.9 Freezing

Blast, belt, plate, and cryogenic freezers are used for freezing meat. The specific type

used depends on the type of product being frozen. Blast freezers blow frigid air (-40 C, or

-40 F ) over the meats in a tunnel. Belt freezers freeze small meats such as burgers that are

carried on a conveyor belt. Plate freezers consist of cold metal plates that are pressed onto the

meat surface. Finally, cryogenic freezing freezes items through immersion into liquid nitrogen

(-196 C, or -321 F) (Warriss, 2000).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-30

4.3.2.10 Packaging

Packaging for transport, distribution, and sale is the final step in further meat processing. 

Appropriate packaging fulfills three purposes. The first is to protect meat from contamination

and inhibit microbial growth, the second is to reduce evaporative weight loss and surface drying,

and the last is to enhance the appearance of the meat. Plastic film and antioxidants play an

important role in successful packaging (Warriss, 2000).

Various packaging techniques are used in the meat processing industry. These techniques

include use of the standard treated cardboard package, the Cry-O-Vac (plastic film sealed under

vacuum) type of package, and the bubble enclosure package used for sliced luncheon meats and

wieners, and the boxing of smaller containers of pieces of finished product for shipment. In

some packaging techniques a substantial amount of product handling is involved, which may

result in some wasted product. The size of the pieces of wasted finished product, however, are

such that there is little reason for it to be wasted to the sewer. Instead, it should be returned for

subsequent use in another processed product or directed to a rendering channel (USEPA, 1974).

The only time water is generated by the packaging operation is during cleanup of the

equipment. Small quantities of water are adequate for cleanup of this equipment, and only small

quantities of wastewater are generated (USEPA, 1974). 

4.3.2.11 Seasonings, Spices, and Sauce Preparation

A wide variety of chemicals is used by meat processing to improve product characteristics

such as taste, color, texture, appearance, shelf-life, and other characteristics important to the

industry. These chemicals include salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, sodium nitrite, sodium erythrobate,

ascorbic acid, and spices like pepper, mustard, and paprika. Other common materials added in

the preparation of processed meat products are dry milk solids, corn syrup, and water, either as a

liquid or as ice (USEPA, 1974).

Other than water, most of these materials are solids and are handled in the solid state. 

The product formulations for the various finished products produced by a meat processor call for

specific quantities of chemicals and seasonings. These spices and chemicals are preweighed and
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-31

prepared for use in a specific batch in a dry spice preparation area. They are weighed into

containers and added to batches in the grinding or mixing operation. Very little waste of either a

dry or wet nature is generated by the specific operation of seasoning and spice formulation. 

Sauces are prepared for use in canned meat products particularly. Sauces are wet mixtures of

seasonings, spices, and other additives described above, as well as meat extracts and juices, and

are used to prepare a gravy-type of product. Significant quantities of waste are generated in the

preparation and handling of sauces and in kettle cleaning. The residual materials are washed out

of the kettles directly into the sewer and contribute significantly to the raw waste load of a meat

processor that prepares a canned meat product (USEPA, 1974). 

4.3.2.12 Weighing and Batching

The meat processing industry uses batch-type manufacturing operations in all but a few

instances. The type and quantity of materials that go into each unit of production, or batch, are

controlled according to specifications established by the individual meat processing companies in

accordance with government standards for the finished product. The lean and raw materials that

go into each batch are weighed and placed in portable tubs. The portable tubs of weighed raw

material are identified for a specific product and moved to the next manufacturing operation

(USEPA, 1974).

The weighing and batching area is frequently located in one of the refrigerated raw

material storage areas. The operation involves considerable manual handling of meat products

and pieces of trim fat. Liquids, including meat juices and water, frequently drip from the raw

materials onto the floor of the batching area. Particles also drop off in the handling process. The

tubs used to hold the raw materials and the batches of raw material contain liquids and solids that

are wasted to the sewer after batches have been dumped into subsequent processing equipment. 

The tubs and handling equipment are cleaned as needed during the production period and at least

once a day (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.13 Extrusion, Stuffing, and Molding

Following the preparation of a stable emulsion or mixture of ingredients for a processed

meat product such as wieners or sausage, the mixture is again transported by pump or in a
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-32

container to a manufacturing operation where the mixtures are formed or molded into the

finished product. Sausage casings and stainless steel molds are commonly used as containers in

this operation. Either natural casings, which are the intestines from some types of animals, or

synthetic casings, which are used only in the formation of the products and then peeled and

disposed of before the product goes to the consumer, may be used in producing sausages and

wieners and in some kinds of luncheon meats. The stainless steel molds are most commonly

used to obtain the square shape characteristic of some luncheon meats (USEPA, 1974).

In the casing, stuffing, or mold-filling operation a product mixture is placed in a piece of

equipment from which the product mixture is either forced by air pressure or pumped into the

container to form a uniform, completely filled container resembling the shape of the finished

product (USEPA, 1974).

Water is used to prepare the natural casings for use in the stuffing operation, and the

stainless steel molds are cleaned and sterilized after every use. The primary source of waste load

and wastewater is the cleanup of the equipment used in this operation. As in the previous

operation, the residual emulsions and mixtures contribute significantly to the waste load because

of their propensity to stick to most surfaces with which they come in contact and to fill crevices

and voids. All equipment used in this operation is broken down at least once a day for a

thorough cleaning. This cleanup is designed to remove all remnants of the mixtures handled by

the equipment, and this material is wasted with the wastewater into the sewer, thereby

contributing to the waste load (USEPA, 1974).

Some spillage of material occurs in this operation. Spillage occurs during transport of the

material from grinding and emulsifying to the extrusion operation, and particularly in the

extrusion or stuffing of the container and overflows (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.14 Linking

This manufacturing operation is simply the formation of links or specific-sized lengths of

product in a casing. Linking is done by twisting or pinching the casing at the desired length for

the specific finished product, mechanically or manually. A small stream of water is used to
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-33

lubricate the casing to avoid breakage or splitting. When the full length of each casing has been

linked, the product is hung on a rail hanger, called a “tree,” in preparation for the next

manufacturing operation (usually cooking and smoking) (USEPA, 1974).

Unless a casing splits or breaks, no significant amount of raw waste load should be

contributed by this operation. The equipment used is thoroughly washed after use. The hangers

that hold the products through the cooking and smoking step become coated with greasy

substances, which are washed off and into the sewer after each use. In addition, a standard

maintenance practice is to coat the hangers with a thin film of edible oil to protect them from

rusting. This oil is ultimately washed off in the overshowering or in the washing of the hangers

following each use. Some large operations use automated spray cabinets for “tree” washing

(USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.15 Casing Peeling

Synthetic casings made from a plastic material are used in the production of a large

number of wieners in the meat processing industry. These casings are not edible and therefore

must be removed from the wieners after cooking and cooling but prior to packaging for sale to

the consumer. The peeling equipment includes a sharp knife that slits the casing material, a

small spray of steam to part the casing from the finished wiener, and a mechanism to peel the

casing away from the wiener. Casing material is solid waste that results from this operation; it is

collected and disposed of as part of the plant refuse. The slitting mechanism occasionally

penetrates the wiener in addition to the casing and cuts the wiener, rendering it useless as a

finished product. However, these pieces of wiener are not wasted but are used in other products

prepared in the plant. The steam used in the casing peeling results in a small water stream from

this operation, but it is so small that it is of no real consequence (USEPA, 1974).

The equipment is cleaned at the end of every processing day and may contribute a small

quantity of waste load as a result of wiener particles that may be attached to various parts of the

mechanism and are subsequently washed into the sewer during cleanup. The volume of wastewater and the waste load are relatively insignificant in comparison with other waste sources

(USEPA, 1974).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-34

4.3.2.16 Product Holding/Aging

Some processed meat products require holding or aging as part of the production process. 

Hams, dry sausage, and some bacon, for example, require intermediate or finished holding

periods before the product is shipped out of the meat processing plant. The holding operation

requires space and some means of storing the particular meat product in the holding area. These

holding areas are refrigerated, and some drippings accumulate on the floor. The floor area, like

other processing floors, is cleaned once every processing day. The quantity of wastewater and

the waste load from the cleanup of these holding areas is minimal compared to that of many other

sources within meat processing plants (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.17 Bacon Pressing and Slicing

After the bacon has been smoked, cooled, and held for the required time, two processing

steps are required before the product is ready for packaging (Figure 4-6). Bacon slabs are

irregular in shape after smoking and cooling, and bacon slicing equipment is designed to handle a

slab with a fairly rectangular shape. This design facilitates the production of the typical uniform

bacon slice expected by the consumer. The bacon slabs are placed in a molding press, which

forms the slabs into the desired rectangular shape (USEPA, 1974).

Two different slicing procedures are used in the processing industry after the slabs have

been made rectangular. Some plants slice the bacon slabs immediately after pressing. Others

prefer to return the molded bacon slabs to a refrigerated holding area to allow the temperature of

the slab to cool down. Each approach is successful, and the method actually used appears to

depend only on individual preference for a given operation (USEPA, 1974).

Bacon slicing is usually a high-speed operation in which slabs are rapidly cut, the strips of

bacon are placed on a cardboard or similar receptacle until a specified weight is reached, and

then the bacon is fed onto a conveying system that delivers the bacon to packaging (USEPA,

1974).

There is little waste generated in bacon pressing and slicing except for random pieces of

bacon that fall on the floor. These pieces are of sufficient size to be readily picked up by dry
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-35

cleaning the floors before washdown. The equipment is cleaned at the end of every processing

day. There are some particles, as well as a fairly complete covering of grease, on all parts of the

equipment that come in contact with the bacon slabs. All of this material is washed off in the

cleanup operation. The quantity of wastewater generated in cleanup and the waste load from this

cleanup is again relatively small in comparison to other sources (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.18 Receiving, Storage, and Shipping

The meat-type raw materials and virtually all the finished product in a meat processing

plant require refrigerated storage. Some of the raw materials and finished products are frozen

and require freezer storage. The meat-type raw materials are brought into meat processing plants

as carcasses, quarters, primal cuts, and specific cuts or parts packaged in boxes. The seasonings,

spices, and chemicals are usually purchased in the dry form and are stored in dry areas

convenient to the sauce and spice formulation area (USEPA, 1974).

The meat processing plants of companies with nationwide sales and plants located

throughout the country also use the storage facilities of meat processing plants as distribution

centers for products not manufactured at each plant (USEPA, 1974).

The cleaning of freezers is always a dry process and only on rare occasions does it

generate a wastewater load. Refrigerated storage space does require daily washdown,

particularly of the floors, where juices and particles have accumulated from the materials stored

in the refrigerated area. The general policy of the industry is to encourage dry cleaning of all

floors, including storage areas, before the final washdown of the floors. Frequently, actual

practices do not include dry cleaning of the floors before washdown (USEPA, 1974).

Shipping and receiving always involve truck transportation. The primary source of waste

material in this operation is the transport of carcasses, quarters, and large cuts of meat from the

trucks to the storage area within the meat processing plant (USEPA, 1974).

Meat and fat particles falling from the raw material are the primary source of waste

material in this operation. The receipt and transport of other raw materials and finished products

essentially generate no waste load (USEPA, 1974).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-36

4.4 POULTRY PROCESSING INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

Poultry Processing (NAICS 311615) includes the slaughter of poultry and small game

animals (e.g., quails, pheasants, and rabbits) and exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches) and the

processing and preparing of these products and their by-products. Slaughtering is the first step in

processing poultry into consumer products. Poultry slaughtering (first processing) operations

typically encompass the following steps:

• Receiving and holding of live animals

• Stunning prior to slaughter

• Slaughter

• Initial processing

Poultry first processing facilities are designed to accommodate this multistep process. In

most facilities, the major steps are carried out in separate rooms.

In addition, many first processing facilities further process carcasses, producing products

that may be breaded, marinated, or partially or fully cooked. Also, many first processing

facilities include rendering operations that produce edible products such as fat and inedible

products, primarily ingredients for animal feeds, including pet foods.

The 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers reported 260 companies engaged in poultry

slaughtering. These companies own or operate 470 facilities, employ 224,000 employees, and

produce about $32 billion in value of shipments. The poultry slaughtering sector has relatively

few facilities with fewer than 20 employees; as in the meat sectors, however, a few very large

facilities dominate the sector. Almost 50 percent of the sector employment and over 40 percent

of the value of shipments were accounted for by 75 facilities, which employ more than 1,000

workers each. Eighty percent of employment and 74 percent of total shipments are produced by

facilities that employ more than 500 workers. Yet these facilities compose only 36 percent of the

poultry processing industry.
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-37

Products of the poultry processing sector can be divided into two major categories:

broilers and turkeys. Broilers account for more than half of the industry's shipments; processed

poultry accounts for about 30 percent of the shipments; and turkeys account for about 12 percent.

Poultry processing is largely concentrated in the southeastern states. Arkansas and

Georgia have the largest number of facilities, employment, and value of shipments. Alabama

and North Carolina rank third and fourth in all of these measures. California is the only state in

the top 10 poultry-producing states that is not in the Southeast. California ranks 10th in terms of

employment and value of shipments and 8th in number of facilities.

EPA is using revised production rate thresholds to exclude most smaller poultry product

processing facilities from the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 432 because the technologies on

which the options were based are not cost-effective for facilities with the lowest production

threshold. Based on the current screener survey data, EPA defines small poultry first and further

processing facilities as those that produce fewer than 10 million pounds (LWK) and 7 million

pounds (LWK) per year, respectively. See to Figures 4-8 and 4-9 for the distribution of small

and non-small (facilities producing more than 50 million pounds (LWK) per year) poultry first

and further processing facilities, also categorized by discharge type, throughout the United States. 

4.5 DESCRIPTION OF POULTRY FIRST AND FURTHER PROCESSING

OPERATIONS

Poultry processing plants are highly automated facilities designed for the slaughter of live

birds with whole carcasses as the end product. The operations of these plants differ significantly

from their meat counterparts in several respects. For example, poultry slaughtering (first

processing) operations typically involve more steps than do meat first processing operations. A

poultry processing plant can encompass up to 10 steps, including unloading, stunning, killing,

bleeding, scalding, defeathering, eviscerating, chilling, freezing, and packaging (Sams, 2001). 

Each of these operations occurs in a separate section of the processing plant and involves the use

of different types of equipment. Because broiler chickens constitute most of the poultry

industry’s annual production, and the same sequence of operations is used in the processing of
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-38

Figure 4-8. Location of Small Poultry Facilities in the United States

(Based on Screener Survey Data).

Figure 4-9. Location of Non-Small Poultry Facilities in the United

States (Based on Screener Survey Data).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-39

turkeys and other birds, the following sections describe only broiler processing operations unless

otherwise noted.

Poultry processing begins with the assembly and slaughter of live birds and may end with

the shipment of dressed carcasses or continue with a variety of additional activities. Poultry

processing operations are also classified as first or further processing operations or as an

integrated combination. First processing operations include those operations which receive live

poultry and produce a dressed carcass, either whole or in parts. In this classifications system,

first processing operations simply produce dressed whole or split carcasses or smaller segments

for sale to wholesale distributors or directly to retailers. First processing operations offer supply

products for further processing activities such as breading, marinating, and partial or complete

cooking, which may occur on- or off-site.

Following the same logic applied to the meat processing industry, EPA considers the

reduction of whole poultry carcasses into halves, quarters, or smaller pieces, which may be with

or without bone and may be ground as part of first processing when performed at first processing

facilities. Consequently, EPA also considers cutting, boning, and grinding operations to be

further processing operations when performed at facilities not also engaged in first processing

activities.

4.5.1 Poultry First Processing Operations

Common to all poultry first processing operations is a series of operations necessary to

transform live birds into dressed carcasses. Figure 4-10 illustrates this series of operations, and

the following sections describe these operations.

4.5.1.1 Receiving Areas

Birds are transported to processing plants with delivery scheduled so that all birds are

processed on the day they are received. Live bird holding areas are usually covered and have

cooling fans to reduce bird weight loss and mortality during hot weather conditions (Sams,

2001).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-40

Figure 4-10. General Process for Poultry First Processing Operations 

(USEPA, 1975).

Broiler chickens are typically transported to processing plants in cage modules stacked on

flatbed trailers. These cage modules can hold about 20 average-size broiler chickens. The cage

modules are removed from the transport trailer and tilted using a folklift truck to empty the cage. 

Alternatively, tilting platforms can be used to empty the cage modules after they have been

removed from the transport trailer. When the cage module tilts, the lower side of the cage opens

and the birds slide onto a conveyor belt, which moves them into the hanging area inside the plant. 

In the hanging area, the live birds are hung by their feet on shackles attached to an overhead

conveyer system, commonly referred to as the killing line, that moves the birds into the killing

area. The killing-line moves at a constant speed, and up to 8,000 birds per hour (133 birds per

minute) can be shackled in a modern plant, although in practice this number is much lower

because workers cannot unload broilers fast enough to fill every shackle (Wilson, 1998). Cage

modules also are used to transport ducks, geese, and fowl.
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-41

Turkeys are generally transported in cages permanently attached to flatbed trailers. The

cages are emptied manually into a live bird receiving area located outside the confines of the

processing plant. Turkeys are unloaded manually to minimize bruising. They are more

susceptible than broilers to bruising from automatic unloading because of their heavier weight

and irregular body shape. Turkeys are then immediately hung on shackles attached to an

overhead conveyer system that passes from the unloading area into the processing plant (Sams,

2001). 

Following the unloading process, cages and transport trucks may be washed and sanitized

to prevent disease transmission among grower operations. The washing and sanitizing of cages

and trucks is common in the turkey industry but not in the broiler chicken industry (USEPA,

1975).

4.5.1.2 Killing and Bleeding

Almost all birds are rendered unconscious through stunning just prior to killing. Some

exemptions are made for religious meat processing (e.g., kosher, halal). Stunning immobilizes

the birds to increase killing efficiency, cause greater blood loss, and increase defeathering

efficiency. Stunning is performed by applying a current of 10 to 20 milliamps (mA) per broiler

and 20 to 40 mA per turkey for approximately 10 to 12 seconds (Sams, 2001). Poultry are killed

by severing the jugular vein and carotid artery or less typically by debraining. Usually a rotating

circular blade is used to kill broilers, while manual killing is often required for turkeys because of

their varying size and body shape. Decapitation is not performed, because it decreases blood loss

following death (Stadelman, 1988).

Immediately after being killed, broilers are bled as they pass through a “blood tunnel”

designed to collect blood to reduce wastewater biochemical oxygen demand and total nitrogen

concentrations. The blood tunnel is a walled area designed to confine and capture blood

splattered by muscle contractions following the severing of the jugular vein and corotid artery. 

The blood collected is processed with recovered feathers in the production of feather meal, a byproduct feedstuff used in livestock and poultry feeds as a source of protein. On average, broilers

are held in the tunnel from 45 to 125 seconds for bleeding, with an average time of 80 seconds;
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-42

turkeys are held in the tunnel from 90 to 210 seconds, with an average time of 131 seconds. 

Blood loss approaches 70 percent in some plants, but generally speaking only 30 to 50 percent of

a broiler’s blood is lost in the killing area. Depending on plant operating conditions, blood is

collected in troughs and transported to a rendering facility by vacuum, gravity, or pump systems,

or it is allowed to congeal on the plant floor and collected manually. Virtually all plants collect

blood for rendering either on- or off-site and thereby limit the amount of blood present in their

wastewater (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.1.3 Scalding and Defeathering

After killing and bleeding, birds are scalded by immersion in a scalding tank or by

spraying with scalding water. Scalding is performed to relax feather follicles prior to

defeathering. Virtually all plants use scald tanks because of the high water usage and

inconsistent feather removal associated with spray scalding. Scalding tanks are relatively long

troughs of hot water into which the bled birds are immersed to loosen their feathers. Depending

on the intended market of the broilers, either soft (semi-scald) or hard scalding is used. Soft

scalding is used for the fresh, chilled market, whereas hard scalding is preferred for the frozen

sector (Mead, 1989). The difference between these two types of scalding techniques lies in the

scalding temperature used. Soft scalding is performed at about 53 C (127 F) for 120 seconds; it

loosens feathers without subsequent skin damage. Hard scalding is performed at 62 to 64 C

(144 to 147 F) for 45 seconds; it loosens both feathers and the first layer of skin. Sometimes

chemicals are added to scald tanks to aid in defeathering by reducing surface tension and

increasing feather wetting. The USDA requires that all scald tanks have a minimum overflow of

1 liter (0.26 gallon) per bird (FSIS, 2001) to reduce the potential for microbial contamination

(Sams, 2001). 

Because scalding and mechanical defeathering do not completely remove duck and goose

feathers, immersion in a mixture of hot wax and rosin follows. After this mixture partially

solidifies, it is removed with the remaining feathers (Stadelman et al., 1988). 

The next stage is automated defeathering, which is done by machines with multiple rows

of flexible, ribbed, rubber fingers on cylinders that rotate rapidly across the birds. The abrasion
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-43

caused by this contact removes the feathers and occasionally the heads of the birds. At the same

time, a continuous spray of warm water is used to lubricate the bird and flush away feathers as

they are removed. Feathers are flumed to a screening area using scalding overflow for

dewatering prior to processing for feather meal production. Different defeathering machines may

be used for different types of birds (USEPA, 1975). 

Following defeathering, pinfeathers may be removed manually because they are still

encased within the feather shaft and thus are resistant to mechanical abrasion. After pinfeather

removal, birds pass through a gas flame that singes the remaining feathers and fine hairs. Next,

feet and heads are removed. Feet are removed by passing them through a cutting blade, and

heads are removed by clamps that pull upward on the necks. Removing the head from a bird is

advantageous because the esophagus and trachea are removed with it. Removing the head also

loosens the crop and lungs for easier automatic removal during evisceration (Mead, 1989). At

this point, blood, feathers, feet, and the heads of broilers are collected and sent to a rendering

facility, where they are transformed into by-product meal (Sams, 2001). Chicken feet also may

be collected for sale primarily in export markets.

After removal of the feet, the carcasses are rehung on shackles attached to an overhead

conveyer, known as an evisceration line, and washed in enclosures using high-pressure cold

water sprays prior to evisceration. The purpose of this washing step is to sanitize the outside of

the bird before evisceration to reduce microbial contamination of the body cavity. This transfer

point is often referred to as the point separating the “dirty” and “clean” sections of the processing

plant (Wilson, 1998). The killing-line conveyor then circles back, and the shackles are cleaned

before returning to the unloading bay (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.1.4 Evisceration

Evisceration is a multistep process that begins with removing the neck and opening the

body cavity. Then, the viscera are extracted but remain attached to the birds until they are

inspected for evidence of disease. Next, the viscera are separated from the bird, and edible

components (hearts, livers, and gizzards) are harvested. The inedible viscera, known as offal, are

collected and combined with heads and feet for subsequent rendering. Entrails are sometimes
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-44

left attached for religious meat processing (e.g., Buddhist, Confucius). Depending on the plant

design, a wet or dry collection system is used. Wet systems use water to transport the offal by

fluming it to a screening area for dewatering before rendering. Dry systems, which are not

common, may use a series of conveyor belts or vacuum or compressed air stations for offal

transport (USEPA, 1975).

Automation of the evisceration process varies depending on plant size and operation. A

fully automated line can eviscerate approximately 6,000 broilers per hour (Mead, 1989). The

type of equipment available for plant use varies by location and manufacturer. Many parts of the

process can be performed manually, especially for turkeys. Though a fully automated

evisceration line may be used for broilers, the variation in size among turkeys makes automation

more difficult. Female turkeys (hens) are significantly smaller than male turkeys (toms)

(USEPA, 1975). 

When broilers first enter the evisceration area, they are rehung on shackles by their hocks

to a conveyor line that runs directly above a wet or dry offal collection system (Wilson, 1998). 

The birds’ necks are disconnected by breaking the spine with a blade that applies force just above

the shoulders. As the blade retracts the neck falls downward and hangs by the remaining skin

while another blade removes the preen gland from the tail. The preen gland produces oil that is

used by birds for grooming and has an unpleasant taste to humans (Sams, 2001). Next, a venting

machine cuts a hole with a circular blade around the anus for extraction of the viscera. Great

care must be taken not to penetrate the intestinal lining of a broiler because the resulting fecal

contamination will result in condemnation during inspection (USEPA, 1975).

Following venting, the opening of the abdominal wall is enlarged to aid in viscera

removal. At this point all viscera are drawn out of the broiler by hand, with the aid of scooping

spoons, or more commonly by an evisceration machine. The evisceration machine immobilizes

the broiler and passes a clamp through the abdominal opening to grip the visceral package. Once

removed, this package is allowed to hang freely to aid in the inspection process. Every bird must

be inspected by a USDA inspector or a USDA-supervised plant worker for evidence of disease or

contamination before being packaged and sold. The inspector checks the carcass, viscera, and
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-45

body cavity to determine wholesomeness with three possible outcomes: pass, conditional, and

fail. If the bird is deemed conditional, it is hung on a different line for further inspection or to be

trimmed of unwholesome portions. Failed birds are removed from the line and disposed of,

usually by rendering (Stadelman, 1988).

The viscera are removed from the birds that have passed inspection and are pumped to a

harvesting area where edible viscera are separated from inedible viscera. A giblet harvester is

used to collect the edible viscera, including heart, liver, neck, and gizzard, and to prepare each

appropriately. The heart and liver are stripped of connective tissue and washed. The gizzard is

split, its contents are washed away, its hard lining is peeled off, and it is given a final wash. The

minimum giblet washer flow rate required by USDA is 1 gallon of water for every 20 birds

processed (25 CFR 61.144). Meanwhile, the inedible viscera, including intestines,

proventriculus, lower esophagus, spleen, and reproductive organs, are extracted and sent to a

rendering facility. Finally, the crop and lungs are mechanically removed from each bird. The

crop is pushed up through the neck by a probe, and the lungs are removed by vacuum. A final

inspection is required to ensure the carcass is not heavily bruised or contaminated, and then the

carcass is cleaned (USEPA, 1975). Bruised birds are diverted to salvage lines for recovery of

parts.

The second carcass washing of the broilers is very thorough. Nozzles are used to spray

water both inside and outside the carcass. These high-pressure nozzles are designed to eliminate

the majority of remaining contaminants on both carcass and conveyor line, and the water is often

mixed with chlorine or other antimicrobiological chemicals. From here, the conveyor system

travels to the chilling area (USEPA, 1975).

Kosher and halal poultry producers pack the birds (inside and out) in salt for 1 hour to

absorb any residual blood or juices. The birds are then rinsed and shipped to kosher/halal meat

distributers. On an average day a typical kosher poultry facility (generating approximately 2

million gallons wastewater per day) would use approximately 80,000 pounds of salt in its

operations (Thorne, 2001). Industry has stated that most kosher operations (meat and poultry)

are located in urban areas with sewer connections.
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-46

4.5.1.5 Chilling

After birds have been eviscerated and washed, they are chilled rapidly to slow the growth

of any microorganisms present to extend shelf life and to protect quality (Sams, 2001). USDA

regulations require that broilers be chilled to 4 C (40 F) within 4 hours of death and turkeys

within 8 hours of death (9 CFR 381.66). Most poultry processing plants use large chilling tanks

containing ice water; very few use air chilling. Several types of chilling tanks are used, including

(1) a large enclosed drum that rotates about a central axis, (2) a perforated cylinder mounted

within a chilling vat, and (3) a large open chilling tank containing a mechanical rocker to provide

agitation. In all cases, birds are cascaded forward with the flow of water at a minimum overflow

rate per bird specified by the USDA (FSIS, 2001).

Most poultry plants use two chilling tanks in series, a pre-chiller and a main chiller. The

direction of water flow is from the main chiller to the pre-chiller, which is opposite to the

direction of carcass movement. Because water and ice are added to only the main chiller, the

water in the pre-chiller is somewhat warmer than that in the main chiller. Most plants chlorinate

chiller makeup water to reduce potential carcass microbial contamination. The USDA requires

0.5 gallon (2 liters) of overflow per bird in the chillers (FSIS, 2001); the flow typically is about

0.75 gallon (3 liters) per bird (Sams, 2001). The effluent from the first chiller usually is used for

fluming offal to the offal screening area (USEPA, 1975). 

USDA requires pre-chiller water temperature to be less than 18.3 C (65 F) (9 CFR

381.66), and temperature values typically range between 7 and 12 C (45 and 54 F) (Stadelman,

1988). Agitation makes the water a very effective washer, and the pre-chiller often cleans off any

remaining contaminants. Most broiler carcasses enter the pre-chiller at about 38 C (100 F) and

leave at a temperature between 30 and 35 C (86 and 95 F). The cycle lasts 10 to 15 minutes,

and water rapidly penetrates the carcass skin during this time period (Sams, 2001). Water weight

gained in the pre-chiller is strictly regulated and monitored according to poultry classification and

final destination of the product by the USDA. Cut-up and ice-packed products are allowed to

retain more water than their whole carcass pack or whole frozen counterparts (FSIS, 2001).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-47

The main chill tank’s water temperature is approximately 4 C (39 F) at the entrance and

1 C (34 F) at the exit because of the countercurrent flow system. Broiler carcasses stay in this

chiller between 45 and 60 minutes and leave the chill tank at about 2 to 4 C (36 to 39 F). Air

bubbles are added to the main chill tanks to enhance heat exchange. The bubbles agitate the

water and prevent a thermal layer from forming around the carcass. If not agitated, water around

the carcass would reach thermal equilibrium with the carcass and retard heat transfer (Sams,

2001).

If air chilling is used, it normally involves passing the conveyor of carcasses through

rooms of air circulating at between -7 and 2 C for 1 to 3 hours. In some cases water is sprayed

on the carcasses, increasing heat transfer by evaporative cooling (Sams, 2001). Giblets,

consisting of hearts, livers, gizzards, and necks, are chilled similarly to carcasses, though the

chilling systems are separate and smaller (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.1.6 Packaging and Freezing

After the birds are chilled, they are either packed as whole birds or processed further. 

Whole birds are sold in both fresh and frozen forms. Chickens are primarily sold as fresh birds

and turkeys are primarily sold as frozen birds. Fresh birds not sold in case-ready packaging are

packed in ice for shipment to maintain a temperature of 0 C (32 F). Poultry sold frozen is

cooled to approximately -18 C (0 F) (Wilson, 1998).

4.5.2 Poultry Further Processing Operations

Further processing can be as simple as splitting a carcass into two halves or as complex as

producing a breaded or marinated, partially or fully cooked product. Therefore, further

processing may involve receiving, storage, thawing, cutting, deboning, dicing, grinding,

chopping, canning, and final product preparation. Final product preparation includes freezing,

packaging, and shipping. Further processing may be performed after first processing in an

integrated operation, or it may be performed at a separate facility. Further processing is a highly

automated process designed to transform eviscerated broiler carcasses into a wide variety of

consumer products. Depending on the type of product being produced, plant production lines
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-48

may overlap, especially for producing cooked, finished products (USEPA, 1975). The following

sections describe poultry first processing operations. Figure 4-11 illustrates these series of

operations.

4.5.2.1 Receiving and Storage

If further processing takes place at a location separate from first processing, carcasses,

cut-up parts, and deboned meat are usually transported by truck. The vast majority of first

processing products received for further processing are whole carcasses. Further processing

operations separate from first processing or killing operations may receive poultry that already

has been further processed to some degree, typically cut-up or deboned. Further processing

plants that are separate from killing operations usually process poultry received packed in ice or

frozen, whereas further processing operations combined with killing operations usually process

whole carcasses directly following chilling. Thus, further processing plants separate from killing

operations require refrigerated or freezer storage facilities before further processing, whereas

further processing operations combined with killing operations do not require these facilities

except for the preservation of final products. Seasonings, spices, and chemicals are usually

received in dry form and stored in dry areas conveniently located near sauce, spice, butter, and

breading formulation areas (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.2 Thawing

Frozen poultry carcasses and components thereof received by further processing plants

can be thawed by immersing in water, by spraying with water, or by thawing in air with adequate

protection against contamination. In immersion, poultry is submerged in tanks or vats of

lukewarm potable water for the time required to thaw the poultry throughout. To prevent

spoilage, the USDA does not permit the continuous running tap water temperature to exceed

21 C (70 F) (9 CFR 381.65). Ice or other cooling agents may be used to keep the thawing

water within the acceptable temperature range. The vats used for thawing range from pushcarts

of 10 to 20 cubic feet in volume to substantially larger permanently installed tanks. Agitation

may be induced to enhance thawing by adding water continuously or by pumping filtered air

through flexible hoses into the immersion tank (USEPA, 1975). In thawing units that have no 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-49

Figure 4-11. General Process Flowsheet for Poultry Further Processing Operations

(USEPA, 1975)
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-50

freshwater added (no overflow) or where the thawing water leaves the unit for reconditioning

prior to returning to the thawing unit, the water is not allowed to exceed 10 C (50 F), as

required by the USDA (9 CFR 381.65).

Complete thawing is necessary to permit thorough examination of poultry prior to any

further processing. When the poultry has adequately thawed for reinspection, the product is

removed from the water and drained. Some plants prefer to place frozen poultry directly into

cooking kettles prior to thawing. This practice is permitted only when representative samples of

the entire lot have been thawed and found to be in sound and wholesome condition. In this case,

cookers filled with water are heated to enable the cooking process to begin immediately

following completion of thawing. USDA requires that thawing practices and procedures result in

no net gain in weight over the frozen weight (9 CFR 381.65).

If the only further processing operation is repackaging whole carcasses or parts for

shipment to market, USDA regulations prohibit recooling the thawed parts in slush ice. 

Mechanical refrigeration is required; however, the whole carcasses or parts may be held in tanks

of crushed ice with open drains, pending further processing or packaging (9 CFR 381.65).

4.5.2.3 Cutting

Cutting of poultry is normally the first further processing step for fresh ice-packed and

just-thawed poultry. Cutting involves disjointing and sawing of poultry into various parts. The

specifics of these parts became regulated by the government in 1986, when the Food Safety

Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA published guidelines for cuts of poultry (FSIS, 2001). 

Using these guidelines as the standard, further processing plants cut poultry into parts manually

or automatically. Mechanized equipment that processes entire carcasses into various cut portions

is available. The following parts are removed in descending order: neck skin, wings, breasts,

backbone, and finally thighs (which can be separated from the drumsticks, if desired). Manual

cuts can be made or a machine can be used to make horizontal and vertical cuts, if further portion

uniformity is desired. Up to 2,000 birds an hour can be processed this way. The only manual

labor required is feeding carcasses into the machine (Mead, 1989).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-51

4.5.2.4 Deboning

After poultry has been cut into parts, the parts may be deboned (separation of meat from

bone). Both raw and cooked poultry can be deboned. Frequently turkeys, because of their size,

are deboned raw, while chickens and similarly sized poultry can be deboned either raw or cooked

(USEPA, 1995). Chicken cooked before deboning will retain its characteristic chicken flavor,

while chicken cooked after deboning tastes like meat; therefore, cooked chicken is deboned for

products for which chicken flavor is desired, and raw chicken is deboned for products for which

a meat flavor is desired. Additional seasonings can be added to the raw chicken after it has been

deboned to further enhance its flavor (Mead, 1995). Deboning is usually performed with

specially designed machines, but it may be done manually. Bones are collected for rendering

(USEPA, 1975).

When deboning is mechanized, the meat either retains its original shape or is ground into

a thick paste. If the original shape is desired, the portions are fed into machines where a specially

designed mold fits over the poultry cut. As the mold compresses the portions, the meat slides

away from the bone. If cooked meat is to be used in other food products, it is placed into a

machine that acts much like a hydraulic press, compacting the meat and bone against several

different screens. The meat passes through these screens while the bone remains behind, creating

a thick paste of condensed poultry meat (Mead, 1989).

4.5.2.5 Grinding, Chopping, and Dicing

Many poultry products such as patties, rolls, and luncheon meats require size reduction of

boned meat. Grinding, chopping, and dicing vary the degree of size reduction, with grinding

producing the greatest degree of size reduction, chopping the next, and dicing the least. Each of

these operations is accomplished by mechanical equipment. In grinding, the meat is forced past a

cutting blade and then extruded through orifice plates with holes between 1/8 and 3/8 inch. 

Chopping likewise is usually accomplished by forcing the meat past a cutter and through an

orifice plate; however, the holes are greater than 3/8 inch in diameter (the specific orifice size is

chosen based on the desired nature of the final product). Dicing is more like a cutting operation

in that it makes distinct cuts in the meat to produce square-shaped chunks (USEPA, 1975).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-52

4.5.2.6 Cooking

Some further processed poultry products are cooked at some point in processing. This

step is done in preparation of a final product or in preparing whole birds for subsequent

deboning, the latter applying particularly to processing chickens. Partially and fully cooked

poultry products are frequently prepared in further processing operations, especially for the hotel,

restaurant, institutional and fast-food markets (USEPA, 1975).

Most poultry products are cooked by immersion in water in steam-jacketed open vats. 

Gas-fired ovens are used for some products, such as breasts that are not breaded. A small

number of microwave ovens are used in place of immersion cookers, and deep fat frying is used

for breaded products (USEPA, 1975).

Chicken parts, whole birds, and products such as rolls and loaves may be cooked by

immersion in hot water cookers. Overflow wires are used in these cookers to collect edible

chicken or turkey fat during the actual cooking operation. At the end of the processing day, the

contents of cooking vats are dumped into the wastewater collection system (USEPA, 1975).

Gas-fired ovens require essentially no water for operation. A small quantity of steam may

be added for humidity control, but it is usually vented through the facility’s stack system

(USEPA, 1975).

The use of microwave ovens frequently requires a preliminary injection of spices and

preservatives using multiple-needle injection equipment similar to the equipment used in ham

and bacon processing. The solution remaining at the end of the operating day is discarded into

the into the wastewater collection system (USEPA, 1975).

All cooked products are cooled before any further processing. The most common cooling

technique for cooked products is immersion into a cold-water tank with continuous overflow

(USEPA, 1975).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-53

4.5.2.7 Batter and Breading

Fully cooked poultry parts or fresh fabricated products may be battered and breaded to

produce a desired finished product. The batter is a water-based pumpable mixture, usually

containing milk and egg solids, flour, spices, and preservatives. A new batch of batter is

prepared each operating day. The batter is pumped through the application equipment, and the

excess flows back to the small holding tank. Some of the batter clings to the application

equipment; this is cleaned off during the day (USEPA, 1975).

The breading is a mixture of solids deposited on the poultry product after the batter is

applied. There is no liquid used in breading the products, and the residual solids are not disposed

of into the wastewater collection system. The breading is “set,” “browned,” or cooked by deep

fat frying in vegetable oil. Breaded products are conveyed through a deep-fat fryer that is heated

directly by gas flame or is heated by the circulation of hot oil from a heater separate from the

fryer. The vegetable oil in the fryer is reused repeatedly. When vegetable oil disposal is

necessary (after the end of each production shift), it is shipped to a renderer (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.8 Mixing and Blending

Some of the further processed products require mixing of several ingredients, including

ground or chopped meat, dry solids, spices, and water. The required intermixing speed and

intensity of these ingredients varies, depending on the product, from a gentle blending action to

an intense high-shear mixing action. Gravies and sauces are prepared in mixers that usually are

steam jacketed for heating. The ingredients are pumped or manually transported to the mixing

equipment for the preparation of batches of the product mix (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.9 Stuffing and Injecting

Following the preparation of a mixture of ingredients for a processed poultry product, the

mixture is pumped or transported manually in a container to a manufacturing operation, where

the mixtures are formed into the finished products. Either natural or synthetic sausage casings

are commonly used as containers in this operation (USEPA, 1975).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-54

To stuff cases, a product mixture is placed in a piece of equipment from which the

product mixture is either forced by air pressure or pumped to fill the casing uniformly and

completely to form the finished product. Water is used to lubricate casings for use in the stuffing

operation (USEPA, 1975).

Whole bird stuffing, which is performed primarily with turkeys, involves pumping a

stuffing mixture into the body cavity of a dressed bird at a stuffing station, followed by trussing

and freezing of the stuffed bird (USEPA, 1975).

Whole birds are often injected with edible fats and oils, such as butter, margarine, corn

oil, and cottonseed oil, to enhance their palatability. Again, this is primarily done with turkey

carcasses. This step is normally accomplished by inserting small, perforated needles into the

carcass in such a manner as to direct the injected fat or oil between the tissue fibers. The

preferred method is to inject longitudinally into the carcass without penetrating the skin of the

carcass, so the intact overlying skin will retard escape of the injected materials. The injection

material can be used for 1 day after preparation, but it must be discarded at the end of the second

processing day. Most plants minimize or avoid any disposal of this high-cost material by

preparing only the quantity needed (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.10 Canning

The containers used to hold canned poultry products must be prepared before filling and

covering. The cans must be cleaned and sterilized before being filled. The sterilized cans are

transported from the preparation area to the processing area for filling and closure. Water is

frequently present all along the can lines from preparation to filling and covering to remove any

spilled product from equipment used, from outer can surfaces, and from condensed steam. The

cans go through one last steaming just before entering the can filling area. Can filling can be

done by hand or mechanically. However, canning of whole birds or disjointed parts necessitates

hand filling (USEPA, 1975).

Can filling by machine is a high-speed operation. It requires moving the poultry food

products to the canning equipment, and it provides the automated delivery of those products into
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-55

a container. The high speed and the design of the equipment result in an appreciable amount of

spillage of product as the cans are filled and conveyed to the closure equipment. At the can

closure station, a small amount of steam is introduced under the cover just before the cover is

sealed to create a vacuum in the can when it cools. Steam use also generates a quantity of

condensate that drains off the cans and equipment onto the floor. The operation of the filling and

covering equipment results in a substantial quantity of wastewater containing product spills,

which is wasted to the wastewater collection system. Filling cans by hand does not appear to

generate as much spillage. Canning plants that have more than one filling and covering line have

a waste load that is generally proportional to the number of such lines in use (USEPA, 1975).

Canned poultry food products are preserved by heating to destroy any bacteria present. 

This is accomplished by cooking or by retorting (the pressurized cooking of canned products). 

Steam is used as the heating medium in retorting, and it is common practice to bleed or vent

steam from the retort vessels to maintain a constant cooking pressure. Cooking without pressure

is used for cured boneless canned poultry products; the products are considered perishable and

must be kept refrigerated. Virtually no wastewater or solid waste is generated by retorting or

cooking operations unless a can in a particular batch accidentally opens and spills its contents. 

This event requires wasting of the contents of that can and cleanup of the cooking vessel. Such

accidents rarely happen; thus the retorts or cooking vessels, as a matter of normal practice, are

not cleaned (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.11 Final Product Preparation

Many of the final products from a poultry plant are ready to serve after heating and are

prepared for the hotel, restaurant, and institutional markets. These products are portioncontrolled, may have gravy or a sauce added, and are packaged in containers of an appropriate

size and design for immediate heating and serving. Poultry meat patties, slices of turkey loaf,

and chicken parts are examples of the types of poultry products prepared in this manner. 

Equipment is used to convey and slice the meat product and deposit it into containers. The same

equipment delivers and adds the sauce or gravy to the meat in the container, as required for
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-56

specific products. As the final operation, this equipment closes the individual containers

(USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.12 Freezing

The first step in the freezing of further processed poultry products is usually

accomplished by blast freezing, in which the product is frozen by high-velocity air within the

range of -40 to -29 C (-40 to –20 F) or by first passing the product through a carbon dioxide or

nitrogen tunnel in which the change in phase of carbon dioxide or nitrogen from liquid to gas

causes rapid surface freezing. The products are then placed in holding freezers in which the

temperature is maintained at between -29 and -18 C (-20 and 0 F) (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.13 Packaging

Packing protects products against damage, contamination, and dessication. Packaging

also can extend the shelf-life of fresh poultry and improves product presentation (Mead, 1995). 

A variety of packaging techniques are used for further processed poultry products. These

techniques include the use of plastic film sealed under vacuum (Cry-O-Vac packaging), the

bubble enclosure packages used for sliced luncheon meats, and the boxing of smaller containers

or pieces of finished product for shipment (USEPA, 1975).

In some techniques of packaging, a substantial amount of product handling is involved,

which may result in some wasted finished product. However, pieces of wasted finished product

are usually returned for subsequent use in another processed product or directed to a renderer

(USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.14 Shipping

Shipping involves the transportation of finished products and material collected for

rendering. Truck transportation is the primary mode of shipping, and products are distributed

according to market orders (USEPA, 1975).

Trucks must be pre-chilled prior to loading to maintain the shelf-life of fresh poultry

products. Fresh poultry must be maintained at temperatures near freezing with 90 to 100 percent
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-57

humidity during transport to maintain a shelf-life of 1 to 4 weeks (USDA, 1997). Trucks are

loaded through overhead doors leading directly from inside the facility into the truck. Therefore,

there typically is no loading dock exposed to the elements, so that pollutants in any runoff from

truck loading areas are only those commonly associated with vehicle parking areas. The

pollutant load is wastewater concentrated by cleanup of inside loading areas, and it is variable

depending on the method of packaging. Ice pack products generate a higher pollutant load from

icemelt than do packaged products. However, loading areas are not a significant source of

wastewater pollutant loads.

4.6 DESCRIPTION OF RENDERING OPERATIONS

This section provides an overview of the U.S. rendering industry for the preparation of

edible and inedible rendered products. This section is divided into three subsections: industry

characterization, process description, and emerging technologies.

4.6.1 Industry Characterization

The Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing (NAICS 311613) sector includes facilities

engaged in the rendering of inedible (i.e., not suitable for human consumption) stearin, grease,

and tallow from animal fat bones and meat scraps, and the manufacturing of animal oils,

including fish oil, and fish and animal meal. The edible (i.e., suitable for human consumption)

rendering industry is included in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 2011. Many

facilities not classified as rendering facilities perform rendering operations but are not classified

as such because they are also engaged in slaughtering (first processing). These facilities are often

on-site (or “integrated”) rendering facilities that are part of an animal or poultry slaughtering

facility. Integrated rendering plants normally process only one type of raw material, whereas

independent rendering plants often handle several types of raw material that require either

multiple rendering systems or significant modifications in the operating conditions for a single

system.

The rendering sector consists of 137 companies that own or operate 240 facilities. The

sector employs 8,800 workers and generates $2.6 billion in shipments. Texas and California
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-58

have the largest number of rendering facilities. Unlike the meat or poultry industry sectors, the

rendering industry sector includes few large facilities; only 11 rendering facilities employed more

than 100 workers per facility in 1997. Rendering facilities tend to collect most of their raw

material from farms, animal feeding operations, first processors, further processors, and

restaurants (e.g., grease from traps and fryers). Rendering collection areas for raw material are

limited by cost of transportation and travel time for the raw material to reach the rendering

facility. Many rendering facilities have limited overlap of collection areas with other rendering

facilities. The 132 rendering facilities that employ between 20 and 99 workers account for the

largest share of the industry shipments (66 percent).

As with the meat and mixed meat animal first and further processing sectors, EPA is

using revised production rate thresholds to exclude most smaller rendering facilities from the

January 31, 2002, proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 432. Based on the current screener survey

data, EPA is defining small rendering facilities as those which produce less than 10 million

pounds of rendered product per year. See to Figures 4-12 and 4-13 for the distribution of small

and non-small rendering facilities further categorized by discharge type throughout the United

States. 

4.6.2 Rendering (Meat and Poultry By-product Processing) Description

Rendering processes are processes used to convert the by-products of meat and poultry

processing into marketable products, including edible and inedible fats and proteins for

agricultural and industrial use. Materials rendered include viscera, meat scraps including fat,

bone, blood, feathers, hatchery by-products (infertile eggs, dead embryos, etc.), and dead

animals. Lard and foodgrade tallow are examples of edible rendering products. Inedible

rendering products include industrial and animal feedgrade fats, meat and poultry by-product

meals, feather meal, dried blood, and hydrolyzed hair.

Rendering plants that operate in conjunction with animal slaughterhouses or poultry

processing plants are called integrated rendering plants. Plants that collect their raw materials

from a variety of off-site sources are called independent rendering plants. Independent plants 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-59

Figure 4-12. Location of Small Rendering Facilities in the

United States (Based on Screener Survey Data). 

Figure 4-13. Location of Non-Small Rendering Facilities in the

United States (Based on Screener Survey Data).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-60

obtain animal by-product materials from a variety of sources, including butcher shops,

supermarkets, restaurants, fast-food chains, poultry processors, slaughterhouses, farms, ranches,

feedlots, and animal shelters (USEPA, 1995).

Edible rendering plants separate fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The

edible rendering plants are normally operated in conjunction with meat packing plants. The

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for regulating and inspecting

meat and poultry first and further processing facilities and facilities engaged in edible rendering

(i.e., suitable for human consumption) to ensure food safety. The U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) covers inedible rendering operations. Inedible rendering plants are

operated by independent renderers or are part of integrated rendering operations. These plants

produce inedible tallow and grease, which are used in livestock and poultry feed, pet food, soap,

chemical products such as fatty acids, and fuel blending agents.

4.6.2.1 Edible Rendering

A typical edible rendering process is shown in Figure 4-14. Fat trimmings, usually

consisting of 14 to 16 percent fat, 60 to 64 percent moisture, and 22 to 24 percent protein, are

ground and then belt conveyed to a melt tank. The melt tank heats the materials to about 43 C

(110 F), and the melted fatty tissue is pumped to a disintegrator, which ruptures the fat cells.

The proteinaceous solids are separated from the melted fat and water by a centrifuge. The

melted fat and water are then heated with steam to about 93 C (200 F) by a shell and tube heat

exchanger. A second-stage centrifuge then separates the edible fat from the water, which also

contains any remaining protein fines. The water is discharged as sludge, and the "polished" fat is

pumped to storage. Throughout the process, direct heat contact with the edible fat is minimal,

and no cooking vapors are directly emitted (USEPA, 1995).

Edible lard and tallow are the main foodstuffs produced from continuous edible rendering

of animal fatty tissue. Either the low temperature option or the high temperature option edible

rendering processes may be used to render edible fat. The low temperature option uses

temperatures below 49 C (120 F) and the high temperature option uses temperatures between
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-61

Figure 4-14. General Process for Edible Rendering (USEPA, 1995).

82 and 100 C (180 and 210 F) to melt animal fatty tissue and to separate the fat from the

protein. A better separation of fat from protein can be achieved with the high temperature

option; however, the protein obtained from the low temperature option is of acceptable quality,

wheras the protein obtained from the high temperature option cannot be sold as an edible product

(Prokop, 1985).

4.6.2.2 Inedible Rendering

Table 4-1 shows the fat, protein, and moisture contents for several raw materials

processed by inedible rendering plants. There are two processes for inedible rendering: the wet

process and the dry process. Wet rendering separates fat from raw material by boiling in water. 

The process involves adding water to the raw material and using live steam to cook the raw

material and separate the fat. Dry rendering is a batch or continuous process in which the

material being rendered is cooked in its own moisture and grease with dry heat in open steamjacketed drums until the moisture has evaporated. Following dehydration, as much fat as

possible is removed by draining, and the residue is passed through a screw press to remove some 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-62

Table 4-1. Composition of Raw Materials for Inedible Rendering

Source

Tallow/grease

Wt %

Protein Solids

Wt %

Moisture

Wt %

Packing house offala

 and bone

Steers 30-35 15-20 45-55

Cows 10-20 20-30 50-70

Calves 10-15 15-20 65-75

Sheep 25-30 20-25 45-55

Hogs 25-30 10-15 55-65

Poultry offal 10 25 65

Poultry feathers None 33 67

Dead stock (whole animals)

Calves 10 22 68

Sheep 22 25 53

Hogs 30 28 42

Butcher shop fat and bone 31 32 37

Blood None 16-18 82-84

Restaurant grease 65 10 25

a

 Waste parts; especially the viscera and similar parts from a butchered animal.

Source: USEPA, 1995.

of the remaining fat and moisture. Then the residue is granulated or ground into a meal. At

present, only dry rendering is used in the United States. The wet rendering process is no longer

used because of the high cost of energy and because of its adverse effect on the fat quality

(USEPA, 1995).

Inedible rendering can be divided into two subcategories: feed grade and pet food grade

rendering. In addition, the poultry industry uses a third subcategory of inedible rendering called

glomerate rendering. Glomerate rendering is the oldest rendering process, dating back to the

beginnings of slaughterhouses when all animal by-products were rendered and fed back to

animals as a feed. The glomerate process involves combining meat and feathers and cooking

them together to produce feed for poultry. Because more plants further process poultry than they

did in the past, a greater amount of bones, backs, and necks are included in the rendering process. 

The ratio of meat to feathers varies throughout the day, generally resulting in increased protein
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-63

concentrations toward the end of the day. Glomerate rendering is not widely used today because

of the highly variable protein concentrations of the final products (Christensen, 1996).

Feed grade rendering has the largest market because livestock and poultry feed

manufacturers purchase the products produced in bulk to use as feed ingredients. This process

requires that fat and protein and hog hair or poultry feathers be separated, though crude

techniques are used. The meat is cooked down into meal and the feathers or hair are hydrolyzed

before they are sold to the livestock and poultry feed manufacturers (Christensen, 1996).

Pet food grade rendering is the most profitable type of rendering and has an $8 billion

market worldwide each year. Strict separation of materials is required because purchasers are

very concerned with texture, color, ash content, and quality of the final product. Blood and

feathers or hair cannot be included in pet food (Christensen, 1996).

The following sections describe the two typical inedible rendering processes, batch

rendering and continuous rendering. Both can be used to produce either feed grade or pet food

grade protein meal and fat. As discussed previously, the grade of the rendered products depends

on the types of raw materials included and excluded. Since the 1960s continuous rendering

systems have been installed to replace batch systems at most plants. Currently, only a few batch

cooker plants remain in operation in North America (Lehmann, 2001).

4.6.2.2.1 Batch Rendering Process

Figure 4-15 shows the basic inedible rendering process using multiple batch cookers. In

the batch process, the raw material from the receiving bin is screw conveyed to a crusher, where

it is reduced to 2.5 to 5 centimeters (1 to 2 inches) in size to improve cooking efficiency. 

Cooking normally requires 1.5 to 2.5 hours, but adjustments in the cooking time and temperature

may be required to process the various materials. A typical batch cooker is a horizontal,

cylindrical vessel equipped with a steam jacket and an agitator. To initiate the cooking process,

the cooker is charged with raw material and the material is heated to a final temperature ranging

from 121 to 135 C (250 to 275 F). Following the cooking cycle, the contents are discharged to 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-64

Figure 4-15. General Process for Inedible Batch Cooking Rendering (USEPA, 1995).

the percolator drain pan. Vapor emissions from the cooker pass through a condenser, which

condenses the water vapor and emits the noncondensibles as volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions (USEPA, 1995).

The percolator drain pan contains a screen that separates the liquid fat from the protein

solids. From the percolator drain pan, the protein solids, which still contain about 25 percent fat,

are conveyed to a screw press. The screw press completes the separation of fat from solids and

yields protein solids that have a residual fat content of about 10 percent. These solids, called

cracklings, are then ground and screened to produce protein meal. The fat from both the screw

press and the percolator drain pan is pumped to the crude animal fat tank, centrifuged or filtered

to remove any remaining protein solids, and stored in the animal fat storage tank (USEPA, 1995).

4.6.2.2.2 Continuous Rendering Process

A typical continuous rendering process is shown in Figure 4-16. The system is similar to

a batch system, except that a single, continuous cooker is used rather than several parallel batch

cookers. A typical continuous cooker is a horizontal, steam-jacketed cylindrical vessel equipped

with a mechanism that continuously moves the material horizontally through the cooker. 
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-65

Figure 4-16. General Process for Inedible Continuous Rendering (USEPA, 1995).

Continuous cookers process the material faster than batch cookers and typically produce a higher 

quality fat product. From the cooker, the material is discharged to the drainer, which serves the

same function as the percolator drain pan in the batch process. The remaining operations are

generally the same as the batch process operations (USEPA, 1995).

In the 1980s newer continuous rendering systems were developed to precook the raw

material and to remove moisture from the liquid fat prior to the cooker/drier stage. These

systems use an evaporator operated under vacuum and heated by the vapors from the

cooker/drier. One system, termed waste-heat dewatering (WHD), consists of treating the raw

material in a preheater followed by a twin-screw press. The solids from the press are directed to

the cooker/drier. The liquid fat is sent to an evaporator operated under a vacuum and heated by

the hot vapors from the cooker/drier to a temperature of 70 to 90 C (160 to 200 F). In the

evaporator, the moisture evaporates from the liquid fat and passes to a water-cooled condenser. 

The dewatered fat is recombined with the solids from the screw press prior to entry into the

cooker/drier. These pretreatment systems may reduce fuel costs by 30 to 40 percent and increase

production throughput by up to 75 percent (USEPA, 1995). Several inedible continuous
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-66

rendering systems exist, including the Duke System, the Anderson C-G (Carver-Greenfield)

System, and the Atlas Stord Waste Heat Dewatering System.

Duke Continuous Rendering System (Inedible Rendering)

The process of the Duke system is similar to that of the batch cooker described earlier. 

The main difference is that it operates on a continuous basis. The cooker portion of the system, 

called the Equacooker, is a horizontal steam-jacketed cylindrical vessel equipped with a rotating

shaft. Paddles, which are attached to the rotating shaft, lift the material and move it horizontally

through the cooker. The rotating shaft also has steam-heated coils to provide increased heat

transfer. The Equacooker is divided into three separate compartments that are equipped with

baffles to restrict and control the flow of materials through the cooker. Adjusting the speed of

the variable-speed drive for the twin-screw feeder controls the feed rate to the Equacooker, while

the discharge rate is controlled by the control wheel rotation speed. The control wheel has

buckets that collect the cooked material from the Equacooker and discharge it into the Drainor. 

A site glass column, located adjacent to the control wheel, shows the operating level in the

cooker; a photoelectric cell unit shuts off the twin-screw feeder when the upper level limit is

reached. The Drainor is an enclosed screw conveyor that contains a section of perforated

troughs, which allow the free melted fat to drain through as the solids are conveyed to the Pressor

or screw press for additional separation of tallow. Similar to any other screw press used with a

batch cooker, the Pressor reduces the grease level of the crackling (Prokop, 1985).

The central control panel, which consolidates the process controls for the system, houses

a temperature recorder, stream pressure indicators, equipment speed settings, motor load gauges,

and stop and start buttons. This design facilitates operation of the controls so that only one

person is needed to operate the Equacooker portion of the Duke system (Prokop, 1985).

Anderson C-G (Carver-Greenfield) System (Inedible Rendering)

The Anderson C-G system differs from most other systems in several aspects. Instead of

using screw conveyors, recycled fat carries the raw material as a pumpable slurry. An additional

grinding step is included to further reduce the size of the particles. Also, the conventional
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-67

evaporator system with a vacuum is powered by an electrical motor, rather than by steam

injectors, to remove moisture from the slurry (Prokop, 1985).

The process begins with a triple-screw feeder that feeds the partially ground raw material

continuously, and at a controlled rate, to a fluidizing tank. In the tank, fat that has been recycled

through the system at a temperature of 104 C (22 F) suspends the material and carries it to a

disintegrator to further reduce the particle size. The final particle size ranges from 0.25 to 1 inch. 

The slurry is next pumped to an evaporator, which can be either a single or a double-stage unit,

and is held under vacuum. Because the vacuum facilitates moisture removal, the C-G system can

operate at a lower temperature than other processes. The evaporator consists of a vertical shell

and tube heat exchanger connected to a vacuum system. Gravity aids the flow of the slurry

through the tubes of the heat exchanger while steam is injected into the shell. Next, the water

vapor is separated from the slurry in the vapor chamber, which is under a vacuum pressure of 660

to 710 mm (26 to 28 inches) of mercury. Water vapor then travels through a shell and tube

condenser that is connected to a steam-injection vacuum system. Once the vapors are condensed,

they exit the condenser through a barometric leg, allowing the vacuum to be maintained. In a

two-stage evaporator system, the vapor from the second stage functions as a heating medium for

the first stage. Providing steam economy, the two-stage evaporator is especially useful for

materials that have a high moisture content. The remaining dry slurry of fat and cracklings is

then pumped from the evaporator to a centrifuge that separates the solids from the liquid. A

portion of the fat is recycled back to the fluidizing tank, while the remainder is removed from the

system. Discharged solids from the centrifuge are screw-conveyed to expellers (screw presses),

which reduce the fat content of solids from 26 percent by weight to 6 to 10 percent (Prokop,

1985).

As in the Duke process, the central control panel allows a single person to operate the

cooking process. The panel includes level indicators and controls to stabilize the flow through

the fluidizing and other process tanks in addition to the vacuum chamber. It also monitors

evaporator vacuum and temperature measurements. The panel also has equipment speed

settings, motor current readings, and start/stop push buttons (Prokop, 1985).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-68

Atlas Stord Waste Heat Dewatering (WHD) System /(Inedible Rendering)

The Atlas Stord system, formerly called the Stord Bartz WHD System, consists of a

preheater, twin-screw press, and evaporator system. It is typically installed with an existing

rendering system. As with other processes, the raw material is screw-conveyed from the raw

material bin over an electromagnet and is fed to either a prebreaker or hogor for course grinding. 

The ground material travels through a preheater to melt the fat and condition the animal fibrous

tissue properly for the subsequent pressing operation. The preheater is a horizontal, steamjacketed, cylindrical vessel that has an agitator and rotating shaft to ensure continuous flow and

adequate heat transfer. The temperature of the material is controlled within the preheater at 60 to

82 C (140 to 180 F), depending on the type of raw material.

After it is heated, the material is then subjected to the twin-screw press, where it is

separated into a solid phase and a liquid phase. The press consists of intermeshing, counterrotating screws that move inside a press cage assembly. A perforated screen, through which the

liquid is pressed, is secured by vertical support plates. The shape of the screen follows the

contour of the rotating flights of the twin screws. The material fills the space between the screws

and the press cage. The twin screws have a lower diameter shaft and deeper flights at the feed

end, providing a larger volume of space. As the screws rotate, the volume of space decreases,

creating an increased pressure to the material to squeeze out the liquid through the perforated

screen.

After the liquid, consisting of melted fat and water, is squeezed out, a presscake of solids

of fat and moisture remains. The solids are screw-conveyed to the existing cooker or dryer,

where the moisture is removed. The screw press completes the final separation of fats from the

solids. The liquid extracted by the screw press is pumped from the feed tank to the evaporator,

which is a tubular heat exchanger that is mounted vertically and is integral with the vapor

chamber. Vapors from the existing cooker or drier serve as the heating medium for evaporation. 

The liquid enters the evaporator at the top and flows by gravity downward through the tubes, then

discharges into the vapor chamber maintained under a vacuum of 24 to 26 inches of mercury. A

shell and tube condenser with circulating cooling water condenses the vapor. Because the system
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-69

makes use of vapors from the existing cooker, fuel costs are reduced by 30 to 40 percent (Prokop,

1985).

4.5.3 Blood Processing and Drying

Blood processing and drying is an auxiliary process in meat rendering operations. At the

present time, less than 10 percent of the independent rendering plants in the United States

process whole animal blood. Whole blood from animal slaughterhouses, containing 16 to 18

percent total protein solids, is processed and dried to recover protein as blood meal. The blood

meal is a valuable ingredient in animal feed because it has a high lysine content. Continuous

cookers have replaced the batch cookers originally used in the industry because of the improved

energy efficiency and product quality provided by continuous cookers. In the continuous

process, whole blood is introduced into a steam-injected, inclined tubular vessel in which the

blood solids coagulate. The coagulated blood solids and liquid (serum water) are then separated

in a centrifuge, and the blood solids are dried in either a continuous gas-fired, direct-contact ring

dryer or a steam tube, rotary dryer (USEPA, 1995). Blood from poultry processing usually is

processed with feathers to increase the available protein content of feather meal.

4.5.4 Poultry Feathers and Hog Hair Processing.

The raw material is introduced into a batch cooker and is processed for 30 to 45 minutes

at temperatures ranging from 138 to 149 C (280 to 300 F) and pressures ranging from 40 to 50

pounds per square inch. This process converts keratin, the principal component of feathers and

hog hair, into amino acids. The moist meal product, containing the amino acids, is passed either

through a hot air, ring-type dryer or over steam-heated tubes to remove the moisture from the

meal. If the hot air dryer is used, the dried product is separated from the exhaust by cyclone

collectors. In the steam-heated tube system, fresh air is passed countercurrent to the flow of the

meal to remove the moisture. The dried meal is then transferred to storage. The exhaust gases

are passed through controls prior to discharge to the atmosphere (USEPA, 1995).
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-70

4.6 REFERENCES

Christensen, H. 2001. Looking at the basics of the “hidden industry.” Dec. 1996: 7 pp. On-line. 

Internet. Available WWW: http://www.mtgplace.com/articles/p699.asp. (DCN 00120)

Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). 2001. “Guidelines for specified cuts of poultry.” 26 Feb

1986: 2 pp. On-line. Internet. Available WWW:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/rdad/fsisdirectives/7110%2D1.pdf. (DCN 00247)

Lehmann, L. 2001. Glancing back: changes in technology over the last 30 years. Render, the

National Magazine of Rendering. 2 pp. On-line. Internet. Available WWW:

http://www.rendermagazine.com/February 2001/GlancingBack.html. (DCN 00121)

Mead, G.C., ed. 1989. Processing of poultry. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.,

Inc. Prokop, William H. Rendering systems for processing animal by-product materials. 

Papers from the Symposium on Animal Fats presented at the 74th AOCS Annual Meeting

held in Chicago, Illinois, May 8-12, 1983. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society

62(4):805-811. 1985. (DCN 00124)

Prokop, W. 1985. Rendering systems for processing animal by-product materials. Papers From

the Symposium on Animal Fats Presented at the 74th AOCS Annual Meeting Held in

Chicago, Illinois, May 8-12, 1983. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society.

62(4):805-811.

Sams, A.R., ed. 2001. Poultry meat processing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. (DCN 00108 and

00109)

Stadelman, W.J., et al. 1988. Egg and poultry-meat processing. New York, NY: Ellis Horwood

Ltd. (DCN 00111)

Thorne, J. 2001. Personal Communication. (DCN 10028)

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001. Livestock slaughter 2000 summary. National

Agricultural Statistics Service. Mt An 1-2-1 (01a), Washington, DC. (DCN 00183)
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-71

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Agricultural transportation handbook. On-line. 

Internet. Available WWW:http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/export/index.htm. 

(DCN 00239)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Emission factor documentation for AP-42

Section 9.5.1. Meat packing plants. Washington, DC. (DCN 00112)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Emission factor documentation for AP-42

Section 9.5.3. Meat rendering plants final report. EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159,

Washington, DC. (DCN 00125)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development document for proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry segment of

the meat product and rendering process, point source category. EPA/440/1-75/031-b,

Washington, DC. (DCN 00140)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the processor segment

of the meat products point source category. EPA/440/1-74/031, Washington, DC.

(DCN 00186)

Wilson, A. Wilson’s practical meat inspection. 1998. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science,

Ltd. (DCN 00106 and 00107)

Warriss, P.D. 2000. Meat science: an introductory text. New York, NY: CABI Publishing. 

(DCN 00103, 00104, and 00105)
5-1

SECTION 5

SUBCATEGORIZATION

This section presents the proposed subcategorization for the meat and poultry products

(MPP) effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards. Section 5.1 presents EPA’s

subcategorization criteria. Section 5.2 presents each proposed subcategory in detail and

discusses the differences between the existing subcategorization and the proposed

subcategorization.

5.1 SUBCATEGORIZATION PROCESS

Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)) requires EPA to consider a

number of different factors when developing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment

standards. For example, when developing limitations that represent the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT) for a particular industry category, EPA must

consider, among other factors:

• Age of the equipment and facilities

• Location

• Manufacturing processes employed

• Types of treatment technology to reduce effluent discharges

• Cost of effluent reductions

• Non-water quality environmental impacts

The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors that the Administrator

deems appropriate. In addition, it requires BAT model technology chosen by EPA to be

economically achievable, which generally involves considering both compliance costs and the

overall financial condition of the industry.

EPA took these factors into account in considering whether different effluent limitations

guidelines and pretreatment standards were appropriate for subcategories within the industry. 

For this industry, EPA broke down the industry into subcategories with similar characteristics. 

This breakdown recognized the major differences among companies within the industr, which
Section 5. Subcategorization

5-2

might reflect, for example, different processes, economies of scale, or other factors. Subdividing

an industry into subcategories results in more tailored regulatory standards, thereby increasing

regulatory predictability and diminishing the need to address variations among facilities through

a variance process. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

For this proposed MPP rulemaking, EPA used industry survey data and EPA sampling

data for the subcategorization analysis. Various subcategorization criteria were analyzed for

trends in discharge flow rates, pollutant concentrations, and treatability to determine where

subcategorization was warranted. Equipment and facility age and facility location were not

found to affect wastewater generation or wastewater characteristics; therefore, age and location

were not used as a basis for subcategorization. An analysis of non-water quality environmental

characteristics (e.g., solid waste and air emission effects) also showed that these characteristics

did not constitute a basis for subcategorization. See Section 10 of this document for more

information on non-water quality environmental impacts.

Even though size (e.g., acreage, number of employees, production rates) of a facility does

not influence production-normalized wastewater flow rates or pollutant loadings, size was used

as a basis for subcategorization because more stringent limitations would not be cost- effective

for smaller meat, poultry, and rendering facilities. In addition, smaller facilities discharge a very

small portion of the total industry discharge. Therefore, this proposal does not revise the

existing limitations and standard for smaller facilities in Subcategories A through J and proposes

less stringent requirements for smaller facilities in Subcategories K and L. See Section 12 of this

document for definition of “small” and “non-small” facilities for each subcategory. See the

“Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat

and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category” (EPA 821-B-01-006) for a description of

why EPA established standards for small poultry facilities.

EPA also identified both the types of meat products (e.g., meat or poultry) and the

manufacturing processes (e.g., slaughtering, further processing, rendering) as a determinative

factor for subcategorization because of differences in median production-normalized wastewater

flow rates (PNFs) and estimated pollutant loadings. For meat facilities, the PNF for slaughtering

is 322 gallons per 1000 pounds (gal/1000 lb) live weight killed, the PNF for further processing is
Section 5. Subcategorization

5-3

555 gal/1000 lb finished product, the PNF for meat cutters in subcategory F only is 130 gal/1000

lb finished product, and the PNF for rendering is 346 gal/1000 lb raw material. For poultry

facilities, the PNF for slaughtering is 1,289 gal/1000 lb live weight killed, the PNF for further

processing is 315 gal/1000 lb finished product, and the PNF for rendering is 346 gal/1000 lb raw

material.

Slaughtering operations use substantial amounts of water for initial processing (kill

through carcass shipping or cut-up). Slaughtering or first processing operations generally

involve taking the live animal and producing whole or cut-up meat carcasses (which then may be

further processed). Wastewaters from first processing operations are generated from a variety of

sources that generally include the areas where animals are killed and bled; hides, hair, or feathers

are removed; animals are eviscerated; carcasses are washed and chilled; and carcasses are

trimmed and cut to produce the whole carcasses or carcass parts. As a result of these operations,

wastewaters that contain varying levels of blood, animal parts, viscera, fats, bones, and the like

are generated. In addition, federal food safety concerns require frequent and extensive cleanup

of slaughtering operations, which also contributes to wastewater generation. These cleanup

wastewaters contain not only slaughtering residues and particulate matter but also products used

for cleaning and disinfection (e.g., detergents and sanitizing agents).

Alternatively, most further processing operations generate wastewaters from sources

different from slaughtering operations. These sources, and the resulting wastewater

characteristics, are highly dependent on the type of finished product desired. Further operations

can include, but are not limited to, cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning,

grinding, chopping, dicing, forming, and breading. Unlike slaughtering operations, most further

processing operations do not use significant amounts of water, except for cleanup. Wastewaters

generated from further processing operations contain some soft and hard tissue (e.g., muscle, fat,

and bone), blood, and other substances used in final product preparation (e.g., breading, spices),

as well as products used for cleaning and disinfection (detergents and sanitizing agents).

Rendering operations primarily process slaughtering by-products (e.g., animal fat, bone,

blood, hair, feathers, dead animals). The amount of water used and the characteristics of

wastewater generated by rendering operations are highly dependent on a number of factors,
Section 5. Subcategorization

5-4

including the type of product produced (e.g., edible vs. inedible), the rendering process used

(batch vs. continuous, wet process vs. dry process), and the source and type of raw materials

used (e.g., poultry processors, slaughterhouses, butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants, fastfood chains, farms, ranches, feedlots, animal shelters). In general, rendering operations involve

cooking the raw materials to recover fats, oil, and grease; remaining residue is dried and then

granulated or ground into a meal using a continuous dry rendering process. A significant portion

of wastewater pollutant loadings generated from rendering operations is condensed steam from

cooking operations. Unlike slaughtering and further processing operations, rendering cleanup

operations are generally less rigorous, generating a smaller proportion of the total expected

wastewater flow.

5.2 PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIES

EPA proposes to keep the current subcategorization scheme for small facilities, but for

larger facilities the Agency is proposing new limitations and collapsing the existing

subcategories. Specifically, EPA proposes new limitations and standards that are the same for

larger facilities in the following MPP subcategories: Simple Slaughterhouses (Subpart A),

Complex Slaughterhouses (Subpart B), Low-Processing Packinghouses (Subpart C), and HighProcessing Packinghouses (Subpart D). Also, EPA proposes new limitations and standards that

are the same for facilities in the following MPP subcategories: Meat Cutters (Subpart F),

Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors (Subpart G), Ham Processors (Subpart H), and Canned

Meats Processors (Subpart I).

EPA is also retaining the Renderer (Subpart J) subcategory and proposing new

limitations and standards for facilities in this subcategory. This proposal does not revise the

existing limitations and standards for smaller facilities in Subparts A through J (which would

include by definition all Subpart E [Small Processor] facilities). Finally, EPA proposes adding

two MPP subcategories in 40 CFR Part 432: Poultry First Processing (Subpart K) and Poultry

Further Processing (Subpart L). These two new subcategories will cover both small and large

poultry processing facilities, although the smaller facilities in each of the subcategories are

required to meet less stringent requirements than the larger poultry facilities. EPA chose less
Section 5. Subcategorization

5-5

stringent limitations for smaller poultry processing facilities because more stringent limits would

not be cost-effective for such facilities.

EPA believes that the similarities among Simple Slaughterhouses, Complex

Slaughterhouse, Low-Processing Packinghouses, and Complex Packinghouses (Subcategories A

through D), including but not limited to the commonality of slaughter of live animals, represents

a rational basis for proposing new limitations and standards that are the same for all four

subcategories. This approach allows the use of production-normalized wastewater flow and

pollutant generation on a common live weight killed (LWK) basis for all four subcategories,

with possible additional allowances reflecting the degree of further processing and rendering.

The proposal for new limitations and standards that are the same for meat cutters,

sausage and luncheon meat processors, ham processors, and canned meat processors is also

based on the similarities among these four subcategories. These similarities include, but are not

limited to, the absence of slaughtering and on-site rendering activities and the ability to

characterize wastewater flow and pollutant generation on a finished product basis.

The rationale that EPA used for proposing two new subcategories for poultry, first

processing and further processing, with separate limitations and standards, is essentially the

same as that used for grouping Subcategories A through D and F through I for meat. Included

were the presence (Subcategory K) or absence (Subcategory L) of slaughtering. Immediately

following, each subcategory is described in more detail in terms of its manufacturing processes

and wastewater characteristics.

5.2.1 Meat Slaughterhouses and Packinghouses—Subparts A, B, C and D

EPA is proposing to retain the existing subcategories. EPA is not proposing to revise the

existing BPT requirements for facilities that slaughter 50 million pounds per year or less. 

Because the existing limitations for smaller meat facilities (which EPA believes should be

maintained) are different for each of the subcategories, the subcategories themselves are being

maintained. EPA believes that retaining the existing subcategorization scheme will simplify

implementation for the permit writers, as well as generate appropriate limitations and standards

for the facilities.
Section 5. Subcategorization

5-6

The proposed regulation would require all meat direct dischargers that slaughter more

than 50 million pounds live weight per year to achieve the same production-based effluent

limitations. EPA finds that the slaughtering and initial processing operations used in all four of

these subcategories are the key factors in determining wastewater characteristics and treatability. 

Moreover, EPA believes there are no significant differences between these four subcategories in

terms of age, location, and size of facilities. In addition to slaughtering and initial processing,

EPA is proposing to establish allowances to account for the additional processes that might also

occur on-site. The proposed effluent limitations guidelines would provide allowances for

discharges from each of the following processes: slaughtering (which includes initial

processing), further processing, and rendering. These allowances would be the same for all four

subcategories and are related to the volume of production as follows: the amount of live weight

killed for the slaughtering process, the amount of finished product that is further processed

on-site, and the amount of raw material that is rendered on-site.

5.2.2 Meat Further Processing—Subparts F, G, H and I

The proposed subcategorization scheme requires all facilities that generate more than 50

million pounds per year of meat finished products without performing slaughtering to be

regulated by the same production-based effluent limitations guidelines. Subpart E (Small

Processor) facilities are excluded from these new proposed requirements by definition. The

limitations guidelines allow discharges based on the amount of finished product that is further

processed on-site. The wastewater characteristics and treatability for three of the four

subcategories are sufficiently similar to group them together for the purpose of revising or

setting new limitations and standards. However, subpart F limitations will be based on a lower

production-normalized flow than Subpart G, H, and I limitations because Subpart F facilities

generate substantially less water per pound of finished product than the other three subparts. 

Moreover, EPA believes there are no significant differences between these four subcategories in

terms of age, location, and size of these MPP facilities. EPA believes that this subcategorization

scheme will simplify implementation for the permit writers, as well as generate appropriate

limitations and standards for the facilities.
Section 5. Subcategorization

5-7

5.2.3 Renderer—Subpart J

Subpart J applies to independent rendering facilities, which are facilities that only render

raw materials and process hides and do no first or further processing. The proposed

subcategorization scheme requires all independent rendering facilities that render more than 10

million pounds per year of raw material to be regulated by the same production-based effluent

limitations guidelines. This scheme is a change from the current guidelines, which apply only to

independent renderers that render more than approximately 27.4 million pounds raw material per

year (or 75,000 pounds raw material per day for a facility that operates 365 days per year). The

limitations and standards allow discharges based on the amount of raw material rendered on-site.

5.2.4 Poultry First Processing—Subpart K

EPA divided the poultry first processors into two segments, small and non-small. Small

poultry first processors slaughter 10 million pounds of poultry per year or less; non-small poultry

first processors slaughter more than 10 million pounds of poultry per year. EPA is proposing

that the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for small poultry first processors (both

new and existing) be based on the less efficient nitrification technology option (Option 1). EPA

is proposing that the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for non-small poultry first

processors (both new and existing) be based on the nitrification/denitrification technology option

(Option 3). See Section 11 of this document for a discussion of the technology options, and see

Section 12 of this document for more details on how EPA developed the two segments and

specific requirements for each segment.

The effluent limitations guidelines allow discharges for all activities that may be

performed on-site, including further processing and rendering, based on (1) the amount of live

weight killed, (2) the amount of finished product that is further processed on-site, and (3) the

amount of raw material that is rendered on-site.

5.2.5 Poultry Further Processing—Subpart L

EPA divided the poultry further processors into two segments, small and non-small. 

Small poultry further processors generate 7 million pounds of finished product per year or less;

non-small poultry further processors generate more than 7 million pounds of finished product per
Section 5. Subcategorization

5-8

year. EPA is proposing that the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for small

poultry further processors (both new and existing) be based on a less efficient nitrification

technology option (Option 1). EPA is proposing that the technology-based effluent limitations

guidelines for non-small poultry further processors (both new and existing) be based on the

nitrification/denitrification technology option (Option 3). See Section 11 of this document for a

discussion of the technology options, and see Section 12 of this document for more details on

how EPA developed the two segments and specific requirements for each segment. The effluent

limitations guidelines allow discharges based on the amount of finished product that is produced

on-site.

5.3 REFERENCES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for effluent limitation

guidelines and new source performance standards—red meat processing segments of the

meat products point source category. EPA-440/1-74-012a. Effluent Guidelines Division,

Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC. (DCN 00162)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development document for proposed effluent

limitation guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry processing

point source category. EPA-440/1-75-031b. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of

Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, DC. (DCN 00140)
6-1

SECTION 6

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION

This section describes the characteristics of wastewater generated by meat and poultry

product (MPP) operations. Section 6.1 describes wastewater characteristics of meat processing

wastes, Section 6.2 describes wastewater characteristics of poultry processing wastes, and

Section 6.3 describes wastewater characteristics of rendering wastes.

6.1 MEAT PROCESSING WASTES

6.1.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated

In meat processing, water is used primarily for carcass washing after hide removal from

cattle, calves, and sheep or hair removal from hogs and again after evisceration, for cleaning, and

sanitizing of equipment and facilities, and for cooling of mechanical equipment such as

compressors and pumps. A large quantity of water is used for scalding in the process of hair

removal for hogs. Since most meat-processing facilities operate on a round-the-clock schedule

with the killing cycle followed by processing and cleaning operations, the rate of water use and

wastewater generation varies with both time of day and day of the week. In order to comply with

Federal requirements for complete cleaning and sanitation of equipment after each processing

shift, a regular processing shift, usually of 8- or 10-hour duration, is followed by one 6- to 8-hour

cleanup shift every day. During processing, water use and wastewater generation are relatively

constant and low compared to the cleanup period that follows. Water use and wastewater

generation essentially cease after the cleanup period until processing begins the next day. In

addition, there is little water use or wastewater generation on non-processing days, which usually

are Saturdays and Sundays. Thus, meat processing wastewater flow rates can be highly variable,

especially on an hourly basis.

A number of studies also have shown that the volume of water used and wastewater

generated on a per unit of production basis, such as live weight killed (LWK) or finished product

produced also can vary substantially among processing plants. Some of this variation is a

reflection of different levels of effort among plants to minimize water use to reduce the cost of
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-2

wastewater treatment. For example, Johns (1995) reported water use ranging from 312 to 601

gallons per 1,000 pounds live weight for processing of beef cattle. In an earlier analysis of data

from 24 simple slaughterhouses (operations producing fresh meat ranging from whole carcasses

to smaller cuts of meat with two or fewer by-product recovery activities, such as rendering and

hide processing), wastewater flows ranged from 160 to 1,755 gallons per 1,000 lb LWK with a

mean value of 639 gallons per 1,000 lb LWK (USEPA, 1974). About one-half of these

operations slaughtered beef cattle, with the remainder evenly divided between hogs and mixed

kill. Two facilities were small operations with less than 95,000 lb LWK per day, and the

remainder were classified as medium size, handling between 95,000 and 758,000 lb LWK per

day. For 19 medium and large complex slaughterhouses (operations with three or more byproduct

recovery activities), wastewater flows ranged from 435 to 1,500 gallons per 1,000 lb LWK with a

mean value of 885 gallons per 1,000 lb LWK.

As part of the data collection for the proposed rule, EPA collected data related to the

volumes of wastewater flow generated at meat processing facilities. Table 6-1 presents typical

wastewater volumes generated per unit of production from meat industries as reported during site

visits by EPA. Table 6-2 presents median wastewater volumes generated per unit of production

as reported in the MPP detailed surveys.

Table 6-1. Wastewater Generated in Meat Processing

Meat Type

First Processing and Rendering a Further Processing b

Average Range n Average Range n

Hogs 462 243-613 3 681 NA 1

Cattle (first processing and

rendering)

390 NA 1

Cattle (first processing, NA

rendering and hide

processing)

345 304-386 2

LWK = Live weight killed; n = number of observations; NA = not available.

a Units are gallons per 1,000 lb LWK. b Units are gallons per 1,000 lb of finished product.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

1

Note that although not part of meat processing operations, hide processing wastewaters are often

commingled with meat processing wastewaters prior to treatment. The existing regulations at 40 CFR Part 432, as

well as the proposed regulations, address wastewaters from hide processing operations when discharged with meat

processing wastewaters.

6-3

Table 6-2. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Meat Facilities per Unit of Production

Process Wastewater Generated

(gallons per 1,000 lbs of production unit)

First Processinga Further Processingb

Small facilities 348 672

Non-small facilities 323 555

a Production unit for first processing operations is 1,000 lb of live weight killed (LWK). These numbers include

facilities that may also generate wastewater from cutting operations. b Production unit for further processing operations is 1,000 lb of finished product. 

Data source: MPP detailed surveys

6.1.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations

The principal sources of wastes in meat processing are from live animal holding, killing,

hide or hair removal, eviscerating, carcass washing, trimming, and cleanup operations. When

present, further processing, rendering, and hide processing operations1 also are significant

sources of wastes. Meat processing wastes include blood not collected, viscera, soft tissue

removed during trimming and cutting, bone, urine and feces, soil from hides and hooves, and

various cleaning and sanitizing compounds. Further processing, rendering, and hide processing

produce additional sources of fat and other soft tissues, as well as substances including brines,

cooking oils, and tanning solutions. Wastewater characteristics of rendering operations are

discussed in Section 6.3.

The principal constituents of meat processing wastewaters are a variety of readily

biodegradable organic compounds, primarily fats and proteins, present in both particulate and

dissolved forms. Screening of meat processing wastewaters is usually performed in most

facilities to reduce concentrations of particulate matter before effecting pre-treatment.

Meat processing wastewaters remain high strength wastes, even after screening, in

comparison to domestic wastewaters, based on concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-4

(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen, and

phosphorus.

Blood not collected, solubilized fat, urine, and feces are the primary sources of BOD in

meat processing wastewaters. For example, blood from beef cattle has a reported BOD5 of

156,500 mg/L with an average of 32.5 pounds of blood produced per 1,000 pounds LWK (Grady

and Lim, 1980). Thus, the efficacy of blood collection is a significant factor in determining the

amount of BOD in meat processing wastewater.

Another significant factor in determining the BOD of meat processing wastewaters is the

manner in which manure (urine and feces) is handled at the facility. Generally, manure is

separated from the main waste stream and treated as a solid waste. Beef cattle manure has a

BOD5 of approximately 27,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis, and the BOD5 of swine manure is

approximately 37,000 mg/kg of manure (American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1999).

The efficiency of fat separation and removal from the waste stream is an important factor

in determining the BOD concentration in meat processing wastewaters. Fat removed from

wastewater can be handled as a solid waste or by-product. The high BOD of animal fats is

directly attributable to their rapid biodegradability and high-energy yield for microbial cell

maintenance and growth, especially under aerobic conditions. The significance of fat as a

component of BOD in meat processing wastewaters generally is determined indirectly as the

concentration of oil and grease (Standard Methods APHA 1995). In the determination of oil and

grease, the concentration of a specific substance is not determined. Instead, groups of compounds

with similar physical characteristics are determined quantitatively based on their common

solubility in an organic extracting solvent. Over time, petroleum ether has been replaced by

trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon) and most recently by n-hexane as the preferred extracting

solvent. Thus, oil and grease concentrations in meat processing wastewaters may be reported as

Freon or n-hexane extractable material (HEM).

Blood and manure are also are significant sources of nitrogen in meat processing

wastewaters. The principal form of nitrogen in these wastewaters before treatment is organic

nitrogen with some ammonia nitrogen. During collection of wastewater samples, some ammonia
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-5

nitrogen is produced by the microbially mediated mineralization of organic nitrogen. Nitrite and

nitrate nitrogen generally are present only in trace concentrations (less than 1 mg/L) in meat

processing wastewaters; however, these nitrate and nitrite concentrations are increased when

nitrites are used in processes such as the curing of bacon and ham. The phosphorus in meat

processing wastewaters is primarily from blood, manure, and cleaning and sanitizing compounds,

which can contain trisodium phosphate (sodium phosphate, tribasic).

Due to the presence of manure in meat processing wastewaters, densities of total

coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus groups of bacteria generally are on the order of

several million colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL. Although members of these groups of

microorganisms generally are not pathogenic, they do indicate the possible presence of pathogens

of enteric origin such as Salmonella ssp. and Campylobacter jejuni. They also indicate the

possible presence of gastrointestinal parasites including Ascaris sp., Giardia lamblia, and

Cryptosporidium parvum and enteric viruses.

Meat processing wastewaters also contain a variety of mineral elements, some of which

are present in the water that is used for processing meat. In addition, water supply systems and

mechanical equipment may be significant sources of metals, including copper, chromium,

molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and vanadium. Manure, especially hog manure, may be

significant sources of copper, arsenic, and zinc, because these constituents are commonly added

to hog feed. Although pesticides such as Dichcorvos, malathion, and Carbaryl are commonly

used in the production of meat animals to control external parasites, label-specified withdrawal

periods before slaughter typically should limit concentrations to non-detectable or trace levels.

Failure to observe specified withdrawal periods is an unlawful act (7 U.S.C 136 Et. Seq).

Tables 6-3 and 6-4, respectively, present typical wastewater characteristics and pollutants

generated per unit of production from hog and cattle processing facilities, as reported during

sampling visits by EPA. Average effluent concentrations for all pollutants of concern evaluated

by EPA for potential regulation are provided in Section 9.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-6

Table 6-3. Typical Characteristics of Hog and Cattle Processing Wastewatersa

Parameter

Hog Cattle

First Processing

and Rendering

Further

Processingb

First Processing

and Rendering

Further

Processingb

Average Average Average Average

Flow (MGD) 1.95 0.30 1.87 1.46

Live weight killed (1,000 lb/day) 3,639 435 3,942 4,044

BOD5 (mg/L) 2,220 1,492 7,237 5,038

Total suspended solids (mg/L) 3,314 363 1,153 2,421

Hexane Extractables (mg/L) 674 162 146 1,820

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L) 229 24 306 72

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 72 82 35 44

Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/100 mL) 1.6x106 1.4x106 7.3x105 1.4x106

MGD = Million gallons per day; CFU = Colony forming units.

a

Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. b Finished product, 1,000 lb/day

Table 6-4. Typical Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Hog and Cattle Processinga

Parameter

Hog Cattle

First Processing

and Rendering

Further

Processing

First Processing

and Rendering

Further

Processing

Average Averageb Average Averageb

BOD5 

(lb/1,000 lb LWK)

8.34 8.48 23.55 14.97

Total suspended solids

(lb/1,000 lb LWK)

11.20 2.06 3.75 7.28

Hexane extractables (lb/1,000

lb LWK)

2.82 0.92 0.48 5.65

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

(lb/1,000 lb LWK)

1.17 0.14 1.00 0.21

Total phosphorus 

(lb/1,000 lb LWK)

0.25 0.47 0.11 0.12

Fecal coliform bacteria

(CFU/1,000 lb LWK)

2.6x1010 3.6x1010 1.1x1010 1.8x1010

LWK = Live weight killed; CFU = Colony forming units.

a

Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. b Per 1,000 lb of finished product
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-7

6.2 POULTRY PROCESSING WASTES

6.2.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated

In poultry processing, water is used primarily for scalding in the process of feather

removal, bird washing before and after evisceration, chilling, cleaning and sanitizing of

equipment and facilities, and for cooling of mechanical equipment such as compressors and

pumps. Although water also is typically used to remove feathers and viscera from production

areas, overflow from scalding and chiller tanks is used.

A number of studies also have shown that the volume of water used and wastewater

generated by poultry processing on a per unit of production basis (such as per bird killed) can

vary substantially among processing plants. Again, some of this variation is a reflection of

different levels of effort among plants to reduce their wastewater treatment costs by minimizing

their water use. One study of 88 chicken processing plants found wastewater flows ranged from

4.2 to 23 gallon per bird with a mean value of 9.3 gallon per bird (USEPA, 1975). No standard

deviation values were reported; therefore, the distribution of individual values could not be

determined. Using the reported mean live weight per bird of 3.83 pounds, 9.3 gallon per bird

translates into 2,428 gallon per 1,000 lb LWK, which is significantly higher than the mean flow

of 639 gallon per 1,000 lb LWK used for meat processing. For 34 turkey processing plants, the

mean wastewater flow was 31.2 gallon per bird with individual plant values ranging from 9.6 to

71.4 gallon per bird. Again, no standard deviation was reported. Based on the reported mean live

weight per bird of 18.2 pounds, the mean flow of 31.2 gallon per bird translates into 1,714 gallon

per 1,000 lb LWK. Again, this value is substantially higher than that for meat processing, but

also substantially lower than the value calculated for chickens. Two of the factors that contribute

to the higher rate of wastewater generation for poultry processing are the 1) required continuous

overflow from scalding tanks, and 2) use of carcass immersion in ice bath chillers with a required

continuous overflow for removal of body heat after evisceration. As discussed elsewhere, meat

carcasses are chilled using mechanical refrigeration.

As part of the data collection for the proposed rule, EPA collected data related to the

volumes of wastewater flow generated at poultry processing facilities. Table 6-5 shows typical
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-8

wastewater volumes generated per unit of production from poultry facilities, as reported during

site visits by EPA. Table 6-6 shows median wastewater volumes generated per unit of production

from poultry facilities as reported in the MPP detailed surveys.

Table 6-5. Wastewater Generation in Poultry First and Further Processinga

Parameter

First Processingb Further Processingc

Average Average

Broiler 1,075 1,926

Turkey 634 NA

NA = not available.

a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. b Units in gallons per 1,000 lb LWK c Units in gallons per 1,000 lb of finished product

Table 6-6. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Poultry Facilities per Unit of Production

Process Wastewater Generated

(gallons per 1,000 lbs of production unit)

First Processinga Further Processingb

Small Facilities 1,167 606

Non-small Facilities 1,289 316

a Production unit for first processing operations is 1,000 lb of live weight killed (LWK). These numbers include

facilities that may also generate wastewater from cutting operations. b Production unit for further processing operations is 1,000 lb of finished product.

Data source: MPP detailed surveys

6.2.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations

The principal sources of wastes in poultry processing are live bird holding and receiving,

killing, defeathering, eviscerating, carcass washing, chilling, cut-up, and cleanup operations.

Further processing and rendering operations are also major sources of wastes. These wastes

include blood not collected, feathers, viscera, soft tissue removed during trimming and cutting,

bone, soil from feathers, and various cleaning and sanitizing compounds. Further processing and

rendering can produce additional sources of animal fat and other soft tissue, in addition to other

substances such as cooking oils.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-9

Thus, the principal constituents of poultry processing wastewaters are a variety of readily

biodegradable organic compounds, primarily fats and proteins, present in both particulate and

dissolved forms. To reduce wastewater treatment requirements, poultry processing wastewaters

also are screened to reduce concentrations of particulate matter before treatment. An added

benefit of screening is increased collection of materials and subsequent increased production of

rendered by-products. Because feathers are not rendered with soft tissue, wastewater containing

feathers is not commingled with other wastewater. Instead, it is screened separately and then

combined with unscreened wastewater to recover soft tissue before treatment during the

screening process of these mixed wastewaters.

However, poultry processing wastewaters also remain high strength wastes even after

screening in comparison to domestic wastewaters based on concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS,

nitrogen, and phosphorus after screening. Blood not collected, solubilized fat, and feces are

principal sources of BOD in poultry processing wastewaters. As with meat processing

wastewaters, the efficacy of blood collection is a significant factor in determining BOD

concentration in poultry processing wastewaters.

Another significant factor in determining the BOD of poultry processing wastewaters is

the degree to which manure (urine and feces), especially from receiving areas, is handled

separately as a solid waste. Chicken and turkey manures have BOD concentrations in excess of

40,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis (American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1999).

Although the cages and trucks used to transport broilers to processing plants usually are not

washed, cages and trucks used to transport live turkeys to processing plants are washed to

prevent transmission of disease from farm to farm. Thus, manure probably is a more significant

source of wastewater BOD for turkey processing operations than for broiler processing

operations.

Primarily because of immersion chilling, fat is a more significant source of BOD in

poultry processing wastewaters than in meat processing wastewaters. Additional sources of BOD

in poultry processing wastewaters are feather and skin oils desorbed during scalding for feather
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-10

removal. Thus, the oil and grease content of poultry processing wastewaters typically is higher

than that in meat processing wastewaters.

Blood not collected, as well as urine and feces, also are significant sources of nitrogen in

poultry processing wastewaters. Again, the principal form of nitrogen in these wastewaters

before treatment is as organic nitrogen with some ammonia nitrogen produced by the microbially

mediated mineralization of organic nitrogen during collection. Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen

generally are present only in trace concentrations, less than 1 mg/L. The phosphorus in poultry

processing wastewaters is primarily from blood, manure, and cleaning and sanitizing compounds

such as trisodium phosphate (trisodium phosphate tribasic), and trisodium phosphate in

detergents.

Due to the presence of manure in poultry processing wastewaters and commingling of

processing and sanitary wastewaters after screening, and dissolved air flotation of the former,

densities of the total and fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus groups of bacteria generally are

on the order of several million cfu/100 mL. As discussed earlier, members of these groups of

microorganisms generally are not pathogenic. They do, however, indicate the possible presence

of pathogens of enteric origin, such as Salmonella sp. and Campylobacter jejuni, gastrointestinal

parasites, and pathogenic enteric viruses. Giardia lamblia, and Cryptosporidium parvum are not

of concern in poultry processing wastewaters.

Poultry processing wastewaters also contain a variety of mineral elements, some of which

are present in the potable water used for processing poultry. Again, water supply systems and

mechanical equipment may be significant sources of metals including copper, chromium,

molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and vanadium. In addition, manure is a significant source of

arsenic and zinc. Although pesticides such as carbaryl, also are commonly used in the production

of poultry to control external parasites, label-specified withdrawal periods before slaughter

typically should limit concentrations to non-detectable or trace levels. Failure to observe

specified withdrawal periods is an unlawful act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).

Tables 6-7 and 6-8, respectively, present typical wastewater characteristics and pollutant

generated from broiler and turkey processing facilities as reported during site visits by EPA.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-11

Average effluent concentrations for all pollutants of concern evaluated by EPA for potential

regulation are provided in Section 9.

Table 6-7. Typical Characteristics of Broiler First and Further Processing and Turkey First

Processing Wastewatersa

Parameter

Broiler Turkey

First Processing Further Processing First Processing

Average Averageb Average

Flow (MGD) 0.89 1.10 0.58

Live weight kill (1,000 lb/day) 880 573 909

BOD5 (mg/L) 1,662 3,293 2,192

Total suspended solids (mg/L) 760 1,657 981

Hexane extractables (mg/L) 665 793 156

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L) 54 80 90

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 12 72 21

Fecal coliform bacteria

(CFU/100 mL) 9.8x105 8.6x105 not determined

MGD = Million gallons per day; CFU = colony forming units.

a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. b

Per 1,000 lb of finished product

Table 6-8. Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler First and Further Processinga

Parameter

Broiler Turkey

First Processing Further Processing First Processing

Average Averageb Average

BOD5 (lb/1,000 lb LWK) 13.84 52.94 11.58

Total suspended solids (lb/1,000 lb LWK) 6.69 26.64 5.18

Hexane Extractables (lb/1,000 lb LWK) 7.22 12.75 0.82

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (lb/1,000 lb LWK) 0.44 1.29 0.48

Total phosphorus (lb/1,000 lb LWK) 0.10 0.65 0.11

Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/1,000 lb LWK) 3.4x1010 6.3x1010 not determined

LWK = Live weight killed; CFU = Colony forming units.

a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. b Per 1,000 lb of finished product
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-12

6.3 RENDERING WASTEWATER GENERATION AND CHARACTERISTICS

The slaughter of livestock and poultry produces a considerable amount of inedible viscera

and other solid wastes, including feathers from poultry and hair from hogs. Inedible viscera and

other soft tissue, fat, and bone, which are collected as solid wastes and removed from wastewater

by screening, are converted by rendering into valuable byproducts such as meat meal and meat

and bone meal. In the rendering process, these materials are cooked in their own moisture and fat

in vented steam-jacketed vessels until the moisture has evaporated. Then, as much fat as possible

is removed and the solid residue is passed through a screw press, dried, and granulated or ground

into a meal for sale as a livestock or poultry or pet food ingredient. In some situations, dissolved

air flotation (DAF) solids are disposed of by rendering, although DAF solids reduce the quality

of rendered products, especially if metal salts are used for flocculation/coagulation prior to DAF.

Rendering operations also may include blood drying to produce blood meal for sale as a

feed ingredient or fertilizer. They also may include the hydrolysis of hair or feathers for the

production of livestock and poultry feed ingredients. Typically, blood from poultry processing

operations is combined with feathers to increase the value of the resulting feather meal as a

source of protein.

Rendering may be performed at the same site as other meat or poultry processing

operations or at a separate location, usually by an independent entity. When rendering is

performed in conjunction with other meat or poultry processing operations, wastes from locations

without on-site rendering also may be processed.

6.3.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated

Rendering operations are intensive users of water and significant generators of

wastewater. Water is used throughout the rendering process, including for raw material cooking

and sterilization, condensing cooking vapors, plant cleanup, truck and barrel washing when

materials from off-site locations are being processed, odor control, and steam generation

(USEPA, 1975). Most of these activities also generate wastewater. According to the National

Rendering Association (2000), rendering plants produce approximately one-half ton (120
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-13

gallons) of water for each ton of rendered material. Variations in wastewater flow per unit of raw

material processed are largely attributable to the type of condensers used for condensing the

cooking vapors and, to a lesser extent, to the initial moisture content of the raw material.

Based on a survey of National Rendering Association (NRA) members, an average size

rendering plant generates about of 215,000 gallons/day process wastewater and an average of

34,000 gallons/day from other sources (National Rendering Association, 2000). The NRA

estimates that the average plant discharges about 243,300 gallons/day or 169 gallons per minute.

The major sources of wastewater at rendering plants are produced from raw material

receiving operations (especially when materials from off-site locations are being processed),

condensing cooking vapors, drying, plant cleanup, and truck and barrel washing (USEPA, 1975).

Condensates formed during raw material sterilization and drying are the largest contributors to

the total wastewater in terms of volume and pollutant load (Metzner and Temper, 1990). At those

rendering plants where hide curing is also performed as an ancillary operation, additional

volumes of raw waste are generated, although those operations are not covered by this proposal.

(USEPA, 1975). Note, however, that hide processing wastewaters may be commingled with other

wastewaters prior to treatment.

Condensates recovered from cooking and drying processes contain high concentrations of

volatile organic acids, amines, mercaptans, and other odorous compounds. Thus, rendering plant

condensers can be sources of significant emissions of noxious odors to the atmosphere if water

scrubbing is not used for emissions control. There is little increase in final effluent volume when

water scrubbing is used, because recycled final effluent is used for scrubber operation.

Liquid drainage from raw materials receiving areas can contribute significantly to the

total raw waste load (USEPA, 1975). Large amounts of raw materials commonly accumulate in

receiving areas (in bins or on floors). Fluids from these raw materials drain off and enter the

internal plant sewers (USEPA, 1975). At rendering plants that process poultry, drainage of

liquids can be significant because of the use of fluming to transport feathers and viscera in the

processing plant. In such plants, liquid drainage may account for approximately 20 percent of the

original raw material weight.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-14

The other important source of wastewater from rendering operations is water used for

cleaning equipment and facilities, the cleanup of spills, and trucks when materials are received

from off-site locations for rendering. Cleanup of rendering equipment and facilities is less

intensive than that in processing facilities and usually occurs only once per day, even though

rendering usually is a 24-hour operation and commonly occurs on a seven day per week schedule.

The wastewater generated during cleanup operations usually accounts for about 30 percent of

total rendering plant wastewater flow (USEPA, 1975).

Approximately 30 percent of the total raw BOD waste load originates in the cooking and

drying process (USEPA, 1975). Factors such as rate of cooking, speed of agitation, cooker

overloading, foaming, and presence of traps can result in volume and composition differences

among different rendering plants.

Although the water used in air scrubbers that are commonly used to control odor can

contribute up to 75 percent of a plant’s total effluent volume, they contribute little to the final

effluent discharge, since most of this air scrubber wastewater is recycled (USEPA, 1975). Other

important sources of process wastewater include plant and truck washdown activities, and the

cleanup of spills.

As part of the data collection for the proposed rule, EPA collected data related to the

volumes of wastewater flow generated at rendering operations. Table 6-9 presents typical

wastewater volumes generated per unit of production from broiler rendering facilities as reported

during site visits by EPA. Table 6-10 presents median wastewater volumes generated per unit of

production as reported in the MPP detailed survey.

Table 6-9. Wastewater Generation in Broiler Renderinga

Parameter Average

Broiler 200

a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. Units are gallons per 1,000 pounds of live weight killed.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-15

Table 6-10. Wastewater Volumes Produced by Rendering Operations per Unit of Production

Process Wastewater Generated

(gallons per 1,000 lbs of raw material)

Renderinga

Small facilities 134

Non-small facilities 346

a These estimates reflects wastewater generated by on-site and off-site (independent) renderers.

Data source: MPP detailed surveys

6.3.2 Description of Waste Constituents and Concentrations

The principal constituents in wastewaters from rendering operations are the same as those

in meat and poultry processing wastewaters. In addition, it appears that there is little difference in

rendering wastewater constituents or concentrations attributable to the source of materials being

processed. A 1975 survey found that the range and average of BOD5 wastewater values for plants

processing more than 50 percent poultry by-products could not be differentiated from those

plants processing less than 50 percent poultry by-products (USEPA, 1975). Additionally, the

study found that plant size does not affect the levels of pollutants in the waste stream. However,

management and operating variables, such as rate of cooking, speed of agitation, cooker

overloading, foaming, and presence or absence of traps, were found to influence both wastewater

volume and the concentrations of various wastewater constituents, as would be expected.

Another factor affecting the composition of rendering process wastewaters is the degree

of decomposition that has occurred before rendering (USEPA, 1975). In warm weather,

significant decomposition can occur, especially with materials from off-site sources. One result is

increased wastewater ammonia nitrogen concentrations during summer months.

Table 6-11 provides a sense of the significance of various sources of wastewater from

rendering operations relative to typical analyte composition before treatment. In this table,

concentrations found in samples collected from a continuous dry rendering plant in Columbus,

Ohio are presented (Hansen and West, 1992). Samples from blood, cooker condensate, and washup water were analyzed. The cooker condensate was mostly composed of condensed volatile fats

and oils with some ammonia. The wash-up water consisted of plant cleanup water mixed with
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-16

drainage from the raw product storage hopper. (The relative proportions were not measured.)

Although the blood accounted for only a small percentage of the total volume of wastewater, it

clearly is a highly significant source of COD, TKN, ammonia nitrogen, and grease in rendering

plant wastewater.

Table 6-12 shows typical wastewater characteristics generated from broiler rendering

facilities as reported during site visits by EPA. Average effluent concentrations for all pollutants

of concern evaluated by EPA for potential regulation are provided in Section 9.

In 2000, the NRA collected data from its membership to provide a general

characterization of rendering process wastewaters. Table 6-13 presents the results of this survey.

The data are only for wastewater generated and final effluent characteristics, and do not cover

specific sources of generated wastewater. The final effluent data indicate pollutant loads after

treatment has been applied. The NRA did not report data on metals in generated wastewater or on

nutrients in generated or discharged wastewater.

Table 6-14 shows pollutant generated from broiler rendering facilities per unit of

production, as reported during site visits by EPA.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-17

Table 6-11. Pollutant Concentrations for a Dry Continuous Rendering Plant

Parameter

Raw Blooda

(mg/L)

Condensate Batch

1a,b (mg/L)

Condensate Batch

2a,b (mg/L)

Wash-up waterc

(mg/L)

Total COD 150,000 6,000 2,400 7,600

Soluble COD 136,000 6,000 2,400 3,200

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN-N) 16,500 740 430 270

Ammonia nitrogen 3,500 740 430 40

*COD: TKN 9.1 8.1 5.6 28.1

Total Phosphorus (P) 183 <4 <4 15.1

*COD: P 820 >1500 >600 503

Freon extractables (FOG) 620 260 110 35

Potassium 793 <6 <6 20.9

Calcium 55 <1 <1 26.4

Magnesium 27 <1 <1 7.3

Iron 164 2 2 9.4

Sodium 818 0.1 0.1 37.1

Copper 0.7 <0.2 <0.2 0.1

Zinc 1.3 <0.15 <0.15 0.46

Manganese 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01

Lead <0.6 <3 <3 <1.3

Chromium 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 0.12

Cadmium 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.04

Nickel <0.2 <1 <1 <0.4

Cobalt <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.04

Sulfate (SO4-S) 300 <2 <2 4.6

Total Chloride 1700 <2 <2 86

a

Each value is the mean of three samples analyzed in duplicate. b The strength of condensate varied from winter to summer; however, only condensate collected during the summer

was used in these studies. Cold ambient temperatures around the forced air condensers affected the COD strength

of the cooker condensate. The COD strength of the blood and wash-up water was similar for both batches;

therefore, data for each batch is not included separately. c Each point is the mean of duplicate analyses of one sample. d

< and > symbols both indicate the limits of the analyses were exceeded. * These parameters are ratios and have no units.

Source: Hansen and West, 1992
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-18

Table 6-12. Typical Characteristics of Broiler Rendering Wastewatersa

Parameter Average

Flow (MGD) 0.29

Raw product rendered (1,000 lb/day) 1,442a

BOD5 (mg/L) 1,984

Total suspended solids (mg/L) 3,248

Hexane extractables (mg/L) 1,615

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L) 180

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 38

Fecal coliform bacteria CFU/100 mL 1.2x106

MGD = million gallons per day; CFU = colony forming units.

a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities.

Table 6-13. Wastewater Characterization of “Typical” National Rendering Association (NRA)

Member Render Plant

Parameter

Generated Wastewater

Concentration (mg/L)

Discharged Wastewater

Concentration (mg/L)

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 123,000 8,000

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 80,000 5,100

Total suspended solids (TSS) 8,400 268

Fat and other greases (FOG) 3,200 116

Metals (average zinc) NA 0.68

Fecal coliform bacteria 2.5x108 cfu/mL 4.5x104

 cfu/mL

CFU = colony forming units; NA = not available.

Source: NRA, 2000

Table 6-14. Typical Wastewater and Pollutant Generation per Unit of Production in Broiler

Rendering

Parameter Averagea

BOD5 (lb/1,000 lb RPR) 3.31

Total suspended solids (lb/1,000 lb RPR) 5.42

Hexane extractables (lb/1,000 lb RPR) 2.70

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (lb/1,000 lb RPR) 0.30

Total phosphorus (lb/1,000 lb RPR) 0.06

Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/1,000 lb RPR) 9.1x109

RPR = raw product rendered; CFU = colony forming units.

a Per 1,000 lb of raw product rendered.
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-19

6.5 REFERENCES

American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1999. Manure production and characteristics.

Standard ASAE D384.1 Dec 99. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,

Michigan. (DCN 00160)

Franson, M.A.H., Ed. 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 

American Public Health Association, Washington, DC (DCN 00196)

Grady, C.P.L., Jr. and H.C. Lim. 1980. Biological Wastewater Treatment Theory and

Applications. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. (DCN 00248)

Hansen, C.L., and G.T. West. 1992. Anaerobic digestion of rendering waste in an upflow

anaerobic sludge blanket digestor. Bioresource Technology 41:181-185. (DCN 00126)

Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing industry: A

review. Bioresource Technology 54:203-216. (DCN 00128)

Metzner, G., and U. Temper. 1990. Operation and optimization of a full-scale fixed-bed reactor

for anaerobic digestion of animal rendering wastewater. Water Science Technology 22

(1⁄2): 373-384. (DCN 00127)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for effluent limitation

guidelines and new source performance standards for the red meat segment of the meat

product and rendering processing point source category. EPA-440/1-74-012a. Effluent

Guidelines Division, Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC. (DCN 00162)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development document for effluent limitation

guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry segment of the meat

product and rendering processing point source category. EPA-440/1-75-031b. Effluent

Guidelines Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, DC. (DCN

00140)
Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-20

National Rendering Association. 2000. Communication with Engineering and Analysis Division

of USEPA, July 2000. (DCN 00122)
7-1

SECTION 7

SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS AND POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

FOR REGULATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

EPA conducted a study of meat and poultry products wastewater to determine the

presence of priority, conventional, and nonconventional pollutant parameters. The Agency

defines priority pollutant parameters in Section 307(a)(1) of the CWA. In Table 7-1, EPA lists

the 126 specific priority pollutants listed in 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. Section 301(b)(2) of

the CWA requires EPA to regulate priority pollutants, if EPA determines them to be present at

significant concentrations. Most of the priority pollutants listed in Table 7-1 were not further

considered for regulation, because EPA’s technical evaluation of the industry did not identify

them as significant contributors to MPP wastewaters. Section 304(a)(4) of the CWA defines

which conventional pollutant parameters include biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended

solids, oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform bacteria. These pollutant parameters are subject to

regulation, as specified in Sections 304(a)(4), 304(b)(1)(a), 301(b)(2)(e), and 306 of the CWA. 

Nonconventional pollutant parameters are those that are neither priority nor conventional

pollutant parameters. This group includes nonconventional metal pollutants, nonconventional

organic pollutants, and other nonconventional pollutant parameters. Sections 301(b)(2)(f) and

301(g) of the CWA give EPA the authority to regulate nonconventional pollutant parameters, as

appropriate, based on technical and economic considerations.

This section identifies and discusses the pollutants in meat and poultry processing

wastewaters considered for regulation by EPA. It then presents the criteria used for the

identification of the pollutants of concern and the selection of the pollutants proposed for

regulation.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-2

7.2 POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION

Table 7-1 identifies, the pollutants considered for regulation in meat and poultry

processing wastewaters by EPA. The rationale for their consideration is summarized in the

discussion that follows. For meat processing wastewaters, EPA considered 52 pollutants (24

classicals and biologicals, 22 metals, and six pesticides) were considered. For poultry processing

wastewaters, the Agency considered 51 pollutants (23 classicals and biologicals, 22 metals, and

six pesticides).

Not included as pollutants considered for regulation are antibiotics and other animal

drugs. Although a number of pharmaceutical agents are used in the production of livestock and

poultry therapeutically and at sub-therapeutic levels to increase rate of weight gain and feed

conversion efficiency, antibiotics and other drugs were not considered as pollutants for possible

regulation based on the following rationale.

Table 7-1. Priority Pollutant Lista

 1 Acenaphthene

 2 Acrolein

 3 Acrylonitrile

 4 Benzene

 5 Benzidine

 6 Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)

 7 Chlorobenzene

 8 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

 9 Hexachlorobenzene

10 1,2-Dichloroethane

11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

12 Hexachloroethane

13 1,1-Dichloroethane

14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

15 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

16 Chloroethane

17 Removed

18 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether

19 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)

20 2-Chloronaphthalene

21 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

22 Parachlorometa cresol (4-chloro-3-methylphenol)

23 Chloroform (trichloromethane)

24 2-Chlorophenol

25 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

26 1,3-Dichlorobenzene

27 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

 66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

 67 Butyl benzyl phthalate

 68 Di-n-butyl phthalate

 69 Di-n-octyl phthalate

 70 Diethyl phthalate

 71 Dimethyl phthalate

 72 Benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)

 73 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)

 74 Benzo(b)fluoranthene (3,4-benzo fluoranthene)

 75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)

 76 Chrysene

 77 Acenaphthylene

 78 Anthracene

 79 Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)

 80 Fluorene

 81 Phenanthrene

 82 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-

dibenzanthracene)

 83 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)

 84 Pyrene

 85 Tetrachloroethylene (tetrachloroethene)

 86 Toluene

 87 Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene)

 88 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)

 89 Aldrin

 90 Dieldrin

 91 Chlordane (technical mixture & metabolites)
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-3

28 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

29 1,1-Dichloroethylene

30 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene

31 2,4-Dichlorophenol

32 1,2-Dichloropropane

33 1,3-Dichloropropylene (trans-1,3-dichloropropene)

34 2,4-Dimethylphenol

35 2,4-Dinitrotoluene

36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene

37 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine

38 Ethylbenzene

39 Fluoranthene

40 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether

41 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether

42 Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether

43 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane

44 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)

45 Methyl chloride (chloromethane)

46 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)

47 Bromoform (tribromomethane)

48 Dichlorobromomethane (bromodichloromethane)

49 Removed

50 Removed

51 Chlorodibromomethane (dibromochloromethane)

52 Hexachlorobutadiene

53 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

54 Isophorone

55 Naphthalene

56 Nitrobenzene

57 2-Nitrophenol

58 4-Nitrophenol

59 2,4-Dinitrophenol

60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro)

61 N-Nitrosodimethylamine

62 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

63 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (di-n-propylnitrosamine)

64 Pentachlorophenol

65 Phenol

 92 4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT)

 93 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)

 94 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)

 95 Alpha-endosulfan

 96 Beta-endosulfan

 97 Endosulfan sulfate

 98 Endrin

 99 Endrin aldehyde

100 Heptachlor

101 Heptachlor epoxide

102 Alpha-BHC

103 Beta-BHC

104 Gamma-BHC (lindane)

105 Delta-BHC

106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)

107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)

108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)

109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)

110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)

111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)

112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)

113 Toxaphene

114 Antimony (total)

115 Arsenic (total)

116 Asbestos (fibrous)

117 Beryllium (total)

118 Cadmium (total)

119 Chromium (total)

120 Copper (total)

121 Cyanide (total)

122 Lead (total)

123 Mercury (total)

124 Nickel (total)

125 Selenium (total)

126 Silver (total)

127 Thallium (total)

128 Zinc (total)

129 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

Source: 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A.

a Priority pollutants are numbered 1 through 129 but include 126 pollutants, since EPA removed three pollutants

from the list (Numbers 17, 49, and 50).

All use of antibiotics and other animal drugs in the production of livestock and poultry

for human consumption is regulated under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (9 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services. In addition, routine monitoring to ensure that residues or specific

metabolites, when appropriate, in meat and poultry do not exceed established tolerances is part of
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-4

the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service's (FSIS) meat and poultry

inspection process. Any meat or poultry found to have drug or pesticide residues exceeding

established tolerance limits is considered to be adulterated and condemned as not fit for human

consumption. Because condemnation results in a significant financial loss, livestock and poultry

producers and processors have a significant incentive to prevent the presence of drug and

pesticide residues at time of slaughter. Monitoring for drug and pesticide residues by the FSIS is

under the authorities of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended by the Wholesome Meat

Act (21U.S.C.601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended by the

Wholesome Poultry Products Act (21 U.S.C 451 et seq.).

In the FDA drug approval process, all new drugs marketed for veterinary use must be

approved. There are two types of approval for veterinary drugs, including those routinely used in

animal feeds (21 CFR 558.3). Category I drugs require no withdrawal period before slaughter at

the lowest use level for each species for which they are approved. Category II drugs require a

special withdrawal period at the lowest use level for each species for which they are approved or

are regulated on a "no residue" basis or with a "zero" tolerance, because of a carcinogenic

concern regardless of whether or not a withdrawal period is required. The basis for establishing

minimum withdrawal periods and tolerances of new animal drugs in edible products of foodproducing animals by FDA is set forth in 21 CFR 556.1. If there is an expectation of, or

uncertainty about, the presence of residues, a withdrawal period or a maximum concentration in

specified tissue will be established. Withdrawal periods and tolerances or the absence thereof for

all animal drugs approved for use in food-producing animals are set forth from 21 CFR 556.20

through 21 CFR 556.770. For example, Bacitracin zinc has no required withdrawal period but a

limit of 0.5 parts per million (ppm) in un-cooked edible tissue of cattle, swine, and poultry (21

CFR 556.70). Virginiamycin also has no required withdrawal period before slaughter but limits

of 0.4 ppm in uncooked edible kidney, skin, and fat; 0.3 ppm in liver, and 0.1 ppm in muscle. 

There are no residue tolerance limits for broiler chickens and cattle. Generally residue

concentration limits are no more than 1 ppm.

As noted above, all livestock and poultry slaughtered at federally inspected facilities is

inspected by the FSIS under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act as amended and the
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-5

Poultry Products Inspection Act as amended. Condemnation, as unfit for human use, of all meat

and poultry found to be adulterated is required. In the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the

definition of the term adulterated includes the presence of any poisonous or deleterious substance

that may render the carcass or any part thereof injurious to health.

Regulations promulgated under the authority of Poultry Products Inspection Act are more

specific and require that all carcasses, organs, or other parts of carcasses be condemned, if it is

determined on the basis of a sound statistical sample that they are adulterated because of the

presence of any biological residue (9 CFR 381.80). Biological residue is defined as any

substance, including metabolites, remaining in poultry at the time of slaughter or in any of its

tissues after slaughter, as the result of treatment or exposure of the live poultry to a pesticide,

organic compound, metallic or inorganic compound, hormone, hormone-like substance, growth

promoter, antibiotic, anthelmintic, tranquilizer, or other agent that leaves a residue (9 CFR

381.1).

Given the statutory and regulatory barriers in place to prevent residues of antibiotics and

other animal drugs, as well as pesticides in food for human consumption above established

tolerance limits, EPA assumes that it is highly improbable that antibiotics, other animal drugs, or

pesticides are present routinely in detectable concentrations in the treated effluent of livestock or

poultry processing plants. Obviously, the possibility of the slaughter of livestock or poultry

containing drug or pesticide residues above tolerance limits exists. However, the financial selfinterest of livestock and poultry producers suggests that such occurrences would be infrequent

and highly random. Thus, the probability of detection would be low especially when pretreatment processes, such as anaerobic lagoons with relatively long hydraulic detention time, are

used. Therefore, EPA has concluded that establishing effluent standards for antibiotics and other

animal drugs and pesticides and requiring routine monitoring may impose an unnecessary burden

on livestock and poultry processors.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-6

7.2.1 Classical and Biological Pollutants

Aeromonas

Aeromonas is a member of the family Vibrionaceae, which also includes Vibrios such as

Vibrio cholerae, the cause of cholera in humans. Aeromonas is not a common inhabitant of the

intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and normally is found in aquatic habitants. Its presence

in meat and poultry processing wastewaters probably is the result of colonization in wastewater

collection and treatment systems.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an estimate of the oxygen-consuming

requirements of organic matter decomposition under aerobic conditions. When meat and poultry

processing wastewaters are discharged to surface waters, the microorganisms present in the

naturally occurring microbial ecosystem decompose the organic matter contained therein. This

decomposition of organic matter consumes oxygen and reduces the amount available for aquatic

animals. Severe reductions in dissolved oxygen concentrations can lead to fish kills. Even

moderate decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrations can adversely affect water bodies through

decreases in biodiversity, as manifested by the loss of some species of fish and other aquatic

animals. Loss of biodiversity in aquatic plant communities due to anoxic conditions also can

occur.

BOD is determined by measuring the depletion of dissolved oxygen resulting from

aerobic microbial activity in a suitably diluted sample during incubation at 20 C over a fixed

period of time. Normally, this fixed period of time is five days and the results are reported as 5-

day BOD or BOD5. If the bacteria responsible for nitrification are present in the sample, BOD5 is

a combined estimate of the oxygen required for organic matter oxidation and the oxidation of

ammonia to nitrate nitrogen (nitrification). Thus, BOD5 includes both carbonaceous oxygen

demand (CBOD5) and nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD). However, CBOD5 can be determined

separately by adding an agent that inhibits nitrification prior to incubation.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-7

BOD5 determinations include estimates of oxygen requirements for the degradation of

both particulate and dissolved organic matter. First filtering the sample to remove particulate

organic matter and then determining the BOD5 of the filtrate, dissolved BOD5, can separate these

estimates. The difference between BOD5 and dissolved BOD5 is an estimate of the contribution

of particulate matter to total BOD.

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is an estimator of the total organic matter content of

both wastewaters and natural waters. It is the measure, using a strong oxidizing agent in an

acidic medium, of the oxygen equivalent of the oxidizable organic matter present. COD

generally is higher than BOD, because COD includes slowly biodegradable and recalcitrant

organic compounds not degraded microbially during the duration of the BOD test. For many

types of wastewaters, the ratio between BOD and COD is relatively constant. When such a

relatively constant ratio exists, COD can be used as a surrogate to estimate the impact of

wastewater discharges on natural wastewaters. However, COD is most useful as a control

parameter for wastewater treatment plant operation, because it can be determined in three hours

as opposed to BOD, which requires a minimum of five days. Thus, COD can be used to rapidly

recognize deterioration in wastewater treatment plant performance and the need for corrective

action.

Chloride

Chloride (Cl-

) is a common anion in both wastewaters and natural waters. However,

excessively high chloride concentrations in wastewater discharges can be harmful to both

animals and plants in non-marine surface waters and disrupt ecosystem structure. Also, it can

adversely affect biological waste-water treatment processes. Further, excessively high chloride

concentrations in surface waters can impair their use as source waters for potable water supplies

due to taste, if sodium is the predominant cation present, because of the corrosive action of

chloride ions.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-8

There are numerous sources of chloride in meat and poultry processing wastewaters.

However, salt used in meat curing processes probably is the most significant single source.

Cryptosporidium

Cryptosporidium parvum is an intestinal protozoan parasite responsible for the infectious

disease cryptosporidiosis, which predominantly occurs in ruminants, particularly young calves.

However, other mammals, including pigs and humans, also can be infected. The mechanism of

transmission is via oocysts shed in the feces of infected individuals. Clinical infection is most

common in young animals and usually is self-limiting, with surviving individuals becoming

carriers as adults. Other species of Cryptosporidium are responsible for infection in poultry but

are not causative agents of cryptosporidiosis in mammals, including humans. Thus, consideration

of Cryptosporidium as a pollutant for possible regulation was limited to cattle, and especially

veal processing wastewaters.

Hexane Extractable Materials (Oil and Grease)

In meat and poultry processing wastewaters, oil and grease (primarily) is an estimate of

the concentration of animal fats and oils lost during processing activities, but also may include

lubricating oils and greases. Oil and grease is not a specific substance. Rather, it is a group of

substances determined on the basis of their common solubility in an organic extraction agent.

Although a variety of extraction agents have been used for the estimation of oil and grease

concentrations in wastewaters, including trichlorotrifluoroethane, n-hexane or a mixture of nhexane and methyl-tert-butyl ether commonly is used, and oil and grease may be alternatively

described as hexane extractable materials (American Public Health Association, 1995). 

Oil and grease in discharges of meat and poultry processing wastewaters are of concern

for several reasons. One is the high BOD of animal fats and oils, which are readily

biodegradable, and the impact on the dissolved oxygen status of receiving waters and related

impacts on aquatic biota. In addition, a film of oil and grease on the surface of receiving waters

can be unsightly and reduce natural re-aeration processes. Furthermore, soluble and emulsified
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-9

oil and grease can inhibit oxygen and other gas transport processes necessary for plant and

animal survival, also resulting in aquatic ecosystem disruption.

Indicator Organisms

The total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus groups of bacteria share the

common characteristic of containing species which normally are present in the enteric tract of all

warm-blooded animals, including humans. Thus, these groups of bacteria commonly are used as

indicators of fecal contamination of natural waters and the possible presence of enteric

pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites of enteric origin. They are used as indicators of the

possible presence of enteric pathogens, because of their normal presence in generally high

densities in comparison to enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella and Shigella, and their relative

ease of enumeration.

The total coliform group of bacteria consists of several genera of bacteria belonging to the

family Enterobacteriaceae, but also contains organisms not typical of enteric organisms, such as

the species Enterobacter aerogenes. Thus, the presence of total coliforms only is an indicator of

possible fecal contamination, whereas members of the fecal coliform group are limited to those

genera of the family Enterobacteriaceae limited to the enteric tract of warm-blooded animals with

the species Escherichia coli typically being the principal component of the fecal coliform group.

Because fecal streptococci also are normally present in the enteric tract of warm-blooded animals

in relatively high numbers, the fecal streptococcus group of bacteria also is an indicator of fecal

contamination of natural waters.

Because of the presence of manure and the common combination of processing and

sanitary wastewaters for treatment, total coliforms, fecal coliforms, E. coli, and fecal

streptococcus were considered as pollutants for possible regulation in meat and poultry

processing wastewaters as indicators of inadequate disinfection and the possible presence of

pathogens in discharged effluents. In addition to potential human health impacts through use of

receiving surface waters as source waters for public and private water supplies and contact

recreation, pathogens possibly present in meat and poultry processing wastewaters can be

infectious to wildlife.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-10

Nitrogen

Several forms of nitrogen are pollutants of concern in meat and poultry processing

wastewaters. Included are total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N) and nitrite

plus nitrate nitrogen (NO2 + NO3-N). Because protein is the principal component of meat and

blood, meat, and poultry processing, wastewaters can contain relatively high concentrations of

nitrogen. Another source of nitrogen in these wastewaters is in fecal material in the forms

primarily of unabsorbed feed proteins and products of protein degradation.

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is an estimate of the sum of organic nitrogen and

ammonia nitrogen and provides an estimate of organic nitrogen by difference when ammonia

nitrogen is concurrently determined. Under both anaerobic and aerobic conditions, the readily

biodegradable fraction of organic nitrogen is mineralized readily by microbial activity with the

nitrogen not used for cell synthesis accumulating as ammonia nitrogen. The water quality

impacts associated with organic nitrogen are related to this process of mineralization to ammonia

nitrogen in natural waters and are discussed below.

As noted above, ammonia nitrogen in meat and poultry processing wastewaters is the

product primarily of organic nitrogen mineralization. However, cleaning and sanitizing agents

also are possible sources. Ammonia nitrogen is present in aqueous solutions in both as ionized

(ammonium) and un-ionized (ammonia) species. Ammonia nitrogen is a pollutant considered for

regulation in meat and poultry processing wastewaters, because its presence in wastewater

discharges to surface waters has several negative environmental impacts. Both ammonia and

ammonium nitrogen can be directly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, with ammonia

nitrogen being more toxic. In addition, discharges of ammonia nitrogen can reduce ambient

dissolved oxygen concentrations in receiving surface waters because of the microbially mediated

oxidation of ammonia nitrogen to nitrite and nitrate nitrogen. This demand is known as

nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD).

Ammonia nitrogen in wastewater discharges also can be responsible for the development

of eutrophic conditions and the associated adverse impacts on ambient dissolved oxygen

concentrations, if nitrogen is the nutrient limiting primary productivity. While phosphorus
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-11

typically is the nutrient limiting primary productivity in fresh surface waters, nitrogen typically is

the limiting nutrient in marine waters and the more saline segments of estuaries. Eutrophic

conditions, an excess of primary productivity, are characterized by algae blooms, which cause

shifts in ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations from super saturation during sunny days to

substantial deficits at night and on cloudy days, when photo-synthesis is not occurring. The

decay of the biomass generated by excessive primary productivity also exerts a demand on

ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations. With the depression of ambient dissolved oxygen

concentrations, populations of fish and other aquatic organisms are adversely affected, with the

possible change in ecosystem composition and loss of biodiversity.

Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen is rarely present in meat and poultry processing wastewaters

before aerobic biological treatment, due to the lack of oxygen necessary for microbially mediated

nitrification. However, nitrite and nitrate salts used in further processing are potential sources. 

Thus, the principal source of nitrite and nitrate nitrogen following treatment is nitrification

during aerobic biological treatment, which often is required, at least seasonally, to satisfy effluent

limitations for the discharge of ammonia nitrogen to surface waters. Usually, nitrate nitrogen is

the predominate form of oxidized nitrogen in these discharges, with nitrite nitrogen present only

in trace amounts. High concentrations of nitrite nitrogen usually are indicative of incomplete

nitrification and are accompanied by more than trace ammonia nitrogen concentrations.

Although nitrite nitrogen will exert an NOD in surface waters, the principal concern

about oxidized forms of nitrogen in wastewater discharges is related to their role in the

development of eutrophic conditions. The impacts of such conditions on fish populations,

biodiversity, recreation, and potable water supply treatment costs were discussed above. An

additional concern is their potential for increasing ambient surface water nitrate nitrogen

concentrations above the national maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg per L in source

waters used for public drinking water supplies.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-12

Phosphorus

Total phosphorus and total orthophosphate phosphorus: phosphorus is a pollutant

considered for regulation in meat and poultry processing wastewaters, because of the role of

phosphorus as the nutrient typically limiting primary productivity in freshwater ecosystems. In

such aquatic ecosystems, an increase in ambient phosphorus concentration due to wastewater

discharges above naturally occurring levels results in the excessive growth of algae and other

phytoplankton, with the development of eutrophic conditions as the consequence. In turn,

eutrophic conditions can cause fish kills, disruption of natural aquatic ecosystem structure, and

loss of biodiversity. Additional impacts of eutrophication in fresh waters include impairment of

recreational use and additional treatment cost for use of these waters as a source of potable water.

In marine waters, phosphorus is not a pollutant of concern due to relatively high naturally

occurring phosphorus concentrations. The impact of phosphorus in wastewater discharges into

estuaries varies with impacts generally decreasing as salinity levels increase.

There are numerous sources of phosphorus in meat and poultry processing wastewaters,

including bone, soft tissue, blood, manure, detergents and sanitizers, and boiler water additives to

control corrosion. Both organic and inorganic forms of phosphorus are present, with inorganic

forms present as both ortho- and polyphosphate phosphorus. Total orthophosphate phosphorus,

also known as total reactive phosphorus, can be directly used by phytoplankton and higher

adequate plants and are immediately available sources of phosphorus. Although polyphosphate

forms of phosphorus undergo hydrolysis in aqueous solutions, hydrolysis usually is quite slow, as

is mineralization of organically bound phosphorus. Thus, orthophosphate phosphorus is a

potential pollutant of concern because of its immediate biological availability, whereas

polyphosphates and organically bound phosphorus, which comprise the difference between total

phosphorus and orthophosphate phosphorus, are pollutants of concern as sources of slowly

released orthophosphate phosphorus.

Dissolved total phosphorus simply is the sum of ortho-and-polyphosphate phosphorus in

solution by excluding suspended forms of phosphorus by filtration.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-13

Salmonella

A number of pathogenic species of Salmonella, including Salmonella enteritidis, are

common inhabitants of the enteric tracts of livestock and poultry and may be present in meat and

poultry processing wastewaters. Because of its potential risk to public health through public and

private water supplies, contact forms of recreation, and wild life exposure to effluents discharged

to natural waters, Salmonella was considered as a pollutant for possible regulation in these

wastewaters.

Solids

Meat and poultry processing wastewaters before and after treatment contain both

suspended and dissolved solids, which also are known as non-filterable and filterable residue.

Suspended and dissolved solids concentrations are determined by filtering the solids with a

standard glass fiber filter, then drying them to a constant weight. Those solids retained on the

filter are considered to be suspended solids, and those solids passing through the filter are

considered to be dissolved solids. Dissolved solids concentrations also can be estimated

indirectly by determining their conductance, the ability to carry an electric current. This ability

depends on the presence and dissociation of inorganic compounds. Organic compounds in

aqueous solutions generally do not dissociate and are poor conductors of electricity.

The principal constituents of suspended solids in treated meat and poultry processing

wastewaters are soft and hard tissue particles not removed during treatment and biomass

synthesized during treatment. Thus, suspended solids have both organic (volatile) and inorganic

fractions. Dissolved solids consist primarily of dissolved inorganic compounds (primarily

calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, sulfur compounds) but also may contain colloidal organic

material. The principal sources of dissolved solids in meat and poultry processing wastewaters

are potable water supplies used for process-ing, salts used in processing such as sodium chloride,

and cleaning and sanitizing agents. Generally, the organic, and therefore potentially

biodegradable, fraction of suspended solids is substantially higher than the inorganic fraction,

with the reverse typically characteristic of dissolved solids. Total solids are the sum of
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-14

suspended and dissolved solids with total volatile solids or total volatile residue representing an

estimate of the organic fraction of total solids.

Both suspended and dissolved solids in meat and poultry processing wastewater effluents

were pollutants considered for several reasons. Suspended solids that settle to form bottom

deposits can create anaerobic conditions because of the oxygen demand exerted by microbial

decomposition. They can alter habitat for fish, shellfish, and benthic organisms. Suspended

solids also provide a medium for the transport of other sorbed pollutants including nutrients,

pathogens, metals, and toxic organic compounds, such as pesticides with accumulation and

storage in settled deposits. Settled, suspended solids and other associated pollutants often have

extended interaction with the water column through cycles of deposition, resuspension, and

redeposition.

Suspended solids in wastewater discharges also can clog fish gills, reducing oxygen

transport and increasing turbidity. In severe situations, clogging of fish gills can result in

asphyxiation, and in less severe situations can result in an increase in susceptibility to infection.

In addition, suspended solids increase turbidity in receiving waters and reduce penetration of

light through the water column, thereby limiting the growth of rooted aquatic vegetation that

serves as a critical habitat for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms.

Dissolved solids were considered as pollutants for possible regulation, primarily because

of their potential impact on the subsequent use of receiving waters as source waters for public

and industrial water supplies. Reduction of dissolved solids concentrations in source waters to

acceptable levels for public and industrial water supply use can be a costly process. However,

dissolved solids also have the potential to alter the chemistry of natural waters to a degree that

adversely impacts indigenous aquatic biota, especially in the immediate vicinity of the effluent

discharge. An example is the possible influence on the toxicity of heavy metals and organic

compounds to fish and other aquatic organisms, primarily because of the antagonistic effect of

hardness.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-15

Possible regulation of total volatile residue (total volatile solids) in meat and poultry

processing wastewaters was considered, because this parameter also is an estimator of organic

matter and potentially exerted oxygen demand in receiving waters after treated effluent

discharge.

Total Residual Chlorine

Chlorine in the form of chlorine gas (Cl2), calcium hypochlorite [Ca(OCl)2], sodium

hypochlorite (NaOCl), or chlorine dioxide (ClO2), is commonly used for the disinfection of meat

and poultry processing wastewaters before direct discharge to surface waters. Because free

chlorine is directly toxic to aquatic organisms and can react with naturally occurring organic

compounds in natural waters to form toxic compounds such as trihalomethane, total residual

chlorine in meat and poultry processing wastewater effluents was considered as a pollutant for

possible regulation.

Total Organic Carbon

Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of a variety of organic compounds in various

oxidation states in water and wastewater. Some of these compounds can be oxidized further by

biological or chemical processes and are captured in BOD or COD determinations. However,

these tests also may not oxidize some organic carbon compounds. Thus, TOC may provide the

most accurate estimate of organic matter content; it provides no information relative to

potentially exerted oxygen demand. However, TOC can be used to estimate BOD and COD in a

wastewater with a relatively constant composition, once correlations between TOC and BOD and

COD are established. Like COD, TOC can be determined rapidly in contrast to BOD, which

requires a five-day incubation period.

7.2.2 Non-conventional Pollutants

Metals

A number of metals from a range of possible sources have the potential to be present in

meat and poultry processing wastewaters. These possible sources include water supplies and
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-16

distribution systems, processing equipment, cleaning and sanitizing agents, and wastewater

collection systems and treatment equipment. In addition, metals including arsenic, copper, and

zinc commonly are added to livestock and poultry feeds as trace mineral supplements or growth

stimulants, and may be present in manures.

The following metals were considered as pollutants for possible regulation in meat and

poultry processing wastewaters: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver,

thallium, tin, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and zinc. These metals were considered as pollutants

for possible regulation in meat and poultry processing wastewaters, because of their potential

toxicity to phytoplankton and zooplankton and to higher aquatic plant and animal species,

including fish. They also are pollutants of concern, given the potential for bioaccumulation and

biomagnification in aquatic food chains and presence downstream in effluent receiving waters

used as source waters for potable water supplies. Although removal of metals from wastewaters

during conventional physicochemical and biological treatment processes occurs through

adsorption to biosolids removed by settling and filtration before discharge, these processes are

not intentionally engineered to remove metals before effluent discharge.

Pesticides

Pesticides, with the exception of rodenticides in enclosed bait stations, are not used in

meat and poultry processing facilities to prevent the risk of product contamination. They are,

however, commonly topically applied to livestock and poultry in animal feeding operations for

the control of ectoparasites. Although withdrawal periods are required before slaughter, residues

may remain on feathers, hair, and skin at slaughter. Thus, the following pesticides were

considered as pollutants for possible regulation in meat processing wastewaters: carbaryl, cispermethrin, dichlorvos, Malathion, and tetrachlorvinphos. Transpermithrin and carbaryl were

considered as a pollutant for possible regulation in poultry processing wastewaters.

These pesticides were considered as pollutants for possible regulation because of their

toxicity to aquatic ecosystems and their potential for bioaccumulation and biomagnification in

aquatic food chains and presence downstream in effluent receiving waters used as source waters
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-17

for potable water supplies. Although removal of pesticides from wastewaters during

conventional physicochemical and biological treatment processes occurs through adsorption to

biosolids removed by settling and filtration before discharge, these processes are not intentionally

engineered to remove metals before effluent discharge. For some pesticides, biodegradation also

may occur during wastewater treatment.

7.3 SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN

EPA determined pollutants of concern for the meat and poultry products industry by

assessing Agency sampling data. To establish the pollutants of concern, EPA reviewed the

analytical data from influent wastewater samples to determine the pollutants, which were

detected at treatable levels. EPA set treatable levels at five times the baseline value to ensure

that pollutants detected at only trace amounts would not be selected.

EPA obtained the pollutants of concern by establishing which parameters were detected at

treatable levels in at least 10 percent of all the influent wastewater samples. Tables 7-2 and 7-3

detail the list of meat and poultry products industry pollutants of concern. EPA did not sample at

independent rendering facilities and transferred data from on-site rendering facilities.

Consequently, EPA is using all the pollutants of concern from Tables 7-1 and 7-2 for

independent rendering facilities. EPA is planning further sampling at independent rendering

facilities after proposal to better develop a list of pollutants of concern for this segment of the

industry.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-18

Table 7-2. Pollutants of Concern for Meat Processing Facilities

Pollutant Group Pollutant CAS Number

Classicals or

biologicals 

 Aeromonas C2101 

 Ammonia as nitrogen 7664417

 Biochemical oxygen demand C003 

 BOD 5-day (carbonaceous) C002 

 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) C004 

 Chloride 16887006

 Cryptosporidium 137259508

 Dissolved biochemical 

 Oxygen demand 

 C003D 

 Dissolved phosphorus 14265442D 

 E. Coli C050 

 Fecal coliform C2106 

 Fecal streptococcus C2107 

 Hexane extractable material C036 

 Nitrate/nitrite C005 

 Total coliform E10606 

 Total dissolved solids C010 

 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen C021 

 Total organic carbon (TOC) C012 

 Total orthophosphate C034 

 Total phosphorus 14265442

 Total suspended solids C009 

 Volatile residue C030 

Metals Chromium 7440473

 Copper 7440508

 Manganese 7439965

 Titanium 7440326

 Zinc 7440666

Pesticides Carbaryl 63252

 Cis-permethrin 61949766

 Trans-permethrin 61949777 
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-19

Table 7–3. Pollutants of Concern for Poultry Processing Facilities

Pollutant Group Pollutant CAS Number

Classicals or

Biologicals 

 Aeromonas C2101 

 Ammonia as nitrogen 7664417 

 Biochemical oxygen demand C003 

 BOD 5-day (carbonaceous) C002 

 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) C004 

 Chloride 16887006 

 Dissolved biochemical 

 Oxygen demand 

 C003D

 Dissolved phosphorus 14265442D

 E. Coli C050 

 Fecal coliform C2106 

 Fecal streptococcus C2107 

 Hexane extractable material C036 

 Nitrate/nitrite C005 

 Salmonella 68583357 

 Total coliform E10606 

 Total dissolved solids C010 

 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen C021 

 Total organic carbon (TOC) C012 

 Total orthophosphate C034 

 Total phosphorus 14265442 

 Total residual chlorine 7782505 

 Total suspended solids C009 

 Volatile residue C030 

Metals Copper 7440508 

 Manganese 7439965 

 Zinc 7440666 

Pesticides Carbaryl 63252 

7.4 SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS FOR REGULATION

7.4.1 Methodology for Selection of Regulated Pollutants

EPA selects the pollutants for regulation based on applicable Clean Water Act provisions

regarding the pollutants subject to each statutory level and the pollutants of concern (POCs)

identified for each subcategory.

As presented above, EPA selected a subset of pollutants for which to establish numerical

effluent limitations from the list of POCs for each regulated subcategory. Generally, a chemical
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-20

is considered a POC if it is detected in the untreated process wastewater at five times the

minimum level (ML) in more than 10 percent of samples.

Monitoring for all POCs is not necessary to ensure that meat and poultry products

wastewater pollution is adequately controlled, since many of the pollutants originate from similar

sources, have similar treatabilities, are removed by similar mechanisms, and are treated to similar

levels. Therefore, it may be sufficient to monitor for one pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of

several others.

Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which the EPA would establish numerical effluent

limitations and standards. EPA selected a POC for regulation in a subcategory if it meets all the

following criteria: 

• Chemical is not used as a treatment chemical in the selected technology option.

• Chemical is not considered a nonconventional bulk parameter.

• Chemical is not considered a volatile compound.

• Chemical is effectively treated by the selected treatment technology option.

• Chemical is detected in the untreated wastewater at treatable levels in a significant

number of samples, generally five times the minimum level at more than 10

percent of the raw wastewater samples.

• Chemicals whose control through treatment processes would lead to control of a

wide range of pollutants with similar properties; these chemicals are generally

good indicators of overall wastewater treatment performance. 

Based on the methodology described above, EPA proposes to regulate pollutants in each

subcategory that will ensure adequate control of a range of pollutants.
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-21

7.4.2 Selection of Regulated Pollutants for Existing and New Direct Dischargers

The current regulation requires facilities to maintain the pH between 6.0 and 9.0 at all

times. EPA intends to retain this limitation and proposes to codify identical pH limitations for

previously unregulated subcategories. The pH shall be monitored at the point of discharge from

the wastewater treatment facility to which effluent limitations derived from this part apply.

In addition, EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for MPP facilities for the

following pollutants of concern: BOD, COD, TSS, hexane extractable materials (oil and grease),

fecal coliforms, ammonia, total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitrogen plus nitrite and nitrate nitrogen),

and total phosphorus. The specific justifications for the pollutants to be regulated for each

subcategory are provided below. In general, EPA selected these pollutants because they are

representative of the characteristics of meat processing wastewaters generated in the industry,

and are key indicators of the performance of treatment processes that serve as the basis for the 

effluent limitations.

A number of POCs evaluated by EPA are parameters that identify the quantity of material

in an effluent that is likely to consume oxygen as it breaks down in surface waters after it has

been discharged. These parameters include total organic carbon, BOD, carbonaceous BOD,

COD, and dissolved BOD. Values for these POCs in meat poultry processing wastes are

typically very high due to the wastewaters generated from killing, evisceration, further

processing, and rendering processes. EPA is proposing to regulate BOD and COD, which will be

used as indicators of the performance of biological treatment systems to remove all oxygendemanding pollutants and impact of treated effluent discharges to surface waters on dissolved

oxygen concentrations.

Total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total volatile residue are

parameters that measure the quantity of solids in a wastewater. Meat processing facilities

typically produce wastewaters high in organic solids, including blood, carcass, feathers, and

feces. These solids cause a high oxygen demand (both chemical and biochemical) and are high

in nitrogen content. Because some nutrients bind to solids, and solids often include oxygendemanding organic material, limiting the loading of solids will prevent degradation of surface
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-22

waters. EPA proposes to regulate TSS as an indicator of performance of biological treatment

systems to remove solids. EPA considered regulation of TDS, however, because as organic

matter is broken down in a biological wastewater treatment system, levels of TDS may increase,

which makes regulation of TDS not feasible.

Wastewaters from meat processing facilities have high concentrations of the nutrients

nitrogen and phosphorus associated primarily with blood, soft tissue, fecal material, and cleaning

and sanitizing agents. In addition, those facilities employing advanced biological treatment

systems to remove ammonia by biological nitrification, convert ammonia nitrogen to nitrite and

nitrate nitrogen through microbially mediated oxidation. Due to the potential degrading impacts

to surface waters associated with the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (e.g., eutrophication),

EPA proposes to regulate total nitrogen and total phosphorus. In regulating total nitrogen and

total phosphorus, EPA will ensure that biological treatment systems used by facilities are

effectively removing all forms of these nutrients, including total Kkjeldahl nitrogen,

nitrate/nitrite, ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and dissolved phosphorus. EPA is also

proposing to specifically regulate ammonia nitrogen, because of the significant oxygen demand it

exerts, as well as its relatively high toxicity to aquatic life.

Oil and grease (as n-hexane-extractable material) is a parameter that measures oil and

grease concentrations in effluents. Oil and grease, primarily in the form of animal fat, is present

in relatively high concentrations in meat and poultry processing wastewaters. EPA is proposing

that the control of oil and grease is necessary to ensure that treatment systems are effective in

removing oil and grease. Excessive oil and grease concentrations can be associated with high

BOD demand in a surface water. They present other nuisance problems, as well.

Chlorides measure the quantity of chloride ion dissolved in solution. In the meat

processing industry, salts may be used in further processing and for cleaning and sanitizing

purposes. The presence of chloride in discharges to surface waters may impact aquatic

organisms, because of their sensitivity to concentrations of salt. Although EPA determined that

chlorides are a pollutant of concern, EPA is not proposing to regulate chlorides because

biological systems are not specifically designed and operated to treat chlorides. In fact, EPA
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-23

observed in some instances an increase in chlorides within the biological treatment system (i.e.,

from the influent to the effluent) at several facilities. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will

not be able to manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent limitations

for chlorides.

Total coliforms, fecal coliforms, E. coli, fecal streptococcus, Salmonella, and Aeromonas

were considered POCs, because they provide information on the potential presence bacterial and

other pathogens in meat processing wastewaters. Pathogens typically are present in meat and

poultry processing wastewaters due to the presence of fecal material. The reduction of pathogens

is important to prevent impairment of surface water uses, such as a drinking water source or as a

recreation water. EPA is proposing to regulate fecal coliforms as an indicator of the efficacy of

treatment processes to control pathogens.

In many instances, EPA found meat processing facilities using chlorine to disinfect

treated wastewaters. As a disinfectant, chlorine is highly toxic to aquatic life. Therefore, EPA is

also considering regulating total residual chlorine in the final rule as a means to control the

amount of chlorine that is discharged to surface waters. EPA is requesting comment on this issue

in the preamble for the proposed rule.

Metals may be present in meat processing wastewaters for a variety of reasons. They are

used as feed additives they may be contained in sanitation products or they may result from

deterioration of meat processing machinery and equipment. Many metals are toxic to algae,

aquatic invertebrates, and/or fish. Although metals may serve useful purposes in meat processing

operations, most metals retain their toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters.

Although EPA observed that many of the biological treatment systems used within the meat

processing industry provide substantial reductions of most metals, biological systems are not

specifically engineered to remove metals. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will not be

able to manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent limitations.

Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate metals.

Pesticides are used for controlling animal ectoparasites and may be present in

wastewaters from initial animal wash and processing operations. Some pesticides are
Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-24

bioaccumulative and retain their toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters.

Although EPA observed that many of the biological treatment systems used within the meat

processing industry provide adequate reductions of pesticides, most biological systems are not

specifically engineered to remove pesticides. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will not be

able to manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent limitations for

pesticides. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate pesticides.

7.5 REFERENCES

American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard methods for the examination of

water and wastewater, 19th edition, American Public Health Association, Washington,

DC.

S.E. Aiello, ed., 1998. The Merck veterinary manual, 8th edition, Merck and Company, Inc.,

Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. 
8-1

SECTION 8

WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND POLLUTION

PREVENTION PRACTICES

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes unit processes that are currently in use or may be used to treat meat

and poultry products (MPP) wastewaters. A variety of unit processes are used to provide primary,

secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment; however, because of the similarities in the physical

and chemical characteristics of meat and poultry products wastewaters, EPA identified no

practical difference in the types of treatment technologies between meat and poultry products

facilities (e.g., primary treatment for removal of solids, biological treatment for removal of

organic and nutrient pollutants). In addition, the unit processes that are used in the treatment of

MPP wastewaters are similar to those normally used in the treatment of domestic wastewaters

(Eremektar et al., 1999; Johnston, 2001). In this section, those unit processes most commonly

used or potentially transferable from other industries for the treatment of MPP wastewaters are

described and typical combinations of unit processes are outlined.

Wastewater treatment falls into three main categories: (1) primary treatment (e.g.,

removal of floating and settleable solids); (2) secondary treatment (e.g., removal of most organic

matter); and (3) tertiary treatment (e.g., removal of nitrogen or phosphorus or suspended solids or

some combination thereof). MPP facilities that discharge to a publicly owned treatment works

(POTW), typically employ only primary treatment; however, some facilities may also provide

secondary treatment, as demonstrated in the data provided in the MPP detailed survey. MPP

facilities that discharge directly to navigable waters under the authority of a National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) typically both primary and secondary treatment to

generated wastewaters. As also described in the MPP detailed surveys, many direct dischargers 

also apply tertiary treatment to wastewater discharged under the NPDES permit system. Table

8-1 identifies the types of wastewater treatment commonly found in the MPP industry.
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-2

Table 8–1. Distribution of Wastewater Treatment Units In MPP Industry

Treatment Category Treatment Unit

Percent of Direct/Indirect Discharging Facilities

Having The Treatment Unit In Place

Direct Discharger Indirect Discharger 

Primary treatment Screen 98 percent 64 percent

Oil and Grease Removal 83 percent 77 percent

Dissolved Air Floatation 81 percent 46 percent

Flow Equalization 75 percent 34 percent

Secondary and tertiary

treatment

Biological Treatment a 100 percent 13 percent

Filtration 23 percent 0 percent

Disinfection 92 percent 0 percent

a Biological treatment includes any combination of the following: aerobic lagoon, anaerobic lagoon, facultative

lagoon, any activated sludge process, and/or other biological treatment processes (e.g., trickling filter).

Source: EPA Detailed Survey Data.

8.2 PRIMARY TREATMENT

As noted above, primary treatment involves removal of floating and settleable solids. In

MPP wastewaters, the typical unit processes used for primary treatment are screening, catch

basin, dissolved air flotation (DAF), and flow equalization. Chemicals are often added to

improve the performance of the treatment units (e.g., flocculant or polymer addition to DAF

units). Primary treatment has two objectives in the MPP industry: (1) reduction of suspended

solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loads to subsequent unit processes; and (2) the

recovery of materials that can be converted into marketable products through rendering.

8.2.1 Screening

Screening is typically the first and most inexpensive form of primary treatment. Screening

removes large solid particles from the waste stream that could otherwise damage or interfere with

downstream equipment and treatment processes, including pumps, pump inlets, and pipelines

(Nielsen, 1996). There are several types of screens used in wastewater treatment including:

(1) static or stationary, (2) rotary drum, (3) brushed, and (4) vibrating. Static, vibrating, or rotary

drum screens are most commonly used as primary treatment (USEPA, 1974, 1975). These
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-3

screens use stainless steel wedge wire as the screen material and remove medium and coarse

particles between 0.01 to 0.06 inches in diameter. Generally, all wastewater generated in MPP

facilities is screened before discharge to subsequent treatment processes. Use of screens aids in

recovery of valuable by-products that are sometimes used as a raw material for the rendering

industry and subsequent industries (Banks and Adebowale, 1991; USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). 

The use of secondary screens is becoming more prevalent in the industry. Secondary screening

has the advantage of by-product recovery prior to adulteration by coagulants and reduces the

volume of solids to be recovered in subsequent unit processes, such as the dissolved air flotation

(Starkey and Wright, 1997).

The following describes the main types of screens used at MPP facilities.

8.2.1.1 Static Screens

The primary function of a static screen is to remove large solid particles (USEPA, 1974;

USEPA, 1975). For example, the physical nature of slaughterhouse raw wastewater can include

coarse, suspended matter (larger than 1 mm mesh) which is insoluble, slowly biodegradable, and

40 to 50 percent of the raw wastewater COD (Johns, 1995). Screening can be accomplished in

several ways, and in older versions, only gravity drainage is involved. A concavely curved screen

design using high-velocity pressure feeding originally developed for mineral classification has

been adapted to meet MPP wastewater treatment needs. This design employs bar interference to

the slurry, which knives off thin layers of the flow over the curved surface. The screen material

usually is 316 stainless steel although harder, wear-resistant stainless alloys may also be used for

special purposes. Openings of 0.025 to 0.15 cm (0.01 to 0.06 inch) meet normal screening needs

(USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Figure 8-1 shows a general schematic of a static screen.

In some poultry products facilities, “follow-up” stationary screens, consisting of two,

three, and four units placed vertically in the effluent sewer before discharge to the municipal

sewer, have successfully prevented escape of feathers and solids from the drains in the flow-away

screen room and other drains on the premises. These stationary “channel” screens are framed and

are usually constructed of mesh or perforated stainless steel with 1⁄4- to 1⁄2 -inch openings. The
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-4

Figure 8-1. General schematic of a static screen

(U.S. EPA,1980)

series arrangement permits removal of

a single screen for cleaning and

improves efficiency. The three-slope

static screen is being used in a few

poultry products facilities as primary

treatment (USEPA, 1975). Static

screens can be used in series to remove

of coarse particles first before further

screening by finer mesh screens.

8.2.1.2 Rotary Drum Screens

Rotary drum screens typically

are constructed of stainless steel mesh

or wedge wire and are designed in one of two ways. The first, driven by external rollers, receives

the wastewater at one open end and discharges the solids at the other open end. The screen is

inclined toward the exit end to facilitate movement of solids. The liquid passes outward through

the screen (usually stainless steel screen cloth or perforated sheet) to a receiver and then to the

sewer. To prevent clogging, the screen is usually sprayed continuously from a line of external

spray nozzles (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

The second type of rotary screen is driven with an external pinion gear. Raw wastewater

discharges into the interior of the screen, below the center, and solids are removed in a trough

that is mounted lengthwise with a screw conveyor. The liquid exits from the screen into a box

where the screen is partially submerged. The screen itself is typically 40 by 40 mesh, with

openings of 0.4 mm. To assist lifting the solids to the conveyor trough, perforated lift paddles are

mounted lengthwise on the inside surface of the screen. Externally spraying the screen helps

reduce blinding, and teflon coated screens reduce clogging by grease. Solid removals up to 82

percent have been reported (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

Figure 8-2 shows a general schematic of a rotating drum screen.
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-5

Figure 8-2. General schematic of a rotary drum screen.

(U.S. EPA, 1980)

8.2.1.3 Brushed Screens

Although most commonly

used in sewage treatment, brushed

screens can be adapted to remove

solids from MPP wastewater.

Brushed screens are constructed of

a half-circular drum with a

stainless steel perforated screen.

Mesh size varies according to the

type of solid being screened. As

influent passes through the screen, rotary brushes sweep across, pushing solids off the screen and

into a collection trough. If required, this design can be doubled to dry solid matter further by

pushing solids onto a second screen that is pressed and then brushed into the collection trough

(Nielsen, 1996).

8.2.1.4 Vibrating Screens

The effectiveness of a vibrating screen depends on a rapid motion. Vibrating screens

operate between 99 and 1,800 rpm; the motion can be either circular or straight line, varying

from 0.08 to 1.27 cm (1/32 to 1⁄2 inch) total travel. Speed and motion are selected by the screen

manufacturer for the particular application (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Usually made of

stainless steel, the vibrating action allows effluent to pass through while propelling solids toward

a collection outlet with the aid of gravity (Nielsen, 1996).

Of prime importance in the selection of a proper vibrating screen is the application of the

proper cloth. The liquid capacities of vibrating screens are based on the percent of open area of

the cloth. The cloth is selected with the proper combination of strength of wire and percent of

open area. If the waste solids to be handled are heavy and abrasive, wire of greater thickness

should be used to assure long life. However, if the material is light or sticky in nature, the

durability of the screening surface may be the least important factor. In such a case, a light wire

may be desired to provide an increased percent of open area (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-6

Poultry products facilities may employ two types of vibrating screens. For offal recovery,

vibratory screens usually have 20-mesh screening; for feather removal, as well as for in-plant

primary treatment of combined wastewater, a 36- by 40-mesh screen cloth is used. On most

applications a double-crimped, square-weave cloth is used because of its inherent strength and

resistance to wire shifting. Vibratory screens with straight-line action are largely used for

byproduct recovery, while those with circular motion are frequently used for in-plant primary

treatment (USEPA, 1975).

8.2.2 Catch Basins

 Catch basins separate grease and finely suspended solids from wastewater by the process

of gravity separation. The basic setup employs a minimum turbulence flowthrough tank where

solids heavier than water sink to the bottom, and grease and fine solids rise to the surface. Basins

are equipped with a skimmer to remove grease and scum off the top and a scraper to remove

sludge at the bottom. The skimmer moves scum into collecting troughs and the scraper moves

sludge into a hopper from where both are pumped to byproduct recovery systems. Key factors

affecting basin efficiency are detention time and the rate of solid removal from the basin.

Depending on influent concentration, recovery rates between 60 and 70 percent can be achieved

with a detention time of 20 to 40 minutes (Nielsen, 1996). 

Typically, catch basins are rectangular in shape and relatively shallow (1.8 meters or 6

feet is the preferred length). The flow rate is the most important criterion for the design, and the

most common sizing factor is determined by measuring the volume of flow during one peak hour

with 30 to 40 minutes of detention. An equalization tank before the catch basin reduces size

requirements significantly (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Depending on the influent

characteristics, treatment costs range from 50 to 500 dollars per million gallons treated

(FMCITT, 2002).

Tanks can be constructed of concrete or steel; usually two tanks with a common wall are

built, in case one becomes unavailable due to maintenance or repairs. Concrete tanks have the

inherent advantages of lower overall maintenance and more permanence of structure. However,

some facilities prefer to be able to modify their operation for future expansion, alterations, or
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-7

even relocation. All-steel tanks have the advantage of being semi-portable, more easily fielderected, and more easily modified than concrete tanks. The all-steel tanks, however, require

additional maintenance as a result of wear from abrasion and corrosion (USEPA, 1974; USEPA,

1975).

A tank using all-steel walls and a concrete bottom is the best compromise between the

all-steel tank and the all-concrete tank. The advantages are the same as for steel; however, the allsteel tank requires a footing underneath and supporting members, whereas the concrete bottom

forms the floor and supporting footings for the steel-wall tank (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

8.2.3 Dissolved Air Flotation

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is used extensively in the primary treatment of MPP

wastewaters to remove suspended solids. The principal advantage of DAF over gravity settling is

its ability to remove very small or light particles (including grease) more completely and in a

shorter period of time. Once particles have been to the surface, they are removed by skimming

(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

In DAF, either the entire influent, some fraction of the influent, or some fraction of the

recycled DAF effluent is saturated with air at a pressure of 40 to 50 psi (250 to 300 kPa), and

then introduced into the flotation tank (Martin and Martin, 1991). The method of operation may

cause operating costs to differ slightly, but process performances are essentially equal among the

three modes of operation (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). With larger wastewater flows, only a

fraction of the DAF effluent is saturated and recycled by introduction through a pressure control

valve into the influent feed line. From 15 to 120 percent of the influent flow may be recycled in

larger units (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Under atmospheric pressure in the flotation tank, the air

desorbs from solution and forms a cloud of fine bubbles, which transport fine particulate matter

to the surface of the liquid in the tank. A skimmer mechanism continually removes the floating

solids, and a bottom sludge collector removes any solids that settle. Although unit shape is not

important, a more even distribution of air bubbles allows for a shallower flotation tank. Optimum

depth settings are between 4 and 9 feet (1.2 to 2.7 meters) (Martin and Martin, 1991). 
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-8

Chemicals (e.g., polymers and flocculants) are often added prior to the DAF to improve

the DAF performance. Typical removals of suspended solids by DAFs vary between 40 to

65 percent without chemical addition and between 80 to 93 percent with chemical addition.

Likewise, oil and grease removals by DAF improve from 60 to 80 percent without chemical

addition to 85 to 99 percent with chemical addition (Martin and Martin, 1991). There are many

advantages to a DAF system, including its low installation costs, compact design, ability to

accept variable loading rates, and low level of maintenance (Nielsen, 1996). The mechanical

equipment involved in the DAF system is fairly simple, requiring limited maintenance attention

for such things as pumps and mechanical drives (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

Although alternatives to DAF do exist, including electro flotation, reverse osmosis, and

ion exchange, these processes have not been widely adopted by MPP facilities. Cost

considerations and technical difficulties associated with these alternatives have prevented ready

incorporation of such technologies (Johns, 1995). However, Cowan et al., (1992) summarized

treatment and costs for extended trials, using a variety of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis

membranes at a number of slaughterhouses in South Africa. They report that ultrafiltration and

reverse osmosis treatment may be the method of choice for treating slaughterhouse wastewaters,

both as a pretreatment step prior to discharge to POTW and as a means of reclaiming high quality

reusable water from the treated effluent. 

8.2.4 Flow Equalization

Since most MPP facilities operate on a five-day per week schedule, weekly variation of

wastewater flow is common. In addition, each facility must be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized

every 24 hours. Although wastewater flow is relatively constant during processing, a significant

difference in flow occurs between processing and cleanup periods, producing a substantial

diurnal variation in flow and organic load on days of processing. To avoid the necessity of sizing

subsequent treatment units to handle peak flows and loads, in-line flow equalization tanks are

installed (Reynolds, 1982; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Flow equalization tanks may also be

installed to store the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant before discharge to a POTW or
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-9

other effluent disposal destinations. The end-of-treatment equalization ensures reduced variation

in flow and waste load.

Equalization facilities consist of a holding tank and pumping equipment designed to

reduce the fluctuations of waste stream. They can be economically advantageous, whether the

industry is treating its own wastes or discharging into a city sewer after some pretreatment. The

tank is characterized by a varying flow into the tank and a constant flow out. For MPP facilities,

flow equalization basins usually are sized to provide a constant 24-hour flow rate on processing

days, but also may be sized to provide a constant daily flow rate, including non-processing days.

The major advantages of equalization basins are that the subsequent treatment units are smaller,

since they can be designed for the 24-hour average flow rather than peak flows, and secondary

waste treatment systems operate much better when not subjected to shockloads or variations on

feed (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). To prevent settling of solids and to control odors, aeration

and mixing of flow equalization basins are required. Methods of aeration and mixing include

diffused air, diffused air with mechanical mixing, and mechanical aeration (Reynolds, 1982;

Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

8.2.5 Chemical Addition

Chemicals are often added to remove pollutants from wastewater. According to the MPP

detailed survey responses, chemicals (e.g., polymers, coagulants, and flocculants such as

aluminum or iron salts or synthetic organic polymers) are often added to MPP wastewaters prior

to DAF or clarifier to aggregate colloidal particles through destabilization by coagulation and

flocculation to improve process performance. Essentially all of the chemicals added are removed

with the separated solids. When the solids are disposed of by rendering, the use of organic

polymers is preferred to avoid high aluminum or iron concentrations in the rendered product

produced. EPA noted during site visits to two independent rendering operations that sludges from

dissolved air floatation units which use chemical additions to promote solids separation are

rendered; however, the chemical bond between the organic matter and the polymers requires that

the sludges be processed (rendered) at higher temperatures (260 oF) and longer retention times.

Because the efficacy of aluminum and iron salts and organic polymers is pH dependent, pH
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-10

adjustment normally precedes the addition of these compounds to minimize chemical use (Ross

et. al., 1992; USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

8.3 SECONDARY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

MPP facilities that discharge directly to navigable waters under the authority of a NPDES

permit at a minimum apply both primary and secondary treatment to generated wastewaters (see

Table 8-1). The objective of secondary treatment is the reduction of BOD through the removal of

organic matter, primarily in the form of soluble organic compounds, remaining after primary

treatment. Although secondary treatment of wastewater can be performed using a combination of

physical and chemical unit processes, use of biological processes has remained the preferred

approach (Peavy, 1986). Greater than 90 percent wastewater pollutant removal efficiencies can

be achieved with biological treatment (Kiepper, 2001). According to responses to the MPP

detailed survey, common systems used for biological treatment of MPP wastewater include

lagoons, activated sludge systems, extended aeration, oxidation ditches, and sequencing batch

reactors. A sequence of anaerobic biological processes followed by aerobic biological processes

is commonly employed by MPP facilities which have biological treatment. Kiepper (2001)

suggests that approximately 25 percent of U.S. poultry facilities use biological treatment systems

consisting of an anaerobic lagoon followed by an activated sludge system.

8.3.1 Anaerobic Treatment 

Anaerobic wastewater treatment processes use the microbially-mediated reduction of

complex organic compounds to methane and carbon dioxide as the mechanism for organic matter

and BOD reduction. Because methane and carbon dioxide are essentially insoluble in water, both

desorb rapidly. This combination of gases, predominantly methane, is commonly referred to as

biogas and may be released directly to the atmosphere, collected and flared, or used as a boiler

fuel (Clanton, 1997). EPA (1997) provides estimates of the emission factors (e.g., gramCH4/head of cattle) for these gases. The BOD removal efficiency by anaerobic treatment can be

very high. Anaerobic wastewater treatment processes are more sensitive to temperature and

loading rate changes than those of aerobic wastewater treatment processes.
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-11

The production of biogas generally occurs as a two-step process. In the first step, complex

organic compounds are reduced microbially to simpler compounds, including hydrogen, shortchained volatile acids, alcohols, and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is generated from the

reduction of compounds containing oxygen. A wide variety of facultative and anaerobic

microorganisms are responsible for these transformations that occur to obtain energy for

maintenance, growth, and nutrients, including carbon for cell synthesis (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991;

Nielsen, 1996; Peavy, 1986).

In the second step, the short-chained volatile acids, and alcohols are reduced further to

methane and carbon dioxide by a group of obligate anaerobic microorganisms referred to

collectively as methanogens. This group of microorganisms includes a number of species of

methane-forming bacteria with growth rates significantly lower than the facultative and anaerobic

microorganisms responsible for the initial reduction of complex compounds into the substrates

that are reduced to methane. The biogas produced by the microbial activity typically contains

between 30 and 40 percent carbon dioxide and between 60 and 70 percent methane with trace

amounts of hydrogen sulfide and other gases (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Nielsen, 1996; Peavy,

1986; Clanton 1997).

Due to negligible energy requirements, anaerobic wastewater treatment processes are

particularly attractive for the treatment of high strength wastewaters such as MPP wastewaters.

Even though anaerobic processes are not capable of producing dischargeable effluents, they can

significantly reduce energy requirements for subsequent aerobic treatment to produce

dischargeable effluents (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Nielsen, 1996; Peavy, 1986; Clanton 1997).

Anaerobic treatment can also digest organic solid fractions of animal by-products from

slaughterhouse facilities (Banks, 1994; Banks and Wang, 1999).

According to the MPP detailed survey, anaerobic lagoons are the most commonly used

anaerobic unit process for treatment of MPP wastewaters. In addition to secondary treatment,

anaerobic lagoons provide flow equalization. As noted above, MPP operations normally occur on

a 5-day per week schedule, and lagoons reduce variation in daily flows to subsequent secondary

and tertiary treatment processes. However, high rate anaerobic processes have continued to
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-12

attract attention as alternatives to anaerobic lagoons. Included are the anaerobic contact (AC), upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), and anaerobic filter processes (AF) (Johns, 1995). These

alternatives are especially appealing in situations where land for lagoon construction or

expansion is not available.

8.3.1.1 Anaerobic Lagoons

A typical anaerobic lagoon is relatively deep, between 10 and 17 feet (3 to 5 meters) with

a detention time of 5 to 10 days. Many treatment systems comprise of at least two lagoons in

parallel or series; typical loading rates are between 15 to 20 pounds BOD5 per 1,000 per cubic

feet. The influent wastewater flow is usually near the bottom of the lagoon and has a pH between

7.0 and 8.5. Anaerobic lagoons are not mixed, although some gas mixing occurs. A scum usually

develops at the surface, serving several purposes: retarding heat loss, ensuring anaerobic

conditions, and reducing emissions of odorous compounds (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

Depending on the operating conditions, the BOD reductions by anaerobic lagoons can vary

widely. Reductions up to 97 percent in BOD5, up to 95 percent of suspended solids, and up to 96

percent of COD from the influent have been reported (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975, John,

1995).

Wastewater organic carbon anaerobic degradation products emitted from anaerobic

lagoons include methane and carbon dioxide. Also, ammonium and hydrogen sulfide are

produced from the degradation of sulfur and nitrogen containing compounds found in meat

products wastewater. Ammonium can be converted to ammonia in wastewater. The pH of the

wastewater determines what emissions are produced in the anaerobic lagoons. A pH of 8 or

greater causes more ammonia to be emitted while a pH of 6 or lower produces more hydrogen

sulfide and carbon dioxide emissions (Zhang, 2001).

Because odors emitted from anaerobic lagoons can be quite offensive, much effort has

been put into maintaining oil and grease caps or developing covers for these ponds. Many

operators maintain a cap of oil and grease on the anaerobic lagoons or anaerobic equalization

tanks to reduce odors and inhibit oxygen transfer (i.e., promoting anaerobic conditions). This oil

and grease cap can be broken up and made ineffective with the influx of storm water or other
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-13

highly variable flows to the anaerobic lagoons or anaerobic equalization tanks. Synthetic floating

or biogas-inflated covers are used to prevent odors from escaping the lagoons, while

simultaneously trapping biogas for collection and use as a fuel source. Covering lagoons also

reduces heat losses with the result of higher microbial reaction rates. Surface area loading rates

can thus be increased and lagoon volume can be reduced (Morris et al., 1998).

8.3.1.2 Alternate Anaerobic Treatment Technologies

Anaerobic Contact Systems

Anaerobic contact systems are very similar to the activated sludge process in concept.

Mixed liquor solids from the completely mixed anaerobic reactor vessel are separated in a

clarifier and returned to the reactor to maintain a high concentration of biomass (Stebor et al.,

1990). The high biomass enables the system to maintains a long solids residence time (SRT) at a

relatively short hydraulic retention time (HRT). The completely mixed, sealed reactors are

normally heated to maintain a temperature of 35 °C (95 °F). 

To provide a relatively short HRT, influent wastewater is mixed with solids removed

from the effluent, usually by gravitational settling. Because of the low growth rates of anaerobic

microorganisms, as much as 90 percent of the effluent solids may be recycled to maintain an

adequate solids residence time. A degasifier that vents methane and carbon dioxide is usually

included to minimize floating solids in the separation step (Eckenfelder, 1989). BOD loadings

and HRTs range from 2.4 to 3.2 kg/m3 and from 3 to 12 hours, respectively (USEPA, 1974).

Anaerobic contact systems are not common because of high capital cost. Nonetheless, these

systems have several advantages over anaerobic lagoons, including the ability to reduce odor

problems and reduced land requirements. Biogas produced may be used to maintain reactor

temperature. 

Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge-Blanket (UASB)

The UASB is another anaerobic wastewater treatment process. Influent wastewater flows

upward through a sludge blanket of biologically formed granules, with treatment occurring when

the wastewater comes in contact with the granules. The methane and carbon dioxide produced
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-14

generate internal circulation and serve to maintain the floating sludge blanket. Biogas collection

in a gas collection dome occurs above the floating sludge blanket. Particles attached to gas

bubbles that rise to the surface of the sludge blanket strike the bottom of degassing baffles, and

the degassed particles drop down to the surface of the sludge blanket (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Residual solids and granules in the effluent are separated using gravity settling and returned to

the sludge blanket. Settling may occur within the reactor or in a separate settling unit. Critical to

this operation is the formation and maintenance of granules. Calcium has been used to promote

granulation and iron to reduce unwanted filamentous growth (Eckenfelder, 1989). 

The application of the UASB process to MPP wastewater has been a less successful

endeavor, thus far, compared to other anaerobic processes. For example in treating a

slaughterhouse wastewater, it was difficult to generate the sludge granules, thereby significantly

lowering the level of BOD removal. High fat concentrations led to the loss of sludge (Johns,

1995).

Anaerobic Filters (AF)

The AF is a column filled with various types of media operating as an attached growth or

fixed film reactor. Wastewater flows upward through the column. Because the microbial

population is primarily attached to the media, mean cell residence times on the order of 100 days

are possible. Thus, it provides an ability to treat very high strength wastewaters with COD

concentrations as high as 20,000 mg/L as well as resistance to shock loads. Several studies have

shown that AFs operated at short hydraulic retention times can greatly reduce the organic content

of process wastewater (Harper et al., 1999). Most development work on the AF has involved

high-strength industrial and food-processing wastewaters.

For the MPP industry, removals of COD are reported from 80 to 85 percent when COD

loadings are 2 to 3 kg/m3

/day. When loadings are higher, performance suffers. Gas tends to have

a relatively high methane content (72 to 85 percent). One facility reported BOD concentrations

below 500 mg/L, at 33°C, with a COD loading of 2 to 3 kg/m3

/day. It is important to have

effective pretreatment to remove oil and grease and suspended solids, as a high oil and grease

concentration can cause unstable operation of the system (Harper et al., 1999; Johns, 1995).
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-15

Based on pilot-scale experiments, anaerobic-packed bed treatment has proven to be an effective

alternative to DAF for pretreatment of poultry processing wastewater (Harper et al., 1999).

Anaerobic Sequence Batch Reactor (ASBR)

The ASBR is a variation of the anaerobic contact process that eliminates the need for

complete mixing. This treatment is particularly applicable for MPP wastewaters, because high

protein concentrations eliminate the need for supplemental alkalinity. In addition, ASBR easily

addresses high levels of solids that are typically found in MPP wastewaters. One study that used

an ASBR system on process wastewater achieved BOD5 removals ranging from 37 to 77 percent

and COD removals ranging from 27 to 63 percent. The resulting biogas was 73 to 81 percent

methane, although the high concentration of hydrogen sulfide (~1,800 ppm) in the biogas may

make at least partial removal of hydrogen sulfide prior to use as a fuel (Morris et al., 1998 ).

8.3.2 Aerobic Treatment

In the treatment of MPP wastewaters, aerobic treatment may directly follow primary

treatment, or more typically follow some form of anaerobic treatment to reduce BOD and

suspended solids concentrations to levels required for discharge. Reduction of ammonia also is a

typical role of aerobic processes in the treatment of MPP wastewaters. Many NPDES permits are

written with seasonal limits for ammonia, because the lower pH and lower temperature of the

receiving waters during winter reduce the toxicity of ammonia by converting it to ammonium

(Ohio EPA, 1999). Advantages of using aerobic wastewater treatment processes include low

odor production, fast biological growth rate, no elevated operation temperature requirements; and

quick adjustments to temperature and loading rate changes. However, the operating costs of

aerobic systems are higher than the costs of anaerobic systems for processing livestock

wastewater, because of the relatively high space, maintenance, management, and energy required

for artificial oxygenation. The microorganisms involved in aerobic treatment process require free

dissolved oxygen to reduce the biomass in the wastewater (Clanton, 1997).

Aerobic wastewater treatment processes can be broadly divided into suspended and

attached growth processes. Aerobic lagoons and various forms of activated sludge process like
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-16

conventional, extended aeration, oxidation ditches, and sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) are

examples of suspended growth processes; trickling filters and rotating biological contactors

(RBCs) are examples of attached growth processes. Both utilize a diverse population of

heterotrophic microorganisms using molecular oxygen in the process of obtaining energy for cell

maintenance and growth (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Aerobic wastewater treatment processes have the primary objective of transforming

soluble and colloidal organic compounds into microbial biomass, with subsequent removal of the

biomass formed by settling or mechanical separation as the primary mechanism for organic

matter and BOD removal. Some oxidation of organic carbon to carbon dioxide also occurs to

provide energy for cell maintenance and growth. The degree of carbon oxidation depends on the

solids retention time (SRT), also referred to as the mean cell residence time of the process, which

determines the age of the microbial population. Processes with long SRTs operate in the

endogenous respiration phase of the microbial growth curve and generate less settleable solids

per unit BOD removed. Attached growth processes generally operate at long SRTs (Metcalf and

Eddy, 1991).

At SRTs sufficiently long to maintain an active population of nitrifying bacteria,

oxidation of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen (nitrification) also occurs. However, the rates

of growth of the autotrophic bacteria responsible for nitrification, Nitrosomas and Nitrobacter,

are substantially slower than the growth rates of the microorganisms responsible for BOD

reduction (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Therefore, the amount of nitrification during aerobic

treatment will depend on the type of treatment system used and its operating conditions.

8.3.2.1 Activated Sludge

The activated sludge process (see Figure 8-3) is one of the most commonly used

biological wastewater treatment processes in the United States (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

According to the MPP detailed survey, various forms of activated sludge process used in the
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-17

Raw 

Waste Aeration Tank 

Primary 

Sedimentation 

Secondary 

Sedimentation 

Effluent 

Waste 

Sludge 

Waste 

Sludge 

Figure 8-3. Activated Sludge Process (USEPA, 1974).

MPP industry include conventional, complete mix, extended aeration, oxidation ditch, and 

sequencing batch reactor. Other forms of activated sludge include tapered aeration, step-feed

aeration, modified aeration, contact stabilization, Kraus process, and high-purity oxygen. All of

these forms share the common characteristics of short HRTs, usually no more than several hours,

and SRTs on the order of 5 to 15 days. This differential is maintained by continually recycling a

fraction of the settleable solids separated after aeration by clarification back to the aeration basin.

These settled solids contain an active, adapted microbial population and are the source of the

term “activated sludge.” The microbial population is comprised primarily of bacteria and

protozoa, which aggregate to form flocs. 

Floc formation is a critical factor in determining the efficacy of settling after aeration,

which is the primary mechanism of BOD and suspended solids reduction. The fraction of

activated sludge returned, known as the recycle ratio, determines the SRT of the process and

serves the basis for controlling process performance. Typically, about 20 percent of the settled

solids are recycled to maintain the desired concentration of mixed liquor suspended solids

(MLSS). The remaining sludge is removed from the system and may be stabilized using aerobic

or anaerobic digestion or by chemical addition (lime stabilization), which may be followed by

dewatering by filtration or centrifugation (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

The activated sludge process is capable of 95 percent reductions in BOD5 and suspended

solids (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). In addition, reductions in ammonia nitrogen in excess of
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-18

95 percent are possible at temperatures above 10°C and dissolved oxygen concentrations above 2

mg/L (Johns, 1995). Performance depends on maintaining an adequate SRT and mixed liquor

suspended solids with good settling characteristics, which depends on floc formation. Excessive

growth of filamentous organisms can impair activated sludge settleability. Excessive mixing can

lead to the formation of pin flocs, which also have poor settling characteristics. Diffused air used

for achieving the required aeration and mechanical systems used for obtaining necessary mixing

result in significant energy use (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 

Conventional

In the conventional activated sludge process, the aeration tank is a plug flow reactor. Plug

flow regime may be made with baffles in aeration tanks. Settled wastewater and recycled

activated sludge enter the head end of the aeration tank and are mixed by diffused-air or

mechanical aeration. Air application is generally uniform throughout tank length. During the

aeration period, adsorption, flocculation, and oxidation of organic matter occurs. Activatedsludge solids are separated in a secondary settling tank (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Complete-mix

Complete mix activated sludge process uses a complete mix tank as an aeration basin.

The process is an application of the flow regime of a continuous-flow stirred tank reactor. Settled

wastewater and recycled activated sludge are introduced typically at several at several points in

the aeration tank. The organic load on the aeration tank and the oxygen demand are uniform

throughout the tank length (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 

Extended Aeration

Extended aeration is another variant of the activated sludge process. The principal

difference between extended aeration and the other variants of the activated sludge process is that

extended aeration operates in the endogenous respiration phase of the microbial growth curve.

Thus, lower organic loading rates and longer HRTs are required. Because of longer HRTs,

typically 18 to 36 hours, extended aeration has the ability to absorb shock loads. Other

advantages include its generation of less excess solids from endogenous respiration and greater
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-19

overall process stability (USEPA, 1974). However, poor settling characteristics of aeration basin

effluent is a frequently encountered problem with extended aeration. Generally, extended

aeration treatment facilities are prefabricated package unit operations used for treating relatively

low volume wastewater flows for small communities (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Extended

aeration can be designed to provide high degree of nitrification. 

Oxidation Ditches

An oxidation ditch system represents a modification of the activated sludge process in

terms of its reactor configuration. The oxidation ditch consists of a ring- or oval-shaped channel

and is equipped with mechanical aeration devices (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Aerators in the form

of brush rotors, disc aerators, surface aerators, draft tune aerators, or fine pore diffusers with

submersible pumps provide oxygen transfer, mixing and circulation in the oxidation ditch.

Wastewater enters the ditch, is aerated, and circulates at about 0.8 to 1.2 ft/s. Oxidation ditches

typically operate in an extended aeration mode with HRT greater than 10 hours and SRT of 10 to

50 days (USEPA, 1993). Oxidation ditches provide high removal of BOD and can be designed

for nitrification and nitrogen and phosphorous removal (Sen et al., 1990).

Sequencing Batch Reactor

The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a fill-and-draw type reactor system using one or

more complete mix tanks in which all steps of activated sludge process occur. SBR systems have

four basic periods: Fill (the receiving of raw wastewater), React (the time to complete desired

reaction), Settle (the time to separate the microorganisms from treated effluent), and Idle (the

time after discharging the tank and before refilling). However, these periods may be modified or

eliminated depending on effluent requirements. The time for a complete cycle is the total time

between the beginning of Fell and the end of Idle (Martin and Martin, 1991). SBR systems

provides high removal of BOD and suspended solids. In addition, SBR systems can be designed

for nitrification and to remove nitrogen and phosphorous. Lo and Liao (1990) report that SBR

technology can be used successfully in the treatment of poultry processing wastewaters for the

removal of BOD5

 and nitrogen. SBR offers the advantages of operational and loading flexibility,
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-20

high removal efficiency, competitive capital costs, and reduced operator maintenance (Glenn et

al., 1990).

8.3.2.2 Lagoons

Lagoons are widely used in the treatment of MPP wastewater. They are comparatively

cheaper than other treatment processes, although they require larger land area. Lagoons can be

anaerobic, aerobic, aerated, or facultative. Anaerobic lagoons are discussed in Section 8.3.1.1.

Other types of lagoons are discussed in this section.

Aerobic lagoons

Aerobic lagoons, which are also known as aerobic stabilization ponds, are large shallow

earthen basins that use algae in combination with other microorganisms for wastewater

treatment. Low-rate ponds, which are designed to maintain aerobic conditions throughout the

liquid column, may be up to five feet deep. High-rate ponds are usually shallower, with a

maximum depth of no greater than 1.5 feet. They are designed to optimize the production of

algal biomass as a mechanism for nutrient removal. In aerobic stabilization ponds, oxygen is

supplied by a combination of natural surface aeration and photosynthesis. In the symbiotic

relationship between the algae and other microorganisms present, the oxygen released by the

algae during photosynthesis is used by the non photosynthetic microorganisms present in the

aerobic degradation of organic matter, while the nutrients and carbon dioxide released by the

nonphotosynthetic microorganisms are used by the algae (Martin and Martin, 1991).

Loading rates of aerobic stabilization ponds are in the range of 10 to 300 pounds of BOD

per acre per day with an HRT of 3 to 10 days. Soluble BOD5 reductions of up to 95 percent are

possible with aerobic stabilization ponds (Martin and Martin, 1991). Aerobic stabilization ponds

may be operated in parallel or series. To maximize performance, intermittent mixing is

necessary. Without supplemental aeration, dissolved oxygen concentrations will vary from super

saturation due to photosynthesis during day light hours, to values at or approaching zero at night,

especially with high-rate ponds. Also, settled solids will create an anaerobic zone at the bottom
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-21

of the pond (Reynolds, 1982). Thus, nitrogen removal is achieved by the combined processes of

nitrification and denitrification.

The low cost of aerobic stabilization ponds is offset, especially in colder climates, by

seasonal variation in performance. In winter, limited sunlight due to shorter day length and cloud

cover limits photosynthetic activity and oxygen release, as well as algae growth. In addition, ice

cover limits natural surface aeration. Thus, aerobic stabilization ponds in colder climates may

become anaerobic lagoons in winter months with a concurrent deterioration in effluent quality

and a source of noxious odors in the following spring before predominately aerobic conditions

become reestablished (Martin and Martin, 1991). Scaief (1975), however, reports no difference

in overall treatment efficiency across all seasons for anaerobic-aerobic lagoon systems or

anaerobic contact process followed by aerobic lagoons.

Aerated Lagoons

Aerated lagoons are earthen basins used in place of concrete or steel tanks for suspended

growth biological treatment of wastewater. Aerated lagoons typically are about 8 feet (2.4 m)

deep, but can be as much as 15 feet (4.6 m) deep and may be lined to prevent seepage of

wastewater to ground water. Although diffused air systems are used for aeration and mixing,

fixed and floating mechanical aerators are more common.

Natural aeration occurs in diffused air systems by air diffusion at the water surface by

wind- or thermal-induced mixing and by photosynthesis. Algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green

algae) are the microorganisms responsible most of the photosynthetic activity in a naturallyaerated lagoon. Naturally aerated lagoons are approximately 1 to 2 feet deep, so that sunlight can

penetrate the full lagoon depth to maintain photosynthetic activity throughout the day.

Mechanically aerated lagoons do not have a depth requirement, because oxygen is supplied

artificially instead of by algal photosynthesis (Zhang, 2001).

Aerated lagoons can be operated as activated sludge units with the recycle of settled

solids with relatively short HRTs, or as complete mix systems without settled solids recycle.

Systems operated as activated sludge units have a conventional clarifier for recovery of settled
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-22

solids for recycle. Aerated lagoons operated as complete mix systems without solids recycle may

use a large, shallow earthen basin in place of a more conventional clarifier for removal of

suspended solids. Typically, these basins also are used for the storage and stabilization of the

settled solids. Usually a detention time of no less than 6 to 12 hours is required.

One of the principal advantages of aerated lagoons is relatively low capital cost.

However, more land is required. With earthen settling basins, algae growth and odors can be

problems, along with consistent effluent quality.

Facultative Lagoons

The facultative lagoons are deeper than aerobic lagoons, varying in depth from 5 to 8 ft.

Waste is treated by bacterial action occurring in an upper aerobic layer, a facultative middle

layer, and a lower anaerobic layer. Aerobic bacteria degrade the waste in the upper layer, where

oxygen is provided by natural surface aeration and algal photosynthesis. Settleable solids are

deposited on the lagoon bottom and degraded by anaerobic bacteria. The facultative bacteria in

the middle layer degrade the waste aerobically, whenever dissolved oxygen is present and

anaerobically otherwise. The facultative lagoons have more depth and smaller surface areas

aerated or aerobic lagoons but still have good odor control capabilities, because of the presence

of the upper aerobic layer, where odorous compounds such as sulfides produced by anaerobic

degradation in the lower layer, are oxidized before emission into the atmosphere. Biochemical

reactions in the facultative lagoons are a combination of aerobic and anaerobic degradation

reactions (Zhang, 2001).

8.3.2.3 Alternate Aerobic Treatment Technologies

Trickling Filters

A trickling filter consists of a bed of highly permeable media to which a microbial flora

becomes attached, a distribution system to spread wastewater uniformly over the bed surface, and

an under-drain system for collection of the treated wastewater and any microbial solids that have

become detached from the media. As the wastewater percolates or trickles down through the

media bed, the organic material present is absorbed onto the film or slime layer of attached
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-23

microorganisms. Within 0.1 to 0.2 mm of the surface of the slime layer, the organic matter

absorbed is metabolized aerobically, providing energy and nutrients for cell maintenance and

growth. As cell growth occurs, the thickness of the slime layer increases and oxygen diffusing

into the slime layer is consumed before penetration to the media surface occurs and anaerobic

conditions develop near the media surface. In addition, organic matter and nutrients necessary for

cell maintenance and growth are lacking due to utilization near the surface of the slime layer.

Thus, endogenous conditions develop near the media surface and detachment occurs from

hydraulic shear forces as the microorganisms at and near the media surface die. This process is

known as “sloughing” and may be a periodic or continual process depending on organic and

hydraulic loading rates. Hydraulic loading rate usually is adjusted to maintain continual

sloughing and a constant slime layer thickness (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 

The biological community in the trickling filter process includes aerobic, facultative, and

anaerobic bacteria, fungi, and protozoans. The aerobic microbial population may include the

nitrifying bacteria Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter. It also may include algae and higher organisms

such as worms, insect larvae, and snails, unlike activated sludge processes. Variations in these

biological communities occur according to individual filter and operating conditions (Metcalf

and Eddy, 1991).

Trickling filters have been classified as low-rate, intermediate-rate, high-rate, super highrate, roughing, and two-stage, based on filter medium, hydraulic and BOD5 loading rates,

recirculation ratio, and depth (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Hydraulic loading rates range from 0.02

to 0.06 gallon per ft2

-day for low-rate filters to 0.8 to 3.2 gallon per ft2-day for roughing filters.

Organic loading rates range from 5 to 25 pounds BOD5 per 103 ft2-day to 100 to 500 pounds

BOD5 per 103

 ft2-day. Both low-rate and two-stage trickling filters can produce a nitrified effluent

while roughing filters provide no nitrification. Others may provide some degree of nitrification.

Low-rate and intermediate-rate trickling filters traditionally have used rock or blast furnace slag

as filter media while high-rate filters only employ rock. Super high-rate filters use plastic media,

while roughing filters may be constructed using either plastic or redwood media; two-stage filters

may use plastic or rock media (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-24

Trickling filters are secondary wastewater treatment unit processes and require primary

treatment for removal of settleable solids and oil and grease to reduce the organic load and

prevent plugging. Secondary clarification also is necessary. Lower energy requirements make

trickling filters attractive alternatives to activated sludge processes. However, mass-transfer

limitations limit the ability of trickling filters to treat high strength wastewaters. To successfully

treat such wastewaters, a two- or three-stage system is necessary. When staging of filters is used,

a clarifier usually follows each stage. The overall BOD5 removal efficiency of can be as great as

95 percent (USEPA, 1974).

Rotating Biological Contactors 

Rotating biological contactors (RBCs) also employ an attached film or slime layer of

microorganisms to adsorb and metabolize wastewater organic matter, providing energy and

nutrients for cell maintenance and growth. RBCs consist of a series of closely spaced circular

disks of polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride mounted on a longitudinal shaft. The disks are rotated

alternately, exposing the attached microbial mass to the wastewater being treated for adsorption

of organic matter and nutrients and then the atmosphere for adsorption of oxygen. The rate of

rotation controls oxygen diffusion into the attached microbial film and provides the sheer force

necessary for continual biomass sloughing (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Mass transfer limitations

limit the ability of RBCs to treat high strength wastewaters, such as MPP wastewaters. RBCs can

be operated in series like multi-stage trickling filter systems, a tapered feed arrangement is

possible. An example of such an arrangement would be three RBCs in parallel in stage one,

followed by two RBCs in parallel in stage two, and one RBC in stage three.

As with trickling filters, hydraulic and organic loading rates are criteria used for design.

Design values may be derived from pilot plant or full-scale performance evaluations or using the

theoretical or empirical approaches (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Typical hydraulic and organic

loading rate design values for secondary treatment are 2 to 4 gallon/ft2

-day and 2.0 to 3.5 pounds

total BOD5/103 ft2-day, respectively with effluent BOD5 concentrations ranging from 15 to

30 mg/L. For secondary treatment combined with nitrification, typical hydraulic and organic

loading rate design values for are 0.75 to 2 gallon/ft2

-day and 1.5 to 3.0 pounds BOD5/103 ft2-day,
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-25

respectively producing effluent BOD5 concentrations between 7 and 15 mg/L and NH3

concentrations of less than 2 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 

The major advantages of RBCs are: (1) relatively low installation cost, (2) ability to

combine secondary treatment with ammonia removal by nitrification, especially in multi-stage

systems, and (3) resistance to shock loads. The major disadvantage is the need to enclose them,

especially in cold climates to maintain high removal efficiencies, control odors, and minimize

problems with temperature sensitivities (USEPA, 1974). Early RBC units experienced operating

problems, including shaft and bearing failures, disk breakage, and odors. Design modifications

have been made to address these problems, including increased submergence to reduce shaft and

bearing loads (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Although RBCs are used in both the United States and Canada for secondary treatment of

domestic wastewaters, use for secondary treatment of high strength industrial wastewaters such

as MPP wastewaters has been limited. Energy requirements associated with activated sludge

processes may make RBCs more attractive for treating MPP wastewaters, especially following

physical/chemical and anaerobic pretreatment. A BOD5 reduction of 98 percent is achievable

with a four-stage RBC (USEPA, 1974).

8.4 TERTIARY TREATMENT

Tertiary or advanced wastewater treatment generally is considered to be any treatment

beyond conventional secondary treatment to remove suspended or dissolved substances. Tertiary

wastewater treatment can have one or several objectives. One common objective is further

reduction in suspended solids concentration after secondary clarification. Nitrogen and

phosphorus removal also are common tertiary wastewaters treatment objectives. Existing

wastewater treatment plants may be retrofit without the addition of new tanks or lagoons to

incorporate biological nutrient removal (Randall et al., 1999). In addition, tertiary wastewater

treatment may be used to remove soluble refractory, toxic, and dissolved inorganic substances. In

the treatment of MPP wastewaters, tertiary wastewater treatment most commonly is used for

further reductions in nutrients and suspended solids. 
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-26

8.4.1 Nutrient Removal

In primary and secondary wastewater treatment processes, some reduction of nitrogen and

phosphorus occurs by the separation of particulate matter during settling or cell synthesis.

However, limited assimilative capacity of receiving waters may require additional reductions in

nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations before discharge. Both biological and physicochemical

unit processes can be used to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous concentration in wastewater.

Biological processes are generally more cost effective than physicochemical processes.

Moreover, retrofit existing secondary treatment systems for biological nutrient removal may lead

to reduced costs given their lower requirements for energy use and chemical addition (Randall

and Mitta, 1998; Randall et al., 1999).

8.4.1.1 Nitrogen Removal

The removal of nitrogen from wastewaters biologically is a two-step process, beginning

with nitrification and followed by denitrification. Nitrification, a microbially-mediated process,

also is a two-step process, beginning with the oxidation of ammonia to nitrite and followed by

the oxidation of nitrite to nitrate. Bacteria of the genus Nitrosomonas are responsible for the

oxidation of ammonia to nitrite; bacteria of the genus Nitrobacter are responsible for the

subsequent oxidation of nitrite to nitrate (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Following the nitrification process under anaerobic conditions, nitrite and nitrate are

reduced microbially by denitrification producing nitrogen gas as the principal end product. Small

amounts of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide also may be produced, depending on environmental

conditions. Because nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and nitric oxide are essentially insoluble in water,

desorption occurs immediately. Although nitrification can occur in combination with secondary

biological treatment, denitrification generally is a separate unit process following secondary

clarification. Because the facultative and anaerobic microorganisms responsible for

denitrification are heterotrophs, denitrification after secondary clarification requires the addition

of a source of organic carbon for cell maintenance and growth. Methanol probably is the most

commonly added source of organic carbon for denitrification, although raw wastewater (by-
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-27

passed to the denitrification treatment tank), biosolids, and a variety of other substances also can

be used (USEPA, 1993, Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

The chemical transformations that occur during nitrification and denitrification are

outlined below (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991): 

Nitrification:

NH4

+

 + 1.5 O2 NO2

-

 + 2H+ + H2O (Nitrosomonas)

NO2- + 0.5 O2 2NO3

- (Nitrobacter)

Denitrification (using methanol as carbon source):

NO3

-

 + 1.08 CH3OH + H+ 0.065 C5H7O2N + 0.47 N2 + 0.76 CO2 + 3 + 2.44 H2O

Nitrification unit processes can be classified based on the degree of separation of the

oxidation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous compounds respectively to carbon dioxide and nitrate

(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Combined carbon oxidation and nitrification can be achieved in all

suspended growth secondary wastewater treatment processes and with all attached growth

processes except roughing filters. Carbon oxidation and nitrification processes may also be

separated, with carbon oxidation occurring first, using both suspended and attached growth

processes in a variety of combinations. Both suspended and attached growth processes are used

for denitrification, following combined carbon oxidation and nitrification.

Nitrification and denitrification can be combined in a single process. With this approach,

wastewater organic matter serves as the source of organic carbon for denitrification. Thus, the

cost of adding a supplemental source of organic carbon and providing re-aeration after

denitrification is eliminated. Also eliminated is the need for intermediate clarifiers and return

sludge systems. The proprietary four-stage Bardenpho process (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991) is a

combined nitrification-denitrification process using both organic carbon in untreated wastewater

and organic carbon released during endogenous respiration for denitrification. Separate aerobic

and anoxic zones provide for nitrification and then denitrification.
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-28

Other processes include the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process, A2/O, University

of Capetown (UCT) (USEPA, 1993). The A2/O, and University of Capetown (UCT) process was

developed to remove both nitrogen and phosphorous. Sequencing batch reactors (SBR) can also

be used to achieve nitrification and denitrification (USEPA, 1993). Biological nitrogen and

phosphorus removals can be enhanced in oxidation ditch systems by controlling aeration to

maintain reliable aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic volumes. For example, a BNR oxidation ditch

process developed by Virginia Tech for retro-fitting a domestic wastewater treatment facility was

capable of: (1) maintaining less than 0.5 mg/L total phosphorus and between 3 and 4 mg/L for

total nitrogen in the discharged effluent all year round and (2) significantly reducing operational

costs by reducing electrical energy, aeration, and chemical addition (Sen et al., 1990). 

Nitrification is easily inhibited by a number of factors including toxic organic and

inorganic compounds, pH, and temperature. In poorly buffered systems, the hydrogen ions

released when ammonia is oxidized to nitrite/nitrate can reduce pH to an inhibitory level without

the addition of a buffering agent. 

A pH of at least 7.2 is generally recognized as necessary to maintain a maximum rate of

nitrification (Grady and Lim, 1980). Based on the following theoretical stoichiometric

relationships for the growth of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, the alkalinity (HCO3

-

) utilized is

8.64 mg HCO3

-

 per mg of ammonia nitrogen oxidized to nitrate nitrogen. For Nitrosomonas, the

equation is: 

55 NH4

+

 + 76 O2 + 109 HCO3

- → C5H7O2N + 54 NO2-

 + 57 H2O + 104 H2CO3

For Nitrobacter, the equation is: 

400 NO2

-

 + NH4

+

 + 4 H2CO3 + HCO3

-

 + 195 O2 → C5H7O2N + 3 H2O + 400 NO3

-

As noted above, one of the advantages of using wastewater organic matter as the source

of organic carbon for denitrification is the elimination of the cost of an organic carbon source

such as methanol. A second advantage is elimination of the need to add a source of bicarbonate

alkalinity in poorly buffered systems to compensate for the utilization of alkalinity resulting from
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-29

nitrification and the associated reduction in pH. As shown in the overall energy reaction for

nitrification, two hydrogen ions are released for every ammonium ion oxidized to nitrate.

NH4

+

 + 2 O2 → NO3

-

 2 H+ H2O

However, denitrification releases one hydroxyl ion for each nitrate ion reduced to

nitrogen gas, as shown in the following overall energy reaction for denitrification using methanol

as the source of organic carbon. 

6 NO3

-

 + 5 CH3OH → 5 CO2 + 3 N2 + 7 H2O + 6 OHIn addition, hydrogen ions are required for cell synthesis during denitrification, as shown

by the following relationship:

3 NO3

-

 + 14 CH3OH + CO2 + 3 H+ → 3 C5H7O2N + H2O

Therefore, using wastewater organic matter as the source of organic carbon for

denitrification in a combined nitrification denitrification system generally eliminates the need for

adding a source of alkalinity to prevent pH inhibition of nitrification. Very poorly buffered

systems are the exception.

Using wastewater organic matter as the source of organic carbon for denitrification also

reduces aeration requirements for BOD removal in suspended growth systems. Based on half

reactions for electron acceptors, 1/5 mole of NO3

-

 is equivalent to 1/4 mole of O2. Therefore,

each unit mass of NO3

-

- N is equivalent to 2.86 units of O2 in its ability to oxidize organic

matter, if cell synthesis is ignored. However, some organic matter must be converted into

cellular material and is not completely oxidized. It does, however, represent the removal of BOD

through removal of excess suspended solids and an additional reduction in aeration requirements

for BOD removal. Therefore, the actual reduction in BOD realized by using wastewater organic

matter as the source of organic carbon for denitrification is marginally higher that 2.86 mass units

of BOD per unit NO3

-

- N denitrified. The magnitude of this marginal increase depends on the

SRT in the denitrification reactor with the magnitude decreasing as SRT increases. Assuming a
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-30

SRT of 7.5 days, a ratio of BOD5 in wastewater used as an organic carbon source for

denitrification to NO3

-

- N of 3.5 should provide for essentially complete denitrification.

An added positive consequence of using wastewater organic matter as the source of

organic carbon for denitrification is that sludge production per unit BOD removed is lower,

because denitrification is an anoxic process occurring under anaerobic conditions. Typical cell

yield under anaerobic conditions is 0.05 mg volatile suspended solids (VSS) per mg BOD

removed versus 0.6 mg VSS per mg BOD removed under aerobic conditions (Metcalf and Eddy,

1991).

Both Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are autotrophic mesophilic microorganisms with

relatively low growth rates in comparison to heterotrophs, even under optimal conditions. Thus,

maintaining an actively nitrifying microbial population may become harder and require

excessively long SRTs in cold weather (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; USEPA, 1993).

8.4.1.2 Phosphorus Removal 

To achieve low effluent discharge limits, phosphorous may be removed from wastewater

biologically and/or by physicochemical methods. Biological treatment is cheaper than

physicochemical methods and is particularly suitable for facilities with high flows. 

Biological Treatment

Microorganisms used in secondary wastewater treatment require phosphorus for cell

synthesis and energy transport. In the treatment of typical domestic wastewater, between 10 and

30 percent of influent phosphorus is removed by microbial assimilation, followed by clarification

or filtration. However, phosphorus assimilation in excess of requirements for cell maintenance

and growth, known as luxury uptake, can be induced by a sequence of anaerobic and aerobic

conditions (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Acinetobacter is one of the organisms primarily responsible for the luxury uptake of

phosphorus in wastewater treatment. In response to volatile fatty acids present under anaerobic

conditions, stored phosphorus is released. However, luxury uptake and storage for subsequent
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-31

use of phosphorus occurs when anaerobic conditions are followed by aerobic conditions. Thus,

removal of phosphorus by clarification or filtration following secondary treatment is increased,

because biosolids are already wasted (USEPA, 1987, Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy, 1998 ).

Currently, several proprietary processes use luxury uptake for removal of phosphorus

from wastewater during suspended growth secondary treatment. Included are the A/O, PhoStrip,

and Bardenpho processes. In addition, sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) can be operated to

remove phosphorus. In the PhoStrip process, phosphorus is stripped from the biosolids generated

using anaerobic conditions to stimulate release. The soluble phosphorus generated then is

precipitated using lime. Both the A/O and PhoStrip processes are capable of producing final

effluent total phosphorus concentrations of less than 2 mg/L. A modified version of the A/O

process, the A2

/O process, along with the Bardnepho process and SBRs are capable of combined

biological removal of nitrogen and phosphorus (USEPA, 1987; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy,

1998 ).

Physicochemical Process

Phosphorus can be removed from wastewater by precipitation using metal salts or lime.

The metal salts most commonly used are aluminum sulfate (alum) and ferric chloride. However,

ferrous sulfate and ferrous chloride also can be used. Use of lime is less common due to

operating and maintenance problems associated with its use and the large volume of sludge

produced. Polymers often are used in conjunction with metal salts to improve the degree of

phosphorus removal. Ion exchange, discussed in Section 8.4.3.3, also is an option for phosphate

phosphorus removal, but is rarely used in wastewater treatment. (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Chemicals can be added to remove phosphorus in: (1) raw wastewater prior to primary

settling, (2) primary clarifier effluent, (3) mixed liquor with suspended growth treatment

processes, (4) effluent from biological treatment processes prior to secondary clarification, or

(5) after secondary clarification (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). In Option 1 (pre-precipitation),

precipitated phosphorus is removed with primary clarifier solids, whereas removal is with

secondary clarifier solids for Options 2 through 4 (co-precipitation). In Option 5, additional

clarification or filtering facilities are required. In the treatment of MPP wastewaters, the addition
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-32

of chemicals for phosphorus removal prior to dissolved air flotation is a possible option (Metcalf

and Eddy, 1991).

With alum addition, phosphorus is precipitated as aluminum phosphate (AlPO4), and

aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3). With the addition of ferric chloride, the chemical species

produced are ferric phosphate (FePO4) and ferric hydroxide (Fe[OH]3). Lime addition produces

calcium phosphate (Ca5[PO4]3[OH]), magnesium hydroxide (Mg[OH]2), and calcium carbonate

(CaCO3). In the case of alum and iron, one mole theoretically will precipitate one mole of

phosphate. However, competing reactions and the effects alkalinity, pH, trace elements, and

ligands found in wastewater make bench-scale or full-scale tests necessary to determine dosage

rates. Due to coagulation and flocculation, removal of suspended solids also occurs with the

precipitated phosphorus species. With the addition of aluminum and iron salts, the addition of a

base to maintain a pH in the range of 5 to 7 to optimize the efficacy of phosphorus precipitation

may be necessary depending on wastewater buffer capacity. (USEPA, 1987; Metcalf and Eddy,

1991; Reddy, 1998 ).

When lime is used, it usually is calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Due to reaction with

natural bicarbonate alkalinity forming CaCO3 as a precipitate, an increase to a pH of 10 or higher

is necessary for the formation of Ca5(PO4)3(OH). After lime is used to precipitate phosphorus,

recarbonation with carbon dioxide is necessary to lower pH (USEPA, 1987; Metcalf and Eddy,

1991; Reddy, 1998 ).

When chemical addition is used for phosphorus removal, additional benefits are realized.

Due to coagulation and flocculation, effluent BOD and suspended solids concentrations also are

reduced, especially when chemical addition occurs after secondary clarification (USEPA, 1987;

Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy, 1998).

8.4.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal

Simple clarification after secondary wastewater treatment may not reduce the

concentration of suspended solids to the level necessary to comply with concentration or mass

discharge permit limits or both. Granular-medium filtration usually is used to achieve further
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-33

reductions in suspended solids concentrations. This practice also provides further reductions in

BOD. Filtration is a solid-liquid separation in which the liquid passes through a porous material

to remove as much fine material as possible (Reynolds, 1982).

Granular Medium Filters

Metcalf and Eddy (1991) lists nine different types of commonly used granular-medium

filters. They are classified as either semi-continuous or continuous, depending on whether back

washing is a batch or a semi continuous or continuous operation. Within each classification, there

are several different types, depending on bed depth, type of filtering medium, and stratification or

lack thereof of the filtering medium. Shallow, conventional, and deep bed filters respectively are

typically about 11 to 16, 30 to 36, and 72 inches in depth. Sand or anthracite is used singularly in

mono-medium filter beds. Dual-medium beds may be comprised of anthracite and sand, activated

carbon and sand, resin beads and sand, or resin beads and anthracite. In multi-medium beds some

combination of anthracites, sand, garnet or ilmenite, activated carbon, and resin beads are used.

In stratified filter beds, the effective size of the filter medium increases with the direction of

wastewater flow. Flow through the filter medium can be either accomplished by gravity alone

under pressure with the sometimes later described as rapid filters. 

Several mechanisms are responsible for the removal of suspended solids in granularmedium filters. Included are straining, sedimentation, impaction, and interception. Chemical

adsorption, physical adsorption, flocculation, and biological growth also may contribute to

suspended solids removal. (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

The operation of granular-medium filters has two phases, filtration and cleaning or regeneration. The second phase, commonly called backwashing, involves the removal of captured

suspended solids when effluent suspended solids begin to increase or when head loss across the

filter bed reaches an acceptable maximum value. With semi-continuous filtration, filtration and

backwashing occur sequentially, while with continuous filtration, the filtration and backwashing

phases occur simultaneously. Usually backwashing is accomplished by reversing flow through

the filter medium with sufficient velocity to expand or fluidize the medium to dislodge and

transport accumulated suspended solids to the surface of the filter bed. Compressed air may be
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-34

used in conjunction with the backwashing water to enhance removal of accumulated suspended

solids. The backwashing water with the removed suspended solids typically is returned to a

primary clarifier or a secondary biological treatment process unit (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Filtration and backwashing occur simultaneously with continuous processes, and there is

no suspended solids breakthrough or terminal head loss value. One type of continuous filter is the

traveling bridge filter, which comprises a series of cells operated in parallel. Backwashing of

individual cells occurs sequentially, while the other cells continue to filter influent. Deep bed

filters, which are upflow filters, are continually backwashed by continually pumping sand from

the bottom of the filter through a sand washing located at the top of the filter with the clean sand

distributed on the top of the filter bed. Thus, sand flow is counter-current to the flow of the

wastewater being filtered (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Generally, all types of granular-medium

filter produce effluent with an average turbidity of two nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) or

less from high quality filter influent having turbidity of seven to nine NTUs. This level translates

into a suspended solids concentration of 16 to 23 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Lower quality

filter influent requires chemical addition to achieve an effluent turbidity of two NTUs or less.

Chemicals commonly used include a variety of organic polymers, alum, and ferric chloride. They

produce removal of specific contaminants, including phosphorous, metal ions, and humic

substances (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Problems with the use of granular-medium filtration include turbidity breakthrough with

semi-continuous filters, even though terminal head loss has not been reached. Problems with

both semi-continuous and continuous filters include: buildup of emulsified grease; loss of filter

medium, agglomeration of biological floc, dirt, and filter medium or media forming mud balls

and reducing the effectiveness of filtration and backwashing, and the development of cracks in

the filter bed (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-35

8.4.3 Alternate Tertiary Treatment Technologies

8.4.3.1 Nitrogen Removal

Besides the biological treatment discussed in Section 8.4.1.1, various physicochemical

processes are used for nitrogen removal. The principal physical and chemical processes used for

nitrogen removal are air stripping, breakpoint chlorination, and selective ion exchange. However,

all these technologies are reported to have limited use due to cost, inconsistent performance, and

operating and maintenance problems (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Johns, 1995). Air stripping and

breakpoint chlorination is discussed in this section, while ion exchange is discussed in Section

8.4.3.3. Note that these three technologies remove nitrogen when the nitrogen is in the form of

ammonia (air stripping, breakpoint chlorination, and ion exchange) or nitrate ions (ion

exchange). Since, raw meat-processing wastewater contains nitrogen primarily in organic form,

the technologies may require additional upstream treatment to convert the organic nitrogen into

ammonia and/or nitrate.

Air Stripping

Air stripping of ammonia is a physical process of transferring ammonia from wastewater

into air by injection of wastewater into air in a packed tower. To achieve a high degree of

ammonia reduction, elevation of wastewater pH to at least 10.5 usually by the addition of lime, is

necessary. The removal efficiencies of ammonia nitrogen can be as high as 98 percent with

effluent ammonia concentrations of less than 1 mg/L (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Because of

the high operating and maintenance costs associated with air stripping, the practical application

of air stripping of ammonia is limited to special cases, such as the need for a high pH for other

reasons (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

High operation and maintenance costs for air stripping of ammonia can be attributed in

part to the formation of calcium carbonate scale within stripping tower and feed lines.

Absorption of carbon dioxide from the air stream used for stripping leads to calcium carbonate

scale formation, which varies in nature from soft to very hard. Because the solubility of ammonia

increases as temperature decreases, the amount of air required for stripping ammonia increases
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-36

significantly as temperature decreases for the same degree of removal. If ice formation occurs in

the stripping tower, a further reduction in removal efficiency occurs (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991,

Johns, 1995).

There are secondary environmental impacts also because air stripping of ammonia

without subsequent scrubbing in an acid solution results in the emission of ammonia to the

atmosphere. This emission may lead to bad odor and air pollution. Particulate matter is also

formed in the atmosphere, following the reaction of ammonia with sulfate. In addition, stripping

towers can be sources of emissions of volatile organic compounds and noise (Peavy, 1986;

Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 

Breakpoint Chlorination

Breakpoint chlorination involves the addition of chlorine to wastewater to oxidize

ammonia to nitrogen gas and other stable compounds. Breakpoint chlorination has been

successfully used as a second, stand-by ammonia removal process for ammonia concentrations

up to 50 mg/L (Green et al., 1981). Before chlorine reacts with ammonia, it first reacts with

oxidizable substances present, such as Fe+2, Mn+2, H2S, and organic matter to produce chloride

ions. After meeting the immediate demand of the oxidizable compounds, excess chlorine react

with ammonia to form chloramines. With increased chlorine dosage, the chloramines formed will

be converted to nitrogen trichloride, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen gas. The destruction of

chloramines occurs until the breakpoint chlorination point is achieved. After this point, free

residual chlorine becomes available (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Therefore, the required chlorine

dosage to destroy ammonia is achieved when breakpoint chlorination is reached. The overall

reaction between chlorine and ammonia can be described by the following equation: 

2NH3 + 3HOCl N2 + 3H2O + 3HCl

Stoichiometrically, the breakpoint reaction requires a weight ratio of 7.6 CL2 to 1 NH4

+

-

N, but in actual practice ratios of from 8:1 to 10:1 are common (Green et al., 1981). Process

efficiencies consistently range between 95 and 99 percent. The process is easily adapted to

complete automation, which helps assure quality and operational control (Reynolds, 1982). The
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-37

optimal pH for breakpoint chlorination is between 6 and 7. Because chlorine reacts with water,

forming hydrochloric acid, a pH depression to below 6 may occur with poorly buffered

wastewaters. This drop increases chlorine requirements and slows the rate of reaction.

One advantage of breakpoint chlorination for ammonia removal is its relative insensitivity

to temperature. Also, capital costs are small relative to other ammonia removal processes, such

as ammonia stripping and ion exchange (Green et al., 1981). However, many organic compounds

react with chlorine to form toxic compounds, including trihalomethanes and other disinfection

by-products, which can interfere with beneficial uses of receiving waters. Thus, dechlorination is

necessary. Both sulfur dioxide and carbon adsorption are used with dechorination, with sulfur

dioxide being more common due to lower cost. Another disadvantage of breakpoint chlorination

for nitrogen removal may be an undesirable increase in total dissolved solids (Metcalf and Eddy,

1991).

8.4.3.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal

Besides granular-medium filtration systems microscreens may be used to achieve

supplemental removals of suspended solids. This practice also provides further reduction in

BOD. Microscreens involve solid-liquid separation a process in which liquid passes through a

filter fabric to remove as much fine material as possible.

Microscreens

Microscreens are a surface filtration device used to remove a portion of the residual

suspended solids from secondary effluents and from stabilization pond effluents. Microscreens

are low speed, continually backwashed, rotating drum filters operating under gravity conditions.

Typical filtering fabrics have openings of 23 or 35 μm and cover the periphery of the drum.

Wastewater enters the open end of the drum and flows outward through the rotating screening

cloth. The collected solids are backwashed into a trough located at the highest point within the

drum and returned to primary or secondary treatment processes (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 

Typical suspended solids removal is about 55 percent with a range of 10 to 80 percent.

Some problems with microscreens include incomplete solids removal and an inability to handle
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-38

fluctuations in suspended solids concentrations. Reducing drum rotational speed and decreasing

frequency of backwashing can increase removal efficiency, but screening capacity is thereby

reduced. Typical hydraulic loading rates and drums speeds respectively are 75 to 150

gallon/ft2

-min and 15 ft/min at 3-in. head loss to 115 to 150 ft/min at a 6-in. head loss (Metcalf

and Eddy, 1991). 

8.4.3.3 Removal of Organic Compounds and Specific Ions

Various advanced wastewater treatment processes are used for removing organic

compounds and target ions from wastewater. Carbon adsorption process has been widely used to

remove organic compounds from different types of wastewater. To remove target ions from

wastewater, ion exchange process have been used. To prevent filter plugging and to ensure

proper operation, granular activated carbon columns and ion exchange columns are usually

preceded by filtration units.

Carbon Adsorption

Both granular and powdered activated carbon can be used to further reduce

concentrations of organic compounds, including refractory compounds after secondary biological

treatment. With granulated activated carbon (GAC), the adsorption process occurs in steps.

Initially, organic matter moves from the bulk liquid phase to the liquid-solid interface by

advection and diffusion. Next, diffusion of the organic matter through the macropore system of

the granulated activated carbon occurs at adsorption sites in micropores and submicropores.

Although adsorption also occurs on the surface and in the macro- and mesopores of activated

carbon granules, the surface area of the micro- and submicropores greatly exceeds the surface

areas of the granule and the macro- and mesopores. With powdered activated carbon (PAC),

adsorption occurs primarily on the surface of the carbon particles (Weber, 1972; Metcalf and

Eddy, 1991).

When the rate of adsorption equals the rate of desorption, the adsorptive capacity of the

carbon has been reached and regeneration is necessary. GAC is regenerated easily by oxidizing

the adsorbed organic matter in a furnace. About 5 to 10 percent of GAC is destroyed in the
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-39

regeneration process and must be replaced (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Also, the adsorptive

capacity of regenerated GAC is slightly less than that of virgin GAC. A major problem with the

use of PAC is that regeneration methodology is not well defined. 

A fixed bed reactor often is used for wastewater treatment using GAC. Flow is downward

through the carbon column, which is supported by an under-drain system. There may be

provision for backwashing and surface washing to limit head-loss due to the accumulation of

particulate matter. Upflow and expanded bed columns also are used (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

With biological wastewater treatment, PAC usually is added either to the basin or to the

secondary clarifier effluent. In the “PACT’ process, the PAC is added directly to the aeration

basin (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Tertiary treatment using activated carbon can remove up to 98 percent of colloidal and

dissolved organics measured as BOD5 and COD in a wastewater stream. Effluent BOD5

concentrations may be as low as 2 to 7 mg/L with effluent COD concentrations in the range of 10

to 20 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). 

Use of activated carbon is common in water treatment to remove organic compounds

from raw water supplies responsible for color, taste, and odor problems. In the treatment of MPP

wastewaters, the use of carbon adsorption is generally limited to tertiary treatment prior to

wastewater reuse as potable water.

Ion Exchange

Ion exchange is a unit process in which ions of a given species are displaced from an

insoluble exchange material (resin) by ions of a different species in solution. This process is most

commonly used to soften water by removing calcium and magnesium ions. It is also used in

industrial wastewater treatment for the recovery of valuable constituents, including precious

metals and radioactive materials. It may be operated in batch or continuous mode. In a batch

process, the resin is stirred with the water to be treated in a the reactor until reaction is complete.

The spent acid is removed by settling, and subsequently is regenerated and reused. In a

continuous process, the exchange material is placed in a bed or a packed column, and the water
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-40

to be treated is passed through it. When the resin capacity is exhausted, the column is

backwashed to remove trapped solids and then regenerated (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). To

maintain continuous operation, typically, two or more columns are used, so that when one of the

columns is off-line (backwashing or regenerating) other column(s) are on-line (operational).

Although ion exchange is known to occur with a number of natural materials, there is a

broad spectrum of synthetic exchange resins available. Synthetic resins consist of networks of

hydrocarbon radicals with attached soluble ionic functional groups. The hydrocarbon radicals are

cross-linked in a three dimensional matrix, with the degree of cross-linking imparting the ability

to exclude ions larger than a given size. The nature of the attached functional groups largely

determines resin behavior. There are four major classes of ion exchange resins: strongly acidic

and weakly acidic cation exchange resins, and strongly basic and weakly basic anion resins.

Strongly acidic resins contain functional groups derived from strong acids such as sulfuric acid

(H2SO4),

 whereas functional groups of weakly acidic resins are derived from weak acids such as

carbonic acid (H2CO3). Similarly, strongly basic resins contain functional groups derived from

quaternary ammonium compounds, whereas functional groups of weekly basic resins are derived

from weak base amines. The exchangeable counter ion of an acidic cation resin may be the

hydrogen ion or some other monovalent cation, such as sodium. For a basic anion resin, the

exchangeable counter ion may be the hydroxide ion or some other monovalent anion. The

regenerant will be the corresponding acid, base, or simple salt (Weber, 1972). 

The use of ion exchange in the treatment of MPP wastewaters is less common. The ion

exchange technology may be used to remove ammonium ions from wastewater, nitrate ions from

the nitrified wastewater, phosphorous, and/or to remove total dissolved solids from wastewater.

The functional group to be used depends on the target ions (NH4

+

, NO3

-

 , or other ions) to be

removed.

To minimize head loss through ion exchange columns and possible resin fouling, ion

exchange usually follows granular medium filtration and possibly carbon adsorption. In addition,

special provisions are necessary for regeneration waste. Another waste stream requiring disposal
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-41

is exhausted resin. Regeneration efficiency decreases with time and replacement becomes

necessary to maintain process performance.

8.5 DISINFECTION

Disinfection destroys remaining pathogenic microorganisms and is generally required for

all MPP wastewaters being discharged to surface waters. Chlorine injection is the most

commonly used method for wastewater disinfection; however, use of ultraviolet light for

disinfection is not uncommon (USEPA, 2001). Ozone injection and combinations of UV and

ozonation are also attractive alternatives for disinfection.

8.5.1 Chlorination

The chemical reactions that occur when chlorine is added to wastewater have been

described above in the discussion of breakpoint chlorination for ammonia removal. For

disinfection, the objective is to add chlorine at a rate that results in a free chlorine residual to

ensure that pathogen kill occurs. As discussed above, a free chlorine residual occurs only after

reactions with readily oxidizable ions, organic matter, and ammonia are complete. Thus, chlorine

requirements for disinfection depend on wastewater characteristics at the time of disinfection.

The degree of mixing and contact time in a chlorine contact chamber are critical factors in the

process of disinfection using chlorine. The most commonly used chlorine compounds used for

wastewater disinfection are chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and

chlorine dioxide (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Chlorine dioxide is an unstable and explosive gas

that requires special precautions. 

As also was noted above in the discussion of breakpoint chlorination for ammonia

removal (Section 8.4.3.1), dechlorination often is necessary to reduce effluent toxicity with sulfur

dioxide addition being the most commonly used approach. Sulfur dioxide reacts with both free

chlorine and chloramines with chloride ions, resulting primarily in the end production of chloride

ions (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-42

8.5.2 Ozonation

Since ozone is chemically unstable, it decomposes to oxygen very rapidly after

generation, and thus must be generated on site. The most efficient method of producing ozone is

by electrical discharge. Ozone is generated either from air or pure oxygen, when a high voltage is

applied across the gap of narrowly spaced electrodes. It is an extremely reactive oxidant, and it is

generally believed that bacterial kill through ozonation occurs directly because of cell wall

disintegration. Ozone is a more effective virucide than chlorine. Ozone does not produce

dissolved solids and is not affected by ammonia concentrations or pH. In addition, there is no

chemical residue produce from using ozone, because it decomposes rapidly to oxygen and water.

Use of ozone increases the dissolved oxygen concentration, control odor, and provides removal

of soluble refractory organics. One disadvantage to using ozone is that it is necessary to generate

it on site, because of its chemical instability (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

8.5.3 Ultraviolet Light

Suspended or submerged lamps producing ultraviolet (UV) light are another option for

wastewater disinfection, especially for the inactivation of the parasites of Cryptosporidium

parvum and Giardia lamblia. It is known that chlorine does not have an effect on

Cryptosporidium and that ozone requires higher doses to complete inactivation (Stone and

Brooks, 2001). Radiation emitted from the ultraviolet light is an effective bateriocide and

virucide while generating any toxic compound. Low-pressure mercury arc lamps are the principal

means of generating UV energy used for disinfection. Operationally the lamps are either

suspended outside of the liquid to be treated or submerged in the liquid. Where the lamps are

submerged, they are encased in quartz tubes to prevent cooling effects on the lamps. Radiation

from low-pressure lamps with a wavelength of around 254 nm penetrates the cell wall of the

microorganisms and is absorbed by cellular materials a process which either prevents replication

or causes death of the cell to occur (Stone and Brooks, 2001). Since turbidity will absorb UV

energy and shield the microorganism, turbidity in the water should be kept low for better results

(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). UV irradiation, whether at low- or medium-pressure, performs

similarly in achieving 4 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium (Stone and Brooks, 2001). UV
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-43

irradiation in combination with ozonation can also be applied for the reuse of chiller water in

poultry operations (Diaz and Law, 1997).

8.6 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL

The most common disposal methods of treated MPP wastewaters are by discharge to

adjacent surface waters under the authority of a NPDES permit or discharge to POTWs.

However, disposal by land application is an alternative method that can eliminate the need for

tertiary treatment of wastewater (Johns, 1995; Uhlman, 2001).

Land application by sprinkler or flood irrigation can be a feasible alternative to surface

water discharge, if the appropriate land is available and other prerequisites can be satisfied. These

prerequisites include soils with moderately slow to moderately rapid permeability and soils with

the ability to collect any surface runoff that occurs. In addition, the production of a marketable

crop is a necessity to provide a mechanism for the removal of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other

nutrients from soils applied with wastewater by sprinkler or flood irrigation (Uhlman, 2001).

In land application, wastewater disposal is performed using a combination of percolation

and evapotranspiration with microbial degradation of organic compounds occurring in the soil

profile. Both crop uptake and nitrification-denitrification serve as mechanisms for nitrogen

reduction. Crop uptake, chemical precipitation, and adsorption to soil particles are mechanisms

of phosphorus reduction. Water balances are managed to match crop water use and salt leaching

needs with irrigation to maintain water percolation to groundwater within the system design

(Uhlman, 2001). Nitrogen balances are also developed to match estimated nitrogen losses and

crop uptake (removal) to minimize percolate nitrate losses to groundwater. Spray and flood

irrigation systems for wastewater disposal (Figure 8-4) may be designed with the objective of

either wastewater disposal or wastewater reuse. If disposal is the objective, application or

hydraulic loading rate is not controlled by crop requirements, but by the limiting design

parameter, soil permeability or constituent loading. In many situations, nitrogen loading rate is

the limiting design parameter to minimize leaching of nitrate nitrogen to ground water.

Phosphorus loading rate generally is not a limiting design parameter, due to the ability of soils to
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-44

immobilize phosphorus. However, the ability of soils to adsorb phosphorus is finite, and

saturation of the upper zone of the soil profile can occur (US EPA, 1974).

Figure 8-4. Spray/Flood Irrigation System (USEPA, 1974)

Wastewater can be applied to crops using solid set or center pivot sprinkler or flood

irrigation. With flood irrigation, also known as ridge-and-furrow irrigation, wastewater is

released into furrows between rows of growing crops. Fields irrigated using flood irrigation are

graded to allow uniform irrigation of the entire field by gravity flow, with provision for capture

and containment of any return flow. Intermittent application cycles, usually ranging from every

four to ten days, maintain aerobic conditions in the soil. In arid and semi-arid areas, land

application, as a method for wastewater disposal, is especially attractive, given the low rates of

precipitation allowing higher hydraulic loading rates than in more humid regions. However, the

accumulation of soluble salts (total dissolved solids) in the root zone of the soil profile can be

problematic in arid and semi-arid regions because of the lack of precipitation, resulting in

reduced leaching of these salts from the soil profile. These salt accumulations are toxic to many

plant species. Salt accumulations in the soil profile also occur when conventional irrigation

practices are used in arid and semi-arid climates. The typical approach used to deal with

accumulations of soluble salts from irrigation is periodic hydraulic loadings to leach accumulated

soluble salts from the root zone of the soil. However, some ground water contamination may

result from using periodic hydraulic loadings. Reduction of total dissolved solids concentrations
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-45

in MPP wastewaters prior to land application is another option, but the associated cost may make

direct discharge to surface waters a more attractive option in arid and semi-arid climates.

Wastewater treatment systems using sprinkler or flood irrigation as a method for MPP

wastewater disposal should provide a minimum of secondary treatment before use of wastewater

for irrigation. Secondary treatment of wastewater reduces BOD and suspended solids loading

rates and consequently, it reduces the potential of these parameters to act as limiting design

factors. Secondary treatment also reduces the odor and vermin problems associated with flood

irrigation or sprinkler application of lesser treated wastewater. A holding basin is a necessary

element to allow intermittent wastewater applications and to provide storage when climatic or

soil conditions do not allow irrigation. Ideally, storage should be adequate to limit wastewater

application to the active plant growth period of the year. Thus, storage of wastewater for at least

six months in cold climates is desirable (Loehr et al., 1979). For a more complete discussion of

wastewater disposal by land application, Loehr et al. (1979) and Overcash and Pal (1979). 

In the absence of proper system design and operation, land application as a method of

wastewater disposal can adversely affect surface and ground water quality. Excessive organic

loading rates can result in reduced soil permeability and the generation of noxious odors due to

the development of anaerobic conditions. Excessive nitrogen application rates can lead to nitrate

leaching to ground water. Excessive phosphorus application rates can lead to surface or ground

water contamination, or both, if the irrigated soils become saturated with phosphorus.(Metcalf

and Eddy, 1991)

Exposure to pathogens also is a concern, especially with spray irrigation systems given

the potential for pathogen transport in aerosols. Virus transmission through aerosols is the most

serious concern, because a single virus can cause infection. In contrast, infectious doses of

bacterial pathogens range from at least 101

 for Shigella to as high as 108 organisms for

enteropathogenic E. coli (Loehr et al., 1979). However, using one or more of several

recommended practices can reduce the transmission of pathogens in aerosols. Recommended

practices include: (1) creating buffer zones with or without hedgerows (2) using low pressure
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-46

nozzles aimed downward (3) avoiding wastewater spraying windy conditions and (4) restricting

irrigation to daylight hours (Johns, 1995).

Especially in colder climates, wastewater land application systems require storage

facilities to avoid application to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated soil. Wastewater application

under these conditions can result in surface runoff transporting pollutants to adjacent surface

waters. See Loehr et al (1979) for a detailed discussion of storage requirements for wastewater

land application systems in various climates. 

8.7 SOLIDS DISPOSAL

Typically, biosolids generated during the treatment of MPP wastewaters are aerobically

digested before disposal by land application. Biosolids may be de-watered prior to land

application. Rendering is a common disposal method for wastewater solids recovered by

dissolved air flotation (DAF) before secondary treatment. Generally, the use of metal salts prior

to DAF is avoided if rendering is used for the disposal of recovered solids, to unacceptably high

concentrations of aluminum or iron in rendering products. Alternatives to rendering for the

disposal of DAF solids are land application and land filling. High quality by-products (e.g.,

blood) are often segregated from DAF solids and other MPP WWTP sludges as some rendering

operations (e.g., pet food manufacturing) require high quality input by-products.

EPA noted during site visits to two independent rendering operations that sludges from

dissolved air floatation units which use chemical additions to promote solids separation are

rendered; however, the chemical bond between the organic matter and the polymers requires that

the sludges be processed (rendered) at higher temperatures (260 o

F) and longer retention times.

EPA also observed during site visits that some independent renderers reject raw materials that

have (1) a pH below 4 SU (with 3 SU being a general cut-off), (2) ferric chloride due to its

corrosive nature, and (3) other contamination (e.g., pesticides).
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-47

8.8 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WASTEWATER REDUCTION

PRACTICES

8.8.1 Wastewater Minimization and Waste Load Reduction Practices at MPP

Facilities

For many MPP facilities, wastewater flow minimization and waste load reduction

practices have been incorporated into normal business practices in order to reduce production

costs and maximize profits. As with other competitive industries, unessential consumption of

water and energy, and the additional costs of waste treatment can mean the difference between

profitability and operational losses. While water reuse and by-products recovery are standard

approaches for wastewater flow minimization and waste load reduction at MPP facilities, the

extent of these practices and their effectiveness, varies widely among individual facilities. Some

large facilities have installed onsite advanced wastewater treatment systems which treat facility

effluent allowing this water to be reused for some applications within the facility. Other facilities

have changed sanitation practices to reduce water use and effluence in general. For example, one

independent renderer noted during an EPA site visit that his facility fully converted from a wet

cleaning method to a dry cleaning method in the product shipment area in order to minimize

water pollution.

Industry sources have estimated that the implementation of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service’s (USDA FSIS) Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Points (HACCP) program has increased water usage by 20 to 25 percent. USDA FSIS

disagrees with industry's assertion that implementation of HACCP has necessarily required

greater use of water. Furthermore, USDA FSIS asserts that its regulatory performance standards

provide for numerous water reuse opportunities (see 9 CFR 416.2(g)).

The USDA FSIS promulgated the HACCP program on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38806). The

HACCP rule requires all MPP facilities to develop and implement a system of preventative

controls to improve the safety of their products with an emphasis on reducing microbial

contamination from fecal material. The Sanitation Requirements for Official Meat and Poultry
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-48

Establishments Rule (USDA, 1996; 64 FR 56400) also mandates all MPP facilities to develop

and implement written standard operating procedures for sanitation.

As described below, opportunities remain for reducing potable water use and wastewater

flow in MPP through water conservation techniques and multiple use and reuse of water. In

addition, opportunities exist to reduce waste loads to wastewater treatment facilities by

physically collected solid materials before using water to clean equipment and facilities. Gelman

et al. (1989) and Berthouex et al. (1977) provide case studies for minimizing waste and water use

at poultry processing and hog processing facilities, respectively. Both conclude that facilities can

save costs through readily available process modifications that can significantly reduce water use

and wastewater flow and loadings.

8.8.2 General Water Conservation and Waste Load Reduction Techniques

Reducing water use is important as facilities that institute a water use reduction program

also reduce their raw wastewater load (Scaief, 1975). Numerous studies have demonstrated the

water use in MPP can be reduced significantly. For example, Carawan and Clemens (1994)

reported a reduction in water use of 75 gallons per pig processed, a reduction of 33 percent,

following implementation of a water conservation program at a hog slaughtering and rendering

operation. In addition, it has been demonstrated that substantial reductions in wastewater

pollutant concentrations also can be achieved through implementation of waste load reduction

practices. Reductions in 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) in hog processing

wastewater of 40 percent have been reported (Carawan and Clemens, 1994). However, both goals

can be achieved only when management recognizes that a reduction in processing costs and an

increase in profitability can be realized by reducing the costs of potable water and wastewater

treatment. Thus, a management commitment to water conservation logically depends on the cost

of potable water, and a management commitment to waste load reduction depends on the cost of

wastewater treatment. If potable water is being obtained from private on-site wells, there

obviously is a reduced economic incentive to conserve water than when water is being purchased

from a public utility or private water purveyor. Also, the incentive for waste load reduction

generally is greater for indirect dischargers because wastewater treatment costs are readily
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-49

identifiable and surcharges for excessive pollutant concentrations can rapidly escalate wastewater

treatment costs. Conversely, wastewater treatment costs can be less visible for direct dischargers

and less sensitive to pollutant concentrations.

The development of water conservation and waste load reduction programs in the MPP as

well as in other industries begins with the development of general profiles of water use and

wastewater pollutant concentrations over one or preferably several 24 hour periods to determine

the relative significance of processing and cleanup activities. Generally this step is accompanied

or followed by measuring water use in individual phases of the processing process to identify

opportunities for water use reduction. For example, measuring water flow to scalders and chillers

in poultry processing to determine overflow rates can identify overflow rates in excess of FSIS

requirements. Measuring and regulating water pressure for carcass washing to insure that FSIS

requirements are not being exceeded is another example of how water use can be reduced in

MPP operations. Measuring and regulating small flows such as from hand washing operations

also can significantly reduce water use and wastewater volume. 

The daily cleanup and sanitation of processing facilities and equipment contributes

substantially to water use and wastewater pollutant load and probably presents the greatest

opportunity for reductions. Typically, both water use and wastewater pollutant load can be

reduced substantially by initially “dry cleaning” processing areas and equipment to collect meat

scraps and other materials for disposal by rendering instead of the common practice of using

“water as a broom.” Although subsequent screening before wastewater treatment provides for

recovery of larger particles, fine particulate matter and soluble proteins, fats, and carbohydrates

are not recovered and are manifested as an increased pollutant load to the wastewater treatment

plant. Gelman et al. (1989) have shown that biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in cleanup

wastewater in poultry processing can be reduced from 20 to 50 percent by initially dry cleaning

processing areas and equipment. Concurrently, dry cleaning can increase the production of

inedible rendered products. Dry cleaning of live animal holding areas also can reduce water

required for the cleaning of these facilities and the pollutant load in the wastewater generated.

However, responses to the MPP detailed survey indicate that dry cleaning is a much more
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-50

common practice at meat as compared to poultry processing facilities (47 percent for meat

processing respondents versus 17 percent for poultry processing respondents). 

To be successful, water conservation and waste load reduction plans must be

implemented and performance monitored. Implementation requires employee training that should

be continual and possibly the installation of new equipment such as hose nozzles and foot valves

at hand wash stations that automatically shut off when not in use. Conversion to high pressure,

low volume systems for carcass washing and general sanitation also can reduce water

consumption. However, continual monitoring of water use and waste loads also is a necessity to

avoid slippage in performance. 

8.8.3 Multiple Use and Reuse of Water

USDA FSIS guidelines do not preclude the multiple use and reuse of water in MPP as

practices to reduce potable water consumption and the discharge of treated wastewater. While it

is obvious that acceptable multiple use and reuse strategies must avoid contact with products

intended for human consumption, a significant fraction of the water used in MPP does not

involve such contact. 

The multiple use of water most commonly occurs in poultry processing. Witherow et al.

(1978) report that water conservation through multiple reuse in poultry processing will be

rewarded by savings in processing cost and reduced requirements for wastewater treatment.

Examples include the use of scalder overflow to flume feathers from mechanical de-feathering

equipment and the use of chiller overflow to flume inedible viscera to screens for recovery prior

to rendering. Combination UV irradiation and ozonation can be effective treatment for this reused poultry chiller overflow (Diaz and Law, 1997). These are examples of countercurrent

recycling where water reuse is countercurrent to product flow. 

In contrast to multiple use, water reuse requires treatment as a prerequisite with the

degree of treatment determining how water can be reused. For example, reuse of wastewater after

tertiary treatment to remove suspended solids and double disinfection, such as chlorination

followed by ultraviolet light, is permissible for purposes where no contact with such as
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-51

evaporative condenser cooling and holding lot, parking lot, and wastewater treatment plant

cleaning. 

With further treatment to meet drinking water standards using unit processes such as

coagulation and flocculation followed by settling and then filtration and disinfection, reuse of

wastewater treatment plant secondary effluent expands the potential for reuse. Examples of

permissible uses in hog processing include use on the kill floor up to the first carcass wash,

flushing of large intestines (chitterlings), cleaning of receiving pens, and rendering facilities.

Other possible uses of wastewater treated to meet drinking water standards include use for

equipment such as pump cooling and as boiler makeup water. 

In the poultry processing industry, a number of unit process level reuse strategies also

have been explored. One example is the reuse of final chiller overflow following diatomaceous

earth filtration and disinfection as scalder makeup water or for fluming of harvested giblets. As

noted by Carawan (1994), it also was demonstrated in the late 1970s that poultry processing

wastewater treated to meet primary drinking water standards can be safe, when mixed with an

equal amount of potable water, for use in poultry processing.

Based on data provided by the MPP detailed survey, EPA estimates that reuse of water in

MPP facilities is relatively rare. About 8 percent of the poultry processing respondents to the

survey indicated reuse of water from the wastewater treatment plant to defeathering or

evisceration areas. Other water reuse practices such as reusing effluent for screen washing or

cleanup of outside areas are even less common as indicated by detailed survey response.

8.8.4 Specific Pollution Control Practices Identified by EPA in Previous Regulatory

Proposals

The following relevant Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) inplant pollution control practices were listed in EPA’s “Development Document for Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Poultry Segment of the Meat Product and Rendering

Process Point Source Category” (USEPA, 1975):
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-52

• Control and minimize flow of freshwater at major outlets by installing properly

sized spray nozzles and by regulating pressure on supply lines. Hand washers

may require installation of press-to-operate valves. This also implies that

screened waste waters are recycled for feather fluming.

• Confine bleeding and provide for sufficient bleed time. Recover all collectable

blood and transport to rendering in tanks rather than by dumping on top of

feathers or offal.

• Use minimum USDA-approved quantities of water in the scalder and chillers.

• Shut off all unnecessary flow during worm breaks.

• Consider the reuse of chiller water as makeup water for the scalder. This may

require preheating the chiller water with the scalder overflow water by using a

simple heat exchanger. 

• Use pretreated poultry processing waste waters for condensing all cooking vapors

in onsite rendering operations.

• Consider dry offal handling as an alternative to fluming. A number of plants have

demonstrated the feasibility of dry offal handling in modern high-production

poultry slaughtering operations.

• Consider steam scalding as an alternative to immersion scalding.

• Control water use in gizzard splitting and washing equipment.

• Provide for frequent and regular maintenance attention to byproduct screening and

handling systems. A back-up screen may be required to prevent byproduct from

entering municipal or private waste treatment systems.

• Dry clean all floors and tables prior to washdown to reduce the waste load. This

is particularly important in the bleeding, cutting, and further processing areas and

all other areas where there tend to be material spills.
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-53

• Use high-pressure, low-volume spray nozzles or steam-augmented systems for

plant washdown.

• Minimize the amount of chemicals and detergents to prevent emulsification or

solubilization of solids in the waste waters. For example, determine the minimum

effective amount of chemical for use in the scald tank.

• Control inventories of raw materials used in further processing so that none of

these materials are ever wasted to the sewer. Spent raw materials should be

routed to rendering.

• Treat separately all overflow of cooking broth for grease and solids recovery.

• Reduce the waste water from thawing operations.

• Make all employees aware of good water management practices and encourage

them to apply these practices.

• Treat offal truck drainage before sewering. One method is to steam sparge the

collected drainage and then screen.

• In-plant primary systems—catch basins, skimming tanks, air flotation,

etc.—should provide for at least a 30-minute detention time of the waste water. 

Frequent, regular maintenance attention should be provided.

The following BAT in-plant pollution control practices were listed in EPA’s

“Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source

Performance Standards for the Processor Segment of the Meat Products Point Source Category”

(USEPA, 1974):

• Use water control systems and procedures to reduce water use considerable below

that of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) except for

small processors.

• Reduce the waste water from thawing operations.
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-54

• Provide for improved collection and greater reuse of cure and pickle solutions.

• Prepackage products (e.g., hams) before cooking to reduce grease contamination

of smokehouse floors and walls.

• Revise equipment cleaning procedures to collect and reuse wasted materials, or to

dispose of them through channels other than the sewer.

• Reuse or recycle noncontaminated water whenever possible.

• Initiate and continually enforce meticulous dry cleanup of floors before washing.

• Install properly designed catch basins and maintain them with frequent regular

grease and solids removal.

It should be noted that the in-plant controls and modifications required to achieve the

July 1, 1983, effluent limitations included water control systems and procedures to reduce water

use to about 50 percent of the water used to meet BPT (USEPA, 1974). 

8.8.5 Non-Regulatory Approaches to Pollution Prevention

EPA is using non-regulatory approaches to facilitate reduction of wastewater generation

in the MPP industry. Specifically, the Agency has formed partnerships with industry and state

agencies to develop guidance materials and implement innovative practices for reducing waste. 

Participants in developing this program include the American Meat Institute (AMI), the

American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), several State agencies, EPA programs and regions, and other interested constituent

groups. For example, EPA and its partners are developing BMP guidance materials for handling

and disposal of rendering materials, and for chloride, nitrogen, and phosphorus discharges. The

project team will evaluate these management practices and develop measures of their

effectiveness. Long-term deployment of the final tools will occur through the active leadership of

the industry's trade associations. In addition, EPA is partnering with the Iowa Waste Reduction

Center (IWRC) and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to pilot test the Guide
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-55

with five companies. IWRC and IDNR are providing technical assistance and implementation

consulting to the five companies. The pilot will be completed in July 2002, and then EPA will

evaluate the pilot and incorporate lessons learned into the final draft of the “EMS Guide for Meat

and Poultry Processors.” The final guide is expected to be completed by September 2002, at

which point this tool will be widely marketed throughout the meat and poultry processing

industry.

8.6 REFERENCES

Banks, C. J., Z. Wang. 1999. Development of a two phase anaerobic digester for the treatment of

mixed abattoir wastes, Water Science and Technology , Vol. 40, No. 1. (DCN 10065)

Banks, C. J. 1994. Anaerobic digestion of solid and high nitrogen content fractions of

slaughterhouse wastes, In: Environmentally Responsible Food Processing, AIChE

Symposium Series, 90, 103-109. (DCN 100005)

Banks, C. J., O. O. Adebowale. 1991. Review of abattoir by-product disposal options,

Proceedings of MLC Conference: Meat Strategies, Options for By-product Disposal, 26-

27th March, Birmingham, U.K., pp. 21-42. (DCN 00042)

Berthouex, Paul M., David L. Grothman, Donald O. Dencker, Lawrence J. P. Scully, 1977.

Characterization and In-Plant Reductions of Wastewater from Hog Slaughtering

Operations, EPA-600/2-77-097, May 1977. (DCN 10058)

Brooks, Daniel R., Gary Van Stone, 2001. UV Experience in Inactivating Cryptosporidium in

Surface Water Plants, WaterWorld, May 2001, PennWell Publishers. (DCN 10068)

Carawan, R.E. and J.S. Clemens. 1994. Using Renovated Process Water at Hatfield Packing. In:

Proceedings 1994 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, P.H. Patterson and

J.P. Blake (eds). National Poultry Waste Management Symposium Committee, Auburn

University, Alabama. Pp. 220-230. (DCN 00197)

Carawan, R.E. 1994. Overview of Water Recycling in Processing. In: Proceedings 1994 National

Poultry Waste Management Symposium, P.H. Patterson and J.P. Blake (eds). National
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-56

Poultry Waste Management Symposium Committee, Auburn University, Alabama. Pp.

211-215. (DCN 00198)

Clanton, C.J. 1997. Alternative Waste Management Systems. Department of Agricultural

Engineering. University of Minnesota.

<http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/manure/landapp/wasteman.html>. (DCN 00250)

Cowan, J.A.C., F. Mactavish, C.J. Brouckaert, E.P. Jacobs. 1992. Membrane treatment strategies

for red meat abattoir effluents, Water Science and Technology , 1992 , Vol. 25, No. 10. 

(DCN 10066)

Diaz, M.E., S.E. Law. 1997. Ultraviolet Photon Enhanced Ozonation for Microbiological Safety

in Poultry Processing Water, 1997 ASAE Annual International Meeting, August 10-14,

1997, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (DCN 00037)

Eremektar, G., E. Ubay Çokgör, S. Övez, F. Germirli Babuna, D. Orhon. 1999. Biological

treatability of poultry processing plant effluent - a case study, Water Science and

Technology , Vol. 40, No. 1. (DCN 00082)

FMCITT. 2002. Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations.

<http://fpc.unl.edu/fmc/7wastewa.htm> (DCN 00251)

Gelman, Stephen R., Sheila D. Scott, Hal Davis. 1989. Waste Minimization in the Poultry

Processing Industry– Process and Water Quality Aspects, Presented at MISSTAP

Workshop, Waste Minimization for Mississippi Industries, Mississippi State University,

November 9, 1989, NIST No. PB95-251385. (DCN 00077)

Glenn, S. L., Norris, R. T., Jr., Sommerfield, J. T. 1990. Discrete-event simulation in

wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Science and Heal , Vol. A25, No. 4. 

(DCN 00079)

Grady, C.P.L., Jr. and H.C. Lim. 1980. Biological Wastewater Treatment Theory and

Applications. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. (DCN 00248)
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-57

Green, T et al. 1981. Case History of Nitrification of a Rendering-Meat Packing Wastewater,

IN: Bell, J.M. (Editor), 1981. Proceedings of the 35th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue

University. (DCN 10006)

Harper, S. R., C. C. Ross, G. E. Valentine, F. G. Pohland. 1999. Pretreatment of poultry

processing wastewater in a pilot-scale anaerobic filter. Water Science and Technology ,

Vol. 22 , No. 9. (DCN 00034)

Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments In Wastewater Treatment In The Meat Processing Industry: A

Review. Bioresource Technology, Vol. 54. (DCN 00128)

Johnston, Carey A. 2001. Comparison of Meat Processing and Domestic Wastewaters, USEPA,

Memorandum to File. (DCN 10038)

Kiepper, Brian. 2001. A Survey of Wastewater Practices in the Broiler Industry. The University

of Georgia. U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. Presented at WEFTEC 2001. 

(DCN 00260)

Lo, K. V., P.H. Liao, 1990. Treatment of poultry processing wastewater using sequencing batch

reactors. Department of Bio-Resource Engineering, University of British Columbia,

Canadian Agricultural Engineering , Vol. 32 , No. 2. (DCN 00080)

Martin, E. J. and Martin, E. T. 1991. Technologies For Small Water And Wastewater Systems.

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. (DCN 00259)

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering—Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd ed.

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00213)

Morris, et al., 1998. (DCN 00191)

Nielsen V.C. 1996. Treatment and Disposal of Processing Wastes. In: Processing of Poultry,

edited by G.C. Mead, Chapman and Hall Publishing Company, New York, New York. 

(DCN 00133 - DCN 00137)
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-58

Ohio EPA. 1999. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Tiered Permits. DSW0100.016. DWS Policy Manual. (DCN 00257)

Peavy, H.S., Rowe, D. R., Tchobanoglous, G. 1986. Environmental Engineering. McGraw Hill

Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00261)

Randall Clifford W., Pramod R. Mitta. 1998. Preliminary Assessment of the Rocco Farm Foods

Wastewater Treatment Plant Edinburg, Virginia for Biological Nutrient Removal,

Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia: Submitted to the USEPA Chesapeake

Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland. (DCN 00035)

Randall Clifford W., Zeynep Kisoglu, Dipankar Sen, Pramod Mitta, Ufuk Erdal. 1999.

Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants for BNR Retrofits Using Advances in

Technology, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia: Submitted to the USEPA

Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland. (DCN 00031)

Reddy, M., (editor). 1998. Biological and Chemical Systems for Nutrient Removal. A Special

Publication by Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia. (DCN 00253)

Reynolds, T.D. 1982. Unit Operations And Processes In Environmental Engineering. PWSKent Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts. (DCN 00256)

Ross, C. C., and Valentine, G.E. 1992. Anaerobic Treatment of Poultry Processing Wastewaters.

In Proceedings of 1992 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium. (DCN 00254)

Scaief, James F. 1975. Effluent Variability in the Meat-Packing and Poultry Processing

Industries, Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, PB-245-623, June

1975, Corvallis, Oregon. (DCN 10001)

Starkey, J.E., and Wright, T. 1997. Tertiary Screening in Poultry Wastewater Treatment. 1997

Poultry and Environment Management Seminar. (DCN 10074)
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-59

Sen, Dinpankar, Clifford W. Randall, and Thomas J. Grizzard. 1990. Biological Nitrogen and

Phosphorus Removal in Oxidation Ditch and High Nitrate Recycle Systems, Virginia

Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil Engineering, Manassas,

Virginia. (DCN 00029)

Stebor, T.W., Berndt, C.L., Gabriel, R. 1990. Operating Experience: Anaerobic Treatment At

Packerland Packing. 44th Purdue Industrial Conference Proceedings, Lewis Publishers,

Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. (DCN 00262)

Uhlman, Kristine. 2001. Land Application for Natural Wastewater Treatment, Environmental

Protection, August 2001, Vol. 12, No. 8. (DCN 10069)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1974. Development Document For Effluent

Limitation Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Red Meat

Processing Segment of the Meat Product And Rendering Processing Point Source

Category. (DCN 00162)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1975. Development Document For Effluent

Limitation Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Poultry Segment

of the Meat Product And Rendering Processing Point Source Category. (DCN 00140)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Treatability Manual. EPA/600/8-80/042d,

Washington D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Design Manual - Phosphorous Removal.

EPA/625/1-87/001, Washington D.C. (DCN 00255)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Manual - Nitrogen Control. EPA/625/R-93/010,

Washington D.C. (DCN 10023)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Estimates of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

from Industrial and Domestic Wastewater Treatment, EPA-600/R-97-091, September

1997. (DCN 10061)
Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-60

Weber, W.J., Jr. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. John Wiley &

Sons, New York, New York. (DCN 00252)

Witherow, Jack L., Ahmed Hamza, Samia Saad. 1978. Water Reuse in Poultry Processing,

Prepared for 1978 Summer Meeting of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, June

27-30, 1978, ASAE Technical Paper No. 78-6026, NIST No. PB-283-695. (DCN 10060)

Zhang, Ruihong. 2001. Biology and Engineering of Animal Wastewater Lagoons. University of

California, Davis. (DCN 00258)
9-1

SECTION 9

POLLUTANT LOADINGS

This section presents annual pollutant loading estimates for the meat and poultry products

(MPP) industry. EPA estimated the pollutant loadings for the MPP industry to evaluate the

effectiveness of the treatment technologies, to estimate benefits gained from removing pollutants

discharged from each of the industry model facility groupings, and to evaluate the costeffectiveness of the technology options in reducing the pollutant loadings. EPA defined baseline

loadings, technology option loadings, and pollutant removals as follows:

• Baseline loadings - Pollutant loadings in meat and poultry processing wastewater

being discharged to surface water or through publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) to surface water.

• Technology option loadings - Estimated pollutant loadings in meat and poultry

processing wastewater after implementation of technology option, also referred to

as post-compliance or treated pollutant loadings. In calculating these loadings

EPA assumed that all MPP facilities would operate wastewater treatment and

pollution prevention technologies equivalent to the technology option for which

they have been costed. Costing methodology and estimates are discussed in detail

in Section 11.

• Pollutant removals - The difference between baseline loadings and technology

option loadings.

EPA estimated baseline loadings, technology option loadings, and pollutant removals for

every model facility grouping (facility groupings are described further in Section 11). This

section discusses the methodology that EPA used to estimate pollutant loadings and removals,

and presents the resultant estimated pollutant loadings and expected removals as follows: 

• Sections 9.1.1 through 9.1.4 discusses the data sources and methodology that EPA

used to estimate baseline pollutant loadings,
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-2

• Sections 9.2.1 through 9.2.4 present the data sources and methodology that EPA

used to estimate technology option pollutant loadings, and

• Section 9.3 discusses the method to estimate pollutant removals.

9.1 BASELINE POLLUTANT LOADINGS

This section presents baseline pollutant loadings for the meat and poultry products

industry. EPA estimated the baseline pollutant loadings for each model facility grouping based

on wastewater discharges to surface waters or through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

to surface waters.

The following is a summary of methods used by EPA to select data sources and compute

baseline loads:

• Section 9.1.1 presents sources used by EPA to compute baseline concentrations

for the pollutants of concern

• Section 9.1.2 outlines the methods used by EPA to compute average

concentrations from detailed survey analytical data and from EPA sampling

episodes

• Section 9.1.3 presents the hierarchy used by EPA to impute baseline

concentrations for all 37 pollutants of concern for the 151 (48 direct and 103

indirect discharge) facilities

• Section 9.1.4 describes the methodology used to estimate pollutant loadings for

the various pollutants of concern.

9.1.1 Sources and Use of Available Data

EPA used analytical data provided by the industry in the detailed surveys and analytical

data from facilities sampled to compute baseline pollutant concentrations. The analysis includes a

total of 48 direct and 103 indirect discharge facility detailed surveys. For the 151 direct and

indirect discharge facilities, EPA used baseline concentrations reported for 1999, the base year of
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-3

the MPP detailed survey. In addition to the analytical data from the 151 facilities, EPA used

sampling data from 11 facilities, including two facilities sampled by EPA. Nine facilities carried

out self-sampling with technical oversight provided by EPA.

9.1.2 Calculation of Average Concentrations from Analytical Data

For each facility and for each pollutant of concern (POC) in the baseline loading analysis,

EPA used average concentrations provided in the detailed survey. When a facility did not

provide average concentrations, but un-averaged, self-monitoring data instead, EPA calculated an

average value to use as the baseline concentration. In computing average baseline concentrations

for use in the proposal, the Agency did not edit any analytical data provided in the detailed

survey. In addition, EPA did not use sample detection limits or the maximum and minimum

concentration values, when average values were not available in the survey. However, for EPA

sampling episodes where concentrations of pollutants were reported below the sample detection

limit, the Agency used the reported sample detection limit as the concentration. Analytical data

from EPA sampling episodes were averaged on a daily basis at each sample location.

9.1.3 Establishment of Baseline Concentration Data

EPA derived baseline concentrations for each POC for each of the 151 facilities (48 direct

and 103 indirect) used to generate baseline pollutant loads. These concentration estimates were

then used to generate baseline pollutant concentrations for each of the 19 model facility

groupings being analyzed by EPA.

EPA used the following hierarchy to calculate baseline concentrations for each facility:

1. When a facility provided concentration data (average values provided in the

detailed survey and averages calculated by EPA from un-averaged self monitoring

data as described previously in Section 9.1.2) for any of the 37 POCs, EPA used

this average concentration.

2. For facilities where baseline concentrations were available from EPA sampling

episodes, EPA used these concentrations. In addition, in the absence of any
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-4

baseline concentration data in the detailed survey, EPA transferred analytical data

from the EPA sampling episodes for facilities in identical model facility groupings

and with identical treatments-in-place. For example, for a poultry first processor

(P1) facility with BAT-4 treatment-in-place, EPA used sampling episode data

from available poultry first processor (P1) facilities with BAT-4 treatment-inplace. When such sampling data were available from more than one EPA

sampling episode, EPA used an average concentration value of these episodes to

transfer data to facilities in identical model facility groupings and with identical

treatments-in-place. However, for the 11 facilities with EPA sampling episode

data belonging to these facilities, the reported pollutant concentrations from

respective individual episodes were used, without using an average concentration.

3. For facilities with no data after the above two steps, EPA used average

concentrations from detailed survey data from other facilities in identical model

facility groupings and with identical treatments-in-place to derive pollutant

concentrations.

4. When survey data from facilities in identical model facility groupings were not

available, EPA used an average of survey and sample data from facilities with

identical treatments-in-place but in similar model facility groupings. EPA defined

similar model facility groupings as those which have at least one of the processes

for which an equivalent is being sought. For example, to impute baseline

concentrations for a meat first processor and renderer (R13) facility, EPA

considered the following: meat first processor (R1), meat first and further

processor (R12), meat first, further processor, and renderer (R123), and meat

further processor, and renderer (R23) as similar model facility groupings. EPA’s

rationale for this definition is that the above four meat model facility groupings

have either the meat first processor model facility grouping (R1) or renderer

model facility grouping (R3). The Agency used only available meat model facility

groupings from the above four potential model facility groupings to impute
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-5

baseline concentrations. However, EPA did not use poultry facility data to derive

concentrations for facilities categorized as meat, or vice versa.

5. For POCs where detailed survey and sampling episode data were not available to

transfer according to the above four steps, the Agency used average

concentrations of both detailed survey and sampling episode data from facilities in

identical model facility groupings and with similar treatments-in-place to calculate

an average baseline concentration for each pollutant in a model facility grouping.

EPA defined a similar treatment-in-place as one that has the essential features of

the technology to which it is being considered as an equivalent. At this stage of

data imputation, except for microbiologicals, EPA used both direct and indirect

discharge facilities to transfer analytical data between identical model facility

groupings. For example, to obtain the baseline concentration of copper for a

poultry first and further processor (P12) facility with PSES-2 treatment-in-place,

EPA used an average of copper baseline concentration data from poultry first and

further processor (P12) facilities with BAT-2 treatment-in-place. Though these

two treatment technologies are not identical, for the purposes of data imputation

EPA considered them as similar technologies for the treatment of certain

pollutants.

6. When data from facilities in identical model facility groupings and with similar

treatments-in-place were not available, an average concentration from facilities in

similar model facility groupings, as defined in step 4, and with similar treatmentsin-place, as defined in step 5, was used instead. Both detailed survey data and

EPA sampling episode data were used to compute average concentrations.

7. When all of the above imputation methods (steps 1-6 for non-microbiologicals,

steps 1-4 for microbiologicals) failed to derive pollutant concentrations, either

because analytical data were lacking in the detailed survey, or because the model

facility grouping the facility belonged to did not have EPA sampling episode data,

the Agency used facility data from treatment options from the next tier level, but
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-6

in identical model facility groupings. For example, for poultry first processor (P1)

model facility grouping with BAT-3 treatment in place when no data was

available from P1 meat model facility grouping with BAT-3 treatment, EPA used

the following hierarchy: (a) transfer concentration data from P1 facilities with

BAT-2 treatment technology, (b) transfer data from P1 facilities with BAT-4

treatment technology. In either of the above two cases, EPA used average

concentrations from a group of facilities rather than a single value reported by an

individual facility.

8. At the next level of data imputation, EPA used a combination of items 6 and 7

above, using data from facilities in similar model facility groupings and with

treatments-in-place from the next tier level to derive baseline pollutant

concentrations.

9. For all microbiologicals, EPA transferred data within identical discharge types

only. The Agency did not use microbiological data from indirect dischargers to

derive concentrations for direct dischargers or vice versa. Other than this

exemption, EPA followed the logic described above for deriving baseline

concentration for microbiologicals.

When the baseline concentration of a pollutant derived by the above methods was lower

than the corresponding concentration with the identical treatment-in-place and in the identical

model facility grouping from the proposed treatment option, EPA equated the baseline

concentration to the concentration of the pollutant in the proposed option. However, for facilities

with available data from the detailed survey (i.e., step 1 above), and for the 11 facilities with data

from EPA sampling episodes and facilities where analytical data from EPA sampling episodes

were transferred between facilities in identical model facility groupings and with identical

treatments-in-place (i.e., step 2 above), the Agency did not replace derived pollutant

concentrations with concentrations from the proposed options, even when the baseline

concentrations were lower than the concentrations in the corresponding proposed options.

Table 9-1 illustrates the sequence of the above 10 steps.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-7

Table 9-1. Summary of Imputation Methods Used for Derivation of Baseline Concentrations

Step Description

Model

facility

grouping Treatment-in-place Data Source

1 Use available detailed survey data Identical Identical Facility-specific as

provided in detailed

survey

2 Use available analytical data from

EPA sampling episodes for 11

facilities sampled and facilities in

identical model facility grouping and

with identical treatments-in-place

Identical Identical Facility-specific and

averaged EPA

sampling episodes

3 Use average concentrations of

analytical data from detailed survey

in identical model facility groupings

and with identical treatments-in-place

Identical Identical Averaged detailed

survey data when

facility did not provide

analytical data

4 Use average of detailed survey and

EPA sampling episode data with

identical treatments-in-place, but in 

similar model facility groupings

Similar Identical Detailed survey and

EPA sampling episode

data

5 Use average of detailed survey and

EPA sampling episode data in

identical model facility groupings but

with similar treatments-in-place. Not

used for microbiologicals

Identical Similar Detailed survey and

EPA sampling episode

data

6 Use average of detailed survey and

EPA sampling episode data in similar

model facility groupings and with

similar treatments-in-place

Similar Similar Detailed survey and

EPA sampling episode

data

7 Use data in identical model facility

groupings and with treatments-inplace from next tier levels

Identical Next tier level of treatment-inplaceDetailed survey and

EPA sampling episode

data

8 Use data in similar model facility

groupings and treatments-in-place

from next tier levels

Similar Next tier level of treatment-inplaceDetailed survey and

EPA sampling episode

data

9 For micribiologicals, data transfer

was only within identical discharge

types (direct or indirect) only

Similar or

identical

Use data from direct and indirect

facilities when deriving data for

direct and indirect facilities,

respectively.

Detailed survey and

EPA sampling episode

data

10 Use concentrations from proposed

options when baseline concentration

of pollutant is less than that in the

proposed options, with the exception

of concentrations derived in steps 1

and 2 above

Identical Identical Technology options as

described in Section

9.2.3 and presented in

Tables C-47 through

C-75 in Appendix C
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-8

Certain pollutants that would normally sum to equal another pollutant (e.g., nitrate/nitrite

and TKN should sum to total nitrogen) may not do so in these calculations, since the individual

baseline concentrations for these pollutants were derived using data from different facilities and

sampling episodes. For this proposal, EPA determined that these concentrations be reported as

they are recorded in the detailed survey and in the EPA sampling episodes, and as calculated by

the imputation methods described above. The Agency made a similar determination for derived

concentrations of pollutants such as BOD5 and CBOD5 , fecal coliform and total coliform, total

phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus, etc.

The size of the facility (small or non-small) was not considered when transferring data

within model facility groupings and treatments-in-place.

After pollutant concentration data were imputed separately for each direct and indirect

facility, EPA calculated average concentration for 19 model facility groupings using

concentration data from the individual facilities, separating small facilities from non-small

facilities.

Average baseline concentrations for all 37 POCs for each model facility grouping are

presented in Tables C-1 through C-29 in Appendix C.

When a particular meat model facility grouping was not represented by any of the

facilities in the detailed survey, EPA used available, similar model facility groupings in the

detailed survey to derive average pollutant concentrations for the missing model facility

grouping. For example, in the meat model facility grouping for direct discharging non-small

facilities, only R1, R12 and R13 model facility groupings were represented in direct discharging

detailed survey. Similarly for direct discharging non-small poultry model facility grouping, only

P1, P12, P123, and P13 model facility groupings were represented in the detailed survey. EPA

used averages to compute the meat and poultry model facility grouping concentrations that best

represented the model facility grouping without facilities in the detailed survey. This calculation

used both small and non-small facilities. The model facility grouping averages that were derived

using this method are identified with a footnote in Tables C-1 through C-29 in Appendix C,

where applicable.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-9

9.1.4 Calculation of Pollutant Loadings

EPA estimated baseline pollutant loadings for all 37 POCs using the average baseline

concentrations, described in Section 9.1.3 for each model facility grouping and national flow

(median) values derived from the screener survey for small and non-small facilities. Table 9-2

shows the median flow values as projected from the screener survey for direct and indirect

dischargers.

Table 9-2. Median Flow for Direct and Indirect Dischargers by Model Facility

Grouping and Size

Model Facility Grouping

Flow for Facilities (MGD)

Small Medium Large Very Large

Meat first processors (R1) 0.00046 0.028 N/Aa N/A

Meat first/further processors (R12) 0.00058 0.440 N/A N/A

Meat first/further processors and renderers (R123) 0.00120 2.11 3.42 N/A

Meat first processors and renderers (R13) 0.00140 0.630 0.932 2.90

Meat further processors (R2) 0.00038 0.09 0.017 0.00995

Meat further processors and renderers (R23) 0.000073 0.580 N/A N/A

Poultry first processors (P1) 0.0160 0.720 0.885 1.90

Poultry first/further processors (P12) 0.00035 0.350 0.901 1.60

Poultry first/further processors and renderers (P123) N/A 0.470 2.81 2.80

Poultry first processors and renderers (P13) N/A 0.420 1.59 1.7

Poultry further processors (P2) 0.00077 0.086 0.434 0.0308

Poultry further processors and renderers (P23) 0.00350 0.049 0.850 N/A

Mixed poultry/meat further processors (M2) 0.00058 0.250 N/A N/A

Mixed poultry/meat further processors and renderers (M23)b 0.00255 N/A N/A N/A

Renderers (REND) 0.140 0.034 0.090 0.177

a No facilities are represented in this model facility grouping b Indirect dischargers only
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-10

The following equation was used for conventional pollutants, nutrients, metals and

pesticides:

Load = Flow x Conc x 8.345

where

Load = pollutant loading, lbs/day

Flow = flow rate, million gallons per day

Conc = pollutant concentration, mg/L

8.345 = conversion factor, lbs/gal and mg/L.

For microbiological pollutants, the loads were computed using the following equation:

Load = Flow x Conc x 37.8

where

Load = pollutant loading, million cfu/day

Flow = flow rate, million gallons per day

Conc = pollutant concentration, cfu/100 mL

37.8 = conversion factor, L/gal and mL/L.

For Cryptosporidium, the loads were computed using the following equation:

Load = Flow x Conc x 3.78

where

Load = pollutant loading, million cysts/day

Flow = flow rate, million gallons per day

Conc = pollutant concentration, cysts per L

3.78 = conversion factor, L/gal.

EPA estimated pollutant loadings for the entire industry using the national estimates of

the number of facilities in each meat model facility grouping multiplied by the model facility
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-11

grouping loadings. Tables 9-3 and 9-4 present the number of facilities in each model facility

grouping, as projected from the screener survey for direct and indirect dischargers.

Table 9-3. Number of Direct Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size

Model Facility Grouping

Number of Facilities

Small Medium Large Very Large

Meat first processors (R1) 17 6 N/Aa N/A

Meat first/further processors (R12) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Meat first/further processors and renderers (R123) 25 17 7 N/A

Meat first processors and renderers (R13) 17 17 7 12

Meat further processors (R2) 43 10 1 1

Meat further processors and renders (R23) N/A 4 N/A N/A

Poultry first processors (P1) N/A 17 25 7

Poultry first/further processors (P12) N/A 6 2 8

Poultry first/further processors and renderers (P123) N/A 2 3 1

Poultry first processors and renders (P13) N/A 7 8 2

Poultry further processors (P2) N/A 10 1 2

Poultry further processors and renders (P23) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Mixed poultry/red meat further processors (M2) 9 5 N/A N/A

Renderers (REND) 6 7 6 8

a No facilities are represented in this model facility grouping
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-12

Table 9-4. Number of Indirect Discharger Facilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size

Model Facility Grouping

Number of Facilities

Small Medium Large Very Large

Meat first processors (R1) 265 N/Aa N/A N/A

Meat first/further processors (R12) 674 28 N/A N/A

Meat first/further processors and renderers (R123) 50 12 5 N/A

Meat first processors and renders (R13) 12 7 3 5

Meat further processors (R2) 2,489 160 4 4

Meat further processors and renders (R23) 32 7 N/A N/A

Poultry first processors (P1) 19 32 48 12

Poultry first/further processors (P12) 20 11 4 14

Poultry first/further processors and renderers (P123) N/A 3 7 2

Poultry first processors and renders (P13) N/A 2 2 1

Poultry further processors (P2) 272 133 4 18

Poultry further processors and renderers (P23) 4 9 6 N/A

Mixed poultry/meat further processors (M2) 707 97 N/A N/A

Renderers (REND) 17 26 21 28

Mixed poultry/meat further processors and renders

(M23)b 4 N/A N/A N/A a

 No facilities are represented in this model facility grouping.

b

 indirect dischargers only
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-13

Tables 9-5 and 9-6 present the baseline loads generated for direct and indirect facilities,

respectively.

Table 9-5. Baseline Loadings for Direct Dischargers

Pollutant Groups of Concern

Small Facility

Baseline

Loading

Non-Small

Facility Baseline

Loading

Units

Conventional pollutants a 2,633,600 46,926,729 lbs/yr

Toxic pollutants b 118,884 52,971,558 lbs/yr

Nutrients c 257,489 61,295,253 lbs/yr

Other Pollutants of Concern

Aeromonas 37,398,048 74,124,203,180 million cfu/yr

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 10,971 5,436,829 lbs/yr

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 7,211,921 45,006,868 lbs/yr

Chloride 831,715 289,715,129 lbs/yr

Cryptosporidium 440 40,016 million cysts/yr

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 22,325 2,890,205 lbs/yr

Dissolved phosphorus 24,345 6,097,899 lbs/yr

E. coli 37,590,901 78,926,098,937 million cfu/yr

Fecal coliform bacteria 4,012,138 35,157,310,463 million cfu/yr

Fecal streptococci 2,506,958 1,273,974,840 million cfu/yr

Orthophosphate 62,845 4,435,234 lbs/yr

Salmonella 17,007 6,738,113 million cfu/yr

Total coliform 35,508,476 96,100,436,605 million cfu/yr

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,721,125 907,402,228 lbs/yr

Total organic carbon (TOC) 68,602 5,932,150 lbs/yr

Total residual chlorine 1,212 475,125 lbs/yr

Volatile residue 784,276 114,282,048 lbs/yr

a Conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM) and total

suspended solids (TSS) b Toxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium, cis-Permethrin,

manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, trans-Permethrin, vanadium, and zinc c Nutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorus
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-14

Table 9-6. Baseline Loadings for Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant Groups of Concern

Small Facility

Baseline Loading

Non-Small

Facility Baseline

Loading Units

Conventional pollutants a 31,966,596 1,018,858,887 lbs/yr

Toxic pollutants b 1,143,985 75,299,529 lbs/yr

Nutrients c

 7,095,318 94,112,866 lbs/yr

Other Pollutants of Concern

Aeromonas 19,184,904,649 1,084,294,192,937 million cfu/yr

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 18,098,643 547,829,773 lbs/yr

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 28,814,396 941,098,914 lbs/yr

Chloride 22,053,547 752,413,059 lbs/yr

Cryptosporidium 229,949 4,310,247 million cysts/yr

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 14,962,017 381,609,489 lbs/yr

Dissolved phosphorus 477,206 14,902,848 lbs/yr

E. coli 66,192,758,859 3,257,404,839,755 million cfu/yr

Fecal coliform bacteria 46,703,268,777 2,944,853,206,446 million cfu/yr

Fecal streptococci 57,574,999,260 1,131,842,917,041 million cfu/yr

Orthophosphate 237,447 9,640,839 lbs/yr

Salmonella 583,562 44,105,854 million cfu/yr

Total coliform 71,410,481,190 3,326,332,420,450 million cfu/yr

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 38,778,129 1,423,824,756 lbs/yr

Total organic carbon (TOC) 9,442,455 197,631,108 lbs/yr

Total residual chlorine 3,333 113,586 lbs/yr

Volatile residue 26,271,375 1,197,019,690 lbs/yr

a Conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM) and total

suspended solids (TSS) b Toxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium, cis-Permethrin,

manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, trans-Permethrin, vanadium, and zinc c Nutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorus
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-15

9.2 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS LOADINGS

This section presents the methods used by EPA to develop pollutant loading estimates

after implementation of various technology options being considered for the MPP industry. EPA

defined options loadings as the estimated pollutant loadings in MPP wastewater after

implementation of the selected technology option, also referred to as treated pollutant loadings. 

EPA estimated options loadings for all the MPP model facility groupings for each technology

option being considered.

In order to estimate the technology option loadings, EPA first derived the treated

pollutant concentrations for first processing, further processing and rendering wastewaters for

each technology option. EPA then estimated technology option concentrations for each model

facility grouping, from which technology option loadings could then be derived.

The following is a summary of the methods used by EPA to select data sources and

compute technology option loads:

• Section 9.2.1 describes data sources used by EPA to compute technology option

loadings for the pollutants of concern,

• Section 9.2.2 presents the methods used by EPA to compute average

concentrations for first processing, further processing and rendering wastewaters

for each technology option,

• Section 9.2.3 discusses the methods used by EPA to estimate technology option

concentrations for each model facility grouping, and

• Section 9.2.4 outlines the methodology used to estimate technology option

loadings for each model facility grouping.

9.2.1 Sources and Use of Available Data

To develop options loading estimates for the MPP industry, EPA used wastewater

sampling data from MPP facilities with unit processes contained within each technology option
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

1

 This facility was one of nine that performed self-sampling on behalf of EPA. Note that EPA does not

anticipate that the exclusion of sampling episode 6446 will significantly impact the technology option selection for

proposal: This facility was one of five that EPA selected to represent BAT-2 technology option performance. EPA

had sampling data from four other facilities using similar levels of treatment to use as the basis for proposal

development.

9-16

being considered. As described in detail in Section 3, multi-day sampling was conducted at 11

MPP facilities. EPA performed multi-day sampling at two facilities, and nine facilities

performed the multi-day sampling on behalf of EPA. EPA used the data from the two EPA

sampled facilities, but only eight of the nine self-sampled facility sampling episodes in estimating

options loadings. EPA discarded the data from sampling episode 6446 because the Agency

needs to perform further review of the sampling data for this facility.1 To a limited extent, in the

absence of transferable sampling episode data, EPA used data received in the MPP detailed

surveys to estimate option loadings.

All data values (such as pollutant concentrations and flows) used in the development of

option loading estimations were derived as arithmetic averages. If pollutant concentrations were

reported below the sample detection limit, EPA used the sample detection limit. The Agency

used data from multiple sites for some options. In these cases, EPA first averaged the data for

each site and then averaged the sites’ averages with each other.

9.2.2 Calculation of Average Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First

Processing, Further Processing and Rendering Wastewaters

This section describes in detail how, for each technology option, EPA calculated treated

pollutant concentrations for wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing,

further processing and rendering). EPA used these values later to calculate the treated pollutant

concentrations for each of the 15 model facility groupings identified from the MPP screener

surveys. 

For each technology option, facilities were chosen from sampling episodes that had all the

technical unit processes of that technology option. Data from these sampling episodes were then

used to derive treated pollutant concentrations for first processing, further processing, and

rendering wastewaters after treatment by a particular technology option. If more than one facility
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

2

 An influent wastestream could consist entirely of one type of wastewater (first processing, further

processing, or rendering), or any mixture of the three. When an influent concentration was used in calculating the

treated concentration of the first processing, further processing, or rendering wastewater, it consisted solely of the

appropriate wastewater type.

3

 Influent and effluent pollutant concentrations were derived from the arithmetic average concentrations for

each sampling episode. All negative removal rates were set at zero.

9-17

was chosen for a technology option, then the treated pollutant concentration was derived from the

average of all the facilities.

To the extent possible with available data, EPA set the treated pollutant concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering wastewaters for each technology option

equal to the average effluent concentrations of the sampled facility or facilities that were chosen

as representative of the technology option. However, whenever this specific data was

unavailable, EPA calculated the concentration by one of three methods, depending on available

data.

Method 1: When appropriate influent2

 data was available, it was multiplied by a factor

that would estimate the pollutant concentration after treatment. This factor was derived using

pollutant removal data from sampled facilities (in instances where several facilities were used in

the calculations, the average removal of the facilities was used). The following equation was

used:

Treated pollutant concentration = (influent concentration) x (1 - removal fraction)

where 

pollutant removal fraction for a facility was calculated as follows3

:

(influent concentration - effluent concentration) / (influent concentration)

Method 2: This method was based on estimating a facility pollutant mass balance between

the final effluent and its components of first processing, further processing, and rendering

wastewaters (as applicable). From this relationship, an equation to calculate the treated pollutant

concentrations for first processing wastewater could be derived as follows:
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-18

Total pollutant effluent load = treated pollutant load from first processing + treated

pollutant load from further processing + treated pollutant load from rendering operations

Substituting loads with concentrations and flows:

(Final effluent concentration x total flow) = (treated concentration of first processing

wastewater x first processing wastewater flow) + (treated concentration of further processing

wastewater x further processing wastewater flow) + (treated concentration of rendering

wastewater x rendering wastewater flow)

Treated concentration of first processing wastewater = [(final effluent concentration x

total flow) - (treated concentration of further processing wastewater x further processing

wastewater flow) - (treated concentration of rendering wastewater x rendering wastewater flow)]

/ (first processing wastewater flow).

Method 3: When a specific technology option was not represented in the sampling

episodes, then concentrations were derived assuming that the removal fractions between different

technology option levels would be the same for meat and poultry facilities (i.e., the removal

fraction between meat BAT-2 and meat BAT-3 treatment options would be the same as the

removal fraction between poultry BAT-2 and poultry BAT-3 treatment options). This removal

fraction would then be applied to the treated pollutant concentrations calculated for the

technology option that was one step lower. This method is described in greater detail in the

technology options discussion where this method was applied. 

For the equations that follow, the following notations were used:

R1 = treated meat first processing wastewater concentration

R2 = treated meat further processing wastewater concentration

R3 = treated meat rendering wastewater concentration

P1 = treated poultry first processing wastewater concentration

P2 = treated poultry further processing wastewater concentration

P3 = treated poultry rendering wastewater concentration

influent@xxxx = influent concentration of sampling episode xxxx 
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-19

effluent@xxxx = effluent concentration of sampling episode xxxx 

(discharge effluent, unless otherwise noted).

Technology Options for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities

This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for

wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing, and

rendering) for direct discharging meat facilities.

BAT-1 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The BAT-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (DAF) (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS

removal), limited nitrification (ammonia (NH3) removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal).

The BAT-1 and BAT-2 options consist of the same unit processes; however, under BAT1, EPA assumed that MPP facilities would only achieve limited nitrification in comparison to

BAT-2. Thus, EPA set the BAT-1 treated pollutant averages for meat facilities equal to the

BAT-2 treated averages calculated for meat facilities (see next section), except for ammonia

(NH3 as N), nitrate/nitrite and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations.

The following methodology describes how EPA calculated BAT-1 concentrations for

ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and TKN.

EPA first estimated the ammonia concentration for meat first processing by taking an

average of effluent ammonia concentrations from meat facilities 0280, 0287, 0318, and 0336, as

reported in the MPP detailed surveys. These facilities were chosen, because their biological

treatment systems were not considered advanced, and it was assumed that these facilities were

not operating their system specifically to achieve full scale nitrification, and therefore would be

representative of a BAT-1 treatment effluent.

EPA then assumed that the total nitrogen concentration for the BAT-1 treatment option

would be equal to total nitrogen concentration for the BAT-2 treatment option. EPA believes

that only the concentrations of the different forms of nitrogen in a given wastestream would
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-20

change, but the total nitrogen concentration would not change (i.e., only the forms of nitrogen

would change when shifting to a nitrification system).

To calculate the TKN concentration for meat first processing wastewater treated by BAT1, the following relationships and equations were used to derive TKN estimates:

(TKN of BAT-1) = (ammonia of BAT-1) + (organic nitrogen of BAT-1)

then: (organic nitrogen of BAT-1) = (TKN of BAT-1) - (ammonia of BAT-1)

Assuming the relationship between total nitrogen and organic nitrogen remain the same

from BAT-1 to BAT-2:

(organic nitrogen of BAT-1) = (organic nitrogen of BAT-2)

With substitutions:

(TKN of BAT-1) = (ammonia of BAT-1) + (organic nitrogen of BAT-2)

(TKN of BAT-1) = (ammonia of BAT-1) + [(TKN of BAT-2) - (ammonia of BAT-2)].

To calculate the nitrate/nitrite concentration:

Total nitrogen = (nitrate/nitrite) + (TKN)

Nitrate/nitrite = total nitrogen - TKN.

After determining the concentrations for ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total nitrogen, and TKN

for meat first processing, the ratios of ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and TKN to total nitrogen for

meat further processing and rendering were set equal to the ratios of meat first processing. With

total nitrogen concentration values derived from BAT-2 treatment option numbers, the ammonia,

nitrate/nitrite, and TKN concentrations could be calculated. For example, ammonia for R2 was

equal to (ammonia of R1 divided by total nitrogen of R1 (this calculates the ratio)) multiplied by

the total nitrogen value for R2.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-21

Table C-30 of Appendix C summarizes the methods used to derive average

concentrations for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from

meat facilities using BAT-1 treatment technology.

BAT-2 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The BAT-2 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal),

EPA selected datasets from sampling episodes for facilities 6440, 6441, 6442, and 6447

to derive option concentrations, because these meat facilities all contained the unit processes of

the BAT-2 technology option. When wastewater samples from the further processing and/or

rendering operations were not available from a facility, appropriate sampling data from another

facility (i.e., same wastewater type) were substituted to fill data gaps. EPA used influent

rendering wastestream concentrations from sampling episode 6447 to substitute missing

rendering wastestream concentrations for sampling episodes 6440, 6441, and 6442. EPA also

used influent further processing wastestream concentrations from sampling episode 6335 to

substitute missing further processing wastestream concentrations for sampling episode 6447. 

Table 9-7 summarizes data substitutions.

Table 9-7. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling

Missing Data Data Substitution

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episodes 6440, 6441, and 6442

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations from

sampling episode 6447

Influent further processing wastewater concentrations

for sampling episode 6447

Influent further processing wastewater concentration

from sampling episode 6335

Since EPA selected four facilities to derive treated pollutant concentrations for the BAT-2

treatment technology, wastewater concentrations were calculated for each facility, and the

average of the four facilities was taken to derive the option concentrations.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-22

The calculations to derive treated first processing, further processing, and rendering

wastewater concentrations for facility 6440 are given below as an example of how concentrations

were derived for each facility (refer to Table C-31 of Appendix C for equations):

• First processing wastewater (R1): The first processing waste stream concentration

was calculated through a mass balance approach as previously described (Method

2) in the beginning of Section 9.2.2. Because facility 6440 only performed first

processing and rendering operations, the mass balance equation was modified to

only subtract a rendering allocation load, where:

Treated concentration of first processing wastewater = [(final effluent

concentration x total flow) - (treated concentration of rendering wastewater x

rendering wastewater flow)] / (first processing wastewater flow)

• Further processing wastewater (R2): Since facility 6440 only performed first

processing and rendering operations, the further processing wastewater

calculations were not applicable.

• Rendering wastewater (R3): The calculation for the rendering waste stream

concentration followed Method 1 as described previously.

R3 for facility 6440 = (a) x (influent rendering waste stream concentration of

facility 6447) where: (a) = (1 - average removal fraction of facilities 6440, 6441,

6442 and 6447.)

Since the influent rendering waste stream concentration of facility 6440 was

unavailable, data from facility 6447 was used as a substitution.

Table C-31 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities

using BAT-2 treatment technology.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

4

 Facility 6335 is an indirect discharger, however, this facility also contained BAT-3 technology for the

treatment of reuse water. EPA used data from the reuse water sampling point at this facility to represent the

performance of the BAT-3 technology option.

9-23

BAT-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The BAT-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal) and denitrification (nitrogen removal), and disinfection

(pathogen removal).

The dataset from sampling episode 6335 was chosen because this meat facility contained

the unit processes of the BAT-3 technology option4

. Table 9-8 summarizes data substitutions.

Table 9-8. Data Substitutions for BAT-3 Technology Option Sampling

Missing Data Data Substitution

Influent rendering wastewater concentration for

sampling episode 6335

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations from

sampling episode 6447

Table C-32 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities

using BAT-3 treatment technology.

BAT-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The BAT-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), phosphorus removal, and

disinfection (pathogen removal).

Since sampling data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of BAT-4

technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived by

assuming that the removal fraction between poultry BAT-3 and BAT-4 technology options would

be the same as the removal fraction between meat BAT-3 and BAT-4 technology options. This
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-24

removal fraction was then used to calculate average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentrations for

meat facilities. 

Table C-33 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities

using BAT-4 treatment technology.

Technology Options for Direct Discharging Poultry Facilities

This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for

wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing, and

rendering) for direct discharging poultry facilities.

BAT-1 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The BAT-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

limited nitrification (ammonia removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal).

EPA set the treated pollutant concentrations for BAT-1 poultry facilities equal to the

treated pollutant concentrations calculated for BAT-2 poultry facilities (see next section), except

for ammonia, nitrate/nitrite and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). 

The Agency first estimated the ammonia concentration for poultry first processing by

taking an average of effluent ammonia concentrations from facilities 0020, 0026, and 0308 as

reported in the MPP detailed surveys. These facilities were chosen because their biological

treatment systems were not considered advanced, and it was assumed that these facilities were

not operating their systems specifically to achieve nitrification and therefore would be

representative of a BAT-1 treatment effluent. The methodology for deriving the remaining

pollutant concentrations was identical to that described previously in Section 9.2.2 for the BAT-1

technology option for meat facilities.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-25

Table C-34 of Appendix C summarizes the methods used to derive average

concentrations for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from

poultry facilities using BAT-1 treatment technology.

BAT-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The BAT-2 technology option comprises of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal).

The dataset from sampling episode 6445 was chosen because this poultry facility

contained the unit processes of the BAT-2 technology option. Since facility 6445 only conducted

first processing operations, appropriate influent data from other sampled poultry facilities was

used. Table 9-9 summarizes data substitutions.

Table 9-9. Data Substitutions for BAT-2 Technology Option Sampling

Missing Data Data Substitution

Influent further processing wastewater concentrations

for sampling episode 6445

Influent further processing wastewater concentrations

from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6445

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6448

Table C-35 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

using BAT-2 treatment technology.

BAT-3 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The BAT-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), and disinfection (pathogen

removal),.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

5

 Facility 6304 had sampling points prior and following a polishing filter unit process. EPA used effluent

concentrations from the sampling point prior to the filter at this facility to represent performance of the BAT-4

technology option. 

9-26

Since sampling data from a poultry facility that contained the unit processes of BAT-3

technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived by

assuming that the removal fraction between the poultry BAT-2 and BAT-3 technology options

would be the same as the removal fraction between the meat BAT-2 to BAT-3 technology

options. This removal fraction was then combined with the poultry BAT-2 treated pollutant

concentrations to derive poultry BAT-3 treated pollutant concentrations. 

Table C-36 of Appendix C gives the equations used to derive average concentrations for

first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

using BAT-3 treatment technology.

BAT-4 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The BAT-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), phosphorus removal, and

disinfection (pathogen removal).

The dataset from sampling episode 6304 was chosen because this poultry facility

contained the unit processes of the BAT-4 technology option5. Since facility 6304 only

conducted first processing operations, appropriate influent data from other sampled poultry

facilities was used. Table 9-10 summarizes data substitutions.

Table 9-10. Data Substitutions for BAT-4 Technology Option Sampling

Missing or Replaced Data Data Substitution

Influent further processing wastewater concentrations

for sampling episode 6304

Influent further processing wastewater concentrations

from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6304

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6448
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

6

 Facility 6304 had sampling points prior and following a polishing filter unit process. EPA used effluent

concentrations from the sampling point following the filter at this facility to represent performance of the BAT-5

technology option. 

9-27

Table C-37 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

using BAT-4 treatment technology.

BAT-5 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The BAT-5 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD5, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal), phosphorus removal,

polishing filter, and disinfection (pathogen removal).

The dataset from sampling episode 6304 was chosen because this poultry facility

contained the unit processes of the BAT-5 technology option6. Since facility 6304 only

conducted first processing operations, appropriate influent data from other sampled poultry

facilities was used. Table 9-11 summarizes data substitutions.

Table 9-11. Data Substitutions for BAT-5 Technology Option Sampling

Missing or Replaced Data Data Substitution

Influent further processing wastewater concentrations

for sampling episode 6304

Influent further processing wastewater concentrations

from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6304

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6448

Table C-38 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

using BAT-5 treatment technology.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

7

 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located after DAF and equalization of the treatment train

to represent the performance of the PSES-1 technology option. 

9-28

Technology Options for Indirect Discharging Meat Facilities

This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for

wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing and

rendering) for indirect discharging meat facilities.

PSES-1 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The PSES-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: of dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation) and equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal).

The dataset from sampling episode 6335 was chosen because this meat facility contained

the unit processes of the PSES-1 technology option7

. Table 9-12 summarizes data substitutions.

Table 9-12. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling

Missing or Replaced Data Data Substitution

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6335

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6447

Table C-39 of Appendix C gives the equations used to derive average concentrations for

first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities using

PSES-1 treatment technology.

PSES-2 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The PSES-2 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), and

nitrification (ammonia removal).

Since sampling data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of the PSES-2

technology option was unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the

calculated treated pollutant concentrations for meat BAT-2 and PSES-1 technology options for
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

8

 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfection to represent the performance

of the PSES-3 technology option for microbial pollutants. 

9-29

non-microbial and microbial pollutants, respectively. Because PSES-2 and BAT-2 technology

options are similar in effective pollutant removals (except for microbial pollutants, due to the

disinfection unit process of BAT-2), EPA assumed that the treated pollutant concentrations of

both options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Also, since EPA believes that only a

disinfection process would significantly change the microbial concentrations in MPP

wastewaters, microbial pollutant concentrations for meat PSES-2 were set equal to treated

pollutant concentrations of meat PSES-1 (since microbial concentrations would not be expected

to change significantly in higher PSES option levels).

Table C-40 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities

using PSES-2 treatment technology.

PSES-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The PSES-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), and denitrification (nitrogen removal).

Since complete data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-3

technology option was unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the

calculated treated pollutant concentrations for the meat BAT-3 technology option for nonmicrobial pollutants. Because PSES-3 and BAT-3 technology options are similar in effective

pollutant removals (except for microbial pollutants due to the disinfection unit process of BAT3), EPA assumed that the treated pollutant concentrations of both options would be similar for

non-microbial pollutants. Data from sampling episode 6335 was used to derive microbial

pollutant concentrations.8

Table C-41 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities

using PSES-3 treatment technology.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9

 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfection to represent the performance

of the PSES-4 technology option for microbial pollutants. 

9-30

PSES-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The PSES-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal) and phosphorus removal.

Since sampling data from a meat facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-4

technology option was unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the

calculated treated pollutant concentrations for the meat BAT-4 technology option for nonmicrobial pollutants. Because PSES-4 and BAT-4 technology options are similar in effective

pollutant removals (except for microbial pollutants due to the disinfection unit process of BAT4), EPA assumed that the treated pollutant concentrations of both options would be similar for

non-microbial pollutants. Data from sampling episode 6335 was used to derive microbial

pollutant concentrations.9

Table C-42 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities

using PSES-4 treatment technology.

Technology Options for Indirect Discharging Poultry Facilities

This subsection describes how EPA calculated treated pollutant concentrations for

wastewater from the three basic MPP operations (first processing, further processing and

rendering) for indirect discharging poultry facilities.

PSES-1 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The PSES-1 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation) and equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal).
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

10 EPA used data from the sampling point located following the diffused air flotation unit process (and

before the disinfection unit process) at this facility to represent the performance of the PSES-2 technology option for

microbial pollutants. 

9-31

EPA chose datasets from sampling episodes 6443 and 6444, because these poultry

facilities all contained the technical unit processes of the PSES-1 technology option. Table 9-13

summarizes data substitutions.

Table 9-13. Data Substitutions for PSES-1 Technology Option Sampling

Missing or Replaced Data Data Substitution

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episodes 6443 and 6444 

Influent rendering wastewater concentrations for

sampling episode 6448

Table C-43 of Appendix C shows the equations used to derive average concentrations for

first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

utilizing PSES-1 treatment technology.

PSES-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The PSES-2 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), and

nitrification (ammonia removal).

Since sampling data from a poultry facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-2

technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the

calculated treated pollutant concentrations of poultry BAT-2. Both technology options are

similar in effective pollutant removals, except for microbial pollutants (due to disinfection unit

process in BAT-2). EPA therefore decided that the treated pollutant concentrations of both

options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were

derived from sampling episode 6304 data.10

Table C-44 of Appendix C contains the equations used to derive average concentrations

for first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

using PSES-2 treatment technology.
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

11 EPA used microbial effluent concentrations from this facility to represent the treatment performance of

the PSES-3 technology option on microbial pollutants. 

9-32

PSES-3 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The PSES-3 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), and denitrification (nitrogen removal).

Since appropriate data from a sampled poultry facility that contained the unit processes of

PSES-3 technology option were unavailable, EPA derived the treated pollutant concentrations

from the calculated treated pollutant concentrations of poultry BAT-3. Both technology options

are similar in effective pollutant removals, except for microbial pollutants (due to disinfection

unit process in BAT-3). EPA therefore decided that the treated pollutant concentrations of both

options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were

derived from sampling episode 6443 data.11

Table C-45 of Appendix C shows the equations used to derive average concentrations for

first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

using PSES-3 treatment technology.

PSES-4 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The PSES-4 technology option consists of the following unit processes: dissolved air

flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal),

nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrification (nitrogen removal) and phosphorus removal.

Since sampling data from a poultry facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-4

technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentrations were derived from the

calculated treated pollutant concentrations of poultry BAT-4. Both technology options are

similar in effective pollutant removals, except for microbial pollutants (due to disinfection unit

process in BAT-4). EPA therefore decided that the treated pollutant concentrations of both
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

12 EPA used microbial effluent concentrations from this facility to represent the treatment performance of

the PSES-4 technology option on microbial pollutants. 

13 Note that although EPA organized the MPP industry into 19 model facility groupings, based on the MPP

screener survey results, there were direct and indirect discharging facilities in only 15 model facility groups.

9-33

options would be similar for non-microbial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were

derived from sampling episode 6443 data12.

Table C-46 of Appendix C shows the equations used to derive average concentrations for

first processing, further processing, and rendering effluent wastewaters from poultry facilities

utilizing PSES-4 treatment technology.

9.2.3 Development of Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations for each Model

Facility Group

This section describes the method by which EPA developed average treated pollutant

concentrations for 15 of the 19 model facility groupings used to represent the meat and poultry

processing industry. Section 11 provides a discussion of the model facility groupings.13 As

described in Section 9.2.2 above, EPA developed average treated pollutant concentrations for

each pollutant and technology option being considered by EPA for meat and poultry first

processing (R1 and P1), further processing (R2 and P2), and rendering (R3 and P3). Since there

are MPP facilities that perform combinations of these three types of MPP operations, EPA used

the average treated pollutant concentrations for first processing, further processing, and rendering

and the flow ratios among the various types of processes to derive flow-weighted average treated

pollutant concentrations.

EPA calculated flow fractions for different meat and poultry groupings using available

data from the MPP detailed survey. Specifically using flow rates reported in the MPP detailed

survey, EPA determined the fraction of total flow attributable to each of the processes (first

processing, further processing, and rendering). For example, EPA determined from a sample of

poultry first and further processing facilities that 74.08 percent of the total flow was attributable

to first processing and that the balance of 25.92 percent was from further processing operations. 

Similar flow fractions were derived for the remaining meat and poultry groupings and are
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-34

presented in Table 9-14 below. Since EPA used both direct and indirect facilities to derive the

flow fractions, the same flow fractions were used for both direct and indirect facilities.

Using the flow fractions in Table 9-14 and the average treated pollutant concentrations

derived as described in Section 9.2.2, EPA calculated pollutant concentrations for the various

meat and poultry facility groupings. Since the flow fractions are expressed as percentages, EPA

was able to compute the required concentrations without actual flow rates.

Table 9-14. Flow Fractions Used to Derive Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations

Model Facility

Grouping

Flow Fraction

First Processing Further Processing Rendering

P1 a a a

P12 0.7408 0.2592 --

P123 0.553 0.1934 0.2535

P13 0.6857 -- 0.3143

P2 a a a

P23 -- 0.4328 0.5672

R1 a a a

R12 0.5266 0.4734 --

R123 0.356 0.32 0.324

R13 0.5235 -- 0.4765

R2 a a a

R23 -- 0.4968 0.5032

M1 c c c

M2 b b b

M12 c c c

M13 c c c

M23 b b b

M123 c c c

Render -- -- d

a Average treated pollutant concentrations were derived directly from sampling episode data; flow fractions were

not required. b The average treated pollutant concentrations for the “mixed” model facilities groupings were calculated by taking

the average of the treated pollutant concentrations of relevant poultry and meat operations (for the corresponding

technology option and pollutant). For example, the average treated pollutant concentrations from P2 and R2 were

averaged together to derive the average treated pollutant concentration for mixed further processing (M2). c According to the MPP screener survey, there were no direct or indirect facilities in this model facility grouping. d The “Rendering” model facility grouping average concentration was calculated by taking the average of the treated

pollutant concentrations of P3 and R3 (for the corresponding technology option and pollutant).
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

14 EPA carefully selected 65 non-small “certainty” facilities to obtain site-specific information on major

producers for all types of meat and poultry products as well as facilities identified as good performers by state and

regional environmental personnel. These certainty facilities were not included in the screener survey projections for

deriving national estimates. The certainty facilities represent eight percent of the total number of non-small facilities

as estimated from screener survey projections. Thus, the estimated national loadings for non-small facilities were

multiplied by a factor of 1.08 to account for the certainty facilities. 

9-35

For example, for a P12 facility, the wastewater will consist of first processing (P1) and

further processing (P2) wastewater effluents. From Table 9-14, a P12 facility has a flow fraction

of 0.7408 for first processing (P1) and 0.2592 for further processing (P2) wastewaters. If the

average BOD concentration for first processing wastewater treated by the BAT-2 option were

calculated to be 2.00 mg/L, and the further processing (P2) wastewater was calculated to be 5.91

mg/L, then the treated BOD concentration for a BAT-2 P12 facility would be:

P12 = (2.00 mg/L x 0.7408) + (5.91 mg/L x 0.2592) = 3.01 mg/L

Tables C-47 through C-75 in Appendix C present the average treated pollutant

concentration for each of the 15 model facility groupings for all pollutants of concern and all

technology options being considered by EPA.

9.2.4 Development of Post-Compliance Pollutant Loadings for each Technology

Option and each Model Facility Grouping

EPA estimated post-compliance pollutant loadings based on the average treated pollutant

concentration for each of the 37 pollutants of concern, for each of the 15 model facility

groupings, and for each technology being considered. For each model facility grouping, the

number and size of facilities and median facility discharge flow was determined from the MPP

screener surveys. EPA then estimated post-compliance pollutant loadings for each size of model

facility grouping using the following equations: 

Load = Flow x Conc x CF x NF (for small facilities)

Load = Flow x Conc x CF x NF x 1.0814 (for non-small facilities)

where:

Load = post-compliance pollutant loading, in lbs/day, million cfu/day, or million

cysts/day 
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-36

Flow = median flow rate, million of gallons per day (based on an average of 260

production days per year)

Conc = average treated pollutant concentration for the model facility grouping

model facility grouping (as presented in Tables C-47 through C-75 in

Appendix C), in mg/L, cfu/100 mL, or cysts/liter

CF = conversion factor, which is dependant on the concentration units of the

pollutant:

mg/L = 8.345

cfu/100 mL = 37.8

cysts/liter = 3.78

NF = national estimate of the number of facilities for the model facility grouping

and size.

Tables 9-15 and 9-16 present a summary of the post-compliance pollutant loadings for

direct and indirect dischargers for all technology options being considered by EPA.

9.3 POLLUTANT REMOVALS

From baseline and technology option loadings, EPA estimated national pollutant

removals after implementation of each technology option considered. This estimation was done

by taking the difference between the baseline loadings and each technology option loadings. 
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-37

Table 9-15. Technology Option Loading for Direct Dischargers

Pollutant Groups of

Concern

Options Loadings

Units

BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 BAT-5 d 

Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Non-Small

Conventional pollutants a 336,706 28,405,563 336,706 28,405,563 239,196 19,723,690 74,162 14,848,506 6,628,913 lbs/yr

Toxic pollutants b 198,828 41,264,641 46,071 34,173,358 25,292 5,732,508 9,779 2,318,189 379,239 lbs/yrNutrients c 203,639 46,668,728 203,639 46,668,728 32,788 7,187,084 14,278 4,572,993 1,197,020 lbs/yrOther Pollutants of ConcernAeromonas 8,325,096 3,532,187,013 8,325,096 3,532,187,013 3,857 10,661,121 425,842 445,526,130 3,180,251

million

cfu/yr

Carbonaceousbiochemical oxygendemand (CBOD) 7,138 1,758,927 7,138 1,758,927 14,621 3,154,816 24,794 4,748,895 942,344 lbs/yrChemical oxygen demand(COD) 180,692 21,468,569 180,692 21,468,569 182,071 18,002,535 234,596 20,387,776 9,147,581 lbs/yrChloride 639,252 382,961,031 639,252 382,961,031 617,218 45,502,064 811,197 482,396,856 25,058,084 lbs/yrCryptosporidium N/A e N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Dissolved biochemicaloxygen demand 22,182 2,656,730 22,182 2,656,730 12,093 1,498,647 35,425 2,987,222 1,131,145 lbs/yr

Dissolved phosphorus 13,462 4,606,196 13,462 4,606,196 4,299 927,519 4,171 908,830 73,253 lbs/yrE. coli 817,084 233,031,975 817,084 233,031,975 8,380 3,132,204 62,579 6,283,460 62,928,965

million

cfu/yr

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,218,819 335,728,729 1,218,819 335,728,729 102,117 37,120,219 148,585 39,859,694 59,464,254

million

cfu/yr

Fecal streptococci 378,959 78,819,775 378,959 78,819,775 80,593 2,409,632 348,410 17,376,440 9,059,549

million

cfu/yr

Orthophosphate 12,125 3,620,792 12,125 3,620,792 3,952 1,811,671 3,087 760,102 3,836 lbs/yr
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-38

Table 9.15. Technology Option Loading for Direct Dischargers (continued)

Pollutant Groups of

Concern

Options Loadings

Units

BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 BAT-5 d 

Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Non-Small

Salmonella 13,419 2,123,747 13,419 2,123,747 16,658 1,982,678 59 1,702,837 1,702,577

million

cfu/yr

Total coliform 4,569,483 1,026,186,733 4,569,483 1,026,186,733 308,197 68,403,189 109,808 11,656,001 115,656,674

million

cfu/yr

Total dissolved solids(TDS) 3,913,173 1,127,933,751 3,913,173 1,127,933,751 3,938,507 77,121,174 4,357,800 1,114,808,491 179,693,482 lbs/yr

Total organic carbon(TOC) 69,409 8,260,014 69,409 8,260,014 44,575 5,355,750 56,695 5,486,317 1,718,856 lbs/yrTotal residual chlorine 485 80,595 485 80,595 4,473 6,667,097 4,473 6,667,097 N/A lbs/yrVolatile Residue 793,525 149,720,716 793,525 149,720,716 582,625 80,907,268 742,666 109,422,341 70,578,145 lbs/yr a Conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM), and total suspended solids (TSS) b Toxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium, cis-permethrin, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, transpermethrin, vanadium, and zinc c Nutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorus

d BAT-5 treatment option was considered only for poultry model facility groupings. No direct discharging small BAT-5 poultry facilities exist. e not available
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-39

Table 9-16. Technology Option Loading for Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant Groups of

Concern

Options Loadings

Units

PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4

Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small

Conventional pollutants a 14,507,645 820,258,114 1,323,002 59,607,632 834,069 32,688,688 489,800 37,247,151 lbs/yr

Toxic pollutants b 1,241,072 97,035,039 174,898 16,290,095 86,554 3,753,669 38,035 1,908,384 lbs/yr

Nutrients c 1,387,651 84,759,188 923,307 51,850,941 157,728 8,363,155 102,660 6,726,428 lbs/yr

Other Pollutants of ConcernAeromonas 14,820,687,512 1,301,380,789,662 14,073,166,893 1,090,092,557,403 5,048,245,175 437,538,582,222 5,048,245,175 437,538,582,222

million

cfu/yr

Carbonaceousbiochemical oxygendemand (CBOD) 8,164,026 406,159,450 34,428 2,182,386 65,309 3,316,690 118,228 7,335,951 lbs/yrChemical oxygendemand (COD) 13,395,570 693,706,520 657,839 27,907,071 647,220 24,169,551 819,011 29,287,476 lbs/yrChloride 17,963,311 502,316,560 14,406,879 620,266,883 18,103,735 474,910,062 18,968,954 797,397,121 lbs/yrCryptosporidium N/Ad N/A 2,279,487,921 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

million

cysts/yr

Dissolved biochemicaloxygen demand 8,015,656 286,463,154 84,615 3,112,088 46,365 1,759,195 125,002 4,787,019 lbs/yrDissolved phosphorus 171,422 7,366,753 115,836 5,190,198 35,757 1,326,120 34,719 1,300,034 lbs/yr

E. coli 31,400,159,074 3,206,691,095,489 27,596,967,456 1,472,017,006,101 15,417,053,170 1,591,395,207,841 15,417,053,170 1,591,395,207,841

million

cfu/yr

Fecal coliform bacteria 34,245,841,873 3,388,008,109,881 30,550,007,399 1,667,024,622,884 15,443,958,242 1,592,499,542,417 15,443,958,242 1,592,499,542,417

million

cfu/yr

Fecal streptococci 31,046,712,271 672,189,574,092 31,041,166,490 667,503,725,714 69,631,637 7,225,374,930 69,631,637 7,225,374,930

million

cfu/yr

Orthophosphate 81,615 5,630,590 66,160 3,054,251 24,324 1,408,501 16,136 671,805 lbs/yrSalmonella 1,356,677 21,790,576 2,143,566 220,245,327 65,621 4,294,742 65,621 4,294,742

million

cfu/yr

Total coliform 35,628,502,122 3,123,192,328,783 32,418,068,379 1,628,553,753,188 15,443,958,242 1,592,499,542,417 15,443,958,242 1,592,499,542,417

million

cfu/yr

Total dissolved solids(TDS) 32,505,098 904,001,014 31,102,546 1,512,457,571 32,596,519 726,386,727 35,151,094 1,555,476,996 lbs/yr

Total residual chlorine 2,715 144,060 3,608 171,512 48,946 4,638,105 48,946 4,638,105 lbs/yr
Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-40

Table 9-16. Technology Option Loading for Indirect Dischargers (continued)

Pollutant Groups of

Concern

Options Loadings

Units

PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4

Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small

Volatile residue 8,009,748 457,871,747 4,566,245 299,329,626 3,244,971 187,301,488 4,218,498 265,971,638 lbs/yr

a Conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM), and total suspended solids (TSS)b Toxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium, cis-permethrin, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, transpermethrin, vanadium, and zincc Nutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorusd not available
10-1

SECTION 10

NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the Clean Water Act require EPA to consider non-water

quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements) associated with effluent

limitations guidelines and standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA considered the

potential impact of the proposed meat and poultry products (MPP) rule on energy consumption,

air emissions, and solid waste generation. A discussion of the proposed technology options is

given in Section 9 of this Development Document. Considering energy use and environmental

impacts across all media, the Agency has determined that the impacts identified in this section

are justified by the benefits associated with compliance with the proposed limitations and

standards. Section 10.1 discusses the energy requirements for implementing wastewater

treatment technologies at MPP facilities. Section 10.2 presents the impact of the proposed

technologies on air emissions, and section 10.3 discusses the impact on wastewater treatment

sludge generation.

10.1 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

EPA estimates that compliance with this rule will result in a small net decrease in energy

consumption at non-small MPP facilities that are direct dischargers, and no change in energy

consumption at all MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers (as EPA is proposing no PSES and

PSNS for all MPP subcategories). EPA did, however, estimate the energy consumption at

non-small MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers and noted a small net increase in energy

consumption. Table 10-1 and 10-2 present estimates of energy usage by technology option for

both non-small direct and indirect dischargers, respectively. For the selected proposal

technology options which apply to non-small direct discharging facilities only, EPA estimates

that there will be a reduction in total annual energy use (a net reduction of 144 million KWH/yr). 

This is a relatively small net reduction compared to the total annual amount of energy purchased

by non-small direct discharging facilities (2,929 million KWH/yr). There are no incremental

energy impacts for direct dischargers that are small poultry slaughterers (Subpart K) or small 
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-2

Table 10-1. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischargersa

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

b

Total Energy Purchased

per Non-Small

MPP Facility

million KWH/fac.-yr

Incremental MPP WWTP Energy Use per Non-Small MPP

Facility in units of million KWH/fac.-yr

and Total Energy Usage Percent Increase 

per Non-Small MPP Facility [% Increase]

BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 BAT-5

A, B, C, D 11.42 0.0221 -0.9324 -1.0759 NA

[0.19%] [-8.89%] [-10.40%]

F, G, H, I 13.46 0.0017

[0.01%]

-0.0239

[-0.18%]

-0.0354

[-02.26%]

NA

J 5.47 0 -0.2415 -0.261 NA

[0.00%] [-4.62%] [-5.01%]

K 13.53 0.0031 -0.627 -0.6076 -0.6033

[0.02%] [-4.86%] [-4.70%] [-4.67%]

L 13.46 0.0021 -0.1088 -0.1094 -0.1519

[0.02%] [-0.81%] [-0.82%] [-1.14%]

a

 "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of

these facility classifications.) b

 Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs

(including energy usage.)

Table 10-2. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities,

Indirect Dischargersa

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

b

Total Energy Purchased

per Non-Small MPP

Facility

million KWH/fac.-yr

Incremental MPP WWTP Energy Use per Non-Small MPP

Facility in units of million KWH/fac.-yr

and Total Energy Usage Percent Increase 

per Non-Small MPP Facility [% Increase]

PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4

A, B, C, D 11.42 0.2644 4.5467 2.0473 1.6061

[2.26%] [28.48%] [15.20%] [12.33%]

F, G, H, I 13.46 0.1227 0.6021 0.3404 0.3137

[0.90%] [4.28%] [2.47%] [2.28%]

J 5.47 0.0243 0.4617 0.0061 -0.0547

[0.44%] [7.78%] [0.11%] [-1.01%]

K 13.53 0.1423 2.6724 0.9385 0.8078

[1.04%] [16.49%] [6.49%] [5.63%]

L 13.46 0.0995 0.6519 0.3194 0.2933

[0.73%] [4.62%] [2.32%] [2.13%] a

 "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of

these facility classifications.) b

 Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs

(including energy usage.)
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-3

poultry further processors (Subpart L) because all of these small facilities are currently

implementing the proposed limitations and standards (See Section 6.3.1 of Administrative

Record - EPA 2001 Screener Survey). EPA is proposing no PSES and PSNS for all indirect

dischargers in all MPP subcategories. EPA did, however, estimate the energy usage at non-small

MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers and noted a small net increase in energy usage in most

cases.

In estimating energy use associated with BAT-3, BAT-4, and BAT-5, it was assumed that

anaerobic lagoon effluent would be used as the source of organic carbon necessary for

denitrification. This approach reduces oxygen transfer requirements and associated electrical

energy use for BOD reduction aerobically subsequent to anaerobic treatment. It has been

demonstrated that the electrical energy required for complete nitrification can be reduced by

approximately 20 percent through anoxic wastewater BOD reduction realized during

denitrification (Randall et. al., 1999). BAT-4 provides a small additional reduction in electrical

energy use as compared to BAT-3, given the BOD reduction occurring the anaerobic phosphorus

release phase of phosphorus removal.

EPA used facility count, wastewater flow, and treatment-in-place data from the MPP

screener survey and detailed survey to develop the energy use estimates presented in Tables 10-1

and 10-2. EPA also used data from the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers to estimate energy

demand for MPP facilities. See Appendix D for a listing of input values used to estimate energy

usage.

10.2 AIR EMISSIONS IMPACTS

The Agency believes that wastewater treatment processes included in the technology

options for this rule will not generate significant incremental air emissions, either directly from

the facility or indirectly through increased air emissions impact from the electric power

generation facilities providing the additional energy.

Odors are the only significant air pollution problem associated with the treatment of MPP

wastewaters and generally are associated with anaerobic conditions. Thus, flow equalization
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-4

basins, dissolved air flotation (DAF) units, and anaerobic lagoons are potential sources of

malodors. However, odor problems usually are significant only when the sulfur content of MPP

wastewaters is high especially when treatment facilities are well managed. Generally, MPP

wastewater treatment facilities using anaerobic processes for treating wastewater with a low

sulfur concentration have few odor problems (USEPA, 1974). At such facilities, maintaining a

naturally occurring layer of floating solids in anaerobic contact basins and lagoons generally

minimizes odors. Thus, the proposed technology options should not increase emissions of

odorous compounds from well-managed MPP wastewater treatment facilities. EPA visited

several MPP facilities that EPA considered to be operating the selected proposal technology

options. None of these BAT facilities had odor control problems.

The requirement of nitrification for BAT-2 through BAT-5 should reduce ammonia

emissions by reducing air stripping of ammonia during aerobic treatment. However, the

requirement of anaerobic treatment for initial BOD reduction before aerobic treatment will

increase methane and VOC emissions, but increases should be negligible given the current

extensive use of lagoons and other anaerobic processes in MPP wastewater treatment. In

addition, covering anaerobic lagoons and flaring the biogas captured can reduce these emissions. 

If the volume of biogas captured is sufficient, its use as a fuel to produce process heat or

electricity, or both, is an option. EPA observed two MPP facilities capturing biogas for use as an

alternative fuel during its 2001 site visits.

As previously stated, EPA estimates an annual net energy reduction of 144 million KWH

for the selected proposal technology options which applies to non-small direct discharging

facilities only. This annual net energy reduction, however, is small compared with the amount of

energy used by MPP direct dischargers (2,929 million KWH/yr) and trivial when compared with

the total electricity used by the entire United States in 1999 (3,501 billion KWH) (See the Energy

Information Administration - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/tab0812.htm).

10.3 SOLID WASTE GENERATION

The most significant non-water quality impact (NWQI) of the proposed technology

options for this rule is the generation of additional solid wastes from MPP wastewater treatment. 
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-5

One source of these additional solids generation is wastewater screening to remove larger

suspended solids, such as pieces of soft and hard tissue, including feathers and hair as the initial

treatment unit process. These solids are non-hazardous, have value as raw materials for byproduct production by rendering, and are not considered to be soild waste. Accordingly,

generation of this solids is not considered to have NWQIs. A second source of solids in MPP

wastewaters treatment is DAF units used to remove a substantial fraction of the suspended solids

in MPP wastewaters remaining after screening. At some MPP facilities, this material, commonly

known as DAF float, is disposed of by rendering and has economic value. However, DAF float

also is considered as a waste at some facilities and is disposed of by land filling or land

application. The utilization of DAF float in the production of rendered products or disposal as a

waste depends on the types of rendered product being produced. EPA noted during site visits to

two independent rendering operations that sludges from dissolved air floatation units which use

chemical additions to promote solids separation are rendered; however, the chemical bond

between the organic matter and the polymers requires that the sludges be processed (rendered) at

higher temperatures (260 oF) and longer retention times (see Section 6.1.2.2 of Administrative

Record - Renderer #1 CBI Site Visit Report). Because both direct and indirect dischargers

currently use USC DAF extensively in MPP wastewater treatment, EPA feels that the proposed

rule will have no significant impact on DAF float generation.

Additional sources of solids generated in the treatment of MPP wastewaters are the

physiochemical and biological treatment processes used following DAF. These solids consist of

a mixture of those suspended solids not initially removed by screening and DAF, and the

microbial mass generated during biological treatment processes. These solids are collectively

known as sludge and typically have a moisture content of between 95 and 98 percent before

thickening. Generally, MPP wastewater sludges are thickened, stabilized, stored in holding

ponds or anaerobic lagoons, and/or dried before ultimate disposal typically by land application. 

A wastewater treatment plant operator for a poultry slaughtering facility, which utilizes BAT-5

technology, noted that sludges from his facility are used as a soil amendment via subsurface

injection for crops raised on the facility's property. Other options for the ultimate disposal of
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-6

MPP wastewater sludge are land filling and incineration, which require a substantial reduction in

moisture content as a prerequisite.

EPA estimates that compliance with this proposed rule generally will slightly decrease the

generation of sludges during MPP wastewater treatment. For the selected proposal technology

options which apply to non-small direct discharging facilities only, EPA estimates that there will

be a 3.4 percent reduction in total annual sludge production (a net reduction of approximately

16,500 tons/yr). This is a relatively small net reduction in comparison with the current total

annual amount of sludge production by non-small direct facilities (approximately 500,000

tons/yr). Tables 10-3 and 10-4 present the amount of wastewater treatment sludge expected to

diminish at non-small facilities as a result of implementing each of the technology options. It is

assumed that the sludge generated contain 50 percent moisture after being dried in a sludge dryer. 

EPA used facility count, wastewater flow, and treatment-in-place data from the MPP screener

survey and detailed survey to develop these sludge generation estimates. See Appendix D for a

listing of input values used to estimate sludge generation. There are no incremental sludge

generation impacts for direct dischargers that are small poultry slaughterers (Subpart K) or small

poultry further processors (Subpart L), because all of these small facilities are currently

implementing the proposed limitations and standards (Section 6.3.1 of Administrative

Record––EPA 2001 Screener Survey). EPA also is proposing no PSES and PSNS for all indirect

dischargers in all MPP subcategories. EPA did, however, estimate the sludge generation at nonsmall MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers and noted a nominal to substantial increase in

sludge generation (Table 10-4).

As shown in Table 10-3, BAT-3 for direct dischargers results in a small net decrease in

sludge generation when compared to the estimate of sludge generation for BAT-2. The estimates

of sludge production for BAT-3 also are based on the assumption that anaerobic lagoon effluent

will be the source of organic carbon necessary for denitrification. The use of organic carbon in

anaerobic lagoon effluent for denitrification will reduce BOD and the sludge production during

subsequent aerobic treatment to satisfy BOD reduction requirements for direct discharge. 

Although microbial mass is synthesized during denitrification, which requires anoxic conditions,
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-7

Table 10-3. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct

Dischargersa

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

b

Baseline Total 

Sludge Generated at Non-Small

MPP Facilities, Direct

Dischargers

(tons/year)

Incremental Sludge Generated - tons/yr and 

Percent Increase [% Increase] For Non-Small MPP

Facilities, Direct Dischargers

BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 BAT-5

A, B, C, D 353,794 0

[0.0%]

-5,976

[-1.7%]

-5,334

[-1.5%]

NA

F, G, H, I 6,564 0 -45 -26 NA

[0.0%] [-0.7%] [-0.4%]

J 3,655 0 -124 -124 NA

[0.0%] [-3.4%] [-3.4%]

K 129,917 0 -10,353 8,533 8,533

[0.0%] [-8.0%] [6.6%] [6.6%]

L 3,326 0 -146 -137 -909

[0.0%] [-4.4%] [-4.1%] [-27.3%] a

 "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of

these facility classifications.) b

 Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs

(including sludge generation.)

Table 10-4. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect

Dischargersa

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

b

Baseline Total 

Sludge Generated at Non-Small

MPP Facilities, Indirect

Dischargers

(tons/year)

Incremental Sludge Generated - tons/yr and 

Percent Increase [% Increase] For Non-Small MPP

Facilities, Indirect Dischargers

PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4

A, B, C, D 63,466 0 227,567 187,011 189,695

[0.0%] [358.6%] [294.7%] [298.9%]

F, G, H, I 2,599 302 58,071 48,598 50,046

[11.6%] [2234.6%] [1870.1%] [1925.8%]

J 9,520 32 11,259 9,212 9,522

[0.3%] [118.3%] [96.8%] [100.0%]

K 38,422 97 188,012 162,621 162,589

[0.3%] [489.3%] [423.3%] [423.2%]

L 2,360 228 61,213 53,794 54,233

[9.6%] [2593.6%] [2279.2%] [2297.8%] a

 "Non-small" facilities include Medium, Large, and Very Large Facilities. (See Section 11.3 for a description of

these facility classifications.) b

 Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal, and do not have any net incremental NWQIs

(including sludge generation.)
Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-8

the rate of net cell synthesis is lower than that under aerobic conditions. This reduction in sludge

production with BAT-3 due to the reduction of BOD under anoxic conditions more than offsets

the increased sludge production associated with complete nitrification (BAT-2), because of the

very low growth rate of the microorganisms responsible for nitrification. Full-scale domestic

wastewater treatment plants have shown a five to 15 percent reduction in waste sludge

production after the inclusion of the nitrification/denitrification process (Randall, et. al, 1999). 

Implementation of BAT-4 and BAT-5 would further decrease sludge generation.

EPA also expects that more emphasis on pollution prevention by increased segregation of

waste materials that have value as raw materials for the production of rendered products from

wastewater flows could further reduce sludge generation. Examples of such pollution prevention

practices include using alternatives of fluming to remove viscera from processing areas and

initially “dry cleaning” facilities as the initial step in the daily cleaning of processing equipment

and facilities. If contact with water is prevented, fats and proteins that become dissolved and are

not captured subsequently by screening and DAF do not become sources of BOD and ammonia

nitrogen. Such pollution prevention practices also have the potential to reduce overall water use

in MPP processing.

10.4 REFERENCES

Randall W., Z. Kisoglu, D. Sen, P. Mitta, and U. Erdal. 1999. Evaluation of Wastewater

Treatment Plants for BNR Retrofits Using Advances in Technology, Virginia

Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia: Submitted to the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program,

Annapolis, Maryland. (DCN 00031)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Retrofitting POTWS. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development Document For Effluent Limitation

Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Red Meat Processing

Segment Of The Meat Product And Rendering Processing Point Source Category. 

February 1974. (DCN 00162)
11-1

SECTION 11

INCREMENTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE

COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED REGULATION

This section describes EPA’s methodology for estimating engineering compliance costs

associated with implementing the technology options proposed for the meat and poultry products

(MPP) industry. EPA evaluated costs for each class of meat and poultry facilities, including

meat, poultry, and combined meat-poultry (mixed) facilities. This section provides description of

industry-wide compliance costs to achieve the proposed technology options.

11.1 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

EPA subdivided the entire MPP industry into 19 groupings and 4 size classes. EPA used

these groupings and size classifications to develop 76 model facilities (19 groupings × 4 size

classes) to represent the broad range of potential MPP facilities in current operation. The

Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems

(CAPDET) (Hydromantis, 2001), a computerized cost model, was used for developing the

construction and annual operating cost of a treatment unit for each model facility. The

construction cost was used to determine the capital cost of a treatment unit. The model facility

costs were multiplied by the number of facilities that require the upgrade to provide the

incremental costs for each set of model facilities. For selected technology options, EPA estimated

retrofit costs based on each set of model facility costs. Each set of model facility category costs

and the retrofit costs were combined separately to determine costs by regulatory subcategory

(e.g., A through D, F through I, J, K, and L). Details of the method of cost estimating are

presented in Section 11.9.

11.2 IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards based on a combination of

processes and treatment technologies but is not requiring their use. Rather, the processes and

technologies used to treat MPP wastewaters are left to the discretion of individual MPP facilities.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-2

After promulgating the final rule, EPA will require compliance with the numerical limitations

and standards and not require MPP facilities to use specific processes or technologies. The

proposed technology options evaluated for existing direct dischargers (BPT/BCT/BAT), existing

indirect dischargers (PSES), new direct dischargers (NSPS), and new indirect dischargers

(PSNS) were based on an analysis of technology-in-place (TIP), according to data supplied in the

MPP detailed surveys. A summary of the treatment units for the proposed technology options is

shown in Table 11-1 and in Figures 11-1 through11-9. Note that Technology Option 5 is

applicable to poultry facilities only. 

Table 11-1. Proposed Technology Options for the MPP Industry

Treatment Units

Technology Options

Direct Discharger Indirect Discharger

1 2 3 45a 1234

Screen X X X X X X X X X

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) X X X X X X X X X

Equalization tank X X X X

Anaerobic lagoon X X X X X

Biological treatment with nitrification Xb XXXX XXX

Biological treatment with nitrification and

denitrification

XXX XX

Biological treatment with nitrification and

denitrification and phosphorous removal

XX X

Filter X

Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection X X X X X

X: treatment unit is required for that option.

a

 EPA only considered Direct Option 5 for poultry facilities only.

b Direct Option 1 uses a less optimized form of nitrification. (See Section 11.8.4.)
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-3

Figure 11-1. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 1

(assuming incomplete nitrification).

Figure 11-2. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 2.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-4

Figure 11-4. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 4.

Figure 11-3. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 3.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-5

Figure 11-5. Treatment Unit Schematic for Direct Technology Option 5

(Poultry Only).

Figure 11-6. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 1.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-6

Figure 11-7. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 2.

Figure 11-8. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 3.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-7

Figure 11-9. Treatment Unit Schematic for Indirect Technology Option 4.

11.3 DEVELOPMENT OF MPP MODEL FACILITIES

EPA used the MPP screener survey results to develop MPP model. These model facilities

were used to estimate compliance costs and were also used in other analyses (e.g., pollutant

reductions by treatment technology, economic impacts, non-water quality environmental

impacts). To develop the MPP model facilities, EPA first separated MPP facilities based on the

type of animal processed (e.g., meat, poultry, or both meat and poultry). To ensure that all MPP

facilities identified in the MPP screener survey were accounted for, and that variations in raw

wastewater characteristics are considered, EPA classified all MPP operations as first processing

(e.g., slaughtering, carcass preparation, and quartering), further processing (e.g., deboning,

cooking, sausage making), or rendering (wet or dry) and all possible combinations of these

processes. These separations and classifications produced 19 different groupings, shown in Table

11-2.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-8

Table 11-2. Definition of 19 MPP Facility Groupings

Number

Product

Type

 Model Facility

Grouping Code

Process(es) Performed

Production Values Used to Define Size Classifications

 (in 1,000 lbs)

First

Processing

Further

Processing Rendering Small Medium Large Very Large

1 Meat R1 X < 50,000 < 500,000 < 1,000,000 > 1,000,000

2 Meat R2 X < 50,000 < 3,000,000 < 6,000,000 > 6,000,0003 Meat R12 X X < 50,000 < 1,750,000 < 3,500,000 > 3,500,0004 Meat R13 X X < 60,000 < 600,000 < 1,200,000 > 1,200,0005 Meat R23 X X < 60,000 < 3,100,000 < 6,200,000 > 6,200,0006 Meat R123 X X X < 60,000 < 1,850,000 < 3,700,000 > 3,700,0007 Poultry P1 X < 10,000 < 150,000 < 300,000 > 300,000

8 Poultry P2 X < 7,000 < 125,000 < 250,000 > 250,0009 Poultry P12 X X < 8,000 < 137,000 < 275,000 > 275,000

10 Poultry P13 X X < 20,000 < 250,000 < 500,000 > 500,00011 Poultry P23 X X < 17,000 < 225,000 < 450,000 > 450,00012 Poultry P123 X X X < 18,000 < 238,000 < 475,000 > 475,00013 Mixeda M1 X < 30,000 < 300,000 < 650,000 > 650,00014 Mixeda M2 X < 30,000 < 1,500,000 < 3,000,000 > 3,000,000

15 Mixeda M12 X X < 30,000 < 1,000,000 < 2,000,000 > 2,000,00016 Mixeda M13 X X < 40,000 < 400,000 < 850,000 > 850,000

17 Mixeda M23 X X < 40,000 < 1,600,000 < 3,200,000 > 3,200,000

18 Mixeda M123 X X X < 40,000 < 1,100,000 < 2,200,000 > 2,200,00019

Meat

and/or

Poultry

Render X

< 10,000 < 100,000 < 200,000 > 200,000

a Meat and Poultry.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-9

EPA then further separated each of the 19 groupings into four size classes (small,

medium, large, and very large) based on total annual production data from the MPP screener

survey to develop 76 model facilities (19 groupings × 4 size classes). The resultant model

facilities allow EPA to consider MPP facility variations in (1) facility raw wastewater

characteristics, as determined by the source animal distinction (e.g., meat or poultry) and

processes performed (e.g., first processing, further processing; and rendering), and (2) facility

size, which can support estimation of wastewater volumes generated and thus the size of required

treatment units. EPA used these 76 model facilities to more accurately estimate costs, loadings,

non-water quality environmental impacts, and economic impacts of the proposed limitations and

standards on the MPP industry.

11.4 SELECTION OF A COST MODEL

EPA investigated various sources to collect cost information for the technology options

considered. The sources include vendor quotations, literature, the wastewater cost (W/W Cost)

computer model (W/W Cost, 1998), and the CAPDET computer model (Hydromantis, 2001).

EPA did not use vendor quotations or literature to derive cost curves for treatment units because

of a lack of detailed information. The W/W Cost model was also not used because of model

limitations, particularly the fact that the model does not have the costs for all the treatment units

considered in the technology options (e.g., denitrification). CAPDET was selected for estimating

the compliance costs for the proposed MPP regulation because it is user-friendly and has a

database that contains the latest costs (year 2000) of all the treatment units considered in the

MPP technology options. More important, based on a comparison to actual costs for MPP

facilities, CAPDET predicted the actual costs of MPP wastewater treatment plants reasonably

well (see Section 11.11).

The CAPDET software was originally developed based on the need for a method of

accurate and rapid preliminary design and cost estimating of wastewater treatment plant

construction projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed the software for EPA with

the specific intent of assisting personnel responsible for wastewater treatment planning in the

evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives, based primarily on life cycle costs and degree of
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-10

treatment provided. The major emphasis with CAPDET has been the development of accurate

planning-level cost estimates for unit processes. The model was designed to provide the

planning-level estimates based on knowledge of the basic system formulations and the use of

cost curves. The software calculates the design of each unit process, based on the influent to the

process, and then costs the design. This two-step approach gives the user the option to review the

produced design and modify it. Typical design defaults have been used for each unit process to

increase the acceptability of the calculated designs and make the software easier to use for

planners that require planning-level cost estimates for a new facility or an upgrade to an existing

facility.

Two basic methods are typically used for planning-level cost estimating. Parametric cost

estimating is based on a statistical approach (i.e., statistical analysis of the cost of facilities of

similar size and characteristics at other locations). A modification of this statistical approach is

the development of standard designs for various flows and formulation of a cost based on

engineering quantities. The second method identifies cost elements to which input unit prices are

applied (i.e., cubic yards of concrete in a clarifier are quantified). To this number an input cost

value for reinforced concrete in place is applied to determine construction costs. CAPDET

combines both parametric and unit costing techniques for estimating total project costs.

Costs associated with construction of a wastewater treatment facility are divided into two

categories: (1) unit process costs and (2) other direct and indirect costs. Unit process costs are

those associated with a specific treatment process, such as a clarifier. Battery limits are drawn

such that the clarifier is an individual functioning unit. Cost element estimating is used to

determine the costs of the unit process within these battery limits. Other direct and indirect costs

include those cost items required to create a functional treatment facility. These costs are derived

parametrically from EPA-developed cost curves based on bid data.

11.5 DESCRIPTION OF COST COMPONENTS

Cost estimation has two components: (1) capital costs and (2) operation and maintenance

costs. The capital cost is the initial investment a facility makes to build a treatment unit (or series

of treatment units). The operation and maintenance costs are annual costs incurred to maintain

and run that treatment unit (or series of treatment units). 
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-11

11.5.1 Capital Costs

The basis of capital cost estimating is to identify all costs associated with wastewater

treatment facility construction. These costs, once identified, can be categorized into two

categories: (1) unit process construction costs and (2) other direct and indirect costs. The sum of

the two costs provides the total capital costs. Often other direct and indirect costs are expressed

as a percentage of the construction costs to determine the capital cost. A similar approach is

followed to estimate the capital costs of the treatment units for the proposed regulation. The

construction cost of treatment units obtained from CAPDET model runs is multiplied by a factor

to determine the capital cost.

11.5.1.1 Construction Cost

The construction cost of a unit process is the cost to construct and install a treatment unit,

including its associated housing, piping, and electric work. The costs are defined within battery

limits, which are established to be the physical dimensions of the unit process plus 5 feet. The

major cost items for construction of any unit process can be generally categorized as follows:

• Concrete or steel tanks and structures

• Installed equipment

• Building and housing

• Piping and insulation

• Electrical works, control systems, and other facilities

Structural Components

The costs of the structural component comprise the costs of reinforced concrete,

earthwork, structures, and piping. The construction of earthen basins (such as anaerobic lagoons)

is usually accomplished with equal cut-and-fill quantities. In other words, excavated material is

used in embankments so that borrowing of dirt from outside is not necessary. The procedure is

applicable only when soil and groundwater conditions are ideal, which the CAPDET model

assumes to simplify costing procedures. The unit cost input consists of dollars per cubic yard of

earthwork assuming equal cut-and-fill.

The costs of reinforced concrete structures are estimated as the sum of costs of concrete

slabs and concrete walls because of the significant difference in costs between the two types of
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-12

in-place structures. The unit cost inputs for both type of structures in the CAPDET model are in

dollars per cubic yard (Hydromantis, 2001).

Equipment and Installation Costs

Equipment for the wastewater treatment system may constitute one of the largest items of

identifiable fixable capital costs. Accurate estimation depends on up-to-date equipment cost data.

With a limited number of unit cost input entries, it is very difficult to maintain a reliable cost 

database. The following description outlines a procedure that produces an accurate estimate

within these limitations. The installed equipment cost is considered in three components: the

purchase cost of the equipment, installation labor cost, and other minor costs such as electrical

work, minor piping, foundations, painting, and the like.

The purchase cost of process equipment is a function of size or capacity. To minimize the

number of cost inputs required, a standard unit of a particular size (or capacity) is selected and

the purchase cost of all other units of that type is expressed as a fraction or multiple of the

standard unit purchase cost. The exact form of the cost-versus-size relationship and the selection

of the standard sizes for each major equipment item were determined from a review of

manufacturers’ information and available literature. In most cases, these size-cost relationships

are relatively unaffected by inflation and other cost changes.

Two options are available by which the purchase cost of equipment can be escalated to

account for inflation. The first option is for the user to obtain from equipment manufacturers the

current cost of the standard size equipment at the treatment plant site. The purchase cost of any

other size item of like equipment is then automatically escalated by the cost versus size

relationships described above. The second option is to escalate the purchase costs by the use of

cost indices (Hydromantis, 2001). Only one input is required for this process, the Marshall and

Swift Equipment Cost Index. The 1977 and 2000 purchase prices of the standard size equipment

are stored in the CAPDET model and are updated automatically if the cost index is input into the

program. The latter of the two methods requires fewer input values. If the model user inputs a

cost for equipment, the index is not used to update the new costs.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-13

Man-hour requirements for installation are dependent on the type and size of equipment.

The relationships between man-hour requirements for installation and equipment size and type

have been established and are presented in the designs for each unit process. The installation cost

is estimated by multiplying the man-hour requirements by the input labor rates. In many cases,

data concerning manpower requirements for equipment installation were found to be incomplete

or nonexistent. In such cases, the model uses a percentage of purchase price factor to calculate

the cost of equipment installation. These factors, in general, were obtained from equipment

manufacturers and published sources.

The other minor costs for each type of equipment may include costs of piping, steel,

instruments, electrical components, insulation, painting, insurance, taxes, and so forth. These

items are estimated as a percentage of the purchase costs. The percentage values will vary with

the type and size of equipment. These percentage values were established based on design

experience, engineering judgment, manufacturers’ inputs, and previously published literature

(Hydromantis, 2001).

Costs for Building and Housing

Buildings are essential in certain unit processes for protection against weather or

maintenance of a requisite environment. The building requirements are related to the equipment

to be housed and are estimated as square footage of floor space. Building costs are estimated by

multiplying the square footage of floor space required by the unit cost per square foot

(Hydromantis, 2001).

Costs for Piping System

Piping costs are evaluated independently. Estimating process piping costs presents the

greatest challenge for the cost engineer. Estimating costs from detailed drawings is an arduous,

time-consuming task much beyond the scope of CAPDET. Evaluation on any other basis might

produce widely varying results. To estimate the cost of the “major piping system,” a combination

of two well-established estimating methods used by the chemical industries is employed. The

costs of material are estimated by the use of the Dickson “N” method, and the field erection cost
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-14

is estimated by the cost of “joints” method. The R.A. Dickson “N” method uses a technique to

estimate purchase price of piping material similar to the one proposed to estimate equipment

costs. Relationships are developed between the cost ratios, designated as N factors, and sizes of

pipe material (Hydromantis, 2001).

With these factors stored in CAPDET for cast iron pipe, steel pipe, fittings, and valves,

the user inputs only a limited number of unit costs of the reference components. The field

erection costs for the piping system can be estimated by use of the cost-per-joint method. The

unit of work measurement is the joint (two for couplings and valves, three for tees, etc.). Because

joints require the bulk of piping labor for erection, the costs of handling, hanging pipe placement,

and insulation are estimated as a fraction of the cost of makeup joints. The man-hours of field

erection per joint for various pipe sizes and materials, as well as the fraction for placing and

insulating, are evaluated in the quantities calculations. The field erection costs of the piping

system are estimated based on the labor requirements and unit labor price inputs. The total piping

system costs are the sum of the following items: (1) piping material costs, (2) field erection costs,

and (3) other minor costs as a percentage of total piping costs.

In many cases it is impractical, at the planning level, to identify piping quantities and

sizes. In such cases, a percentage of other construction cost factors is used to estimate piping

cost. The method used is specific for each process (Hydromantis 2001).

11.5.1.2 Total Capital Costs

The construction cost of wastewater treatment facilities involves not only the cost of the

construction of unit processes but also other direct and indirect costs incurred in creating a

functional facility. Piping and pumping, and instrumentation and controls are examples of direct

costs; engineering and contingency are examples of indirect costs. The total capital cost is the

sum of the construction cost and other direct and indirect costs. Based on the cost information

obtained from the cost document for the centralized waste treatment industry (USEPA, 1998), the

other direct and indirect costs are estimated to be 69 percent of the construction cost of the

treatment units. Direct and indirect costs as percentage of construction cost are provided in Table

11-3. (See Attachment 11-1 in Appendix D for details.) The capital cost for a treatment unit is
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-15

obtained by multiplying the construction cost by 1.69 to estimate the total capital cost of the

treatment unit.

Table 11-3. Cost Factors Used to Estimate Capital Costs

Cost Item Cost Type

Cost Factor

(Percent of Construction Cost)

Construction cost Direct 100

Piping Direct 17

Instrumentation and controls Direct 13

Engineering Indirect 19.5

Contingency Indirect 19.5

Total capital cost 169

For details, see Attachment 11-1 in Appendix D.

11.5.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

The operation and maintenance costs of a wastewater treatment unit process can be

divided into several major categories: energy, operation labor, maintenance labor, chemical costs,

operation and maintenance material and supply costs, and sludge disposal costs. The techniques

and methods used in CAPDET for estimating operation and maintenance costs are presented

below (Hydromantis, 2001).

11.5.2.1 Energy

Energy costs are derived from the calculated use of electric power, fuel oil, or natural gas.

The quantities calculations generate the quantities of energy use, whereas the cost calculations

apply user input unit prices to calculate the unit process energy cost. The total energy cost of the

treatment facility is simply the sum of the energy costs for the unit processes.

The cost of electric power is by far the predominant energy cost for most processes. The

procedure for calculating electric power cost is presented below. For some processes energy cost

may involve natural gas and fuel oil. Because natural gas and fuel oil are consumed in relatively

few processes, the costs of these fuels are tabulated as a material cost. For costing these fuels

EPA use techniques similar to those used to calculate electric power costs.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-16

Electric power consumption is estimated for each unit process and is part of the output

data from the quantities calculations of each process. The power consumption for the treatment

facility is simply the sum of the power consumption for the unit processes. The power

consumption is converted to costs by multiplying the power consumption (in kilowatt-hours per

year) by the unit price input for electric power costs (in dollars per kilowatt hour). Electric power

rates vary according to location, peak demand, and level of consumption. EPA used the

CAPDET default national cost of $0.08 per kilowatt-hour.

11.5.2.2 Labor Costs

The cost of labor can be divided into four categories: operation, maintenance,

administrative and general, and laboratory. Recommended staffing for the different levels of

manpower required for each of the four labor groups was established by using several

publications on staffing of wastewater treatment facilities. Based on staffing charts in the

literature, equations were developed to estimate an average labor rate for each labor group as a

function of Operator II labor rate. The user can input the Operator II labor rate or accept the

default value. The labor cost in each group is then calculated using the labor rate and the manhours. EPA used the CAPDET default labor rates.

Operation labor and maintenance labor are applied to the unit processes specified in the

treatment alternatives. The man-hours required over a year’s time for operation labor and

maintenance labor are calculated for each unit process. The total man-hours requirement is the

sum of the requirement for each unit process in the treatment facility. However, administrative

and general labor, as well as laboratory labor, is computed for the treatment facility as a whole.

The man-hours required for administrative and general labor and for laboratory labor are

determined from equations that involve average flow to the treatment plant.

11.5.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Material and Supply Costs

Operation and maintenance material and supply costs are calculated for each unit process.

Typically, these costs are calculated as a percentage of the unit construction costs. The total

operation and maintenance material and supply costs for the entire treatment facility are the sum

of the costs for each unit process used in the treatment facility.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-17

11.5.2.4 Chemical Costs

Four different chemicals are typically used at treatment facilities: lime, alum, ferric

chloride, and polymers. Quantities of each chemical required by the treatment processes are

calculated in the quantities calculations. These quantities are based on CAPDET’s calculations to

achieve desired removals or effluent concentrations from input (influent) concentrations. The

cost of a chemical is determined by multiplying the amount required by the unit cost of the

chemical. The total annual chemical costs for the facility are simply the sum of the five different

chemicals used in the various processes.

11.5.2.5 Sludge Disposal Costs

The sludge generated by biological treatment units and DAF units is assumed to be dried

and dewatered in sludge dewatering devices before being hauled off-site for land disposal.

Therefore, for DAF and biological treatment systems, an additional annual cost of sludge

disposal was added. CAPDET assumes sludge is dewatered in drying beds and sent to disposal at

50 percent solids content. A sludge disposal cost of $2.3/ton (Parker, 1998) was used for hauling

of the dried sludge leaving the sludge dryer.

11.5.2.6 Total Operation and Maintenance

The total annual operation and maintenance cost is the sum of the energy costs, the labor

costs, the operation and maintenance material and supply costs, the chemical costs, and the

sludge disposal costs.

11.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT UNITS AND SELECTED DESIGN

SPECIFICATIONS

For model runs, the cost modules in CAPDET are selected based on the treatment units

required for the technology options shown previously in Table 11-1. This section describes the

treatment units selected for the model runs. Descriptions of the treatment units, based on the

technical document in CAPDET, are presented below (Hydromantis, 2001).

11.6.1 Preliminary Treatment

Preliminary treatment comprises two processes: screening and grit removal. Because

most of the available cost information combines these processes and the costs of these treatment
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-18

units are relatively small, cost estimates are parametric. Inaccuracy in estimating the cost of the

preliminary treatment introduces only a small error in the total facility cost.

Screening devices are used to remove large objects that otherwise might damage pumps

and other equipment, obstruct pipelines, and interfere with the normal operation of the treatment

facilities. Bar screens are commonly used in the wastewater treatment facilities. Bar screens

consist of vertical or inclined bars spaced at equal intervals across the channel where wastewater

flows. The quantity of material removed by bar screening depends on the size of the bar spacings.

These devices may be cleaned manually or mechanically. The design of bar screens is based on

average and peak wastewater flow.

Grit removal is classified as a protective or a preventive measure. The process does not

contribute materially to the reduction in the pollutant load applied to the wastewater treatment

facility. Grit chambers are designed to remove grit, which can include sand, gravel, cinder, and

other inorganic abrasive matter. Grit causes wear on pumps, fills pump sumps and sludge

hoppers, clogs pipes and channels, and occupies valuable space in sludge digestion tanks. Grit

removal, therefore, reduces the costs of maintaining mechanical equipment and eliminates

operational difficulties caused by grit. Grit removal is recommended for small and large

treatment facilities. Bar screens are usually installed ahead of grit chambers to remove large

objects. The design of screens and grit chambers depends on the type selected, the type of grit

removal equipment, the specifications of the selected grit removal equipment, and the quantity

and quality of the grit to be handled. This process is part of preliminary treatment. Default design

values in CAPDET were used to develop costs for preliminary treatment. A 15-year life

expectancy was selected.

11.6.2 Dissolved Air Flotation

Flotation is a solid-liquid separation process. Separation is induced by introducing fine

gas bubbles (usually air) into the system. The gas-solid aggregate has an overall bulk density less

than the density of the liquid; thus, these aggregates rise to the surface of the fluid. Once the solid

particles have floated to the surface, they can be collected by a skimming operation. In

wastewater treatment, flotation is used as a clarifying process to remove suspended solids and as

a thickening process to concentrate various types of sludges. However, the process generally is

used for clarifying of certain industrial wastes and for concentrating waste-activated sludge.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-19

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) involves air being dissolved in the wastewater under

elevated pressures and later released at atmospheric pressure. The principal components of a

dissolved air-pressure flotation system are a pressurizing pump, air injection facilities, a retention

tank, a back pressure regulating device, and a flotation unit. The primary variables for flotation

design are pressure, recycle ratio, feed solid concentration, detention period, air-to-solid ratio,

use of polymers, and solids and hydraulic loadings. CAPDET sizes a circular DAF system with a

concrete structure. Specific information on design specifications for DAF units was not available

in the MPP detailed surveys. Therefore, the default design values in CAPDET were used to

develop costs for dissolved air flotation. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.

11.6.3 Equalization

Equalization is used to dampen variable waste flows so that the treatment facility receives

a relatively constant flow. It has been shown that many treatment processes operate better if

extreme fluctuations in hydraulic and organic loadings are eliminated. Equalization basins are

usually aerated to prevent the settling of solids and to prevent anaerobic conditions from

developing. 

The equalization basin volume is based on the magnitude and frequency of the variations

in hydraulic and organic load. The basin volume required for equalizing dry weather diurnal

flows is calculated based on two-hour flows for 24 consecutive hours. However, if the two-hour

flow data are not available, the desired volume of the basin is based on the median flow (see

Table 11-6). The program can be used for equalization of flows other than dry weather diurnal

flows by inputting the required basin volume. Cost of equipment is calculated from current cost

values in the selected database updated using the appropriate current cost indices. Default design

values in CAPDET were used to develop costs including the assumption that the basin is aerated.

A 15-year life expectancy was selected.

11.6.4 Lagoon

Lagoons have been extensively used for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment,

where sufficient land area is available. According to the MPP detailed surveys reviewed for the

proposed rulemaking, almost 30 percent of MPP facilities use a lagoon as part of their treatment

system. Some of the reasons for the popularity of lagoons are that they (1) have operational

stability with fluctuating loads, (2) usually require relatively unskilled operators, (3) incur low
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-20

operational costs, and (4) involve low construction costs. Lagoons can be anaerobic, aerobic, or

facultative.

Anaerobic lagoons are anaerobic throughout their depth, except for a very shallow upper

layer. These lagoons are constructed deep to ensure anaerobic conditions and to conserve heat.

Typically they are from 8 to 20 feet deep. Reductions of more than 65 percent of the influent

BOD5 are common with anaerobic lagoons.

For the model runs that included lagoons, an unlined anaerobic lagoon was selected with

a BOD loading rate of 350 pounds per acre per day. A 12-foot lagoon depth and 15-year life

expectancy were selected. Other parameters used to develop costs of an anaerobic lagoon were

left at the default values provided by CAPDET.

11.6.5 Intermediate Pumping

Several locations in a treatment facility may require pumping. Pumping is typically

required at points in the treatment train that create relatively high head losses or where a

relatively consistent flow is desired for optimum performance (e.g., pumping wastewater from an

anaerobic lagoon to a biological treatment system). The wastewater at this point is relatively

clean and free from large solids, so that more efficient pumps can be used for these processes

than for raw waste pumping. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs for

intermediate pumping stations. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.

11.6.6 Nitrification—Suspended Growth

Nitrogen in wastewater is present in several forms including organic nitrogen, ammonia

nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen. The prevalent forms in untreated MPP wastewater

are organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen. Organic nitrogen exists in both soluble and

particulate forms.

Nitrification is the process that converts organic and ammonia nitrogen to nitrate

nitrogen. Nitrification may be coupled with denitrification, which reduces nitrate to nitrogen gas

and removes the nitrogen from the water.

Suspended growth nitrification systems are similar in design to carbon oxidationactivated sludge systems. The biological growth is suspended in an aeration basin. Mechanical or

diffused aerators provide oxygen for nitrification and provide mixing that keeps the solids in

suspension. The mixed liquor is then clarified to remove suspended solids and concentrate the
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-21

sludge for recycle. The solids retention time in a nitrification system is longer than that in a

carbon oxidation system given the slower growth rate of the nitrifiers compared to heterotrophic

bacteria. The plug flow suspended growth system is considered in CAPDET. Default design

values in CAPDET were used to develop costs of a nitrification system. A 15-year life

expectancy was selected. As described further in Section 11.9.2, there are situations where new

unit processes may not be required to achieve full nitrification. To account for the ability of

facilities to upgrade existing nitrification-suspended growth systems, EPA estimated retrofit

costs.

11.6.7 Biological Nitrogen Removal

Biological nitrogen removal encompasses both nitrification and denitrification.

Nitrification is the process that converts organic and ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen.

Nitrification may be coupled with denitrification, which reduces nitrate to nitrogen gas and

removes the nitrogen from the water. Experience has shown that significant biological nitrogen

removal activity does not occur in strictly aerobic systems. Rather, such activity is achieved by

incorporating an unaerated zone into the process design. For denitrification, an anoxic stage

(nitrate present, no oxygen) is included. The reactor configuration typically includes an

anaerobic/unaerated stage ahead of an aerobic reactor. These reactors are followed by a

secondary clarifier used to concentrate the sludge and return it to the unaerated stage.

Denitrification is a two-step biological process. Nitrate is converted to nitrite, which in

turn is reduced to nitrogen gas. This two-step process is termed “dissimilation.” A broad range of

bacteria, including pseudomonas, micrococcus, achromobacter and bacillus, can accomplish

denitrification. These bacteria can use either nitrate or oxygen to oxidize organic material.

Because the use of oxygen is more energetically favorable than using nitrate, denitrification must

be conducted in the absence of oxygen (anoxic condition) to ensure that nitrate, rather than

oxygen, is used in the oxidation of the organic material. For denitrification to occur, a carbon

source must be available for oxidation. Carbonaceous material in the raw wastewater is often

used as a carbon source. However, if the carbonaceous material in the wastewater is not

available, an external carbon source may have to be added to the denitrification system. Default

design values in CAPDET were used for the design parameters to develop costs for biological

nitrogen removal. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-22

11.6.8 Biological Nutrient Removal—3/5 Stage

Biological nutrient removal (BNR) encompasses both nitrogen removal and excess

biological phosphorus removal. Excess biological phosphorus removal is a biologically mediated

process used within activated sludge systems to achieve phosphorus removal from wastewater.

The process involves cultivating certain microorganisms within the mixed community. These

microorganisms, termed polyphosphate accumulating organisms (PAOs), have the ability to take

up more phosphorus than they require for growth. The net effect of this uptake is a reduction of

phosphorus concentration in wastewater to a level that can be less than 1 mg/L.

Experience has shown that significant BNR activity does not occur in strictly aerobic

systems. Rather, BNR behavior is achieved by incorporating an unaerated zone into the process

design. For denitrification, an anoxic stage (nitrate present, no oxygen) is included, and for

phosphorus removal, an anaerobic stage (neither nitrate nor oxygen present) must be included in

the reactor configuration. For a description of the nitrification and denitrification stages, refer to

Section 11.6.7.

The three-stage BNR configuration includes an anaerobic stage, followed by an anoxic

stage followed by an aerobic stage. One internal recycle is used to recycle nitrate from the

aerobic stage to the anoxic stage and a return activated sludge (RAS) recycle is used to recycle

thickened sludge from the clarifier to the anaerobic stage.

The five-stage configuration (also termed a “modified Bardenpho”) is similar to the

three-stage configuration in that the first three reactors are similar and one internal recycle

recycles nitrate to the anoxic stage. However, to increase the nutrient removal capacity, two

additional stages are placed after the aerobic stage and before the clarifier. The first of these

stages is anoxic for more denitrification, and the second is aerobic for effluent polishing. The

five-stage configuration was selected to develop costs for this process. Default design values in

CAPDET were used to develop costs for the BNR process. A 15-year life expectancy was

selected. It should be noted that due to limitations of the CAPDET model, EPA could not adjust

for the fact that treatment in an anaerobic lagoon precedes the BNR process. This limitation most

likely results in overestimating the cost for the BNR process.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-23

11.6.9 Secondary Clarification 

Secondary clarifiers are commonly used in conjunction with biological wastewater

treatment systems to remove settleable solids. They produce an effluent low in suspended solids

and an underflow of sufficient concentration to maintain a sufficient population of active

microbial mass in the tank of biological activity. The secondary clarifiers are, therefore, designed

to provide clarification, as well as thickening. The design of clarifiers is based on the solids

loading rate, in addition to being governed by the overflow rate and detention time. The design

calculation considers the peak incoming wastewater flow; the return sludge withdrawal usually

takes place at a point very near the inlet to the tank. The performance of the final clarifiers is

affected by the method of sludge withdrawal. The preferred sludge collection mechanism is a

vacuum- or suction-type draw-off. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs

for secondary clarifiers. A 15-year life expectancy was selected. It should be noted that due to

limitations of the CAPDET model, EPA could not adjust for the fact that treatment is an

anaerobic lagoon precedes the BNR process. This limitation most likely results in overestimating

the cost for the BNR process.

11.6.10 Filtration

Filtration is the removal of suspended solids (and bacteria) through a porous medium.

The increasing concern for abatement of water pollution and the requirements for high-quality

effluents from wastewater treatment facilities have resulted in the rapid and wide acceptance of

filtration in wastewater treatment. Filtration is being used to remove biological floc from

secondary effluents and phosphate precipitates from phosphate removal processes, and as a

tertiary wastewater treatment operation to prepare effluents for reuse in water reuse, industry,

agriculture, and recreation.

Granular media used in filtration include sand, coal, crushed anthracite, diatomaceous

earth, perlite, and powdered, activated carbon. Sand filters have been most commonly. However,

mixed dual-media and multi-media filters are more effective and easier and less expensive to

operate than sand filters for the treatment of wastewaters. In the mixed dual-media and multimedia filters, two or three materials of different specific gravities and sizes are selected to ensure
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-24

intermixing between the various media at the interfaces. Sand and anthracite are typically used

for dual-media filters, while garnet is added for multi-media filters.

The design of filters depends on the influent wastewater characteristics, process and

hydraulic loadings; method and intensity of cleaning; nature, size, and depth of the filtering

material; and the required quality of the final effluent. Various sizes and types of filtration units

are available in the market. For smaller installations, the package units usually are selected. For

larger installations, concrete wall constructions are used for containing the filter units. A

parametric cost curve is used for the package-type filtration units. The construction costs for the

larger concrete wall, rectangular cell, and filtration systems are estimated based on equipment

and material costs. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs. A 15-year life

expectancy was selected.

11.6.11 Drying Beds

Sludge drying beds are a common method for dewatering digested sludge, especially in

small plants. Drying beds are usually constructed using 4 to 9 inches of sand over 8 to 18 inches

of graded gravel. The beds are usually divided into at least three sections for operational

purposes. An underdrain system, usually of vitrified clay pipes spaced 9 to 20 feet apart, is used

to remove water.

The design of sludge beds is influenced by many factors, such as weather conditions,

sludge characteristics, land value, proximity of residences, and use of sludge conditioning aids.

Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs. Sludge produced in this process

was assumed to contain 50 percent solids. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.

11.6.12 Disinfection

Disinfection is the selective destruction of pathogenic organisms; sterilization is the

complete destruction of all microorganisms. Disinfection used in water and wastewater treatment

has resulted in the control and reduction of waterborne diseases.

Disinfection may be accomplished through the use of chemical agents, physical agents,

mechanical means, and radiation. In wastewater treatment the most commonly used disinfectant

is chlorine; however, other halogens, ozone, and ultraviolet radiation have been used. 
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-25

Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection has been used to disinfect wastewater for some time and is

often the preferred disinfection method. UV disinfection has the following advantages over

chemical methods: (1) no residual toxicity to aquatic communities; (2) more effective than

chlorine in inactivating harmful viruses, spores, and cysts (e.g., Cryptosporidium); (3) improved

safety; and (4) no production of harmful trihalomethanes and other chlorinated by-products.

The major disadvantage is cost, although this is improving as additional technology is

brought to market. In addition, the UV sources must be cleaned regularly to maintain effective

disinfection. High operational energy costs may also be a concern. EPA assumed that MPP

facilities would use UV disinfection. Although this assumption may overestimate disinfection

costs (as compared, for example, to chlorination), EPA feels that UV disinfection provides more

environmental benefits than other options. Default design values in CAPDET were used to

develop costs, and 15-year life expectancy was selected.

11.7 CAPDET MODEL INPUT 

The input parameters required to run the CAPDET model consist of the influent pollutant

concentrations, target effluent pollutant concentrations, wastewater flow, and design

specifications of the treatment units. This section presents a discussion of the influent

concentrations, effluent concentrations, and wastewater flow. The design specifications of the

treatment units are discussed in Section 11.6. 

11.7.1 Influent Concentrations

EPA obtained the influent concentrations from the 1-day, 3-day, and 5-day MPP sampling

episodes. Data from the sampling locations that represent influent concentrations of the

wastewater treatment system were selected. These sampling points were grouped based on the

type of MPP operation shown in Table 11-2 in Section 11.3. For sampling points representing the

same type of influent wastewater from multiple facilities, an average of the concentrations was

taken. EPA reviewed and discarded those data that were questionable, based on engineering

judgment. For example, BOD values that were reported higher than COD values were removed;

total Kjedahl nitrogen values lower than ammonia values were removed. If data were not
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

1

 It should be noted that for purposes of estimating costs, EPA extracted data from the sampling episodes

and MPP detailed surveys prior to completion of pollutant load reduction. As a result, the values used to represent

desired effluent concentrations for purposes of generating costs were slightly different from the long-term averages

used to generate expected pollutant load reductions.

11-26

available, EPA derived data from similar operating facilities with similar wastewater

characteristics.

Table 11-4 shows the influent concentrations used to run the CAPDET model. Default

values provided in CAPDET were selected for the parameters for which no sampling value was

available. These included percent volatile solids, cations, anions, nondegradable fraction of

volatile suspended solids (VSS), and temperature. Soluble COD value was calculated assuming

that the ratio of soluble BOD to BOD is same as the ratio of the soluble COD to COD. Because

in most instances wastewater would be exposed to the atmosphere (i.e., exposed to oxygen), it

was assumed that all nitrite would be converted to nitrate. Therefore, the nitrite concentration in

the influent wastewater was assumed to be practically zero, and the nitrate concentration was set

equal to the nitrate/nitrite concentration obtained from sampling episodes. The settleable solids

value was obtained from the total suspended solids (TSS) concentration by using the following

equation developed from data for domestic wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991):

Settleable solids = 0.0178 * TSS - 1.8031, where

TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg/L).

11.7.2 Effluent Concentrations

The effluent concentrations were obtained from the 3-day and 5-day MPP sampling

episodes performed by EPA and from MPP detailed survey responses. EPA identified best

performing meat, poultry, rendering, and mixed facilities representing the technology options

based on effluent concentrations and the TIP. If data were not available, EPA derived data from

similar operating facilities with similar wastewater characteristics. Table 11-5 shows the longterm the effluent concentrations used for running the CAPDET model.1

 The model did not

require any effluent concentrations for Technology Option 1 for indirect dischargers because

performance is based solely on percent removals of influent concentrations. The costs for 
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-27

Table 11-4. Influent Concentrations Used as Model Input

Model

Facility

Grouping

Code

BOD5 Soluble BOD5 COD

Soluble

COD TSS TKN

Total

Pa NH3-N O&Gb NO3-N pH

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L s.u.

R1 1,126 563 2,252 1,126 1,051 128 9 43 394 0.00 7.00R2 1,492 1,150 2,630 2,027 363 24 82 15 163 2.13 8.99

R12 2,941 1,245 5,917 2,505 1,590 164 51 127 386 5.38 7.46R13 4,209 1,223 15,204 4,418 3,532 78 54 43 406 0.01 7.42R23 2,941 1,245 5,917 2,505 1,590 164 51 127 386 5.38 7.46

R123 2,941 1,245 5,917 2,505 1,590 164 51 127 386 5.38 7.46

P1 1,175 279 2,164 514 654 47 9 7 724 3.70 6.74P2 1,760 660 5,000 1,875 1,295 161 72 6 424 0.38 6.60

P12 1,270 391 3,364 1,035 767 121 21 7 252 0.49 6.66P13 2,000 780 5,000 1,951 1,220 132 26 11 619 1.24 6.60P23 2,000 780 5,000 1,951 1,220 132 26 11 619 1.24 6.60

P123 2,000 780 5,000 1,951 1,220 132 26 11 619 1.24 6.60

M2 1,670 732 3,445 1,511 1,226 127 100 30 557 1.25 8.99

M23 1,670 732 3,445 1,511 1,226 127 100 30 557 1.25 8.99

Render 4,432 2,824 6,980 4,447 954 124 26 120 160 9.81 7.41

Note: Model facility groupings for which EPA screener survey did not identify any facilities are not shown.

a Total phosphorus.b Oil and grease (HEM).
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-28

Table 11-5. Target Effluent Concentrations Used as Model Input

Meat Type Discharge Type Option

Soluble

BOD5 TSS Total Pa Total Coliform TKN NH

N3 b

NH N /TKN 3

Ratio

mg/L mg/L mg/L cfu/100 mL mg/L mg/L

Poultry Direct 2 NR 8.60 NR 125 NR 0.44 NR

3 1.53 8.27 NR 125 2.80 NR 0.174 4.8 5.60 0.47 2 1.19 NR NR5 3.00 5.50 0.41 2 1.29 NR NR

Indirect 2 NR 6.00 NR NR NR 0.60 NR

3 2.96 6.00 NR NR 3.57 NR 0.174 4.80 5.60 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NR

Meat Direct 2 NR 21.67 NR 125 NR 0.57 NR

3 1.53 8.27 NR 125 2.80 NR 0.174 4.80 5.60 0.47 2 1.19 NR NR

Indirect 2 NR 34.60 NR NR NR 3.32 NR

3 5.20 34.60 NR NR 4.63 NR 0.724 4.80 5.60 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NR

Mixed Direct 2 NR 7.88 NR 125 NR 0.38 NR

3 1.53 8.27 NR 125 2.80 NR 0.174 4.80 5.60 0.47 2 1.19 NR NR

Indirect 2 NR 34.60 NR NR NR 3.32 NR

3 5.20 34.60 NR NR 4.63 NR 0.724 4.8 5.60 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NR

Render Direct 2 NR 21.67 NR 125 NR 0.57 NR

3 1.53 8.27 NR 125 2.80 NR 0.174 4.8 5.6 0.47 2 1.19 NR NR

Indirect 2 NR 34.60 NR NR NR 3.32 NR

3 5.20 34.60 NR NR 4.63 NR 0.724 4.80 5.6 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NR

NR: input not required to run that option.

a Total phosphorus.b Concentrations during summer; concentrations during winter are 2.5 (default value) times summer concentration.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-29

Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers were obtained from the costs of Technology

Option 2. Therefore, Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers did not require any effluent

concentrations. 

11.7.3 Flow

Based on statistical analysis of the data in the MPP screener survey EPA developed 76

model facilities. (See Section 11.3.) The wastewater flow for each model facility, hereafter

referred to as model facility flow, is equal to the median wastewater flow of the corresponding

facilities identified in the MPP screener survey. Table 11-6 shows the model facility flows for 76

model facilities used in CAPDET model runs.

CAPDET requires average flow, maximum flow, and minimum flow of the treatment

system to be costed as input to run the model. For each model facility, the average flow was

taken equal to the respective model facility flow shown in Table 11-6. Since most facilities

operate 5 days a week, the average daily flow (gallons/day) for Option 1 for indirect dischargers

was calculated by dividing the flows (gallons/year) as reported in the screener surveys by 260

days/year. (Note: Option 1 for indirect discharges has equalization at the end of the treatment

system.) All other options include some sort of biological treatment following equalization;

therefore, a constant flow over 365 days a year was assumed for biological treatment for Indirect

Options 2, 3, and 4. The treatment units for those options were costed on an average daily flow

(gallons/day) obtained by dividing the flows (gallons/year) by 365 days/year. The maximum flow

and the minimum flows were taken equal to 125 percent and 75 percent of the average flow,

respectively.

11.8 OTHER COST MODELING PARAMETERS

In addition the costs provided by CAPDET, other cost modeling parameters were used to

obtain industry-wide compliance costs. A description of other cost modeling parameters is

provided below.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-30

Table 11-6. Model Facility Median Flows for 76 Model Facility Categories 

Model Facility

Grouping Code

Flow (gallons/year)

Small Medium Large Very Large

R1 120,000 7,164,858 N/A N/A

R12 150,000 114,000,000 N/A N/AR13 366,300 163,800,000 242,207,998 745,000,000

R123 300,000 547,500,000 888,329,000 N/A

R2 100,000 23,580,000 4,507,584 2,588,000

R23 18,900 150,992,000 N/A N/A

P1 4,169,000 188,005,312 230,124,007 501,764,107

P12 90,000 90,040,000 234,375,494 418,113,000P13 N/A 110,463,705 413,250,000 442,000,000

P123 N/A 122,845,544 730,000,000 722,693,232

P2 199,100 22,321,000 112,887,720 8,000,000

P23 910,000 12,696,150 221,000,000 N/A

Render 36,500,000 8,925,000 23,400,000 46,081,200

M2 150,000 65,000,000 N/A N/A

M23 663,000 N/A N/A N/A

Note: Model facility groupings for which EPA screener survey did not identify any facilities are not shown.N/A: Not applicable because the EPA screener survey did not identify any facilities in this model facility classification.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-31

11.8.1 Number of Facilities 

Based on statistical analysis of the data in the MPP Screener Survey, EPA developed

national estimates for the direct and indirect discharging facilities representing the 76 model

facilities. Table 11-7 shows the national estimates by model facility category. These estimates do

not include the 65 certainty select facilities because those facilities were not included in the MPP

screener survey. EPA determined the incremental costs of the 65 certainty select facilities

separately, based on the model facility category costs and the number of facilities.

Table 11-7. Number of Facilities in 19 MPP Facility Groupings by Size

Model

Facility

Grouping

Code

Direct dischargers Indirect dischargers

Small Medium Large

Very

Large Small Medium Large

Very

Large

R1 17 6 0 0 265 0 0 0

R12 0 0 0 0 674 28 0 0

R13 17 17 7 12 12 7 3 5

R123 25 17 7 0 50 12 5 0

R2 43 10 1 1 2,489 160 4 4

R23 0 4 0 0 32 7 0 0

P1 0 17 25 7 19 32 48 12

P12 0 6 2 8 20 11 4 14

P13 0 7 8 2 0 2 2 1

P123 0 2 3 1 0 3 7 2

P2 0 10 1 2 272 133 4 18

P23 0 0 0 0 4 9 6 0

Render 6 7 6 8 17 26 21 28

M2 9 5 0 0 707 97 0 0

M23 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

Note: Model facility groupings for which EPA screener survey did not identify any facilities are not shown.

11.8.2 Frequency of Occurrence

EPA developed 76 model facilities, as discussed in Section 11.3. EPA considered only

the direct and the indirect discharging facilities because those types of facilities will be affected
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-32

by the proposed regulation. Because the wastewater in a direct discharging facility generally

undergoes more treatment before discharge than that of an indirect discharging facility, the model

facility categories were further grouped by the type of discharge. Because of the limited number

of responses in the MPP detailed survey, the Agency grouped the medium, large, and very large

direct and indirect facilities into two “non-small” facility groups for estimating current TIP.

EPA evaluated the wastewater treatment systems of all the direct and indirect discharging

facilities in the MPP detailed survey. To determine the wastewater treatment upgrades necessary

for the facilities to be in compliance with the proposed regulation, the Agency compared the

existing TIP of the facilities with those of the technology options (Table 11-1). Based on the

comparison, EPA determined the frequency of occurrence of treatment units for each of the

model facility categories. Frequency of occurrence of a treatment unit is defined as the ratio of

the number of facilities that have the treatment unit in place (or other treatment units that can

perform the same function) to the total number of facilities in that category. The treatment units

considered are those which are listed for the technology options in Table 11-1. As previously

stated, EPA applied the same frequency of occurrence distribution across medium, large, and

very large facilities for each of the two “non-small” facility groups. That is, the same frequency

of occurrence distribution for each treatment unit was applied to all non-small indirect

dischargers and the same frequency of occurrence distribution for each treatment unit was

applied to all non-small direct dischargers. The frequency of occurrence of treatment units for

each model facility is available in Attachment 11-2 in Appendix D. Facilities that do not have a

treatment unit incur costs to upgrade to achieve the performance of the proposed technology

options.

11.8.3 Number of Treatment Units Required

Because frequency of occurrence represents the fraction of facilities that have the

treatment unit in place, “[1- frequency of occurrence]” represents the fraction of facilities that

require the treatment unit for the technology option considered. Therefore, the number of

facilities in a model facility category that require a treatment unit is given by 

Number of facilities that require the treatment unit = (1-FO) × N,
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-33

where

FO = frequency of occurrence of a treatment unit and 

N = national estimate of the number of facilities in the model facility category.

11.8.4 Performance Cost

EPA estimated the incremental cost for each technology option by comparing the existing

TIP of a facility identified in the MPP detailed survey with that of the proposed technology

option, costed for the additional treatment units needed to meet the technology option. Therefore,

a facility identified by the MPP detailed survey that has a TIP similar to a technology treatment

option does not accrue any additional cost for that technology option. It is expected that the

facilities with a TIP comparable to an option should be able to meet the proposed effluent limits

of that option. In reality, however, some of these facilities with TIP may not be able to meet the

proposed effluent limits because of inadequate operational practices. Therefore, to calculate the

cost of improving the performance, EPA assumed a 10 percent increase in the total annual costs

of all the facilities with TIP as performance cost. The performance cost may include cost for

improving operation of the treatment plant, changing sludge retention time, altering dissolved

oxygen content of wastewater in the tanks, mixing, monitoring, automation, and other costs that

would improve the performance of the plant to achieve the desired effluent concentration.

Performance cost is also used to determine the costs for Technology Option 1 from the

costs of Technology Option 2. Although Technology Option 1 contains the same treatment units

as Technology Option 2 (see Table 11-1), the effluent quality of Technology Option 1 is inferior

to that of Technology Option 2 because of limited nitrification. However, a facility with

Technology Option 1 might achieve the effluent quality of Technology Option 2 by improving

the operational practices (e.g., changing solids retention time, blowing more air to the aeration

basin etc.). Therefore, the costs for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers are determined to

be equal to the costs of Technology Option 2, without the performance cost.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-34

11.9 DERIVATION OF COST ESTIMATES

EPA determined compliance costs for the proposed options using the results of the

CAPDET model runs and other cost modeling parameters (Section 11.8). For Technology Option

3 and Option 4 EPA also determined the compliance costs by retrofitting the existing treatment

systems. This section discusses the method used to calculate the compliance costs with and

without consideration of retrofit costs. Table 11-8 shows by size and discharge type the

technology options that are costed for the proposed regulation.

Table 11-8. Technology Options by Size and Discharge Type Costed for the Proposed

Regulation

Discharge Type Technology Option

Non-Small Facilities Small Facilities

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

Direct 1 X

2X X

3X X

3 (with retrofit costs) X X

4 X

4 (with retrofit costs) X

5 (poultry only) X

Indirect 1 X X

2 XX

3 XX

3 (with retrofit costs) X

4 XX

4 (with retrofit costs) X

X: Category is costed for that option.

EPA used the model facility approach to determine the incremental costs for the proposed

rule. CAPDET was used for developing construction cost and annual operating and maintenance

costs of treatment units for the model facility flow. The capital cost of a treatment unit was

calculated using the construction cost obtained from CAPDET. The costs of a treatment unit

times the number of facilities that require the upgrade yielded the incremental costs for each set

of model facilities. The number of facilities that require upgrade is equal to the product of the

“[1- frequency of occurrence]” of the treatment unit and the total number of facilities in the
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-35

model facility category (see Section 11.8.3). As described in Section 11.9.2, retrofit costs for the

applicable technology options were developed from the set of model facility costs. The model

facility costs and the retrofit costs were combined separately to determine costs by regulatory

subcategory.

The step-by-step method for calculating the incremental industry-wide cost is summarized

below:

• Use the MPP screener survey data to establish production levels for each of the 76

model facilities.

• Use the MPP screener survey data to identify the median wastewater flow (model

facility flow), and to estimate the number of MPP facilities nationally represented

by each of the 76 model facilities.

• Use the MPP detailed survey data to determine frequency of occurrence for

treatment units in each of the 76 model facilities.

• Develop construction costs and annual costs of treatment units from CAPDET

using model facility wastewater flows and typical influent and effluent pollutant

concentrations.

• Estimate capital costs of treatment units from construction costs (see Section

11.5).

• Estimate capital and annual costs on a national basis for each regulatory option of

the 76 model facilities using capital and annual costs of treatment units, frequency

of occurrence, and national estimate of MPP facilities for each of the 76 model

facilities.

• Estimate the regulatory cost for each subcategory based on the model facility

costs.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-36

11.9.1 Model Facility Costs Without Consideration To Retrofit Costs

As discussed in Section 11.3, EPA developed 76 model facilities to represent the broad

range of MPP facilities in current operation. Running the CAPDET model was the first step in

calculating the incremental compliance costs. For each model facility, a process schematic

representing the technology options (see Table 11-1) was developed in CAPDET. A preliminary

treatment module in CAPDET that consisted of screen and grit removal was selected to represent

the screens. The biological treatment units costed in CAPDET were nitrification module (under

suspended growth) for Option 2, biological nitrogen removal module (under biological nutrient

removal) for Option 3, and biological nutrient removal module with 3/5 stage (under biological

nutrient removal) for Option 4 and Option 5. The biological treatment system consisted of the

biological treatment units, clarifiers, pumps, blowers, and sludge drying beds.

Section 11.6 discusses the selected design specifications for the treatment units. The

required input influent and effluent concentrations of the pollutants and the model facility flow

used for the model runs are explained in Section 11.7. 

With a given set of concentrations and flow, CAPDET calculates the construction cost

and the annual operation costs of individual treatment units, as well as the total annual cost of the

treatment scheme. The total annual cost of the treatment scheme is the sum of the annual

operating costs of the treatment units and the labor costs for administrative and laboratory work

(see Section 11.5.2). Because labor costs for administrative and laboratory work are available for

the entire treatment system, the costs were proportioned to individual treatment units, based on

the individual operation costs generated by CAPDET. Therefore, the annual operation cost of a

treatment unit is the sum of the individual annual costs generated by CAPDET and the

proportional costs of administrative and laboratory labor. For DAF and biological treatment

systems, an additional annual cost of sludge disposal was added. A sludge disposal cost of

$2.3/ton (Parker, 1998) was used as the cost for hauling of the dried sludge leaving the sludge

dryer.

The construction cost of a treatment unit was obtained as an output of the CAPDET

model runs. As discussed in Section 11.5.1, the capital cost of the treatment unit is obtained by
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-37

multiplying the construction cost by 1.69. The model runs were performed using the 2000 cost

database provided in CAPDET. The costs were adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Engineering

News index (ENR, 2001). Once the capital and annual operating costs associated with treatment

units were determined, the incremental capital and annual costs by model facility category were

obtained by multiplying the treatment unit costs by the number of treatment units required for the

technology option (see Section 11.8.3).

The national estimate of the number of facilities in the model facility category shown in

Table 11-7 does not include the 65 certainty select facilities. EPA determined the incremental

costs of the 65 certainty select facilities, based on the model facility category costs and the

number of facilities. These costs were added to obtain the total industry-wide costs for non-small

facilities. 

Costs by model facility category are provided in Attachment 11-3 in Appendix D. Costs

for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers were developed for small direct discharging

facilities only. Since Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers is the same as Technology

Option 2 with limited nitrification, the costs for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers are

equal to the costs of Technology Option 2 without the performance cost. Costs for Technology

Option 5 for direct dischargers were developed for poultry facilities only.

11.9.2 Model Facility Category Costs With Consideration to Retrofit Costs

EPA observed that many operations with some sort of treatment already in place may be

able to upgrade the existing treatment process rather than construct an entirely new structure. The

method of cost calculation described earlier in Section 11.9.1 assumes that even if a facility had a

nitrification system in place, it would incur a cost of a new nitrification and denitrification

(N+DN) system for Technology Option 3 and a new nitrification/denitrification with phosphorus

removal (N+DN+DP) for Technology Option 4. These represent an upper bound of the cost

because in reality the nitrification system can be retrofitted to a N+DN system, which may be

retrofitted to a N+DN+DP system. Therefore, for Technology Options 3 and 4 two types of

capital costs are calculated: upper bound costs and retrofit costs.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-38

In light of the ability to retrofit nitrification to accomplish both nitrification and

denitrification or to upgrade nitrification/denitrification to accomplish nitrification/denitrification

with phosphorus removal, EPA solicited information related to retrofit costs from several

technical experts for use in estimating compliance costs for the MPP industry. EPA contacted

two experts in MPP wastewater treatment design and biological nutrient removal wastewater

treatment systems (Tetra Tech, 2001).

Based on the input from these two experts, Table 11-9 presents the retrofit costs (as a

percent of the cost of a nitrification system) as those needed to (1) upgrade a nitrification system

to a N+DN system and (2) upgrade a nitrification system to a N+DN+DP system. As shown, each

expert provided a range of estimates, which were relatively close to each other. The experts also

noted that the upgrades might be as complicated as partitioning existing aeration tanks and/or

adding additional tanks and accessories (generally reflected by the upper end of the range) or as

simple as operational changes, such as switching air flow to the aeration basin on and off

periodically (generally reflected by the lower end of the range).

Table 11-9. Estimated Retrofit Costs (As Percent of Nitrification Costs) to Upgrade a

Nitrification System

Scenario Estimate 1 Estimate 2

Nitrification to N+DN 25%–50% 15%–40%

Nitrification to N+DN+DP 50%–75% 25%–65%

Source: Tetra Tech, 2001.

Although the estimates provided by the two experts are very close, the arithmetic average

of the midpoint of the range of the percentages they provided was used as the basis for

incorporating retrofit costs into the MPP industry compliance cost estimates. In summary, it is

estimated that to upgrade a nitrification system to a N+DN system, a facility would incur 33

percent of the capital cost of a nitrification system. To upgrade a nitrification system to a

N+DN+DP system, a facility would incur 54 percent of the capital cost of a nitrification system.

Therefore, retrofit costs were calculated for only Technology Options 3 and 4.

For the direct discharger technology options, nitrification costs were not available to

calculate potential retrofit costs. (All direct dischargers were assumed to be performing
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-39

biological treatment with nitrification, based on results from the MPP detailed survey.)

Therefore, capital costs from the nitrification/denitrification technology option (Technology

Option 3) were used as a surrogate for the nitrification costs. Because in most cases the

Technology Option 3 costs would be expected to be lower than nitrification costs (generally

because less oxygen is required and less control is needed for alkalinity), the retrofit percentages

of 33 percent and 54 percent were increased. Specifically, based on professional judgment, it was

assumed that to upgrade a nitrification system to a N+DN system, a facility would incur 45

percent of the capital cost of a greenfield nitrification/denitrification system and to upgrade a

nitrification system to a N+DN+DP system, a facility would incur 65 percent of the capital cost

of a greenfield nitrification/ denitrification system. As described in Section 11.11, these

assumptions were reasonable when compared to actual costs at several MPP facilities.

For the indirect discharger regulatory options, it was assumed that there would be no real

retrofit opportunities for the technology option requiring nitrification (Technology Option 2)

because very few indirect dischargers possess the tanks and/or equipment for nitrification.

However, based on the input from the experts there would be opportunities for retrofitting when

moving to the nitrification/denitrification technology option (Technology Option 3) and the

nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorus removal technology option (Technology Option 4).

For these two technology options, the retrofit average percentages (33 percent and 54 percent)

were used to adjust the compliance costs for only the fraction of those facilities that have the

opportunity to retrofit.

11.10 ESTIMATED COSTS

The costs generated by the method outlined in Section 11.9 were used to calculate the

compliance cost by regulatory category. This section presents the estimated costs for the

proposed regulation.

11.10.1 Model Facility Costs

The model facility costs obtained by the method outlined in Section 11.9 are shown in the

table provided in Attachment 11-3 of Appendix D. As shown in Table 11-7, results from the
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-40

EPA screener survey indicate that there are no MPP facilities for some model facilities (e.g.,

there are no reported MPP direct or indirect facilities for the “R1-Very Large” model facility).

The costs for those categories are zero. Because all non-small facilities that discharge directly to

surface waters currently have biological treatment with nitrification (based on data provided as

part of the MPP detailed survey), the costs for Technology Option 2 were minimal. Costs for

Technology Option 5 for direct dischargers were developed for poultry facilities only, while costs

for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers were developed for small direct discharging

facilities only.

11.10.2 Regulatory Subcategory Costs

EPA developed a regulatory subcategory scheme for the proposed rule, based on various

combinations of the 76 model facility category costs. There are 10 regulatory groupings, which

are defined in Table 11-10.

Table 11-10. Definition of 10 MPP Regulatory Groupings

40 CFR Part

432

Subcategory

Facility Size1 Facility Type Model Facility Grouping Codea

A, B, C, D

M, L, VL Meat first processors R1, R12, R13, R123

S Meat first processors R1, R12, R13, R123

F, G, H, I M, L, VL Meat further processors R2, R23, 0.61*M2c

Sb Meat further processors R2, R23, 0.59*M2c, 0.5*M23c

J

M, L, VL Independent renderers Render

S Independent renderers Render

K

M, L, VL Poultry first processors P1, P12, P13, P123

S Poultry first processors P1, P12, P13, P123

L

M, L, VL Poultry further processors P2, P23, 0.39*M2c

S Poultry further processors P2, P23, 0.41*M2c, 0.5*M23c

a The following abbreviations apply: S = small, M = medium, L = large, VL = very large, R = meat facilities, P =

poultry facilities, M = facilities producing both meat and poultry products, 1 = first processors, 2 = further

processors, and 3 = meat or poultry facilities performing on-site rendering. b This group of small meat further processors includes all meat facilities that annually produce fewer than 50 million

pounds of finished product and all facilities currently covered under Subpart E (Small Processors). c Costs of mixed meat are allocated to similar operations in the meat and poultry subcategory.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-41

The 76 model facility costs are combined according to Table 11-10 to generate the costs

by regulatory subcategory. For mixed (performing both meat and poultry) meat operations, the

MPP screener survey identified only medium-sized facilities performing further processing

(model facility code = M2) and small facilities performing further processing, and further

processing and rendering (model facility codes = M2 and M23). EPA allocated the costs for

mixed meat operations into the meat further processors regulatory grouping (40 CFR Part 432,

Subcategories F through I) and poultry further processors regulatory grouping (40 CFR Part 432,

Subcategory L) based on total annual production. EPA allocated the costs equally between the

two groupings if production data were not available. Tables 11-11 to 11-14 show the costs by

regulatory subcategory for non-small and small facilities.

11.11 COMPARISON OF MODEL PREDICTED COST WITH ACTUAL COST

Table 11-15 compares the costs (construction, capital, annual) provided by the facilities

in the MPP detailed survey and the costs predicted by CAPDET. The costs are adjusted to 1999

dollars with the Engineering News cost index (ENR, 2001). As discussed in Section 11.5.1.2, the

capital cost of a treatment unit is obtained by multiplying its construction cost by 1.69. The

model runs were performed with the actual flows for these specific facilities provided in the MPP

detailed survey by the facilities. However, the influent and the effluent concentrations of all the

required pollutants were not available; therefore, the model runs were made with typical

concentrations described in Section 11.7. For disinfection, the model runs were based on a UV

disinfection system because the system was used to estimate the model facility category costs, as

discussed in Section 11.9.

The percent difference in construction/capital cost varied between 34 percent and +44

percent, with the exception of one facility where the percent difference was +166 percent. [Note:

Positive percentage differences indicate that the CAPDET model costs were higher than the

actual costs and vice versa.] The percent difference in actual and model-predicted

construction/capital costs for 6 out of 11 facilities is around 20 percent or lower. The percent

difference in annual costs varied between 49 percent and 218 percent. The facility that has a

difference of 218 percent uses chlorine for disinfection but was costed for a UV disinfection
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-42

Table 11-11. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small Direct Discharging Facilities

Tech.

Option Cost Type

Meat Poultry Rendering 65 Certainty

Select

Facilities

Total Costs

A-D F-I K L J

2

Capital $8,246,826 $151,167 $1,484,907 $154,729 $0 $803,010 $10,840,639

Annual $8,341,357 $358,916 $4,319,010 $263,420 $512,217 $1,103,594 $14,898,514

3

Capital $274,636,709 $2,466,851 $221,276,114 $12,148,868 $24,235,794 $42,781,147 $577,545,483

Annual $26,093,418 $380,659 $21,409,816 $1,446,099 $2,813,796 $4,171,503 $56,315,291

Retrofit $123,586,519 $1,110,083 $99,574,251 $5,466,990 $10,906,107 $19,251,516 $259,895,467

4

Capital $567,299,659 $32,064,579 $292,840,006 $19,180,890 $27,388,270 $75,101,872 $1,013,875,276

Annual $49,288,019 $3,104,328 $25,768,368 $1,978,115 $2,949,043 $6,647,030 $89,734,903

Retrofit $178,513,861 $1,603,453 $143,829,474 $7,896,764 $15,753,266 $27,807,745 $375,404,564

5 Capital N/A N/A $327,080,644 $17,719,557 N/A $27,584,016 $372,384,217

Annual N/A N/A $26,630,326 $1,695,960 N/A $2,266,103 $30,592,389

N/A: Not applicable because Direct Option 5 applies to poultry facilities only.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-43

Table 11-12. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small Indirect Discharging Facilities

Tech.

Option Cost Type

Meat Poultry Rendering 65 Certainty

Select

Facilities

Total Costs

A-D F-I K L J

1

Capital $32,125,587 $61,732,331 $42,407,911 $50,931,088 $3,497,420 $15,255,547 $205,949,884

Annual $3,134,010 $10,888,392 $5,560,401 $8,752,574 $862,033 $2,335,793 $31,533,203

2

Capital $624,536,780 $388,978,549 $771,398,217 $375,177,189 $82,708,839 $179,423,966 $2,422,223,540

Annual $74,314,195 $53,466,015 $93,495,543 $57,932,593 $12,803,252 $23,360,928 $315,372,526

3

Capital $460,188,220 $460,188,220 $637,073,223 $319,733,512 $121,046,542 $151,856,489 $2,050,062,606

Annual $40,491,298 $40,491,298 $55,838,473 $35,269,247 $13,057,455 $14,727,639 $198,823,125

Retrofit $374,210,631 $374,210,631 $575,708,468 $316,967,007 $78,857,861 $136,174,413 $1,838,354,575

4

Capital $602,773,174 $602,773,174 $670,720,969 $444,047,365 $130,924,926 $190,219,346 $2,567,961,174

Annual $47,996,617 $47,996,617 $55,543,183 $40,216,343 $13,224,592 $16,246,718 $219,330,692

Retrofit $473,484,033 $473,484,033 $625,628,025 $442,131,680 $92,106,957 $172,749,802 $2,332,122,332
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-44

Table 11-13. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Small Direct Discharging Facilities

Technology

Option Cost Type

Meat Poultry Rendering

Total Costs A-D E-I K L J

1

Capital $209,270 $137,394 $0 $22,523 $0 $369,187

Annual $7,002 $4,547 $0 $738 $0 $12,287

2

Capital $209,270 $137,394 $0 $22,523 $0 $369,187

Annual $486,666 $273,721 $0 $26,343 $172,632 $959,362

3

Capital $14,646,645 $1,452,166 $0 $682,701 $8,192,232 $24,973,744

Annual $2,752,231 $421,892 $0 $134,053 $909,610 $4,217,786

Retrofit $6,590,990 $653,475 $0 $307,215 $3,686,504 $11,238,185

Note: Zero costs ($0) indicate that no MPP facilities were identified from the MPP Screener Survey for this regulatory grouping.

Table 11-14. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs of Small Indirect Discharging Facilities for the

Various TechnologyOptions

Technology

Option Cost Type

Meat Poultry Rendering

Total Costs A-D E-I K L J

1 Capital $119,827,472 $482,868,533 $4,546,294 $103,388,978 $2,796,848 $713,428,125

Annual $17,343,753 $70,665,654 $936,533 $16,386,885 $513,318 $105,846,143

2 Capital $584,635,684 $1,559,329,895 $22,583,519 $376,667,269 $43,635,312 $2,586,851,679

Annual $100,720,499 $271,961,694 $3,641,817 $61,675,081 $6,030,492 $444,029,583

3 Capital $592,231,249 $1,863,181,201 $26,520,704 $378,133,257 $36,320,992 $2,896,387,403

Annual $90,024,749 $281,660,364 $3,821,424 $54,803,074 $3,752,576 $434,062,187

4 Capital $722,696,546 $2,207,175,158 $31,865,901 $446,101,763 $39,443,676 $3,447,283,044

Annual $96,489,992 $296,249,096 $4,032,023 $57,581,328 $3,717,570 $458,070,009
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-45

Table 11-15. Comparison of CAPDET Model Prediction of Capital (and Construction) and

Annual Costs with Actual Costs

Facility

Code Treatment Unitsa

CAPDET Cost Model

Prediction Actual Cost

Percent Differencec

(%)

Construction/

Capital Cost

Annual

Cost

Construction/

Capital Cost

Annual

Cost Construction/

($ 1999) ($ 1999) ($ 1999) ($ 1999) Capital Annual

3 E+S+D 52399 50,000 +5

1502 S+E+D+L+E+N+D

N+U+SD 527,713 1,032,000 -49

1762 S+D 404,1952 374,0912 +8

4558

D 464,171 460,644 +1

E+N+DN+DP 2,992,424 2,676,968 +12

D+E+N+DN+DP+U 4,677,927 308,746 3,252,461 97,179 +44 +218

4787 E+D 151,549b 53,665 128,118b 46,940 +18 +14

6519 E+D+E+N+DN+U+

SD 684,696 690,000 -1

7012 S+E+D+L 529,836 280,000 +89

7041

S+D 3,194,882 1,200,000 +166

N+DN 7,910667 5,600,000 +41

S+D+L+N+DN+U 1,479,012 1,555,813 -5

7995

S+E+D+N+DN+SD 5,760,829 775,041 4,873,287 545,419 +18 +42

D 334,069b 276,915b +21

E+N+DN 2,339,460b 1,743,810b +34

8842 S+D+E 297,103 63,056 448,225 113,093 -34 -44 a S = screen, D = dissolved air floatation, E = equalization basin, N = nitrfication, N+DN = nitrification and

denitrification, N+DN+DP = nitrification and dentrification and phosphorous removal, U = ultraviolet

disinfection, SD = sludge dryer. b Construction cost. c

 Percent difference = (CAPDET cost - actual cost ) x 100/actual cost.

system, which might have contributed to a higher model-predicted cost. The percent difference in

actual and model-predicted annual costs for four out of nine facilities is within +/-15 percent.

Therefore, EPA concludes that, in most cases, the model is able to predict the actual cost with

reasonable accuracy. The difference in actual and predicted cost estimates may be attributed to

approximate cost estimates provided by the facilities, engineering judgments used in the selection

of the model parameters, and/or use of typical concentrations instead of the actual design
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-46

concentrations. However, note that in most cases the predicted cost is higher than the actual

costs. This indicates that the costs estimated by EPA for the options are unlikely to underestimate

actual costs that a facility would incur to achieve the technology treatment option. Therefore, the

economic impact of these costs should not be underestimated

As described previously in Section 11.9.2, all nitrification systems can be retrofitted to

N+DN and N+DN+DP systems, and the capital costs incurred for such an upgrade are

approximately 33 percent and 54 percent of the cost of a nitrification system. Based on

engineering judgment, EPA refined the factors to be 45 percent and 65 percent of the cost of a

greenfield N+DN system, respectively. Therefore, the retrofit cost to upgrade an N+DN system to

an N+DN+DP system is approximately 20 percent (= 65 percent 45 percent) of the cost of an

N+DN system. Estimated retrofit capital costs of N+DN and N+DN+DP by model facility

category for non-small direct discharging facilities are shown in Table 11-16 and Table 11-18,

respectively (taken from Table A-4 of Appendix A). These estimated costs were compared with

the retrofit costs for N+DN and N+DN+DP available in the literature. Table 11-17 and Table 11-

19 show the retrofit costs available in the literature for several wastewater treatment plants that

may be upgraded to N+DN and N+DN+DP systems respectively. If the initial investment cost is

available, then the percent increase in the cost to upgrade was calculated and compared. If the

initial investment cost of the treatment plants (up to nitrification) was not available, a normalized

parameter of retrofit cost/MGD was used for the basis of comparison. Retrofit capital costs

divided by the flow provided the retrofit costs per unit flow.

As shown in Table 11-16, the estimated retrofit costs for N+DN systems ranged from 

$1.3 million/MGD to $43 million/MGD with a mean and a median of $6.5 million/MGD and

$3.2 million/MGD, respectively (based on $ 1999). The cost per MGD estimated is compared

with the retrofit cost per MGD available in the literature. The retrofit cost per MGD (based on

1999 $) as reported in Table 11-17 varied between $12,000/MGD and $3.7 million/MGD with a

mean and a median of $650,000/MGD and $300,000/MGD. Thus, comparing the mean and the

median, it can be said that the estimated retrofit costs are almost 10 times higher than the costs

reported in the literature. As discussed in Section 11.8.4, depending on the type of upgrade

required, retrofit costs might vary from 15 percent to 50 percent of the cost of the nitrification 
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-47

Table 11-16. Retrofit Capital Costs of Nitrification/Denitrification by Category for the Proposed

Regulation

Model

Facility

Grouping

Code Size

Retrofit

Capital

Costsa

($ 1999)

N+DN

Frequency

Factorb

Number of

Facilitiesc

Flowd

(MGD)

Retrofit Capital

Cost

($ 1999/MGD)

R2 Medium 98,815 0.98 10 0.065 7,601,158

R13 Medium 28,083,452 0.14 17 0.449 4,278,158

R23 Medium 118,769 0.98 4 0.414 3,586,005

R123 Medium 1,370,040 0.98 17 1.5 2,686,354

R2 Large 6,498 0.98 1 0.012 27,075,000

R13 Large 15,839,177 0.14 7 0.664 3,962,489

R123 Large 957,706 0.98 7 2.43 2,815,126

R2 Very large 6,022 0.98 1 0.007 43,016,786

R13 Very large 77,336,143 0.14 12 2.04 3,673,437

P1 Medium 12,695,217 0.23 17 0.515 1,883,186

P2 Medium 3,582,590 0.20 10 0.061 7,341,373

P12 Medium 3,395,017 0.25 6 0.247 3,054,447

P13 Medium 4,608,071 0.33 7 0.303 3,242,677

P123 Medium 2,081,694 0.00 2 0.337 3,088,567

P1 Large 21,222,194 0.23 25 0.63 1,749,923

P2 Large 788,937 0.20 1 0.309 3,191,492

P12 Large 1,966,867 0.25 2 0.642 2,042,437

P13 Large 13,232,186 0.33 8 1.13 2,184,683

P123 Large 11,611,084 0 3 2 1,935,181

P1 Very large 9,805,491 0.23 7 1.37 1,327,884

P2 Very large 532,854 0.2 2 0.022 15,137,898

P12 Very large 11,624,854 0.25 8 1.15 1,684,761

P13 Very large 3,478,687 0.33 2 1.21 2,145,484

P123 Very large 3,852,889 0 1 1.98 1,945,903

M2 Medium 1,442,589 0.59 5 0.178 3,953,381

Render Medium 2,488,431 0 7 0.024 14,812,088

Render Large 2,943,171 0 6 0.064 7,664,509

Render Very large 5,474,505 0 8 0.126 5,431,057

Mean 6,518,266

Median 3,217,084 a

 From Table D-3 in Attachment 11-3 in Appendix D.

b

 From Table D-1 in Appendix D.

c

 From Table 11-7. 

d

 Derived from Table 11-6.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-48

Table 11-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Nitrogen Removal

State Treatment Plant

Estimated Retrofit

Capital Cost

 ( million $ 1999)

Design Flow

(MGD)

Estimated Retrofit

Capital Cost/Flow 

($ 1999/MGD)

Pennsylvania Altoona City (E) 1.23 9 136,667

Altoona City (W) 1.233 13.5 91,333

Chambersburg 6.347 4.5 1,410,444

Greater Hazleton 7.84 8.9 880,899

Hanover 0.06 4.5 13,333

Harrisburg 25.448 30 848,267

Lancaster 1.077 29.7 36,263

Lebanon 4.039 8 504,875

Scranton 2.815 16 175,938

State College 0.78 6 130,000

Susquehanna 1.619 12 134,917

Throop 3.32 7 474,286

Williamsport (C) 6.339 7.2 880,417

Williamsport (W) 5.246 4.5 1,165,778

Wyoming Valley 0.763 32 23,844

York City 1.78 26 68,462

Maryland Brunswick 0.39 0.7 557,143

Chestertown 1.35 0.9 1,500,000

Crisfield 1.949 1 1,949,000

Elkton 1.97 2.7 729,630

Federalsburg 1.525 0.75 2,033,333

Georges Creek 1.663 0.6 2,771,667

Indian Head 0.532 0.49 1,085,714

Mattawoman 4.25 15 283,333

Winebrenner 1.48 0.6 2,466,667

New York Binghampton 13.057 25 522,280

Endicott 6.656 8 832,000

Virginia Arlington 0.56 30 18,667

Colonial Beach 0.09 2 45,000

Dahlgren 0.03 0.325 92,308

Dale Services #1 0.22 3 73,333

Dale Services #8 0.22 3 73,333

Fishersville 0.79 2 395,000

Front Royal 0.05 4 12,500

Harrisonburg 4.688 16 293,000

H.L.Mooney 0.49 18 27,222

Leesburg 2.77 4.85 571,134
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

State Treatment Plant

Estimated Retrofit

Capital Cost

 ( million $ 1999)

Design Flow

(MGD)

Estimated Retrofit

Capital Cost/Flow 

($ 1999/MGD)

11-49

Lower Potomac 20.8 67 310,448

Middle River/Verona 0.15 4.5 33,333

Occoquan 0.51 6.25 81,600

Parkins Mill 0.097 2 48,500

Purcellville 1.3 1 1,300,000

Rocco Foods 4.48 1.2 3,733,333

Strasburg 0.12 0.975 123,077

Stuarts Draft 1.24 1.4 885,714

Waynesboro 3.5 4 875,000

Woodstock 0.07 1 70,000

Mean 654,659

Median 310,448

Source: Randall et al., 1991.

system. To account for all kinds of upgrading, an upper bound percentage (45 percent of the cost

of a nitrification and denitrification system) was used for retrofit cost estimation. This approach

resulted in higher cost estimates. However, it should be noted that the range of estimated retrofit

cost per MGD and those reported in literature overlap. This indicates that few of the facilities

reported in the literature may actually incur greater than or equal to 45 percent of the cost of an

N+DN system.

The costs to upgrade an N+DN system to an N+DN+DP system for the two treatment

plants shown in Table 11-19 are 8 percent and 12 percent of the cost of the N+DN system. This

cost is below the selected percentage of 20 percent used by EPA to estimate the retrofit costs of

N+DN+DP from N+DN systems. Considering the fact that the cost of upgrading to an

N+DN+DP system varies from facility to facility, the Agency believes that the selected 20

percent increase in cost is a reasonable estimate. The model-predicted cost and the cost available

in the literature were also compared based on cost per MGD. The retrofit costs were calculated

assuming the cost to upgrade from nitrification to an N+DN+DP system is 65 percent of the cost

of an N+DN system (see Section 11.8.4). The estimated retrofit costs for upgrade from

nitrification to N+DN+DP systems ranged from $77,000/MGD to $21 million/MGD (based on
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-50

Table 11-18. Retrofit Capital Costs Of Nitrification/Denitrification/Phosphorous Removal 

Model

Facility

Grouping

Code Size

Retrofit

Capital

Costsa

($ 1999)

N+DN+DP

Frequency

Factorb

Number of

Facilitiesc

Flowd

(MGD)

Retrofit Capital

Cost

($ 1999/MGD)

R2 Medium 142,733 0 10 0.065 219,589

R13 Medium 40,564,987 0 17 0.449 5,314,422

R23 Medium 171,555 0 4 0.414 103,596

R123 Medium 1,978,947 0 17 1.5 77,606

R2 Large 9,386 0 1 0.012 782,167

R13 Large 22,878,812 0 7 0.664 4,922,292

R123 Large 1,383,353 0 7 2.43 81,326

R2 Very large 8,699 0 1 0.007 1,242,707

R13 Very large 111,707,762 0 12 2.04 4,563,226

P1 Medium 18,337,536 0.08 17 0.515 2,276,654

P2 Medium 5,174,852 0.07 10 0.061 9,121,897

P12 Medium 4,903,914 0 6 0.247 3,308,984

P13 Medium 6,656,102 0.22 7 0.303 4,023,321

P123 Medium 3,006,892 0 2 0.337 4,461,263

P1 Large 30,654,281 0.08 25 0.63 2,115,547

P2 Large 1,139,575 0.07 1 0.309 3,965,534

P12 Large 2,841,030 0 2 0.642 2,212,640

P13 Large 19,113,158 0.22 8 1.13 2,710,625

P123 Large 16,771,565 0 3 2 2,795,261

P1 Very large 14,163,487 0.08 7 1.37 1,605,328

P2 Very large 769,678 0.07 2 0.022 18,809,335

P12 Very large 16,791,455 0 8 1.15 1,825,158

P13 Very large 5,024,770 0.22 2 1.21 2,661,989

P123 Very large 5,565,284 0 1 1.98 2,810,749

M2 Medium 2,083,739 0.04 5 0.178 2,438,834

Render Medium 3,594,400 0 7 0.024 21,395,238

Render Large 4,251,248 0 6 0.064 11,070,957

Render Very large 7,907,619 0 8 0.126 7,844,860

Mean 4,455,754

Median 2,752,943 a

 From Table D-3 in Attachment 11-3 in Appendix D.

b

 From Table D-3 in Appendix D.

c

 From Table 11-7. 

d

 derived from Table 11-6.
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-51

Table 11-19. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biological Phosphorus Removal

State

Treatment

Plant

Design

Flow

(MGD)

Retrofit Capital

Cost from AS

to N+DN

(1999 million $)

Retrofit Capital

Cost from AS

to N+DN+DP

(1999 million $)

Retrofit Capital

Cost from AS

to N+DN+DP/

Flow

(1999 $/MGD)

Percent

Increase in

Cost from

N+DN to

N+DN+DP

Virginia Leesburg 4.85 2.77 2.98 614,433 7.6%

Occoquan 6.25 0.51 0.57 91,200 11.8%

AS = activated sludge process.

Source: Randall et al., 1999.

$ 1999) with a mean and a median of $4.5 million/MGD and $2.7 million/MGD, respectively.

The cost per MGD estimated was compared with the retrofit cost per MGD available in the

literature. The retrofit cost per MGD as reported in Table 11-19 are $600,000/MGD and

$91,000/MGD (based on $ 1999). These values reported in the literature are within the spectrum

of the estimated costs of $77,000/MGD and $21 million/MGD, although on the lower end. As

discussed in Section 11.9.2, depending on the type of upgrade required, retrofit costs might vary

from 25 percent to 75 percent of the cost of the nitrification system. However, to account for all

kinds of upgrades, an upper bound percentage (65 percent of the cost of a N+DN system) was

used for retrofit cost estimation. This might have resulted in higher EPA cost estimates.

11.12 REFERENCES

Engineering News-Record, 2001. Construction Cost Index. www.enr.com. (DCN 00212)

Hydromantis, Inc. www.hydromantis.com. Computer-assisted procedure for design and

evaluation of wastewater treatment systems (CAPDET), Version 1.0. State-of-the-art

software for the design and cost estimation of wastewater treatment plants. Hamilton,

Canada, 2001. (DCN 00129)

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater engineering—treatment, disposal, and reuse. 3rd ed.

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00213)

Parker, D. 1998. Alternative uses for poultry litter. Economic Viewpoints, Vol. 3, No.1.

University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension Service. (DCN 00214)
Section 11. Incremental Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-52

Randall, C. et al.1999. Evaluation of wastewater treatment plants for BNR retrofits using

advances in technology. Submitted to Chesapeake Bay Program, 1999. (DCN 00031)

Tetra Tech. 2001. Retrofit costs for meat processing industries (MPI). Memorandum prepared

for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. October

10, 2001. (DCN 00130)

Tetra Tech. 2001. Sampling episode reports, prepared by for U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 2001. (DCN 00169–DCN 00175,

DCN 00208–DCN 00211)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Detailed costing document for the centralized

waste treatment industry. EPA 821-R-98-016. December. (DCN 00138)

W/W Cost, 1998. Version 3.0. Copyright (1994 to 2000), owned by Dr. George Mack Wesner.

(DCN 00215)
12-1

SECTION 12

SELECTED TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

As discussed in Section 2, EPA must promulgate six types of effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for each major industrial category, as appropriate:

• Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

• Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)

• Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

• Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

• Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS limitations regulate only those sources that discharge

effluent directly into waters of the United States. PSES and PSNS limitations restrict pollutant

discharges for those sources that discharge effluent indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly

owned treatment works (POTWs). This section presents the rationale EPA used in selecting

technology options to serve as the basis for the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.

12.1 BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY

AVAILABLE (BPT)

In general, the BPT technology level represents the average of the best existing

performances of plants of various processes, ages, sizes, or other common characteristics. Where

existing performance is considered uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a

different subcategory or industry. Limitations based on transfer of technology must be supported

by a conclusion that the technology is indeed transferable and a reasonable prediction that it will

be capable of meeting the prescribed effluent limits. (See Tanners’ Council of America v. Train,

540 F.2nd 1188 (4th Cir. 1976).) BPT focuses on end-of-pipe treatment rather than process

changes or internal controls, except where the process changes or internal controls are common

industry practice.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-2

The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limited balancing, committed to EPA’s discretion,

which does not require the Agency to quantify the benefits in monetary terms. In balancing costs

in relation to effluent reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume and nature of existing

discharges expected after the application of BPT, the general environmental effects of the

pollutants, and the cost and economic impact of the required pollution controls. When setting

BPT limitations, EPA is required under Section 304(b) to perform a limited cost-benefit

balancing to ensure the costs are not wholly out of proportion to the benefits achieved. (See

Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).)

12.1.1 BPT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories

EPA is retaining the existing BPT limitations (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and oil and

grease) for all facilities currently covered under 40 CFR Part 432. It should be noted that in the

proposed rule for oil and grease in particular, limitations and standards are listed as “O&G

(HEM)” to indicate that the parameter should be measured as hexane extractable material

(HEM). In contrast, EPA has retained the previous notation of “O&G” for the existing BPT

limitations, but has included footnotes that indicate it can be measured as HEM. EPA used the

two different notations because the existing BPT limitations and proposed limitations were based

on analytical testing methods that used two different extraction solvents: freon and n-hexane,

respectively. EPA has determined that the two methods are comparable (see Approval of EPA

Methods 1664, Revision A, and 9071B for Determination of Oil and Grease and Non-polar

Material in EPA's Wastewater and Hazardous Waste Programs [EPA-821-F-98-005,

February 23, 1999, located at www.epa.gov/ost/methods/1664fs.html]) and Analytical Method

Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation and Use [EPA-821-R-00-003, February 2000,

located at www.epa.gov/ost/methods/1664guide.pdf]). Because freon is an ozone-depleting

agent and becoming more expensive, EPA believes that facilities will prefer to measure oil and

grease as HEM for the existing BPT limitations. EPA solicits comments on its notation for the

two types of oil and grease limitations and standards in the proposed rule.

EPA is also proposing an additional BPT limitation for COD for larger meat first and

further processing facilities to reflect the better design and operation of the existing BPT
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-3

treatment technology. EPA is retaining the existing BPT limitations and proposing no new BPT

limitations for "small" facilities. EPA used production-based thresholds to subcategorize these

small facilities (see related discussion in Section 5). EPA defines small MPP facilities as MPP

facilities that produce less than the production-based thresholds defined in Section 5. See also

Section 5 for a description of why and how EPA developed these production-based thresholds.

12.1.1.1 BPT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for COD. These pollutants are characteristic

of meat slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the

performance of the secondary biological treatment process, which is the key unit process of the

model BPT treatment systems for these subcategories.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines based on BPT-2 for Subcategories A

through D. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the

proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment

including some degree of nitrification, and chlorination/dechlorination. BPT-2 represents an

improved version of the existing BPT technology. EPA has determined that the cost and removal

comparison for this option is reasonable.

As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BPT

options were considered. EPA estimated the costs and pollutant reductions that would be

achieved if these options were applied to all 71 facilities subject to the proposal. Limitations

based on BPT-2 remove at least 12.3 million pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an

annualized compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). Limitations based on BPT-2 result in a

cost-to-net income ratio of 0.28 percent, which means that approximately 0.28 percent of a

facility’s profits would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, the

estimates of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $0.81 ($1999/pound). Thus, this 
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-4

option is considered cost-reasonable. Detailed discussions on cost estimates are presented in

Section 11.

EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis for establishing BPT limitations that would

be more stringent than the level of control being proposed. However, EPA believes that Option 2

represents BPT (or “average of the best”) treatment for this industry subcategory. Options 3 and

4 were evaluated in the BCT analysis.

12.1.1.2 BPT for Subpart E—Small Processors

EPA is not proposing new limitations for Small Processors (Subpart E). Small processors

are defined as operations that produce up to 2,730 kilograms (6,000 pounds) per day of any type

or combination of meat product, and they are currently regulated under Subpart E of 40 CFR

Part 432.

12.1.1.3 BPT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for COD, a pollutant characteristic of meat

further processing wastewater. EPA considers COD a key indicator of the performance of the

secondary biological treatment process, which is the key unit process of the model BPT treatment

systems for these subcategories.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-2 for Subcategories F

through I. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed

BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment, and

chlorination/dechlorination. As discussed previously, the proposed BPT-2 limits for COD reflect

an average of the best performance of the existing technology in place at meat processing

facilities, which includes secondary biological treatment. EPA has determined that the cost and

removal comparison for this option is reasonable.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-5

As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BPT

options were under consideration. BPT-2 removes at least 0.25 million pounds of pollutants over

current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $0.4 million ($1999). Option 2 results in a

cost-to-net income ratio of 0.14 percent, which means that approximately 0.14 percent of a

facility’s profits would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, the

estimates of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $1.59 ($1999/pound). Thus, this

option is considered cost-reasonable.

EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the

level of control being proposed. However, EPA believes that Option 2 represents BPT (or

“average of the best”) treatment for this industry subcategory. Options 3 and 4 are considered in

the evaluation of BCT controls.

12.1.2 BPT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories

EPA proposes BPT limitations for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform

bacteria, pH, and oil and grease) and nonconventional pollutants (ammonia as nitrogen, total

nitrogen, and total phosphorus) for poultry first processing and poultry further processing that

have not previously been regulated under the current Part 432 regulations.

12.1.2.1 BPT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as

HEM), and ammonia as nitrogen for facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million pounds per

year (small facilities). EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease

(measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus

for facilities that slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year (large facilities). These

pollutants are characteristic of poultry slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated

pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment

processes, which are the key components of the model BPT treatment systems for the small and

large facilities, respectively.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-6

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-1 for small facilities in

Subcategory K. This option is based on the current practices in place at facilities as reported to

EPA through the MPP detailed surveys. Option 1 assumes a less aggressive nitrification

treatment than Option 2. Based on the MPP screener and detailed survey responses the Agency

reviewed for proposal, no small poultry first processors exist; however, in the event that a small

number of facilities that were not captured through EPA’s survey efforts exist, EPA is proposing

to establish BPT limits.

The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-3 for large

facilities in Subcategory K. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary

biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. As

presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BPT options

were under consideration. EPA has estimated the costs and pollutant reductions associated with

each technology option as it would apply to the 95 facilities that would be subject to these

proposed requirements. BPT-2 removes at least 1.63 million pounds of pollutants over current

discharge at an annualized cost of $4.8 million ($1999). BPT-3 removes at least an additional

5.7 million pounds of pollutants over BPT-2, at an additional annualized compliance cost of

$29.7 million. BPT Option 2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 0.34 percent, which means

that approximately 0.34 percent of a facility’s profits would be spent on compliance if it was to

implement this option. Also, the estimates of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $2.95

($1999/pound). Option 3 results in a cost to net income ratio of 2.73 percent, and the BPT cost to

effluent reduction benefit is $4.71 ($1999/pound). Thus, both of these options are considered

cost-reasonable. However, because Option 3 removes more pollutants at a cost that is

reasonable, BPT-3 was selected for this subcategory.

EPA also evaluated Option 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the level

of control being proposed. EPA estimates that BPT-4 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 3.56

percent and the ratio of cost to effluent reduction benefits is 5.46. However, EPA is not
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-7

proposing to establish BPT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BPT-3 achieves

nearly equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would

remove at least 7.32 million pounds of pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of

$34.5 million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove an additional 10.7 percent of pollutants

at an additional cost of 28 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 appears to achieve minimal

additional pollutant removal and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of

$9.7 million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory.

12.1.2.2 BPT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as

HEM), and ammonia as N for facilities that further process no more than 7 million pounds per

year (small facilities). EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease

(measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus

for facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These

pollutants are characteristic of poultry further processing wastewater. These proposed regulated

pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment

processes, which are the key components of the model BPT treatment systems for the small and

large facilities, respectively.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to establish BPT-1 for small facilities in Subcategory L. This is the

same technology as described previously for Subcategoy K. EPA estimates that four small

facilities could be affected by these proposed requirements and these requirements could cost

$2,600.

The Agency is proposing to establish BPT-3 for large facilities in Subcategory L. The

treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are

equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment with nitrification and

denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. As presented in the Economic Development
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-8

Document for the proposed rule, three BPT options were under consideration. For the 16

facilities that would be subject to these proposed requirements, EPA estimates that BPT-2

removes at least 0.09 million pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an annualized cost of

$0.3 million ($1999). BPT-3 removes at least an additional 0.22 million pounds of pollutants

over BPT-2, at an additional annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million. BPT Option 2 results

in a cost-to-net income ratio of 0.39 percent, which means that approximately 0.39 percent of a

facility’s profits would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, the

estimate of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefit is $3.28 ($1999/pound). Option 3 results

in a cost-to-net income ratio of 4.23 percent, and the BPT cost to effluent reduction benefit is

$7.11 ($1999/pound). Thus, both of these options are considered cost-reasonable. However,

because Option 3 removes more pollutants at a cost that is reasonable, it was selected for this

subcategory.

EPA also evaluated Option 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the level

of control being proposed. EPA estimates that BPT-4 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 6.04

percent and the BPT cost to effluent reduction benefit is $9.54 ($1999/pound). EPA is not

proposing to establish BPT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BPT-3 achieves

nearly equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would

remove at least 0.31 million pounds of pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of $2.2

million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove at least 0.32 million pounds of pollutants at

an additional cost of 36 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 appears to achieve less pollutant

removal and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of $1.9 million ($1999), EPA

has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory.

12.1.3 BPT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for COD, a pollutant characteristic of meat

rendering wastewater. COD is a key indicator of the performance of the secondary biological

treatment process, which is the key component of the model BPT treatment systems for this

subcategory.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-9

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BPT-2 for Subcategory J. The

treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are

equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment with nitrification and

chlorination/dechlorination. Since secondary biological treatment already accomplishes some

nitrification, EPA believes that the proposed BPT is an improved version of the existing BPT

technology basis, which calls for secondary biological treatment. Option 2 results in a cost-to-net

income ratio of 0.68 percent, which means that approximately 0.68 percent of a facility’s profits

would be spent on compliance if it was to implement this option. Also, estimates of the BPT

cost to effluent reductions benefit is $0.03 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option is considered costreasonable.

EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis for establishing BPT more stringent than the

level of control being proposed. However, EPA believes that Option 2 represents BPT (or

“average of the best”) treatment for this industry subcategory. Options 3 and 4 were considered

as possible options for revising the BCT limitations.

12.2 BEST CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS

(BCT)

The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses the Agency’s

consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the

reasonableness of BCT candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by

applying a two-part cost test:

1. The POTW test

2. The industry cost-effectiveness test

In the POTW test, EPA calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant removed

by industrial discharges in upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate technology and then

compares this cost to the cost per pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-10

from secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW benchmark

of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars). 

In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT cost

divided by the BPT cost for the industry must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be

less than 29 percent). The Economic Development Document for the proposed rule provides

more details on the calculations of the BCT cost tests.

In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve

greater removals of conventional pollutants than those proposed for BPT, and whether those

technologies are cost-reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. For subcategories A

through D, E through I, K, and L, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater

removals of conventional pollutants than the BPT standards that also pass the BCT cost test.

Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT effluent limitations equal to the current BPT

limitations for these subcategories. In the Rendering subcategory (Subcategory J), EPA found

that Option 2 would achieve greater removal of conventional pollutants and was cost-reasonable

under the BCT cost tests and therefore proposes this technology as BCT.

12.3 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE

(BAT)

In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best economically

achievable performance of facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. The CWA

establishes BAT as a principal national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and

nonconventional pollutants. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of

achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process(es)

employed, potential process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts including

energy requirements, and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. The

Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. An

additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA

determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the industry and the effect of

compliance with BAT limitations on overall industry and subcategory financial conditions.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-11

For purposes of the proposed rule, EPA has determined that each proposed model

technology is technically available. EPA has also determined that each is economically

achievable for the segment to which it applies. Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set

forth in Section 10, that none of the proposed technology options has unacceptable adverse nonwater quality environmental impacts. EPA also considered the age, size, processes, and other

engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the proposed segments for the purpose of evaluating

the technology options. EPA is proposing to establish separate limits for facilities on the basis of

size. As discussed in more detail in Section 5, EPA is not proposing to establish more stringent

limitations for small meat slaughterers, nor is the Agency proposing to revise the limitations for

the small meat processors subcategory (Subpart E). EPA survey data indicate that approximately

107 small meat processing facilities would have been subject to any new limitations. EPA

estimates that the additional pollutant reductions achieved by establishing more stringent

limitations for these small facilities would be minimal. For example, under Option 3, the

pollutant load reduction attributable to small facilities is less than 0.1 percent of the total

expected pollutant load reduction.

12.3.1 BAT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories

12.3.1.1 BAT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total nitrogen, and total

phosphorus. These pollutants are characteristic of meat slaughtering wastewater. These

proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the tertiary biological

treatment process, which is the technology basis for the BAT and NSPS requirements for these

subcategories.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines based on BAT-3 for Subcategories A

through D. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the

proposed BAT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-12

with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. EPA has determined that

the cost for nutrient removal for this subcategory is cost-effective (i.e., is less than the cost for

nutrient removal performed at a POTW). The Economic Development Document for the

proposed rule presents the methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness for nutrient pollutants. 

As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BAT options

were considered. Effluent limitations based on BAT-2 remove approximately 2.0 million pounds

of phosphorus over current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). 

BAT-3 removes an additional 40 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT-2 at an

additional annualized compliance cost of $32.3 million ($1999). Both of these options result in a

cost-to-net income ratio of less than 1.5 percent, so both are considered economically achievable. 

However, because BAT-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost that is economically

achievable, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations based on BAT-3. 

EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level

of control being proposed. As was the case for BAT-3, the cost-to-net income ratio of less than

2.4 percent shows that the option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to

establish limits based on BAT-4 because BAT-3 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in

nitrogen and phosphorus for much less cost. EPA has determined that BAT-3 would remove 42.8

million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $42.2 million

($1999). In contrast, BAT-4 would remove 44.9 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per

year at a total annualized cost of $73.5 million ($1999). In view of the fact that BAT-4 appears to

achieve an increase in removals of only 5.0 percent and yet would prompt annualized costs to

increase by 74 percent, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the “best available”

technology economically achievable for Subcategories A, B, C, and D.

12.3.1.2 BAT for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total nitrogen, and total

phosphorus. These pollutants are characteristic of meat further processing wastewater. These

proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the tertiary biological
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-13

treatment process, which is the key component of the model BAT and NSPS treatment system for

these subcategories.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BAT-3 for Subcategories F,

G, H, and I. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the

proposed BAT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment

with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. EPA has determined that

the cost for nutrient removal for this subcategory is cost-effective and less than the cost for

nutrient removal performed at a POTW. As presented in the Economic Development Document

for the proposed rule, three BAT options were considered. EPA estimates that the 20 facilities in

Subparts F through I would achieve a removal of approximately 0.04 million pounds of

phosphorus over current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $0.4 million ($1999) with

BAT-2. BAT-3 removes an additional 2.08 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over

BAT-2 at an additional annualized compliance cost of $0.1 million ($1999). Both of these

options result in a cost-to-net income ratio of less than 0.5 percent, so both are considered

economically achievable. However, because BAT-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost

that is economically achievable, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations based on BAT-3.

The Agency also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than

the level of control being proposed. As was the case for BAT-3, the cost-to-net income ratio of

less than 1.4 percent shows that the option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not

proposing to establish limits based on BAT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly

equivalent reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus for much less cost. EPA has determined that

BAT-3 would remove 2.12 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total

annualized cost of $0.5 million ($1999). In contrast, BAT-4 would remove only 4,530 additional

pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $3.5 million ($1999). In

view of the fact that BAT-4 appears to achieve an increase in removals of only 0.2 percent and

yet would prompt annualized costs to increase by 600 percent, EPA has determined that BAT-3,
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-14

not BAT-4, is the “best available” technology economically achievable for Subcategories F, G,

H, and I.

12.3.2 BAT Requirements for the Poultry Subcategories

12.3.2.1 BAT for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for BAT as those for BPT. EPA proposes

establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia as

N for facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million pounds per year (small facilities). EPA

proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal

coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that slaughter

more than 10 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of

poultry slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the

performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment process, which are the key

components of the model BPT treatment systems for the small and large facilities, respectively.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities in Subcategory K. EPA

was unable to determine whether there is an economically achievable BAT treatment technology

more stringent than that proposed for BPT because no small poultry first processors were

identified. EPA based its decision on the fact that there is no economically achievable BAT

treatment technology more stringent than that proposed for BPT for poultry first processors. 

EPA is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for large facilities in Subcategory K because it

has determined that there is no economically achievable BAT treatment technology more

stringent than the proposed BPT treatments. Also, EPA has determined that the cost for nutrient

removal for this subcategory is cost-effective; it is less than the cost for nutrient removal

performed at a POTW. As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed

rule, three BAT options were under consideration. BAT-2 removes approximately 810,000
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-15

pounds of phosphorus over current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $4.8 million

($1999). BAT-3 removes an additional 7.7 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over

BAT-2 at an additional annualized compliance cost of $29.7 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a

cost-to-net income ratio of less than 0.4 percent, so this option is considered economically

achievable. Because BAT-3 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of less than 2.8 percent, which

is also economically achievable, EPA has chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for Subcategory K.

EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level

of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of more than 3.6 percent for BAT-4

shows that the option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to establish

BAT limits based on BPT-4 because it has determined that BPT-3 achieves nearly equivalent

pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would remove at least 8.37

million pounds of total nitrogen and total phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $34.5

million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove only 8.87 pounds of total nitrogen and total

phosphorus at an additional cost of 28 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 achieves similar

pollutant removals and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of $9.7 million

($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory. Thus, EPA has determined

that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the “best available” technology economically achievable for large

facilities in Subcategory K.

12.3.2.2 BAT for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for BAT as those for BPT. EPA proposes

establishing BAT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia as

N for facilities that further process no more than 7 million pounds per year (small facilities). 

EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM),

fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that

further process more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are

characteristic of poultry further processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are

also key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-16

processes, which are the key components of the model BAT treatment systems for the small and

large facilities, respectively.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities in Subcategory L because it

has determined that there is no economically achievable BAT treatment technology more

stringent than the proposed BPT treatment. BAT-2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of greater

than 20 percent, which would cause significant economic impacts for these facilities, so EPA has

chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities in Subcategory L.

The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BAT-3 for large

facilities in Subcategory L. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed BAT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary

biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification. EPA has determined that there is no

economically achievable BAT treatment technology more stringent than the proposed BPT

treatment. As presented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three

BAT options were considered. BAT-2 removes approximately zero pounds of phosphorus over

current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $0.3 million ($1999). BAT-3 removes an

additional 0.32 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT-2 at an additional

annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio

of less than 0.4 percent, so this option is considered economically achievable. BAT-3 results in a

cost-to-net income ratio of less than 4.25 percent, which is also economically achievable, so EPA

has chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for Subcategory L.

EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level

of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of more than 6 percent for BAT-4 shows

that the option would cause significant economic impacts. Also, EPA is not proposing to

establish BAT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly

equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BAT-3 would remove at

least 0.32 million pounds of total nitrogen and total phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost

of $2.2 million ($1999). In contrast, BPT-4 would remove only 0.318 pounds of total nitrogen
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-17

and total phosphorus at an additional cost of 36 percent. In view of the fact that BPT-4 appears

to achieve no additional pollutant removals and yet would prompt additional total annualized

costs of $0.8 million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this subcategory. Thus,

EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the “best available” technology economically

achievable for large facilities in Subcategory L.

12.3.3 BAT Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to revise BAT limitations for ammonia-N. This pollutant is characteristic

of meat rendering wastewater. The proposed regulated pollutant is a key indicator of the

performance of the secondary biological treatment process, which is the key component of the

model BPT, BAT, and NSPS treatment system for this subcategory.

Technology Selected

The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on BAT-2 for

Subcategory J. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the

proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment

with nitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. EPA has determined that this option is costeffective and economically achievable. As presented in the Economic Development Document

for the proposed rule, three BAT options were considered. EPA estimates that the 23 existing

facilities that would be subject to the proposed rule would achieve removals of approximately

87,000 pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over current levels discharged at an annualized

compliance cost of $0.6 million ($1999) under BAT-2. BAT-3 removes an additional 396,000

pounds of phosphorus over BAT-2 at an additional annualized compliance cost of $3.7 million

($1999). BAT-2 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of less than 0.7 percent, so this option is

considered economically achievable. BAT-3 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of greater than

5.5 percent, which is also considered economically achievable. However, because EPA has

determined that the cost for nutrient removal for BAT-3 is not cost-effective and is more than the
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-18

cost for nutrient removal performed at a POTW, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations

based on BAT-2 for Subcategory J.

EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the level

of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of more than 6.7 percent for BAT-4 is

even greater than the ratio for Option 3. Since the Agency is not proposing Option 3 on the basis

of the potential economic impact, EPA is not proposing Option 4, which has an even greater

potential impact. Thus, EPA has determined that BAT-2 is the “best available” technology

economically achievable for Subcategory J.

12.4 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

New Source Performance Standards reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based

on the best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to

install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. 

As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application

of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (that is, conventional,

nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into

consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality

environmental impacts and energy requirements.

In selecting its proposed NSPS technology for these segments and subcategories, EPA

considered all of the factors specified in CWA section 306, including the costs of achieving

effluent reductions and the effect of costs on new projects (barrier to entry). The Agency also

considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts for the

proposed NSPS options and concluded that these impacts were no greater than those for the

proposed BAT technology options and are acceptable. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS

technology basis proposed constitutes the best available demonstrated control technology for

those segments.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-19

12.4.1 NSPS Requirements for Meat Subcategories

12.4.1.1 NSPS for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT (ammonia-N,

total nitrogen, and total phosphorus), with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as

HEM), and fecal coliform bacteria.

Technology Selected

The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed

NSPS limits are the same as the BAT for these subcategories. As was the case for BAT, EPA did

not pursue additional, more stringent options for NSPS because as with existing sources Option 4

is not expected to achieve significant incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not

expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be

significantly less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing

system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for subcategories A

throught D because the Agency believes BAT-3 represents the best demonstrated technology for

this subcategory. 

12.4.1.2 NSPS for Subpart E—Small Processors

EPA is not proposing new limitations for Small Processors (Subpart E). Small processors

are defined as operations producing up to 2730 kilograms (6000 pounds) per day of any type or

combination of meat product, are currently regulated under Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 432. 

12.4.1.3 NSPS for Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT (ammonia-N,

total nitrogen, and total phosphorus), with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as

HEM), and fecal coliform bacteria.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-20

Technology Selected

As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent, options for

NSPS because as with existing sources Option 4 is not expected to achieve significant

incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not expect that the cost to construct the

treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be significantly less for a new source

than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes

BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for Subcategories F through I because EPA believes it

represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

12.4.2 NSPS Requirements for Poultry Subcategories 

12.4.2.1 NSPS for Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT. EPA proposes

establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS , oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia

as N for facilities that slaughter no more than 7 million pounds per year (small facilities). EPA

proposes establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal

coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that slaughter

more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of

poultry first processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of

the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment processes, which are the key

components of the model NSPS treatment systems for the small and large facilities, respectively.

Technology Selected

EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent options for small facilities in Subcategory

K for NSPS because the Agency does not expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to

achieve Option 2 performance would be significantly less for a new source than it would be for

an existing source to retrofit its existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-21

technology basis for NSPS for small facilities in Subcategory K because EPA believes it

represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent options for large

facilities in Subcategory K for NSPS because, as with existing sources, Option 4 is not expected

to achieve significant incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not expect that the

cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be significantly

less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing system. 

Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for large facilities in

Subcategory K because EPA believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this

subcategory.

12.4.2.2 NSPS for Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT. EPA proposes

establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia

as N for facilities that further process no more than 7 million pounds per year (small facilities).

EPA proposes establishing NSPS limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM),

fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that

further process more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are

characteristic of poultry further processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are

key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatment processes,

which are the key components of the model NSPS treatment systems for the small and large

facilities, respectively.

Technology Selected

EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent options for small facilities in Subcategory

L for NSPS because the Agency does not expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to

achieve Option 2 performance would be significantly less for a new source than it would be for

an existing source to retrofit its existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-22

technology basis for NSPS for small facilities in Subcategory L because the Agency believes it

represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed

NSPS limits are the same as the BAT for this subcategory. As was the case for BAT, EPA did

not pursue additional, more stringent options for NSPS because, as with existing sources, Option

4 is not expected to achieve significant incremental pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not

expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be

significantly less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its system. 

Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for subcategory L because

EPA believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

12.4.3 NSPS Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)

Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to revise the new source performance standards for BOD, TSS, oil and

grease (measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, and ammonia.

Technology Selected

The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed

NSPS limits are the same as the BAT and BPT for this subcategory. EPA does not expect a

substantial cost savings for new facilities to design and construct a treatment system to achieve

more stringent effluent standards consistent with either Option 3 or 4. Thus, EPA believes

Options 3 and 4 could pose a barrier to entry for new sources in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA

proposes BAT-2 as the technology basis for NSPS for Subcategory J because the Agency

believes BAT-2 represents the best demonstrated technology economically achievable for this

subcategory. 
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-23

12.5 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES) AND

NEW SOURCES (PSNS)

National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in wastewater from

indirect dischargers that might pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with

publicly owned treatment works (POTW) operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are

designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to

similar levels of treatment. In addition, many POTWs are required to develop and implement

local discharge limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local

requirements (see 40 CFR 403.5). POTWs that are not required to implement approved

programs and have not had interference or pass through issues are not required to develop and

implement local limits. Nationwide there are approximately 1500 POTWs with approved

Pretreatment Programs and 13,500 small POTWs that are not required to develop and implement

approved Pretreatment Programs.

National pretreatment standards have three principal objectives: (1) prevent the widescale introduction of pollutants into POTWs that will interfere with POTW operations, including

use or disposal of municipal sludge; (2) prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs that

will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible with the treatment

works; and (3) improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial

wastewaters and sludges.

Currently there are no categorical pretreatment standards for the MPP point source

category. EPA is not proposing new pretreatment standards for existing or new MPP indirect

dischargers. Although EPA has some information regarding effluents from MPP indirect

dischargers that may pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with POTW

operations, it is not clear that the particular information justifies categorical pretreatment

standards for this industry. The following sections discuss the information EPA was able to

collect for this proposal and plans to collect after proposal.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-24

12.5.1 POTW Interference

As noted earlier, there are no categorical pretreatment standards for MPP indirect

dischargers; however, the national pretreatment standards prohibit the discharge of “Any

pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow

rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW” (see 40 CFR

403.5(b)(4)). All indirect dischargers are prohibited from introducing into a POTW any

pollutant(s) which cause pass through or interference regardless of whether categorical

pretreatment standards or any national, state, or local pretreatment requirements apply (see 40

CFR 403.5(a)(1)). POTWs are required to develop and enforce Pretreatment Programs and/or set

local limits to ensure renewed and continued compliance with the POTW's NPDES permit or

sludge use or disposal practices (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)). According to data provided in the MPP

detailed surveys, approximately one-third of the MPP facilities discharge to POTWs that

discharge less than 5 MGD. These POTWs are often not required through their NPDES permits

to develop and implement local Pretreatment Programs.

EPA typically does not establish pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants (e.g.,

BOD5, TSS, oil and grease) because POTWs are designed to treat such pollutants, but EPA has

exercised its authority to establish categorical pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants.

For example, EPA established categorical pretreatment standards for new and existing sources

with a 1-day maximum concentration of 100 mg/L oil and grease in the Petroleum Refining Point

Source Category (40 CFR Part 419). This standard is based on the performance of one of two

technologies (primary oil removal or dissolved air flotation). EPA identified this pretreatment

standard as necessary to “minimize the possibility of slug loadings of oil and grease being

discharged to POTW” (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). EPA notes that oil and grease

from Petroleum Refineries is not the same material as oil and grease from MPP facilities. EPA is

considering the use of a similar 100 mg/L standard for preventing POTW interference by

vegetable/animal oil and grease discharges.

EPA previously identified that high organic loadings and grease remaining in the MPP

facility effluent might cause difficulty in the POTW treatment system and that the performance
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-25

of trickling filters appears to be particularly sensitive (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00162;

Record No.00140). High loadings of oil and grease can also clog pipes and promote the growth

of filamentous bacteria, which can inhibit the performance of the POTW (especially trickling

filters, which are more often used at small POTWs) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00085). 

A concentration of 100 mg/L for oil and grease is often cited as a local limit, and compliance

with this limit may require an effective dissolved air flotation device in addition to a catch basin

and other primary treatment system (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00162; Record

No. 00140). EPA recognizes that much of this data was developed in the 1970s but believes that

the data is still relevant today.

EPA also previously identified that oil and grease of petroleum origin has been reported

to interfere with the aerobic processes of POTWs (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). It

is believed that the principal interference is caused by the attachment of oil and grease of

petroleum origin onto floc particles, resulting in a slower settling rate, loss of solids by carryover

out of the settling basin, and excessive release of BOD from the POTW to the environment. 

Additionally, EPA identified that oil and grease of petroleum origin may coat the biomass in

activated sludge treatment units, thereby interfering with oxygen transfer and reducing treatment

efficiency.

EPA regional and state permit writers and pretreatment coordinators identified

approximately 20 cases where MPP indirect dischargers interfered with POTW operations

(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10037). Although some specific details are lacking, these

cases generally describe how overloadings of various parameters (e.g., BOD5, oil and grease,

TSS, ammonia) and unequalized flows from MPP indirect dischargers have resulted in POTW

interference incidents and POTW NPDES permit violations.

It is not clear, however, whether these identified interference incidents represent an

industry-wide problem or are site-specific and more appropriately addressed by the general

pretreatment prohibitions and local limits, or by POTW upgrades. Some of these instances do

involve violations of local limits or were resolved by POTW upgrades, and therefore the general

pretreatment prohibitions and local limits did work. EPA does not know, however, how
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-26

frequently this was the case. More detailed information will be gathered to determine whether

these facilities were in violation of the local limits, POTWs have upgraded since the incident, or

these were one-time problems. EPA will collect more information from EPA and state

pretreatment program coordinators, POTWs, and MPP indirect dischargers after proposal (1) to

understand whether the general pretreatment prohibition is sufficient to address POTW

interference and pass through incidents for this industry and (2) to determine if reoccurrences of

these POTW interference and pass through incidents necessitate categorical pretreatment

standards at the time of the final rule for non-small facilities.

Many POTWs are capable of controlling MPP indirect discharges through local limits or

sufficient dilution with domestic wastewaters. Most of the approximately 1,500 POTWs with

approved Pretreatment Programs have numeric oil and grease limits and many POTWs without

approved Pretreatment Programs also have oil and grease limits. For example, EPA identified

approximately two dozen Pretreatment Programs with local limits on oil and grease (Docket No.

W-01-06, Record No. 10037). Oil and grease limits were most often in the range of 50 mg/L to

450 mg/L with 100 mg/L as the most common reported limit. Other Pretreatment Programs use

descriptive requirements to limit interference from high oil and grease concentrations.

While most POTWs are not significantly affected by MPP indirect discharges, EPA notes

that some, primarily smaller POTWs, including those not required to implement approved

Pretreatment Programs, may have difficulty in properly treating MPP indirect discharges or in

setting local limits. Some POTWs may be particularly susceptible to high and variable organic

and oil and grease loadings. If MPP indirect dischargers are unable to reduce or equalize their

high organic and oil and grease concentrations, some small POTWs receiving these discharges

may be unable to dampen the peak loadings or equalize high organic and oil and grease

concentrations from MPP indirect dischargers with domestic wastewater. MPP indirect

discharges range from 3 to 20 times in organic concentrations than typical domestic wastewater

(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10038). Small POTW facilities are generally more

susceptible to high and variable loadings from large MPP indirect dischargers. Small POTWs

often use less sophisticated wastewater treatment systems (e.g., trickling filters, simple anaerobic

lagoons), which may not be able to operate properly during periods of high flow or handle slug
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-27

loads discharged by MPP facilities after a shut-down period (e.g., no or low MPP indirect

loadings during weekend operations when no or limited MPP operations are taking place). 

Trickling filters at small POTW facilities may be unable to effectively process high organic and

oil and grease concentrations and may allow unacceptable amounts of BOD and oil and grease

concentrations to pass through if MPP indirect dischargers are not properly controlled. 

Anaerobic lagoons at small POTW facilities may be unable to convert ammonia to nitrate (a less

toxic form of nitrogen) and are therefore unsuitable as a treatment step to ensure that the

receiving water does not receive toxic amounts of ammonia. In one such instance, an MPP

facility was directed to establish biological pretreatment (by installing a biological sequencing

batch reactor) in order to discharge to the local POTW, which has a simple anaerobic lagoon

system (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.10039).

Representatives of the MPP industry and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage

Agencies (AMSA) stated to EPA that cases of POTW interference from MPP indirect

dischargers are relatively infrequent occurrences and that they are best handled through local

limits and proper enforcement (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10040). AMSA is a

membership organization that represents approximately 10 percent of the largest POTWs in the

United States (about 150 of the 1,500 POTWs with Pretreatment Programs) and some small

POTWs; however, none of the approximately 20 cases of interference incidents identified in the

record involve AMSA members. EPA would collect additional information on other potential

positive and negative impacts on POTW operations if the Agency were to set national categorical

pretreatment standards for the prevention of interference with POTW operations. AMSA has

stated that any attempt to reduce organic loadings from MPP facilities would also reduce the

amount of revenue collected by their POTWs and have a detrimental effect on their operations.

(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10040). EPA will collect additional information on whether

MPP indirect dischargers are causing interference issues on a national, ongoing basis and

whether POTWs are addressing these interference issues in a timely manner once they are

identified. Finally, EPA also will examine information on whether increased attention from

federal and state Pretreatment Programs and/or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-28

would sufficiently deal with MPP indirect discharges that might cause POTW interference in lieu

of national categorical pretreatment standards.

12.5.2 POTW Pass Through

As noted above, federal categorical pretreatment standards are also designed to prevent

the introduction into POTWs of pollutants that will pass through the treatment works or will

otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works. Generally, to determine whether pollutants

pass through POTWs, EPA compares the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-operated

POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the pollutant removed by each of

the indirect technology options. As shown in Tables 12-1 and 12-2, EPA identified the MPP

pollutants, based on EPA sampling efforts, that EPA would normally determine to pass through

using EPA’s standard methodology (i.e., the indirect technology option has a percent removal

higher than the POTW percent removal).

Table 12-1. Removal Efficiencies for Meat Pollutants of Concern

MPP Pollutant of

Concern CAS Number

PSES Indirect Option 1

Treatment Efficiency

POTW Treatment

Efficiency a

Oil and grease C036 95 86

Copper 7440508 91 84

Molybdenum 7439987 82 19

Zinc 7440666 91 79

a

 These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00180).

Table 12-2. Removal Efficiencies for Poultry Pollutants of Concern

MPP Pollutant of Concern CAS Number

PSES Indirect Option 1

Treatment Efficiency

POTW Treatment

Efficiency a

Oil and grease C036 90 87

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) C021 73 57

Total phosphorus 14265442 67 57

Barium 7440393 78 16

Manganese 7439965 60 36

Nickel 7440020 65 51

Zinc 7440666 53 79

a

 These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.00180).
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-29

PSES Indirect Option 1 (PSES1) is a physical-chemical treatment system (dissolved air

flotation [DAF] with chemical flocculant addition, equalization tank) that primarily targets

conventional pollutants including oil and grease. As the tables above indicate, PSES1 shows

some metal and nutrient removals but it is not clear why a technology designed to control

conventional pollutants also affects the level of other pollutants. EPA notes that many of these

pollutants of concern that would normally be determined to exhibit pass through do so in low

concentrations. For example, metal concentrations in MPP indirect dischargers are relatively low

in comparison with conventional pollutants concentrations (e.g., BOD, TSS, and oil and grease).

EPA will further investigate the data and potential mechanisms behind the removals of metals

and nutrients by PSES1 to confirm the PSES1 treatment efficiencies. At the final regulation EPA

may issue pretreatment standards based on pass through for all or a subset of these pollutants.

Further, EPA has received comments from AMSA that the database used to characterize

POTW removal efficiencies is outdated and current POTW performance has improved. EPA is

considering different options on how to examine current POTW performance. One option is to

evaluate removal efficiencies based on a subset of the 50-POTW database that mainly includes

those POTWs that receive large amounts of industrial and/or MPP indirect discharges. EPA will

also continue to collect information on any cases of significant pass through from MPP indirect

dischargers where the local limits were not set or exceeded and evaluate whether EPA should

promulgate pretreatment standards for certain parameters (e.g., nutrients, TDS) based on their

potential passage through POTWs and into receiving waters.

Although some pollutants may pass through POTWs following fairly limited treatment,

current information available to EPA suggests that the overall levels of these pollutants in MPP

raw wastewater do not justify establishing numeric categorical pretreatment standards. EPA is

not proposing to establish pretreatment standards based on the difference between MPP

pretreatment options and POTW removal efficiencies because the Agency is uncertain that the

difference accurately reflects the incidences of pass through for this industry as a whole.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-30

12.5.3 MPP Pretreatment Options Considered

Before determining no pass through or interference that justifies proposing additional

regulations, EPA considered four pretreatment options for both existing and new sources. Table 

12-3 details the summary of EPA’s economic analysis of the PSES1 pretreatment option for the

various MPP subcategories. If information that shows that there is sufficient interference or pass

through to justify categorical pretreatment standards for this industry is provided to EPA, EPA

will promulgate pretreatment standards in the final rule. With respect to preventing interference

incidents, EPA will evaluate comments and additional information to determine whether another

annual production size cutoff for MPP indirect dischargers should be established. Additionally,

EPA is considering whether it should exempt from categorical pretreatment standards MPP

indirect discharges that are below 5 percent of the dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of

the POTW treatment or another percentage level that is appropriate to prevent interference

incidents if EPA decides to set categorical pretreatment standards for non-small facilities in the

final rule.

Table 12-3. Economic Impacts and Toxic Cost-Effectiveness Summary Table for PSES

Option 1, Non-Small Facilities

MPP Industry Sector

(40 CFR Part 432, Subcategory)

Cost/Net

Income (%)

Pre-Tax

Annualized

Cost 

($1999 M)

PSES Option 1

Toxic Cost-Effectiveness

Removals 

(lb-eq) $1981/lb-eq

Meat First Processors (A-D) $0.6 $7.0 240,421 17 

Meat Further Processors (F-I) $0.8 $18.8 76,890 143

Independent Renderers (J) $0.5 $1.3 3,918 198

Poultry First Processors (K) $0.6 $10.8 377,651 17

Poultry Further Processors (L) $1.5 $15.3 49,950 178

EPA notes that the PSES1 pretreatment option cost is generally at or below 1 percent of

the facility’s net income (profit). Also, based on MPP detailed surveys received in time for

EPA’s analysis, EPA notes that PSES1 is widely used in non-small MPP pretreatment operations

to reduce BOD and oil and grease concentrations. Results from the MPP detailed survey used in

estimating compliance costs indicate that 26 of the 103 indirect MPP facilities use PSES1. The
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-31

MPP detailed survey also identified the following breakdown of treatment-in-place: (1) 64

facilities use no pretreatment or pretreatment less effective than PSES1 (e.g., catch basins);

(2) 12 facilities use PSES2; (3) one facility use PSES3; and (4) none of the facilities use PSES4.

Based on MPP detailed survey data, the average oil and grease concentration from MPP indirect

facilities using PSES1 technology (equalization basin, DAF) is 99.5 mg/L.

As previously stated, EPA is not proposing new pretreatment standards for existing or

new MPP indirect dischargers because the Agency did not have sufficient information to

demonstrate that effluents from MPP indirect dischargers interfere with, are incompatible with,

or pass through POTW operations on a scale wide enough to justify national categorical

pretreatment standards. Further, EPA has received comments from AMSA that the database used

to characterize POTW removal efficiencies is outdated and current POTW performance has

improved. EPA will work with states and pretreatment control authorities to collect additional

data on a more systematic basis to determine whether national categorical pretreatment standards

are necessary. If the additional and existing data indicate that MPP indirect dischargers interfere

with or pass through POTW operations, one or more of the following options may be used to

establish national categorical pretreatment standards in the final rule for non-small indirect

dischargers.

• Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia as

nitrogen based on PSES1 (equalization and DAF) to prevent POTW interference.

• Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia based

on equalization alone to reduce MPP indirect discharge variable loads which can,

in some cases, prevent POTW interference.

• Establish numeric pretreatment standards to prevent POTW pass through (e.g., oil

and grease, nutrients, and/or metals).

• Establish narrative pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia as

nitrogen based on PSES1 (equalization and DAF) or equalization alone to prevent

POTW interference.
Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-32

• Allow POTWs to waive national categorical pretreatment standards for MPP

indirect dischargers that do not interfere with POTW operation (e.g., MPP indirect

discharger below 5 percent of dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the

POTW treatment plant).

• Allow a POTW to waive national categorical pretreatment standards for ammonia

for any MPP indirect discharges it receives when that POTW has nitrification

capability (see 40 CFR Part 439 as an example of this type of waiver).

• Allow MPP indirect dischargers to demonstrate compliance with either numeric

pretreatment standards or with EMS/BMP voluntary alternatives (see Section 8.8).

• Establish national categorical pretreatment standards for MPP indirect dischargers

based on compliance with BMPs or a regulatory BMP alternative.
13-1

SECTION 13

LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS: DATA SELECTION AND

CALCULATION

This section describes the data sources, data selection, data conventions, and statistical

methodology used by EPA in calculating the long-term averages (LTAs), variability factors

(VFs), and proposed limitations. The proposed effluent limitations and standards for each

subcategory and option are based on long-term average effluent values and variability factors

that account for variation over time in treatment performance within a particular treatment

technology.

Section 13.1 briefly describes the data sources (a more detailed discussion of data

sources is provided in Section 3) and gives a general overview of EPA’s evaluation and selection

of facility datasets that are the basis of the proposed limitations. Section 13.2 presents the

procedures for data aggregation. Sections 13.3 through 13.5 describe the estimation of daily

effluent concentrations and adjustments performed when technology option specific data were

unavailable. Section 13.6 provides an overview of the proposed limitations. Procedures for

estimation of long-term averages, variability factors, and concentration-based limitations in

Sections 13.7 through 13.10. Section 13.11 describes the conversion of these concentrationbased limitations into the proposed production-normalized limitations.

13.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA AND EPISODE SELECTION

To estimate the long-term averages, variability factors, and proposed limitations, EPA

used the same datasets as were used to calculate the post-compliance loading estimates, as

described in Section 9. As described in Section 3, EPA selected 11 MPP facilities for multi-day

sampling. The purpose of the multi-day sampling was to characterize pollutants in MPP raw

wastewaters prior to treatment, as well as document wastewater treatment plant performance

(including selected unit processes). Selection of facilities for multi-day sampling was based on

an analysis of information collected during the site visits performed by EPA, as well as on the

following criteria:
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

1

 In developing the proposed limitations, EPA excluded the hexane extractable material (HEM) data

collected on day 1 from the sample point 3 and day 2 from the sample point 4 at facility 6443 because the discharge

values were found to be extremely variable in comparison to the other days (i.e., there was no evidence that the

facility was consistently controlling the HEM discharges). In addition, EPA excluded the ammonia (as N) value on

day 5 at episode 6335 because it was inconsistent with the other values at that sample point.

13-2

• The facility performed meat or poultry first processing, further processing, and/or

rendering operations representative of MPP facilities;

• The facility used in-process treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment technologies

that EPA was considering for technology option selection; and

• Compliance monitoring data for the facility indicated that it was among the better

performing treatment systems, or that it employed wastewater treatment process

for which EPA sought data for option selection.

During each multi-day sampling episode, EPA sampled facility influent and effluent

wastestreams. At some facilities, samples were also collected at intermediate points throughout

the wastewater treatment system to assess the performance of individual treatment units. Some

of the facilities chosen for sampling perform rendering and/or further processing operations in

addition to meat and/or poultry first processing. For facilities that also performed rendering

operations or further processing, wastewater from the rendering and/or further processing

operations was sampled separately, when possible.

EPA used the data from sampling episodes to develop long-term average (LTA) effluent

concentrations representative of performance of selected technology options.1

 As explained in

Section 9, in the absence of sampling episode data for a particular type of process, EPA

transferred data from other facilities that employ similar production and treatment processes to

establish LTAs. EPA also used production and flow data contained in the MPP detailed surveys

for use in deriving production normalized flow values.

From each selected facility data set, an episode-specific long-term average was

calculated for each proposed regulated pollutant. Episode-specific long-term averages were then

used to calculate option long-term averages, which were then applied to develop the proposed
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-3

effluent limitations. For the final rule, EPA intends to further review and possibly revise the

data selection methodology.

13.2 DATA AGGREGATION

In some cases, EPA determined that two or more samples had to be mathematically

aggregated to obtain a single value that could be used in other calculations. As explained in this

section, in some cases, this meant that field duplicates and grab samples were aggregated for a

single sample point. Appendix F lists the data after these aggregations were completed and a

single daily value was obtained for each day for each pollutant.

In all aggregation procedures, EPA considered the censoring type associated with the

data. EPA considered measured values to be detected. In statistical terms, the censoring type for

such data was ‘non-censored’ (NC). Measurements reported as being less than some samplespecific detection limit (e.g., <10 mg/L) were censored and were considered to be non-detected

(ND). Laboratories can also report numerical results for specific pollutants detected in the

samples as right censored. Right censored data are those reported as being greater than the

highest calibration value of the analysis (e.g., >1000 ug/l). For calculating the proposed

limitations, the right censored data were set to the reported amount and treated as non-censored

data. In the tables and data listings in this document and the record for the rulemaking, EPA has

used the abbreviations NC and ND to indicate the censoring types.

The distinction between the two censoring types is important because the procedure used

to determine the variability factors considers censoring type explicitly. The variability factor

estimation procedure models the facility data sets using the modified delta-lognormal

distribution. In this distribution, data are modeled as a mixture of two distributions. Thus, EPA

concluded that the distinctions between detected and non-detected measurements were important

and should be an integral part of any data aggregation procedure. (See Appendix G for a

detailed discussion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution.)

Because each aggregated data value entered into the modified delta-lognormal model as a

single value, the censoring type associated with that value was also important. In many cases, a

single aggregated value was created from unaggregated data that were all either detected or non-
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

2

 This is presented as a ‘worst-case’ scenario. In practice, the laboratories cannot measure ‘zero’ values. 

Rather they report that the value is less than some level.

13-4

detected. In the remaining cases with a mixture of detected and non-detected unaggregated

values, EPA determined that the resulting aggregated value should be considered as detected,

because the pollutant was measured at detectable levels.

This section describes each of the different aggregation procedures. They are presented

in the order that the aggregation was performed. That is, field duplicates were aggregated first

and grab samples second.

13.2.1 Aggregation of Field Duplicates

During the EPA sampling episodes, the Agency collected a small number of field

duplicates. Generally, ten percent of the number of samples collected were duplicated. Field

duplicates are two samples collected for the same sampling point at approximately the same

time, assigned different sample numbers, and flagged as duplicates for a single sample point at a

facility.

Because the analytical data from each duplicate pair characterize the same conditions at

that time at a single sampling point, EPA aggregated the data to obtain one data value for those

conditions. The data value associated with those conditions was the arithmetic average of the

duplicate pair.

Frequently, both samples in duplicate pair displayed the same censoring type. In this

case, the censoring type of the aggregate was the same as the duplicates. When one sample in

the duplicate pair was a non-censored and the other a non-detected type, EPA assigned the

aggregated value as ‘non-censored’ because the pollutant had been present in one sample. (Even

if the other duplicate had a zero value2

, the pollutant still would have been present had the

samples been physically combined.) Table 13-1 summarizes the procedure for aggregating the

analytical results from the field duplicates. This aggregation step for the duplicate pairs was the

first step in the aggregation procedures for both influent and effluent measurements.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-5

Table 13-1. Method for Aggregation of Field Duplicates

If the field duplicates are:

Censoring type

of average is: Value of aggregate is:

Formulas for

aggregate value of

duplicates:

Both non-censored NC arithmetic average of measured values (NC1 + NC2)/2

Both non-detected ND arithmetic average of sample-specific

detection limits

(DL1 + DL2)/2

One non-censored and one

non-detected

NC arithmetic average of measured value

and sample-specific detection limit

(NC + DL)/2

NC - non-censored (or detected). ND - non-detected. DL - sample-specific detection limit.

13.2.2 Aggregation of Grab Samples

During the EPA sampling episodes, the Agency collected two types of samples: grab and

composite. Typically, EPA collected composite samples. Of the pollutants proposed for

regulation, HEM was the only one for which the chemical analytical method specifies that grab

samples must be used. For HEM, EPA collected multiple (usually four) grab samples during a

sampling day at a sample point. To obtain one value characterizing the pollutant levels at the

sample point on a single day, EPA mathematically aggregated the measurements from the grab

samples.

The procedure arithmetically averaged the measurements to obtain a single value for the

day. When one or more measurements were non-censored, EPA determined that the appropriate

censoring type of the aggregate was ‘non-censored’ because the pollutant was present. Table

13-2 summarizes the procedure.

13.3 DERIVATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS

Since total nitrogen was not analyzed, its daily concentrations were obtained as the sum

of nitrate/nitrite (C005) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (C021) before aggregation. If one of two

values was non-censored, the censoring type of total nitrogen was non-censored. Any non-detect

values were set as equal to the sample-specific detection limit in the sum.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-6

Table 13-2. Procedure for Aggregation of Grab Samples

If the grab or multiple

samples are:

Censoring type of

Daily Value is: Daily value is:

Formulas for Calculating

Daily Value:

All non-censored NC arithmetic average of measured

values N C

n

i

i 1

n

=

∑

All non-detected ND arithmetic average of samplespecific detection limits D L

n

i

i 1

n

=

∑

Mixture of non-censored

and non-detected values

(total number of

observations is n=k+m)

NC arithmetic average of measured

values and sample-specific

detection limits

NC DL

n

i i

i 1

m

i 1

k

+ = =

∑ ∑

NC - non-censored (or detected). ND - non-detected. DL - sample-specific detection limit.

13.4 DERIVATION OF EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION DATA

To the extent possible with available data, EPA calculated the proposed limitations for

first processing, further processing, and rendering operations wastewater for each technology

option from the daily effluent concentrations at the sampled facility or facilities chosen as

representative of the technology option. However, when specific data were unavailable, EPA

estimated the daily effluent concentrations for the model technology options, using assumptions

similar to those applied during pollutant loading calculations explained in Section 9. This section

describes the methodology used to estimate the daily effluent concentrations for the model

technology options.

13.4.1 Calculation of Daily Effluent Concentrations

When influent data were available, they were multiplied by a removal fraction for the

technology option. When there were more than one facility that could provide a removal

fraction, the median of the removal fractions was used. The daily effluent concentrations were

calculated as follows:

Effluent concentration = (influent concentration) x (1 - removal fraction)
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

3

 If the daily concentrations for this unit process were from a different facility than the final effluent

concentrations, the long-term average of the concentrations for the unit process was used instead of daily values.

13-7

where the removal fraction for a facility was calculated using long-term averages (LTAs) as

follows:

(influent LTA concentration - effluent LTA concentration) / (influent LTA concentration).

The calculation of long-term averages is discussed in Section 13.8. The facilities with

negative removal fractions were excluded from calculations for the limitations for that specific

analyte.

When there were no influent data available, the daily effluent concentrations were

derived based on an estimation of the pollutant mass balance between the final effluent and its

unit processes of first, further, and rendering wastewaters (as applicable for a facility). For

example, the daily effluent concentrations for first processing wastewater could be derived from:

Daily effluent concentration of first processing wastewater = [(Final daily effluent

concentration x Total flow) - (Daily concentration of further processing wastewater3

 x

Further processing wastewater flow) - (Daily concentration of rendering wastewater3

 x

Rendering wastewater flow)] / (First processing wastewater flow)

The data and equations used to derive the daily effluent concentration values are

summarized by technology options in Tables 13-3 through 13-7.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-8

Table 13-3. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, Further

Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-2 Technology Option)

Facility

First Processing Further Processing Rendering Operations Total

Flow

(MGD)

D1=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F1=Flow

(MGD)

D2=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F2=Flow

(MGD)

D3=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F3= Flow

(MGD)

6440 [(Daily effluent • Total Flow ) -

(LTA of D3• F3)] / F1

0.83 N/A N/A (a) • (rendering

influent@6447)

0.52 1.35

6441 [(Daily effluent • Total Flow) -

(LTA of D3• F3)] / F1

1.31 N/A N/A (a) • (rendering

influent@6447)

0.48 1.79

6442 [(Daily effluent • Total Flow) -

(LTA of D3• F3)] / F1

1.53 N/A N/A (a) • (rendering

influent@6447) 

0.42 1.95

6447 [(Daily effluent • Total Flow ) - 

(LTA of D2• F2 )-( D3 • F3)] / F1

0.51 (a) • (further processing

influent@6335) 

0.07 (a) • (rendering

influent@6447) 

0.15 0.73

(a) = (1- Removal fraction) where the Removal fraction is the median removal fraction of sampling episodes 6440, 6441, 6442 and 6447.

Table 13-4. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, Further

Processing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-3 Technology Option)

Facility

First Processing Further Processing Rendering Operations Total

Flow

(MGD)

D1=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F1=Flow

(MGD)

D2=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F2=Flow

(MGD)

D3=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F3=Flow

(MGD)

6335 [(reuse water daily effluent • Total

Flow) -(D2 • F2) - 

(LTA of D3 • F3)] / (F1)

0.17 (b) • (further processing

daily influent) 

0.45 (b) • (rendering daily

influent@6447)

0.13 0.75

(b) = 1 - Removal fraction of sampling episode 6335 (through reuse water effluent)
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-9

Table 13-5. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering

Operations Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Poultry Facilities (BAT-2 Technology Option)

Facility

First Processing)

Daily Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing

Daily Effluent Concentrations

Rendering Operations

Daily Effluent Concentrations

6443 N/A (a) • further processing influent N/A6444 N/A (a) • further processing inffluent N/A6448 N/A N/A (a) • rendering influent6445 Daily effluent N/A N/A

(a) = 1 - Removal fraction @ 6445

Table 13-6. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering

Operations Treated Wastewaters for Indirect Discharging Meat Facilities (PSES-1 Technology Option)

Facility

First Processing Further Processing Rendering Operations Total

Flow

(MGD)

D1=Daily Effluent Concentrations

F1=Flow

(MGD)

D2=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F2=Flow

(MGD)

D3=Daily Effluent

Concentrations

F3=Flow

(MGD)

6335 [(Daily effluent • (Total Flow) - 

(D2 • F2) - (LTA of D3 • F3)] / F1

0.17 (b) • further

processing influent

0.45 (b) • (rendering

influent@6447)

0.13 0.75

(b) = 1 - Removal fraction @ 6335
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-10

Table 13-7. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering

Operations Treated Wastewaters for Indirect Discharging Poultry Facilities (PSES-1 Technology Option)

Facility

First Processing Further Processing Rendering Operations Total

Flow

(MGD) D1=Effluent Concentrations

F1=Flow

(MGD)

D2=Effluent

Concentrations

F2=Flow

(MGD)

D3=Effluent

Concentrations

F3=Flow

(MGD)

6448 N/A N/A N/A N/A (a) • Rendering

Daily Effluent

N/A N/A

6443 [(Daily effluent• Total Flow) - 

(D2 •F2)] / F1

0.91 (a) • (further processing 

daily influent) 

0.84

N/A

N/A 1.75

6444 [(Daily effluent • Total Flow) - 

(D2 • F2)] / F1

0.53 (a) • (further procssing

daily influent) 

0.02 N/A N/A 0.55

(a) = (1 - Removal fraction of 6443)
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-11

13.4.2 Censoring Type of Calculated Effluent Concentrations

When assigning the censoring type to the calculated concentration, EPA first determined 

the “lowest potential value” for each analyte. The lowest potential value is the minimum of the

lowest detected (non-censored) value and the minimum of the nominal quantitation limits as

defined in Appendix A. (Ammonia as nitrogen was the only one instance where the lowest

detected value was less than the minimum of the nominal quantitation limits.) Each daily

influent or effluent value was then compared to this lowest potential value. If the calculated

value was less than the lowest potential value, the censoring type of this value was considered to

be non-detect with a sample-specific detection limit equal to the lowest potential value. For

example, suppose the influent concentration is non-censored. If the lowest potential value is 10

mg/L and the calculated effluent concentration is 7.5 mg/L, the effluent concentration is

considered as a non-detected at a detection limit 10 mg/L. If the calculated value was greater

than the lowest potential value, one of the following two methods of substitution was made.

Method 1: When the effluent concentration was calculated as a product of the proportion

of residual pollutant concentration after treatment and the influent concentration of the sample

point, the calculated effluent concentration was assigned the censoring type of the influent

sample. Table 13-8 provides an example of the final censoring type using this method where the

lowest potential value is 10 and the removal fraction is 50 percent.

Table 13-8. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 1

Influent Concentration Effluent Concentration

Amount Censoring Type

Influent Concentration

*(1-Removal Fraction)

Final Calculated

Amount Censoring Type

10 ND 5 10 ND

20 NC 10 10 NC

22 ND 11 11 ND

Method 2: When the effluent concentration method was calculated based on a facility

pollutant mass balance between the final effluent and its unit processes of first, further, and

rendering wastewaters (as applicable), it had the censoring type associated with the initial
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

4

 EPA particularly used the ranges presented in "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse"

Metcalf & Eddy, 1995 for each technology option.

13-12

effluent concentration. Table 13-9 provides an example of the final censoring type using this

method where the lowest potential value is 10 and the removal fraction is 50 percent.

Table 13-9. Example of Final Data Censoring Type Using Method 2

Initial Effluent

Concentration Further

Processing

Effluent

Rendering

Effluent

Calculated

Effluent

Concentrationa

Final Calculated Effluent

Concentration

Amount

Censoring

Type Amount

Censoring

Type

15 NC 10 20 8.75 10 ND

10 ND 10 24 9.70 10 ND

100 ND 10 40 136 136 ND

20 NC 10 10 25.78 25.78 NC

a Calculated Effluent Concentration=(Initial Effluent *0.73 - Further Processing Effluent*0.7- (1-Removal

Fraction)*Rendering Effluent * 0.15) /0.51

13.5 DATA ADJUSTMENT

Once the daily effluent concentration for a facility was calculated, the data value was

compared to the long-term average (LTA) of the actual measured effluent for that facility. When

the calculated concentration was less than the LTA, it was replaced by the LTA. After a

thorough review of the calculated effluent concentrations, EPA adjusted several of the

concentration values when the calculation methodology resulted in effluent concentrations that

were generally lower than documented performance values for the technology or lower than

actual effluent concentrations. More specifically, the methodology used by EPA in the absence

of effluent data for a particular meat or poultry process type was dependent at times on the

transfer of data and treatment system performance from different facilities. There were instances

when this methodology resulted in calculated concentrations that were below what EPA

considered to be reasonable or realistic. In evaluating whether a derived effluent value was

reasonable or realistic, EPA compared the data to expected ranges of effluent concentrations as

provided in the technical literature.4

 EPA also ensured that a derived effluent data for a

particular process type (i.e., first processing, further processing, or rendering) were never lower

than the actual effluent concentration as reported in the sampling episodes.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-13

13.6 OVERVIEW OF LIMITATIONS

The following sections discuss the data selected as the basis for the proposed limitations,

the data aggregation procedures, and the methodology used to obtain daily values for limitations. 

This section describes EPA’s objective for daily maximum and monthly average limitations, the

selection of percentiles for those limitations, and compliance with final limitations. EPA has

included this discussion because these fundamental concepts are often the subject of comments

on EPA’s proposed effluent guidelines regulations and in EPA’s contacts and correspondence

with the industry.

13.6.1 Objective

In establishing daily maximum limitations, EPA’s objective is to restrict the discharges

on a daily basis at a level that is achievable for a facility that targets its treatment at the longterm average. EPA acknowledges that variability around the long-term average results from

normal operations. This variability means that occasionally facilities may discharge at a level

that is greater than the long-term average. This variability also means that facilities may

occasionally discharge at a level that is considerably lower than the long-term average. To allow

for these possibly higher daily discharges, EPA has established the daily maximum limitation. A

facility that discharges consistently at a level near the daily maximum limitation would not be

operating its treatment to achieve the long-term average, which is part of EPA’s objective in

establishing the daily maximum limitations. That is, targeting treatment to achieve the

limitations may result in frequent values exceeding the limitations due to routine variability in

treated effluent.

In establishing monthly average limitations, EPA’s objective is to provide an additional

restriction to help insure that facilities target their average discharges to achieve the long-term

average. The monthly average limitation requires continuous dischargers to provide on-going

control, on a monthly basis, that complements controls imposed by the daily maximum

limitation. In order to meet the monthly average limitation, a facility must counterbalance a

value near the daily maximum limitation with one or more values well below the daily maximum
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-14

limitation. To achieve compliance, these values must result in a monthly average value at or

below the monthly average limitation.

13.6.2 Selection of Percentiles

EPA calculates limitations based upon percentiles chosen with the intention, on one hand,

to be high enough to accommodate reasonably anticipated variability within control of the

facility and, on the other hand, to be low enough to reflect a level of performance consistent with

the Clean Water Act requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the “best”

technologies. The daily maximum limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the

distribution of the daily measurements. The monthly average limitation is an estimate of the

95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the daily measurements.

The 99th and 95th percentiles do not relate to, or specify, the percentage of time a

discharger operating the “best available” or “best available demonstrated” level of technology

will meet (or not meet) the limitations. Rather, the use of these percentiles relate to the

development of limitations. (The percentiles used as a basis for the limitations are calculated

using the products of the long-term averages and the variability factors as explained in the next

section.) If a facility is designed and operated to achieve the long-term average on a consistent

basis and the facility maintains adequate control of its processes and treatment systems, the

allowance for variability provided in the limitations is sufficient to meet the requirements of the

proposed rule. The use of 99 percent and 95 percent represents a need to draw a line at a definite

point in the statistical distributions (100 percent is not feasible because it represents an infinitely

large value) and a policy judgment about where to draw the line that would ensure that operators

work hard to establish and maintain the appropriate level of control. In essence, in developing

the proposed limitations, EPA has taken into account the reasonable anticipated variability in

discharges that may occur at a well-operated facility. By targeting its treatment at the long-term

average, a well-operated facility should be capable of complying with the limitations at all times

because EPA has incorporated an appropriate allowance for variability into the limitations.

While the actual monitoring requirements will be determined by the permitting authority,

the Agency has assumed thirty samples per month (i.e., daily monitoring) in determining the
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

5

 Values that exceed the limitations

13-15

proposed maximum monthly average limitations. EPA recognizes that small poultry facilities

are unlikely to operate on weekends and is soliciting comment on whether their monthly

limitations should be based upon 20 days. Increasing or decreasing monitoring frequency does

not affect the statistical properties of the underlying distribution of the data used to derive the

limitations. However, monitoring less frequently theoretically results in average values that are

more variable. As a consequence, average values based on 20 monitoring samples per month

from small poultry facilities theoretically could be numerically larger than average values based

upon 30 monitoring samples from non-small facilities. Thus, operators of small poultry facilities

may find they need to design treatment systems to achieve an average below the long term

average basis of the proposed limitations and/or more control over variability of the discharges

in order to maintain compliance with the limitations. Attachment 13-5 in Appendix H provides a

list of both the proposed limitations and those derived using a 20-day monitoring assumption.

In conjunction with the statistical methods, EPA performs an engineering review to

verify that the limitations are reasonable based upon the design and expected operation of the

control technologies and the facility process conditions. As part of that review, EPA examines

the range of performance by the facility data sets used to calculate the limitations. Some facility

data sets demonstrate the best available technology. Other facility data sets may demonstrate the

same technology, but not the best demonstrated design and operating conditions for that

technology. For these facilities, EPA will evaluate the degree to which the facility can upgrade

its design, operating, and maintenance conditions to meet the limitations. If such upgrades are

not possible, then the limitations are modified to reflect the lowest levels that the technologies

can reasonably be expected to achieve.

13.6.3 Compliance with Limitations

EPA promulgates limitations that facilities are capable of complying with at all times by

properly operating and maintaining their processes and treatment technologies. However, the

issue of exceedances5

 or excursions is often raised by comments on proposed limitations (as has

been the Agency’s experience with proposals for other industries). For example, comments
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-16

often suggest that EPA include a provision that a facility is in compliance with permit limitations

if its discharge does not exceed the specified limitations, with the exception that the discharge

may exceed the monthly average limitations one month out of 20 and the daily average

limitations one day out of 100. This issue was, in fact, raised in other rules, most notably in

EPA’s final Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) rulemaking. EPA’s

general approach there for developing limitations based on percentiles is the same in this

proposal, and was upheld in Chemical Manufacturers Association v. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 870 F.2d 177, 230 (5th Cir. 1989). The Court determined that:

EPA reasonably concluded that the data points exceeding the 99th and 95th percentiles

represent either quality-control problems or upsets because there can be no other

explanation for these isolated and extremely high discharges. If these data points result

from quality-control problems, the exceedances they represent are within the control of

the plant. If, however, the data points represent exceedances beyond the control of the

industry, the upset defense is available.

Id. at 230.

EPA’s allowance for reasonable anticipated variability in its effluent limitations, coupled

with the availability of the upset defense reasonably accommodates acceptable excursions. Any

further excursion allowances would go beyond the reasonable accommodation of variability and

would jeopardize the effective control of pollutant discharges on a consistent basis and/or bog

down administrative and enforcement proceedings in detailed fact finding exercises, contrary to

Congressional intent. See, e.g., Rep. No. 92-414, 92nd Congress, 2nd Sess. 64, reprinted in A

Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 at 1482;

Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977 at 464-65.

13.6.4 Summary of Proposed Limitations

The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option are provided as ‘daily maximums’

and ‘maximums for monthly averages’. Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the

daily maximum limitation is the “highest allowable ‘daily discharge’” and the maximum for

monthly average limitation (also referred to as the “monthly average limitation”) is the “highest
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-17

allowable average of ‘daily discharges’ over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all ‘daily

discharges’ measured during a calendar month divided by the number of ‘daily discharges’

measured during that month.” Daily discharges are defined to be the “‘discharge of a pollutant’

measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar

day for purposes of samplings.” EPA has proposed daily maximum and monthly average

limitations expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge (pounds) per unit of production

(Live-Weight Killed, Finished Products, Raw Materials). In this document and elsewhere, EPA

refers to such limitations as ‘production-normalized.’ EPA has proposed production-normalized

limitations in terms of daily maximums, maximums for 20-day averages (poultry facilities only),

and maximum for monthly averages.

To derive the proposed production-normalization limitations, EPA used the modified

delta-lognormal distribution to develop limitations based upon the concentration data

(“concentration-based limitations”). Sections 13.7 through13.10 describe the calculations for the

concentration-based limitations. Section 13.11 describes the conversion of these limitations to

“production-normalized limitations” using the model flow rates described in Section 11.

13.7 ESTIMATION OF CONCENTRATION-BASED LIMITATIONS

In estimating the concentration-based limitations, EPA determines an average

performance level (the “option long-term average” discussed in the next section) that a facility

with well-designed and operated model technologies (which reflect the appropriate level of

control) is capable of achieving. This long-term average is calculated from the data from the

facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects that all facilities subject to

the limitations will design and operate their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average

performance level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-designed and operated model

technologies have demonstrated that this can be done.

In the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance for the

variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through extensive and well designed

treatment systems. This allowance for variance incorporates all components of variability

including shipping, sampling, storage, and analytical variability. This allowance is incorporated
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-18

into the limitations through the use of the variability factors (the “option variability factor”

discussed in Section 13.9) which are calculated from the data from the facilities using the model

technologies. If a facility operates its treatment system to meet the relevant long-term average,

EPA expects the facility will be able to meet the limitations. Variability factors assure that

normal fluctuations in a facility’s treatment are accounted for in the limitations. By accounting

for these reasonable excursions above the long-term average, EPA’s use of variability factors

results in limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term averages.

Facilities that are designed and operated to achieve long-term average effluent levels

used in developing the limitation should be capable of compliance with the proposed limitations,

which incorporate variability, at all times.

The following sections describe the calculation of long-term averages and variability

factors.

13.8 ESTIMATION OF LONG-TERM AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS

This section discusses the calculation of LTAs for each sample episode (“episodespecific LTA”) and for each technology option (“option LTA”) for each pollutant. The LTAs

discussed in this section were used to develop the proposed limitations.

For each technology option being considered, EPA calculated LTAs that represent the

best performing facilities (from the respective of types of treatment in-place and degree of

expected pollutant removals). For purposes of proposal, EPA relied on EPA sampling episode

data to calculate LTAs. EPA calculated LTAs for the following six meat and poultry processes:

• first processing (meat);

• further processing (meat);

• rendering (meat);

• first processing (poultry);

• further processing (poultry); and

• rendering (poultry).
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-19

LTAs were derived for each of the above six meat and poultry processes from effluent

concentration data collected during the sampling episodes. Specifically, for each technology

option being considered, effluent concentration data from representative facilities were used to

derive LTAs for each pollutant of concern. Consistent with the methodology described in

Section 9.2, in the absence of data for a particular meat and poultry process at a facility, EPA

used the derived effluent concentration data.

13.8.1 Episode-specific Long-Term Average Concentrations

EPA calculated the episode-specific long-term average by using either the modified

delta-lognormal distribution or the arithmetic average (see Appendix G). In Appendix H, EPA

has listed the arithmetic average (column labeled ‘Obs Mean’) and the estimated episodespecific long-term average (column labeled ‘Est LTA’). If EPA used the arithmetic average as

the episode long-term average, then the two columns have the same value.

13.8.2 Option Long-Term Averages

EPA calculated the option long-term average for a pollutant as the median of the episodespecific long-term averages for that pollutant from selected episodes with the technology basis

for the option. The median is the midpoint of the values ordered (i.e., ranked) from smallest to

largest. If there is an odd number of values (with n=number of values), then the value of the

(n+1)/2 ordered observation is the median. If there are an even number of values, then the two

values of the n/2 and [(n/2)+1] ordered observations are arithmetically averaged to obtain the

median value.

For example, for subcategory Y option Z, if the four (i.e., n=4) episode-specific longterm averages for pollutant X are:

Facility Episode-Specific Long-Term Average

A 20 mg/L

B 9 mg/L

C 16 mg/L

D 10 mg/L
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-20

then the ordered values are:

Order Facility Episode-Specific Long-Term Average

1 B 9 mg/L

2 D 10 mg/L

3 C 16 mg/L

4 A 20 mg/L

And the pollutant-specific long-term average for option Z is the median of the ordered

values (i.e., the average of the 2nd and 3rd ordered values): (10+16)/2 mg/L = 13 mg/L.

The option long-term averages were used in developing the proposed limitations for each

pollutant within each regulatory option. 

13.8.3 Substitution of LTAs

In a limited number of cases, EPA used substitutions for the calculated option-level

LTAs because data existed that indicated the technology option performed at these levels (or

better) at MPP facilities. Table 13-10 summarizes the option-level LTA substitutions. For

poultry further processing BAT-2, the option LTA of TSS was substituted with 9.76 mg/L,

which was the largest value reported in the MPP detailed survey for poultry facilities with

further processing operations and implementing BAT-2 level treatment technology. For poultry

rendering operation BAT-2, the option LTA of HEM was substituted with 19.5 mg/L, which was

the largest value reported in the MPP detailed survey for poultry facilities with rendering

operations and implementing BAT-2 level treatment technology. Finally, for poultry rendering

operation BAT-1, the option LTA for COD was substituted with the average effluent from a

poultry facility performing rendering operations.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-21

Table 13-10. Substitution Values for Option-Level LTA

Pollutant

Substitution

Value (mg/L) Subcategory Option

Calculated

Option LTA

(mg/L) Source of Substitution Value

TSS 9.76 Poultry further

processing

BAT-2 537.56 Largest concentration reported

value in MPP survey data for

poultry facilities with further

processing operations at BAT-2.

HEM 19.5 Poultry

rendering

BAT-2 334.96 Largest concentration reported

value in MPP survey data for

poultry facilities with rendering

operations at BAT-2.

COD 29.64 Poultry

rendering

BAT-2 168.92 Average concentration of treated

rendering effluent at sampling

episode 6448

13.8.4 Calculation of Poultry BAT-3 Option-Level Long-Term Averages

For poultry BAT-3, the technology option was not represented in the sampling episodes

of poultry facilities. Thus, the option LTAs were calculated assuming that the removal fractions

between different technology option levels would be the same for meat and poultry facilities

(i.e., the removal fraction between meat BAT-2 and meat BAT-3 treatment options would be the

same as the removal fraction between poultry BAT-2 and poultry BAT-3 treatment options).

Thus, the removal fractions were calculated as follows:

Removal Fraction = (Option LTA from Meat BAT-2- Option LTA from Meat BAT-3)/

Option LTA from Meat BAT-2.

The resulting removal fraction would then be applied to the treated pollutant

concentrations calculated for the technology option BAT-2 to obtain the option long-term

averages as follows:

LTA = ( Option LTA from Poultry BAT-2)*(1-Removal Fraction).

If the LTA was less than the option level LTA of the actual sampled effluent data used

for Meat Option 3, it was replaced by the option level LTA of the actual sampled effluent data

used for Meat BAT-3. The formula for the option level LTA for the option BAT-3 of Poultry is

provided in Table 13-11.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-22

Table 13-11. Formulas for Calculating BAT-3 Technology Option Level LTA for

Poultry Facilities

First Processing Further Processing Rendering Operations

RF =

Removal

Fraction

[(Option LTA of First

Processing Meat BAT-2) -

(Option LTA of First

Processing Meat BAT3)]/Option LTA of First

Processing Meat BAT-2

[(Option LTA of Further

Processing Meat BAT-2) -

(Option LTA of Further

Processing Meat BAT3)]/Option LTA of Further

Processing Meat BAT-2 

[(Option LTA of Rendering

Operation Meat BAT-2) -

(Option LTA of Rendering

Operation Meat BAT3)]/Option LTA of Rendering

Operation Meat BAT-2

Option

LTA

(1 - RF) • (Option LTA of First

Processing Poultry BAT-2)

(1 - RF) • (Option LTA of

Further Processing Poultry

BAT-2)

(1 - RF) • (Option LTA of

Rendering Operation Poultry

BAT-2)

13.8.5 Calculation of Independent Rendering BAT-2 Option-Level Long-Term

Averages

The option level LTA for the independent rendering facilities was calculated as the

average of the option level LTAs of rendering process from Meat BAT-2 and Poultry BAT-2.

The formula for the option level LTA for the independent LTA is

Option LTA = [(Option LTA of Rendering Operation Meat BAT-2)+(Option LTA of

Rendering Operation Meat BAT-2)]/2.

13.8.6 Adjustments to Option Long-Term Averages

To ensure that the option BAT-2 LTAs were no more stringent than the BAT-3 option

LTAs, a comparison was made between the BAT-2 option LTAs and the BAT-3 option LTAs. 

BAT-2 option LTAs were substituted with BAT-3 option LTAs whenever they were more

stringent than the corresponding BAT-3 option LTA. Table 13-12 identifies the cases for which

the BAT-3 value was substituted for the calculated BAT-2 long-term average.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-23

Table 13-12. BAT-2 Option LTA Substitutions

Subcategory Process Pollutant

Calculated 

Option BAT-2

LTA (mg/L)

Calculated

Option BAT-3

LTA(mg/L)

Final Option

BAT-2 LTA

(mg/L)a

Poultry First

Processing 

Ammonia as Nitrogen 0.25 2.34 2.34

Biochemical Oxygen

Demand

2.00 4.68 4.68

Fecal Coliform 4.63 21.50 21.50

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.61 2.08 2.08

Total Phosphorus 0.77 6.97 6.97

Total Residual Chlorine 0.22 15.96 15.96

Further

Processing

Ammonia As Nitrogen 0.85 2.34 2.34

Fecal Coliform 4.63 21.50 21.50

Rendering Biochemical Oxygen

Demand

2.16 4.68 4.68

Fecal Coliform 5.60 21.50 21.50

Total Phosphorus 2.55 6.97 6.97

Meat First

Processing

Ammonia As Nitrogen 0.70 3.75 3.75

Further

Processing

Ammonia As Nitrogen 0.52 2.34 2.34

Rendering Ammonia As Nitrogen 1.29 2.34 2.34

Biochemical Oxygen

Demand

6.92 8.35 8.35

a These values represent the LTAs that were subsequently used by EPA for deriving effluent limitations.

13.9 CALCULATION OF OPTION VARIABILITY FACTORS

In developing the option variability factors used in calculating the proposed limitations,

EPA first developed daily and monthly episode-specific variability factors using the modified

delta-lognormal distribution. The variability factors were estimated from the daily effluent data

of the facility used to compute the episode-specific LTA’s. This estimation procedure is

described in Appendix G.

After calculating the episode-specific variability factors, EPA calculated the option daily

variability factor as the mean of the episode-specific daily variability factors for that pollutant in

the subcategory and option. Likewise, the option monthly variability factor was the mean of the

episode-specific monthly variability factors for that pollutant in the subcategory and option. For

poultry BAT-3, the option variability factors were transferred from the meat BAT-3 because, as
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-24

described in Section 13.8.4 the technology option was not represented in the sampling episodes

of poultry facilities. Because the BAT-3 technology options are the same for meat and poultry,

EPA expects the variability to be similar, and thus transferred the variability factors from the

meat BAT-3 dataset. Additionally, the variability factors for Independent Rendering BAT-2

were calculated as the average of option VF’s from BAT-2 Meat and BAT-2 Poultry because the

LTA was based on the average of option LTAs from BAT-2 Meat and BAT-2 Poultry.

13.9.1 Transfers of Option Variability Factors

After estimating the option variability factors, EPA identified several pollutants for

which variability factors could not be calculated in some options. This resulted when all episode

datasets for the pollutant in the option had too few detected measurements to calculate episodespecific variability factors (see data requirements in Appendix G). For example, if a pollutant

had all non-detected values for all of the episodes in an option, then it was not possible to

calculate option variability factors. When EPA could not calculate the option variability factors

or determined that the calculated option variability factors should be replaced, EPA selected

variability factors from other sources to provide an adequate allowance for variability in the

proposed limitations. This section describes these cases.

Table 13-13 lists the pollutants for which EPA was unable to calculate option variability

factors. For biochemical oxygen demand in Poultry BAT-2, EPA transferred the option

variability factors from the Poultry BAT-3. EPA expects that these two options would have

similar variability in the effluent concentrations. Likewise for HEM in Poultry BAT-2 and

BAT-3 and Meat BAT-3, EPA transferred the variability factors from Meat BAT-2. For

ammonia (as N), the variability factors for Poultry BAT-2 were transferred from Poultry BAT-3. 

EPA determined that the variability factors were unlikely to be more variable than the Poultry

BAT-3. For total nitrogen, EPA transferred the option variability factors for total Kjeldahl

nitrogen (TKN) from the same option because EPA did not calculate daily total nitrogen values. 

(Daily values are needed to calculate variability factors.) However, EPA had developed

variability factors for the two pollutants, TKN and nitrate/nitrite, which are summed to obtain

total nitrogen. Because TKN was the more variable of the two pollutants, EPA selected those
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-25

variability factors to use in developing the total nitrogen limitations. EPA expects that total

nitrogen would be no more variable than TKN.

Table 13-13. Cases where Option Variability Factors Could Not be Calculated

Pollutant Technology Option Source of Variability Factors

Biochemical oxygen demand Poultry BAT-2 Poultry BAT 3

HEM Poultry BAT-2 Meat BAT-2

Poultry BAT-3 Meat BAT-2

Meat BAT-3 Meat BAT-2

Ammonia (as N) Poultry BAT-2 Poultry BAT-3

Total nitrogen All technology options TKN from the same option

13.10 SUMMARY OF STEPS USED TO DERIVE CONCENTRATION-BASED

LIMITATIONS

This section summarizes the steps used to derive the proposed concentration-based

limitations. For each pollutant in an option for each type of processing operation (first

processing, further processing, and rendering), EPA performed the following steps in calculating

the proposed concentration-based limitations:

Step 1: EPA calculated the episode-specific long-term averages and daily and monthly

variability factors for all selected episodes with the model technology for the

option for each type of processing operation. (See Attachment 13-2 in Appendix

H for episode-specific long-term averages and variability factors.)

Step 2: EPA calculated the option long-term average as the median of the episodespecific long-term averages. (See Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H.)

Step 3: EPA calculated the option variability factors for each pollutants as the mean of

the episode-specific variability factors from the episodes with the model

technology. (See Appendix 13-3 in Appendix H.) The option daily variability

factor is the mean of the episode-specific daily variability factors. Similarly, the

option monthly variability factor is the mean of the episode-specific monthly

variability factors.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-26

Step 4: For the pollutants for which Steps 1 and 3 failed to provide option variability

factors, EPA determined variability factors on a case-by-case basis. (See Table

13-13.)

Step 5: EPA calculated each proposed concentration-based daily maximum limitation for

a pollutant using the product of the option long-term average and the option daily

variability factor. (See Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H.)

Step 6: EPA calculated each proposed concentration-based monthly average limitation

for a pollutant using the product of the option long-term average and the option

monthly variability factor. (See Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H.)

The next section describes the conversion of the concentration-based limitations to the

production-normalized limitations that are provided in the proposed regulation.

13.11 CONVERSION TO PRODUCTION-NORMALIZED LIMITATIONS

The previous discussions about the limitations were based upon concentration data. The

proposed pollutant limitations are presented in terms of pounds of allowable pollutant discharge

per 1,000 pounds of production units (lbs/1000 lbs). This section describes the conversion from

concentration-based limitations to the production-normalized limitations in the proposed

regulation. This section also provides EPA’s methodology for determining the number of

significant digits to use for the proposed production-normalized limitations.

13.11.1 Calculation of Production Normalized Limitations

In calculating the proposed production-normalized limitations, EPA used the

concentration-based limitations, the production flow rates, and a conversion factor. The

concentration-based limitations were calculated as described in the previous section and are

listed in Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H. The following paragraphs briefly describe the

production flow rates and the conversion factors used to calculate the production-normalized

limitations.
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

6

 Production units include live weight killed (LWK) for first processing, finished product (FP) for further

processing, and raw material (RM) for rendering.

13-27

The production flow rates used in the calculation are expressed as production-normalized

flow rates (PNFs) in terms of gallons of water discharged per 1,000 pound of production units.6

The production-normalized flow rates are provided in Attachment 13-4 in Appendix H. EPA

used the following conversion factor:

6

3

3.7854 / 8.3454 10

453.593 10 /

L lb L gal conversion factor gal mg mg lb

= × =×

×

n

The conversion factor assumes that the concentration-based limitations are expressed as

milligrams per liter (mg/L). EPA used the production flows and the conversion factor to

calculate each production-normalized limitation using the following basic equation:

Production-normalized limitation = Concentration-based limitation × Productionnormalized flow rate × conversion factor

The following is an example of applying a conversion factor to the concentration-based

limits:

For Meat First Processing technology option, suppose the concentration based daily

maximum limitation is 0.1 mg/L. Using the production flow rate of 322.8 gal/1000 lbLWK (Live-Weight Killed), the production-normalized daily maximum limitation for the

First Processing Meat subcategory is:

LTA m g

L

gal

lb LW K

L gal

mg lb

lb

lb LW K p n = × − ×× = −

− 01 322 8

1000 8 3454 10 0 2694 1000

3 . . . /

/ .
Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-28

13.11.2 Significant Digits for Production-Normalized Limitations

After completing the conversions described in the previous section, EPA rounded the

proposed production-normalized limitations to three significant digits. EPA used a rounding

procedure where values of five and above are rounded up and values of four and below are

rounded down. For example, a value of 0.003455 would be rounded to 0.00346, while a value of

0.003454 would be rounded to 0.00345. The production-normalized limitations listed in

Attachment 13-5 of Appendix H have three significant digits.
14-1

SECTION 14

REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION

14.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF PART 432 THROUGH THE NPDES PERMIT

PROGRAM AND THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM

Under sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 of the CWA, EPA promulgates national effluent

limitations guidelines and standards of performance for major industrial categories for three

classes of pollutants: (1) conventional pollutants (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and grease,

biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform bacteria, and pH); (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic

metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzoa-pyrene, and naphthalene); and (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N, fluoride, iron,

total phenols, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran).

As discussed in Section 2, EPA must consider six types of effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for each major industrial category, as appropriate. The types of effluent limitation

guidelines and standards are presented in Table 14-1.

Table 14-1. Types of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards

Abbreviation Effluent Limitation Guideline or Standard

BPT

BAT

BCT

NSPS

PSES

PSNS

Best practicable control technology currently available

Best available technology economically achievable

Best control technology for conventional pollutants

New source performance standards

Pretreatment standards for existing sources

Pretreatment standards for new sources

Pretreatment standards apply to industrial facilities with wastewater discharges to

POTWs. The effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards apply to

industrial facilities with direct discharges in to navigable waters.
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-2

14.1.1 NPDES Permit Program

Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program is designed to limit the discharge of

pollutants into navigable waters of the United States through a combination of various

requirements, including technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations.

Technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the meat and

poultry processing industry are used by permit writers to derive NPDES permit technology-based

effluent limitations. Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based on receiving

water characteristics and ambient water quality standards, including designated water uses. They

are derived independently from technology-based effluent limitations. The CWA requires that

NPDES permits contain the more stringent of the applicable technology-based and water qualitybased effluent limitations.

Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides that in the absence of promulgated effluent

limitations guidelines or standards, the Administrator, or her designee, may establish technologybased effluent limitations for specific dischargers on a case-by-case basis. Federal NPDES permit

regulations provide that these limits may be established using “best professional judgment” (BPJ)

taking into account any proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards and other relevant

scientific, technical, and economic information.

Section 301 of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires that

BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants be achieved as expeditiously as possible, but not

later than three years from date of promulgation of such limitations and in no case later than

March 31, 1989. Because the revisions to 40 CFR Part 432 will be promulgated after March 31,

1989, NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the revised effluent limitations guidelines

must be included in the next NPDES permit issued after promulgation of the regulation, and the

permit must require immediate compliance.
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-3

14.1.2 New Source Performance Standards

New sources must comply with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and

limitations of the MPP rule at the time they commence discharging MPP process wastewater.

The Agency considers a discharger a new source if construction of the source begins after

promulgation of the final rule (see 40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3).

Following promulgation of revised NSPS, existing NSPS continue to apply for a limited

period of time to new sources that commenced discharging MPP process wastewater within the

time period beginning 10 years before the effective date of a final rule revising Part 432. Thus, if

EPA promulgates revised NSPS for Part 432 in December 2003, and those regulations take effect

in January 2004, any direct discharging new source that commenced discharge after January 1994

but before February 2004 would be subject to the currently codified NSPS for 10 years from the

date it commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or amortization of such facility,

whichever comes first (see CWA section 306(d)). After that 10 year period expires, any new or

revised BAT limitations would apply with respect to toxics and nonconventional pollutants. 

Limitations on conventional pollutants would be based on the current NSPS for conventional

pollutants unless EPA promulgates revisions to BPT/BCT for conventional pollutants that are

more stringent than these NSPS requirements. Appendix I provides the regulations at 40 CFR

Part 432 (including NSPS), as codified in the 2001 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations for

use during the applicable 10 year period.

14.1.3 National Pretreatment Standards

40 CFR Part 403 sets out national pretreatment standards which have three principal

objectives. The first objective is to prevent the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned

treatment works (POTWs) that will interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of

municipal sludge. Second, national pretreatment standards are in place to prevent the

introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will pass through the treatment works or will

otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works. The final objective is to improve

opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-4

The national pretreatment and categorical standards comprise a series of prohibited

discharges to prevent the discharge of “any pollutant(s) which cause Pass Through or

Interference” (see 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1)). Local control authorities are required to implement the

national pretreatment program, including applying the federal categorical pretreatment standards

to any industrial users that are subject to such categorical pretreatment standards, as well as any

pretreatment standards derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are more restrictive than the federal

standards.

The federal categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources must be achieved not

later than three years following the date of publication of the final standards. This proposed

regulation does not revise federal categorical pretreatment standards (PSES and PSNS)

applicable to meat and poultry processing facilities regulated by 40 CFR Part 432. If EPA were

to promulgate PSNS in the final rule, MPP new sources would be required to comply with the

new source performance standards of the MPP rule at the time they commence discharging MPP

process wastewater. Because the final rule is not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule,

the Agency considers an indirect discharger a new source if its construction commences

following promulgation of the final rule (see 40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA expects to take

final action on this proposal in December 2003.

In addition, Section 403.7 of the Clean Water Act provides the criteria and procedures to

be used by a Control Authority to grant a categorical industrial user (CIU) variance from a

pollutant limit specified in a categorical pretreatment standard to reflect removal by the POTW

treatment plant of the pollutant. Procedures for granting removal credits are specified in 40 CFR

403.11.

14.2 UPSET AND BYPASS PROVISIONS

A "bypass" is an intentional diversion of the streams from any portion of a treatment

facility. An "upset" is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary

noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the

reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning bypasses and upsets for direct
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-5

dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR

403.16 and 403.17.

14.3 VARIANCES AND MODIFICATIONS

The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established pursuant to section 301

or pretreatment standards of section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the

statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in a limited number of

circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative mechanisms to provide an

opportunity for relief from the application of the national effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and

nonconventional pollutants.

14.3.1 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances

EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable

requirements, if an individual discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to

factors considered in establishing the limitation of standards applicable to the individual facility. 

Such a modification is known as a "fundamentally different factors" (FDF) variance.

EPA provides for the FDF modifications from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT

limitations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and BPT limitations for conventional

pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provides for modifications from

pretreatment standards. FDF variances for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and

ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (see Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC, 479

U.S. 116 (1985)).

Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added section 301(n) to the

Act to authorize modifications of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or

categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is fundamentally different with

respect to the factors specified in section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in

establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 301(n) also defined the

conditions under which EPA may establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-6

application for approval of a FDF variance must be based solely on either information submitted

during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different, or information the

applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be no

less stringent than justified by the difference and must not result in markedly more adverse nonwater quality environmental impacts than does the national limitation or standard.

EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart D, authorizing the Regional Administrators

to establish alternative limitations and standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to

evaluate FDF variance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) identifies six

factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be

considered in determining whether or not a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must

determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in question is

fundamentally different from the facilities and factors considered by EPA in developing the

nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g.,

infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay) that may not

provide a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), a request for

limitations less stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if compliance with

the national limitations would result in either a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the

removal cost considered during development of the national limitations, or a non-water quality

environmental impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than the

impact considered during development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an

FDF variance for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for approval of a request

to modify applicable pretreatment standards and factors considered are the same as those for

direct dischargers.

The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity for the FDF variance

applicant to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are

explicit in imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that the factors

relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's permit which are claimed to be

fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from those factors considered by

EPA in establishing the applicable guidelines. The criteria for applying for and evaluating
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-7

applications for variances from categorical pretreatment standards are included in the

pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9). An FDF variance is not available to a new

source performance subject to NSPS or PSNS.

14.3.2 Economic Variances

Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise applicable BAT

effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due to economic factors. The request for a

variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines must normally be filed by the

discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other filing time periods may

apply, as specified in 40 CFR 122.21(1)(2). Specific guidance for this type of variance is

available from EPA's Office of Wastewater Management.

14.3.3 Water Quality Variances

Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent guidelines for

certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants

include ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.

14.4 PRODUCTION BASIS FOR CALCULATION OF PERMIT LIMITATIONS

14.4.1 Background

The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS are

expressed as mass limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per 1,000 pounds (of production unit). 

EPA is soliciting comment on PSES and PSNS numeric standards that are concentration-based.

The NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.45(f)) require permit writers to implement mass-based

limitations for direct dischargers, but allow an exception when the limits are expressed in terms

of other units of measurement (e.g., concentration). The General Pretreatment Regulations (40

CFR 403.6(d)) provide that the control authority may impose mass limitations on industrial users

using dilution to meet applicable pretreatment requirements or where mass limitations are

appropriate. EPA believes that MPP facilities that have been using the best pollution prevention

and water conservation practices may also request that the permit writer or POTW use mass-
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-8

based limits in their permits or control mechanism. See Section 6 for detailed information on

water use levels for meat and poultry processing operations and rendering. EPA believes this

information will be useful to permit writers and control authorities in those instances where they

deem it appropriate to set mass-based limits.

14.4.2 Mass-Based Limitations and Standards

The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS are

expressed as mass limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per 1,000 pounds (of production unit). 

Production units include live weight killed (LWK), equivalent live weight killed (ELWK),

finished product (FP), and raw material (RM). The mass limitation is derived by multiplying an

effluent concentration (determined from the analysis of treatment system performance) by an

appropriate normalized wastewater volume (“production-normalized flow”) determined for each

MPP operation expressed in gallons per 1,000 pounds of product. The following equation

describes how EPA calculated mass-based limitations and standards.

Mass-Based Limit = [CONC, mg/L] x [PNF, gal/1,000 lb] x [3.7854 L/gal] x [1 lb/453,592 mg]

where:

Mass-based limit = technology-based mass-based limit for each pollutant proposed for

regulation. Expressed as a unitless fraction in terms of mass (lb) of

pollutant per mass (1,000 lb) of production.

CONC, mg/L = technology-based concentration limits for each pollutant proposed

for regulation. Expressed in units of mass (mg) of pollutant per

volume (L) of wastewater.

PNF, gal/1,000 lb = production normalized flow (PNF) for the regulatory subcategory.

Expressed in units of volume of wastewater generated (gal) per

1,000 pounds of production (LWK, ELWK, FP, or RM).

 [3.7854 L/gal], [1 lb/453,592 mg] = conversion factors.
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-9

EPA developed the production-normalized flows to generate the limits in the proposed

rule from survey questionnaire responses from MPP facilities. See Section 13.11 for a

description of these production-normalized flows.

A facility subject to today’s proposed regulation can use a combination of various

treatment alternatives and/or water conservation practices to achieve a particular effluent

limitation or standard. The model treatment systems provided in Section 11 illustrate several

available options to achieve the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

The NPDES permit regulations discuss the use of mass-based limitations and standards.

In order to convert the effluent limitations and standards expressed as pounds per 1,000 pounds

of product to a monthly average or daily maximum permit limit, the permitting or control

authority would use a production rate with units of 1,000 pounds per day. The NPDES permit

regulations (40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)) require that NPDES permit limits be based on a “...reasonable

measure of actual production.” The production rates used for NPDES permitting for the MPP

industry have commonly been the highest annual average production from the prior five year

period prorated to a daily basis.

The objective in determining a production estimate for a facility is to develop a measure

of production which can reasonably be expected to prevail during the next term of the permit. 

This measure is used in combination with the production-based limitations to establish a

maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharged each day and month. However, if the permit

production rate is based on the maximum month, then the permit could allow excessive

discharges of pollutants during significant portions of the life of the permit. These excessive

allowances may discourage facilities from ensuring optimal waste management, water

conservation, and wastewater treatment practices during lower production periods. On the other

hand, if the average permit production rate is based on an average derived from the highest year

of production over the past five years, then facilities may have trouble ensuring that their waste

management, water conservation, and wastewater treatment practices can accommodate shorter

periods of higher production. This might require facilities to target a more stringent treatment

level than that on which the limits were based during these periods of high production. To
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-10

accomplish this, facilities would likely have to develop more efficient treatment systems and

better water conservation and waste management practices during these periods.

When a facility is also covered by other existing effluent guidelines, the facility will need

to comply with both regulations. In those cases, the permit writer will combine the limitations

using an approach that proportions the limitations based on the different production levels (for

production-based standards) or wastewater flows (for concentration-based standards). NPDES

permit writers refer to it as the “building block approach.”

 The proposed limitations neither require the installation of any specific control

technology nor the attainment of any specific flow rate or effluent concentration. A facility can

use various treatment alternatives or water conservation practices to achieve a particular effluent

limitation or standard. Appendix J provides several examples of how these proposed limitations

and standards will be applied.

14.5 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize the Administrator to

prescribe BMPs as part of effluent limitations guidelines and standards, or as part of a permit. 

Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to include BMPs in effluent limitations guidelines

for certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for the purpose of controlling “plant site runoff, spillage

or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage.” Section 402(a)(1)

and NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k) also provide for best management practices to

control or abate the discharge of pollutants, when numeric limitations and standards are

infeasible. In addition, section 402(a)(2), read in concert with section 501(a), authorizes EPA to

prescribe as wide a range of permit conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to

ensure compliance with applicable effluent limitations and standards and such other requirements

as the Administrator deems appropriate.

Dikes, curbs, and other control measures are being used at some MPP facilities to contain

leaks and spills as part of good “housekeeping" practices.” However, on a facility-by-facility

basis a permit writer may choose to incorporate BMPs into the permit. Section 8.8 provides a
Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-11

detailed discussion of pollution prevention and best management practices used in the MPP

industry.
15-1

SECTION 15

GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

A

AAMP - The American Association of Meat Processors

Administrator - The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Agency - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Alternate discharge - See Zero discharge

AMI - American Meat Institute

AMSA - Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

Average monthly discharge limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily discharges"

over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during the

calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the month.

B

BAT - The best available technology economically achievable, applicable to effluent limitations

for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.

BCT - The best control technology for conventional pollutants, applicable to discharges of

conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources, as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of

the CWA.

Blood processing - The blood may be heated to coagulate the albumin; then, the albumin and

fibrin are separated (e.g., with a screen or centrifuge) from the blood water and forwarded for

further processing. The blood water or serum remaining after coagulation may be evaporated for

animal feed, or it may be sewered.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-2

BOD5

 - Biochemical oxygen demand measured over a 5 day period.

BPJ - Best professional judgment

BPT - The best practicable control technology currently available, applicable to effluent

limitations, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(1) of the

CWA.

C

Canned meat processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart I) - An operation that prepares and

cans meats (such as stew, sandwich spreads, or similar products) alone or in combination with

other finished products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per day.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

Clean water act (CWA) - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33

U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended.

Complex slaughterhouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart B) - A slaughterhouse that

accomplishes extensive by-product processing, usually at least three of such operations as

rendering, paunch and viscera handling, blood processing, hide processing, or hair processing

Conventional pollutants - Constituents of wastewater as determined by Section 304(a)(4) of the

CWA (and EPA regulations), i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total

suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.

D

Daily discharge - The discharge of a pollutant measured during any calendar day or any 24-hour

period that reasonably represents a calendar day.

Deep-well injection - Long-term or permanent disposal of untreated, partially treated, or treated

wastewaters by pumping the wastewater into underground formations of suitable character

through a bored, drilled, or driven well.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-3

Direct discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge treated or untreated wastewaters

into waters of the United States.

DMR - Discharge monitoring report

Dry rendering - The process of cooking animal byproducts by dry heat in open steam-jacketed

tanks.

E

Effluent limitation guideline (ELGs) - Under CWA section 502(11), any restriction, including

schedules of compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and

concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged

from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean (CWA

Sections 301(b) and 304(b)).

ELWK - Equivalent live weight killed

Existing source - For this rule, any facility from which there is or may be a discharge of

pollutants, the construction of which is commenced before the publication of the final regulations

prescribing a standard of performance under Section 306 of the CWA.

F

Facility- All contiguous property and equipment owned, operated, leased, or under the control of

the same person or entity.

FDF - Fundamentally different factor

Finished product - The final manufactured product produced on site, including products

intended for consumption with no additional processing as well as products intended for further

processing, when applicable.

First processing - Operations which receive live meat animals or poultry and produce a raw,

dressed meat or poultry product, either whole or in parts.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-4

FSIS - Food Safety and Inspection Service

FTE - Full time equivalent employee

Further processing - Operations which use whole carcasses or cut-up meat or poultry products

for the production of fresh or frozen products, and may include the following types of processing:

cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, dicing,

forming, or breading.

G

Ground water - Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or water

H

Ham processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart H) - An operation that manufactures hams

alone or in combination with other finished products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per

day.

Hazardous waste - Any waste, including wastewater, defined as hazardous under RCRA,

TSCA, or any state law.

Hexane extractable method (HEM) - A measure of oil and grease in wastewater by mixing the

wastewater with hexane and measuring the oils and greases that are removed from the

wastewater with the hexane. See 40 CFR Part 136.

Hide processing - Wet or dry hide processing. Includes demanuring, washing, and defleshing,

followed by curing.

High-processing packinghouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart D) - A packinghouse that

processes both animals slaughtered at the site and additional carcasses from outside sources.

I

In scope - Facilities and/or wastewaters that EPA proposes to be subject to this guidelines.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-5

Indirect discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge wastewaters into a publicly

owned treatment works.

L

Live weight killed (LWK) - The total weight of the total number of animals slaughtered during

a specific time period.

Long-term average (LTA) - For purposes of the effluent guidelines, average pollutant levels

achieved over a period of time by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used

in developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in the proposed regulation.

Low-processing packinghouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart C) - A packinghouse that

processes no more than the total animals killed at that plant, normally processing less than the

total kill.

M

Maximum monthly average discharge limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily

discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured

during the calendar month, divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the

month.

Meat - The term "meat" includes all animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs,

etc., except those defined as poultry.

Meat cutter (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart F) - An operation fabricates, cuts, or otherwise

produces fresh meat cuts and related finished products from livestock carcasses, at rates greater

than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per day.

Meat product operations - Include meat and poultry slaughtering operations, by-product

operations, rendering, and further processing.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-6

Minimum level - The level at which an analytical system gives recognizable signals and an

acceptable calibration point. 

MPP - Meat and poultry products

N

NAICS - North American Industry Classification System. NAICS was developed jointly by the

U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new comparability in statistics about business activity

across North America.

National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit - A permit to discharge

wastewater into waters of the United States issued under the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination system, authorized by Section 402 of the CWA. See NPDES.

Nitrification capability - The capability of a POTW treatment system to oxidize ammonia or

ammonium salts initially to nitrites (via nitrosomonas bacteria,) and subsequently to nitrates (via

Nitrobacter bacteria). Criteria for determining the nitrification capability of a POTW treatment

system are: bioassays confirming the presence of nitrifying bacteria, and analyses of the nitrogen

balance demonstrating a reduction in the concentration of ammonia or ammonium salts and an

increase in the concentrations of nitrites and nitrates. 

Non-contact cooling water - Water used for cooling in process and nonprocess applications

which does not come into contact with any raw material, intermediate product, by-product, waste

product (including air emissions), or finished product.

Non-conventional pollutants - Pollutants that are neither conventional pollutants nor priority

pollutants listed at 40 CFR §401.15 and Part 423 Appendix A.

Non-detect value - The analyte is below the level of detection that can be reliably measured by

the analytical method. This is also known in statistical terms as left-censoring.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-7

Non-water quality environmental impact - Deleterious aspects of control and treatment

technologies applicable to point source category wastes, including, but not limited to air

pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.

NRA - National Renderers Association

NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council

NPDES program - The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program

authorized by Sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act. It applies to facilities that

discharge wastewater directly to United States surface waters.

NSPS - New Source Performance Standards, applicable to industrial facilities whose

construction is begun after the effective date of the final regulations (if those regulations are

promulgated after 120 days from publication of proposal in the Federal Register). See 40 CFR

122.2.

NTTA - National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

NWPCAM - The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model (version 1.1) is a

computer model to model the instream dissolved oxygen concentration, as influenced by

pollutant reductions of BOD5

, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform

bacteria.

O

Off-site - Outside the boundaries of a facility

On-site - The same or geographically contiguous property, which may be divided by a public or

private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads

intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along the right-of-way. Noncontiguous properties owned by the same company or locality but connected by a right-of-way,

which it controls, and to which the public does not have access, is also considered on-site

property.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-8

Out-of-scope - Out-of-scope facilities are facilities which EPA has not determined to be subject

to provisions of this guideline, or facilities that do not engage in meat products operations.

Outfall - The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a facility effluent

discharges into receiving waters.

P

Packinghouse - A plant that both slaughters animals and subsequently processes carcasses into

cured, smoked, canned, or other prepared meat products.

Pass through - The term "pass through" means a discharge that exits the POTW into waters of

the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge

or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's

NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation).

Point source - Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or

may be discharged. See CWA section 502(14).

Pollutants of concern (POCs) - Pollutants commonly found in meat and poultry processing

wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is considered as a POC if it is detected in untreated process

wastewater at five times a baseline value in more than 10 percent of the samples.

Poultry - Broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons, geese,

ducks, and small game such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits.

Poultry operations - Includes poultry slaughtering operations, by-product operations, rendering,

and further processing.

Priority pollutant - 126 compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of

pollutants outlined, pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA.

Process wastewater - Any water which, during red meat or poultry operations, comes into direct

contact with or results from the storage, production, or use of any raw material, intermediate
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-9

product, finished product, by-product, or waste product. Wastewater from equipment cleaning,

direct-contact air pollution control devices, rinse water, storm water associated with industrial

activity, and contaminated cooling water are considered to be process wastewater. Process

wastewater may also include wastewater that is contract hauled for off-site disposal. Sanitary

wastewater, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water, and storm water not associated with

industrial activity are not considered to be process wastewater.

PSES - Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect discharges, under Section 307(b)

of the CWA, applicable (for this rule) to indirect dischargers that commenced construction prior

to promulgation of the final rule.

PSNS - Pretreatment standards for new sources under Section 307(c) of the CWA.

Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) - A treatment works as defined by section 212 of the

Clean Water Act, which is owned by a State or municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the

Clean Water Act). This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage,

treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature.

It also includes sewers, pipes and other conveyances, only if they convey wastewater to a POTW

treatment plant. The term also means the municipality as defined in section 502(4) of the Clean

Water Act, which has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to and the discharges from such a

treatment works.

R

Raw material - The basic input materials to a renderer, composed of animal and poultry

trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals, feathers and related usable by-products.

RCRA - The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Section

6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid

and hazardous wastes.

Renderer (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart J) - An independent or off-site rendering

operation, conducted separately from a slaughterhouse, packinghouse, or poultry dressing or
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-10

processing plant, that manufactures at rates greater than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day of

meat meal, tankage, animal fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may cure cattle hides, but

excluding marine oils, fish meal, and fish oils.

RFA - Regulatory Flexibility Act

S

Sample-specific detection limit - The smallest quantity in the experiment calibration range that

may be measured reliably in any given sample.

SAP - Sampling and analysis plan.

Sausage and luncheon meat processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart G) - An operation

that cuts fresh meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, smokes, or otherwise produces finished products,

such as sausage, bologna, and luncheon meats at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per day.

SBREFA - Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

SCC - Sample control center

SER - Small entity representative

SIC - Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) - A numerical categorization system used by the

U.S. Department of Commerce to catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products,

or group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered by an operating

establishment. SIC codes are used to group establishments by the economic activities in which

they are engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic

activities.

Simple slaughterhouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart A) - A slaughterhouse that

accomplishes very limited by-product processing, if any, usually no more than two of such

operations as rendering, paunch and viscera handling, blood processing, hide processing, or hair

processing.
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-11

Site - A site is generally one contiguous physical location at which manufacturing operations

related to the meat products industry occur. This includes, but is not limited to, slaughtering,

processing, and rendering. In some instances, a site may include properties located within

separate fence lines, but located close to each other. 

Slaughter house - A plant that slaughters animals and has as its main product fresh meat as

whole, half, or quarter carcasses, or smaller meat cuts.

Small-business - The definitions of small business for the meat products industries are in SBA’s

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards were updated effective October 1, 2000.

SBA size standards for the meat and poultry products industry (i.e., for NAICS codes 311611,

311612, 311613, and 311615) define a “small business” as one with 500 or fewer employees.

Small processor - (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart E) An operation that produces up to

2730 kg (6000 lb) per day of any type or combination of finished products.

Stearin - An ester of glycerol and stearic acid found in MPP wastewaters.

Surface water - Waters of the United States, as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.

T

TKN - Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

Treatment - Any method, technique, or process designed to change the physical, chemical, or

biological character or composition of any metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to

neutralize such wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge, or to recover metal, oil, or

organic content from the wastes.

TSS - Total suspended solids

V

Variability factor - Used in calculating a limitation (or standard) to allow for reasonable

variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through extensively and well designed
Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-12

treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a facility’s treatment are

accounted for in the limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the longterm average, EPA’s use of variability factors results in limitations that are generally well above

the actual long-term averages.

Viscera handling (wet or dry viscera handling) - Includes removal of partially digested feed and

washing of viscera.

W

Wastewater - See Process Wastewater.

Wastewater treatment - The processing of wastewater by physical, chemical, biological, or

other means to remove specific pollutants from the wastewater stream, or to alter the physical or

chemical state of specific pollutants in the wastewater stream. Treatment is performed for

discharge of treated wastewater, recycle of treated wastewater to the same process which

generated the wastewater, or for reuse of the treated wastewater in another process.

Wet rendering - The process of cooking animal byproducts by steam under pressure in closed

tanks.

Z

Zero (or alternate) Discharge - Disposal of process and/or nonprocess wastewaters other than

by direct discharge to a surface water or by indirect discharge to a POTW or PrOTW. Examples

include land application, deep well injection, and contract hauling.
A-1

APPENDIX A

ANALYTICAL METHODS AND BASELINE VALUES
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-2

The analytical methods described in this appendix were used to determine pollutant levels

in wastewater samples collected by EPA and industry at a number of meat and poultry product

facilities (sampling efforts are described in Section 3.) In developing the proposed rule, EPA

sampled facilities to determine the levels of Aeromonas, ammonia as nitrogen, biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand

(COD), chloride, Cryptosporidium, dissolved biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved total

phosphorus, E. coli, fecal coliform, fecal streptococcus, 21 metals, oil and grease (measured as

hexane extractable material (HEM)), nitrate/nitrite, six pesticides, Salmonella, total coliform,

total dissolved solids (TDS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total organic carbon (TOC), total

orthophosphate, total phosphorus, total residual chlorine, total suspended solids (TSS), and

volatile residue. As explained in Section 7, EPA is regulating a subset of these pollutants.

Sections A.1 and A.2 of this appendix provide explanations of nominal quantitation

limits and baseline values. Section A.3 describes the reporting conventions used by laboratories

in expressing the results of the analyses. Section A.4 describes each analytical method and the

corresponding baseline values that EPA used in determining the pollutants of concern. Section

A.5 defines total nitrogen. Table A-1 lists the analytical methods and baseline values used for

each pollutant.

A.1 NOMINAL QUANTITATION LIMITS

The nominal quantitation limit is the smallest quantity of an analyte that can be reliably

measured with a particular method. Protocols used for determination of nominal quantitation

limits in a particular method depend on the definitions and conventions that EPA used at the time

the method was developed. The nominal quantitation limits associated with the methods

addressed in this section fall into five categories.

1) The first category pertains to EPA Methods 1660 and 1664, which define the

minimum level (ML) as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system

must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte. 

These methods are described in Section A.4.1.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-3

2) The second category pertains specifically to EPA Method 1620, and is explained

in detail in Section A.4.2.

3) The third category pertains to the remainder of the chemical methods (classical

wet chemistry and pesticides) in which a variety of terms are used to describe the

lowest level at which measurement results are quantitated. In some cases

(especially with the classical wet chemistry analytes) the methods date to the

1970s and 1980s when different concepts of quantitation were employed by EPA. 

These methods typically list a measurement range or lower limit of measurement. 

The terms differ by method and, as discussed in subsequent sections, the levels

presented are not always representative of the lowest levels laboratories currently

can achieve.

For those methods associated with a calibration procedure, the laboratories

demonstrated through a low-point calibration standard that they were capable of

reliable quantitation at method-specified (or lower) levels. In such cases these

nominal quantitation limits are operationally equivalent to the ML (though not

specifically identified as such in the methods). In the case of titrimetric or

gravimetric methods, the laboratory adhered to the established lower limit of the

measurement range published in the methods. Details of the specific methods are

presented in Section A.4.3 through A.4.17.

4) The fourth category pertains to Cryptosporidium. There is currently no detection

limit associated with the method used to determine Cryptosporidium (EPA

Method 1622 described in Section A.4.18); so when Cryptosporidium was not

found in the sample, there was no number that was associated with the sample. 

Therefore, there is no nominal quantitation limit for Cryptosporidium. 

5) The fifth category pertains to all microbiological methods except

Cryptosporidium. The fifth category pertains specifically to the multiple-tube test

procedure and is explained in detail in Section A.4.19.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

1

 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA refers to pollutants as “not

detected” or “non-detected”. This appendix uses the term “not quantitated” or “non-quantitated” rather than nondetected.2

 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA refers to pollutants as

“detected”. This appendix uses the term “quantitated” rather than detected.

A-4

A.2 BASELINE VALUES

As described further in Section 7, in determining the pollutants of concern, EPA

compared the reported concentrations for each pollutant to a multiple of the baseline value. As

described in Section A.3 and shown in Table A-1, for most pollutants, the baseline value was set

equal to the nominal quantitation limit for the analytical method. EPA made two general types of

exceptions which are briefly described below. Section A.4 provides additional details about

these exceptions in the context of the analytical method.

The first type of exceptions were baseline values that were different than the nominal

quantitation limits in the analytical methods. When the baseline values had lower values, EPA

made these exceptions because the laboratory had submitted data that demonstrated reliable

measurements could be obtained at lower levels for those pollutants. When the baseline values

had higher values, EPA concluded that the nominal quantitation limit for a specified method was

less than the level that laboratories could reliably achieve and adjusted the baseline value

upward.

The second type of exceptions were baseline values set at a common value for multiple

analytical methods for the same pollutant. For some analytes, EPA permitted the laboratories to

choose between methods to accommodate sample characteristics. When these methods had

different nominal quantitation limits, EPA generally used the one with the lowest value or the

one associated with the method used for most samples.

A.3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORTING CONVENTIONS

The laboratories expressed results of the analyses either numerically or as not quantitated1

for a pollutant in a sample. If the result is expressed numerically, then the pollutant was

quantitated2

 in the sample. All of the analytical chemistry data were reported as liquid
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

3

 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA refers to a “sample-specific

quantitation limit” as a “sample-specific detection limit” or, more simply, as a “detection limit.”

A-5

concentrations in weight/volume units, e.g., micrograms per liter (g/L). Cryptosporidium

results were reported in the calculated number of Cryptosporidium oocysts detected per liter. 

Bacteriological data generated using multiple-tube fermentation techniques were reported as

most probable number (MPN)/100 mL.

For example, for a hypothetical pollutant X, the result would be reported as “15 g/L”

when the laboratory quantitated the amount of pollutant X in the sample as being 15 g/L. For

the non-quantitated results, for each sample, the laboratories reported a “sample-specific

quantitation limit.”3 For example, for the hypothetical pollutant X, the result would be reported

as “<10 g/L” when the laboratory could not quantitate the amount of pollutant X in the sample. 

That is, the analytical result indicated a value less than the sample-specific quantitation limit of

10 g/L. The actual amount of pollutant X in that sample is between zero (i.e., the pollutant is

not present) and 10 g/L. The sample-specific quantitation limit for a particular pollutant is

generally the smallest quantity in the calibration range that can be measured reliably in any given

sample. If a pollutant is reported as non-quantitated in a particular wastewater sample, this does

not mean that the pollutant is not present in the wastewater, merely that analytical techniques

(whether because of instrument limitations, pollutant interactions or other reasons) do not permit

its measurement at levels below the sample-specific quantitation limit.

In its calculations, EPA generally substituted the reported value of the sample-specific

quantitation limit for each non-quantitated result. In a few cases described in Section A.4.1,

when the sample-specific quantitation limit was less than the baseline value, EPA substituted the

baseline value for the non-quantitated result. And in a few instances also described in Section

A.4.1, when the quantitated value was below the baseline value, EPA considered these values to

be non-quantitated in the statistical analyses and substituted the baseline value for the measured

value.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-6

A.4 ANALYTICAL METHODS

EPA analyzed all of the meat product facility wastewater samples using methods

identified in Table A-1. (As explained in Section 7, EPA is proposing to regulate only a subset

of these analytes.) EPA generally used either EPA methods from “Methods for Chemical

Analysis of Water and Wastes’ (MCAWW) or the American Public Health Association’s

“Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.” Table A-1 provides a

summary of the analytical methods, the associated pollutants measured by the method, the

nominal quantitation levels, and the baseline levels. The following sections provide additional

information supporting the summary in Table A-1.

In analyzing samples, EPA generally used analytical methods approved at 40 CFR 136 for

compliance monitoring or methods that had been in use by EPA for decades in support of

effluent guidelines development. Exceptions for use of non-approved methods are explained in

the method-specific subsections that follow Table A-1. Except for nitrate/nitrite, EPA proposed

limitations or standards based only upon data generated by methods approved in 40 CFR Part

136. As explained in Section A.4.10, EPA used nitrate/nitrite data from Method 300.0 to

develop the proposed limitations and standards for total nitrogen and is proposing the use of

Method 300.0 for compliance.

Each of the following sections state whether the method is approved for compliance

monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 (even if the pollutant was not proposed to be regulated), provides

a short description of the method, identifies the nominal quantitation limit, and explains EPA’s

choice for the baseline value. The sections are ordered alphabetically by analyte name within the

five categories identified in Section A.1.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-7

Table A-1. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

Analyte Method

CAS

Number

Nominal

Quantitation

Value

Baseline

Value Unit

Aeromonas 9260L C2101 2.0 2.0 /100mL

Ammonia as Nitrogen 350.2 7664417 0.20 0.20 mg/L

Antimony 1620 7440360 20.0 20.0 g/L

Arsenic 1620 7440382 10.0 10.0 g/L

Barium 1620 7440393 200.0 200.0 g/L

Beryllium 1620 7440417 5.0 5.0 g/L

BOD5 405.1 C003 2.0 2.0 mg/L

Boron 1620 7440428 100.0 100.0 g/L

Cadmium 1620 7440439 5.0 5.0 g/L

Carbonaceous BOD5 5210 C002 2.0 2.0 mg/L

405.1 C002 2.0 2.0 mg/L

Carbaryl 632 63252 1.0 1.0 g/L

COD 410.1 C004 50.0 5.0** mg/L

410.2 C004 5.0 5.0** mg/L

410.4 (automated) C004 3.0 5.0** mg/L

410.4 (manual) C004 20.0†

5220B C004 5.0 5.0 mg/L

Chloride 300.0 16887006 0.05 1.0 mg/L

325.3 16887006 1.0 1.0 mg/L

Chromium 1620 7440473 10.0 10.0 g/L

cis-Permethrin 1660 61949766 5.0 5.0 g/L

Cobalt 1620 7440484 50.0 50.0 g/L

Copper 1620 7440508 25.0 25.0 g/L

Cryptosporidium 1622 137259508 per_L

Dichlorvos 1657 62737 2.0 2.0 g/L

Dissolved BOD5 405.1 C003D 2.0 2.0 mg/L

Dissolved Total Phosphorus 365.2 14265442D 0.01 0.01 mg/L

365.3 14265442D 0.01 0.01 mg/L

E. coli 9221F C050 2.0 2.0 /100mL

Fecal Coliform 9221E C2106 2.0 2.0 /100mL

Fecal Streptococcus 9230B C2107 2.0 2.0 /100mL

HEM 1664 C036 5.0 5.0 mg/L

Lead 1620 7439921 50.0 50.0 g/L

Malathion 1657 121755 2.0 2.0 g/L

Manganese 1620 7439965 15 15 g/L

Mercury 1620 7439976 0.20 0.20 g/L

Molybdenum 1620 7439987 10.0 10.0 g/L
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

Analyte Method

CAS

Number

Nominal

Quantitation

Value

Baseline

Value Unit

A-8

Nickel 1620 7440020 40.0 40.0 g/L

Nitrate/Nitrite 300.0 C005 0.01 0.05 mg/L

353.1 C005 0.01 0.05 mg/L

353.2 C005 0.05 0.05 mg/L

Salmonella FDA-BAM 68583357 2.0 2.0 /100mL

Selenium 1620 7782492 5.0 5.0 g/L

Silver 1620 7440224 10.0 10.0 g/L

Tetrachlorvinphos 1657 22248799 2.0 2.0 g/L

Thallium 1620 7440280 10.0 10.0 g/L

Tin 1620 7440315 30.0 30.0 g/L

Titanium 1620 7440326 5.0 5.0 g/L

Total Coliform 9221B E10606 2.0 2.0 /100mL

Total Dissolved Solids 160.1 C010 10.0 10.0 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 351.2 C021 0.10 0.5 mg/L

351.3 C021 0.50 0.5 mg/L

Total Organic Carbon 415.1 C012 1.0 1.0 mg/L

Total Orthophosphate 300.0 C034 0.20 0.01 mg/L

365.2 C034 0.01 0.01 mg/L

Total Phosphorus 365.2 14265442 0.01 0.01 mg/L

365.3 14265442 0.01 0.01 mg/L

Total Residual Chlorine HACH 8167 7782505 0.10 0.20 mg/L

330.5 7782505 0.20 0.20 mg/L

Total Suspended Solids 160.2 C009 4.0 4.0 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 1660 61949777 5.0 5.0 g/L

Vanadium 1620 7440622 50.0 50.0 g/L

Volatile Residue 160.4 C030 10.0 10.0 mg/L

Yttrium 1620 7440655 5.0 5.0 g/L

Zinc 1620 7440666 20.0 20.0 g/L **The baseline value was adjusted to reflect the lowest nominal quantitation limit of the titrimetric procedures (i.e.,

410.1, 410.2, and 5220B). See Section A.4.6 for a detailed explanation.

†

Method 410.4 lists two different quantitation limits that are dependent upon whether the automated or manual

protocols were followed. The automated method limit =3 mg/L and the manual method limit =20 mg/L.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

4

 As explained in Appendix C, EPA applied different statistical assumptions to quantitated and nonquantitated results.

A-9

A.4.1 EPA Methods 1660 and 1664 (cis-Permethrin, trans-Permethrin, HEM)

Laboratories used EPA Method 1660 to measure cis-permethrin and trans-permethrin,

and EPA Method 1664 to measure n-hexane extractable material (HEM). While 40 CFR Part

136 lists Method 1664 as an approved method for compliance monitoring of HEM, Part 136 does

not list any methods for the pesticides cis-permethrin and trans-permethrin. However, Table 7 in

40 CFR 455 lists Method 1660 as approved for compliance monitoring of permethrin for the

Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category. (Permethrin is the common name given to any

mixture of the two isomers, cis-permethrin and trans-permethrin.)

These methods use the minimum level (ML) concept for quantitation of the pollutant(s). 

The ML is defined as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system must give a

recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte. When an ML is published

in a method, the Agency has demonstrated that the ML can be achieved in at least one welloperated laboratory. When that laboratory or another laboratory uses that method, the laboratory

is required to demonstrate, through calibration of the instrument or analytical system, that it can

achieve pollutant measurements at the ML.

For cis-Permethrin, trans-Permethrin, and HEM, EPA used the method-specified MLs as

the baseline values. In determining the pollutants of concern and in calculating the HEM

standards, if a quantitated value or sample-specific quantitation limit was reported with a value

less than the ML specified in the method, EPA substituted the value of the ML and assumed that

the measurement was not quantitated. For example, for cis-permethrin with an ML of 5 g/L, if

the laboratory reported a quantitated value of 3 g/L, EPA would have assumed that the

concentration was not quantitated4

 with a sample-specific quantitation limit of 5 g/L. The

objective of this comparison was to identify any results for the three pollutants reported below

the method-defined ML. Results reported below the ML were changed to the ML to ensure that

all results used by EPA were reliable. In most cases, the quantitated values and sample-specific

quantitation limits were equal to or greater than the baseline values.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

5

 Keith, L.H., W. Crummett, J. Deegan, R.A. Libby, J.K. Taylor, G. Wentler (1983). “Principles of

Environmental Analysis,” Analytical Chemistry, Volume 55, Page 2217.

A-10

A.4.2 EPA Method 1620 (Metals)

Laboratories used EPA Method 1620 to measure the concentrations of 21 metals. While

EPA Method 1620 is not listed in 40 CFR Part 136 as an approved method for compliance

monitoring, it represents a consolidation of the analytical techniques in several 40 CFR 136-

approved methods such as EPA Method 200.7 (inductively coupled plasma atomic emission

(ICP) spectroscopy of trace elements) and Method 245.1 (mercury cold vapor atomic absorption

technique). This method was developed specifically for the effluent guidelines program. EPA

Method 1620 includes more metal analytes than are listed in the approved methods and contains

quality control requirements at least as stringent as the 40 CFR Part 136-approved methods.

EPA Method 1620 employs the concept of an instrument detection limit (IDL). The IDL

is defined as “the smallest signal above background noise that an instrument can detect reliably.”5

Data reporting practices for EPA Method 1620 analyses follow conventional metals reporting

practices used in other EPA programs, in which values are required to be reported at or above the

IDL. In applying EPA Method 1620, IDLs are determined on a quarterly basis by each analytical

laboratory and are, therefore, laboratory-specific and time-specific. Although EPA Method 1620

contains MLs, these MLs pre-date EPA’s recent refinements of the ML concept described earlier. 

The ML values associated with EPA Method 1620 are based on a consensus opinion reached

between EPA and laboratories during the 1980s regarding levels that could be considered reliable

quantitation limits when using EPA Method 1620. These limits do not reflect advances in

technology and instrumentation since the 1980s. Consequently, the IDLs were used as the lowest

values for reporting purposes, with the general understanding that reliable results can be

produced at or above the IDL. Though the baseline values were derived from the MLs (or

adjusted MLs) in EPA Method 1620, EPA used the laboratory-reported quantitated values and

sample-specific quantitation limits, which captured concentrations down to the IDLs, in its data

analyses.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

6

 Also antimony, arsenic, selenium, and thallium were analyzed by ICP instead of GFAA. The method MLs

were used because the laboratories demonstrated that their IDLs were able to quantitate below the ML for these four

analytes.

A-11

In general, EPA used the MLs specified in Method 1620 as the baseline values. 

However, EPA adjusted the baseline value for lead to 50 g/L and boron to 100 g/L. In EPA

Method 1620, lead has an ML of 5 g/L for graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA)

spectroscopy analysis; EPA determined, however, that it was not necessary for the laboratories to

measure down to such low levels, and that lead could be analyzed by inductively couple plasma

atomic emission (ICP) spectroscopy.6

 Consequently, the ML requirement was adjusted to 50

g/L, the ML for the ICP method. In EPA Method 1620, boron has an ML of 10 g/L, but

laboratory feedback years ago indicated that laboratories could not reliably achieve this low level. 

As a result, EPA only required laboratories to measure values at 100 g/L and above. Thus,

EPA adjusted the baseline value to 100 g/L.

A.4.3 Method 350.2 (Ammonia as Nitrogen)

Ammonia as nitrogen was measured using Method 350.2, which is listed as approved for

compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 350.2 utilizes either colorimetric,

titrimetric, or electrode procedures to measure ammonia.

Method 350.2 has a lower measurement range limit of 0.20 mg/L for the colorimetric and

electrode procedures, and a lower measurement range limit of 1.0 mg/L for the titrimetric

procedure. Rather than use different baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the 0.20

mg/L because it represented a value at which ammonia as nitrogen can be measured reliably by

several determinative techniques in Method 350.2, as well as in other methods approved at 40

CFR 136.

A.4.4 Methods 405.1 and SM5210B (BOD5, Carbonaceous BOD5, and Dissolved

BOD5)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Carbonaceous BOD5 (cBOD5), and Dissolved

BOD5 were measured using Method 405.1 and Standard Method (SM) 5210B, both of which are

approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. BOD5 and cBOD5 are essentially the
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-12

same method, except an organic compound is added to the cBOD5 test to inhibit nitrogenous

oxygen deemand. If the sample does not include any nitrogenous demand to inhibit, the results

should be comparable for BOD5 and cBOD5. BOD5 and dissolved BOD5 are the same method,

except that the dissolved BOD5 sample is filtered prior to analysis (either in the field or

immediately upon receipt by the laboratory).

Method 405.1 and SM5210B are identical and the nominal quantitation limit, which is

expressed in the methods as the lower limit of the measurement range at 2 mg/L, is the same for

all three forms of BOD5. EPA used this nominal quantitation limit of 2 mg/L as the baseline

value in determining the pollutants of concern.

A.4.5 EPA Method 632 (Carbaryl)

Carbaryl was determined by EPA Method 632. There are no methods approved in 40

CFR Part 136 for carbaryl. However, Method 632 is approved for compliance monitoring of

carbaryl for the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category (see Table 7 in 40 CFR Part 455).

In this method, samples are prepared by liquid-liquid extraction with methylene chloride

in a separatory funnel. The extract is analyzed by a high-pressure liquid chromatograph with a

UV detector. The nominal quantitation limit was determined by a low-point calibration standard. 

The nominal quantitation limit for carbaryl is 1 g/L and was used as the baseline value.

A.4.6 Methods 410.1, 410.2, 410.4, and SM5220B (Chemical Oxygen Demand)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) was measured using Methods 410.1, 410.2, 410.4, and

SM5220B, of which Methods 410.1, 410.2, and 410.4 are approved for compliance monitoring in

40 CFR Part 136. Methods 410.1 and 410.2 are titrimetric procedures that follow identical

analytical protocols, but differ only in the range of COD concentration that they are designed to

measure. Reagent concentrations and sample volumes are adjusted to accommodate a wide range

of sample concentrations, since the dynamic range of the chemistry used to detect COD is

somewhat limited. Standard Method 5220B is a titrimetric method that incorporates the different

reagent concentrations and sample volumes listed in Methods 410.1 and 410.2 into one method. 
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-13

Data from all three of these methods are directly comparable. Method 410.4 is a colorimetric

procedure.

Method 410.1 is designed to measure mid-level concentrations (greater than 50 mg/L) of

COD and is associated with a nominal quantitation limit of 50 mg/L. Method 410.2 is designed

to measure low-level concentrations of these parameters in the range of 5-50 mg/L. Method

410.4 has a measurement range of 3-900 mg/L for automated procedures and measurement range

of 20-900 mg/L for manual procedures. EPA contracts required that laboratories measure down

to the lowest quantitation limit possible for whatever method is used. Therefore, if the laboratory

analyzes a sample using Method 410.1 and obtains a non-quantitated result, it must reanalyze the

sample using Method 410.2. Thus, the quantitation limit reported for non-quantitated results was

equal to 5 mg/L, unless sample dilutions were required for matrix complexities.

For all COD data, EPA used the baseline value of 5 mg/L that is associated with the

lower quantitation limit for the titrimetric procedures because most of the data used to determine

the pollutants of concern had been obtained by the titrimetric procedures (i.e., Methods 410.1,

410.2, or SM5220B).

A.4.7 Methods 325.3 and 300.0 (Chloride)

Chloride was measured using Methods 325.3, which is approved for compliance

monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136, and 300.0, which is not listed in Part 136. Method 325.3 is a

colorimetric (actually titrimetric) procedure and measures concentrations greater than 1 mg/L.

Method 300.0 uses ion chromatography and can measure down to 0.05 mg/L. EPA allowed

laboratories to use Method 300.0 even though it is not approved at 40 CFR Part 136 because the

analytical methods normally used for chloride are subject to interferences sometimes present in

samples containing blood, animal tissue, and/or other particulates. With Method 300.0, the

complex matrices are not a factor and this method has a lower nominal quantitation limit than

Method 325.1. (Section A.4.10 provides a more detailed description of Method 300.0.)

For all chloride data, EPA used the baseline value of 1 mg/L that is associated with the

higher quantitation limit for the colorimetric procedure because most of the data used in the
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

7

 Table 7 lists tetrachlorvinphos as stirofos.

A-14

pollutants of concern analysis had been obtained by the colorimetric procedure (i.e., Method

325.3).

A.4.8 EPA Method 1657 (Dichlorvos, Malathion, Tetrachlorvinphos)

Laboratories used Method 1657 to measure dichlorvos, malathion, and tetrachlorvinphos

concentrations in the samples. There is one approved method for malathion at 40 CFR Part 136:

Standard Method 6630C; however, the other two pesticides are not listed in 40 CFR Part 136. 

EPA Method 1657 was selected for analysis of all three pesticides for several reasons, including:

• Method 1657 is approved for compliance monitoring of all three pesticides for the

Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category (see Table 77

 in 40 CFR 455).

• EPA 1600-series methods were developed specifically for the effluent guidelines

program; therefore, they have more stringent quality control requirements than

Standard Methods; and

• It was more economical to use one method for the three pesticides, rather than

analyzing malathion separately by SM6630C.

In Method 1657, samples are prepared by liquid-liquid extraction. The extract is dried

and concentrated and a 1-L aliquot of the extract is injected into the gas chromatography. The

nominal quantitation limit of 2 g/L was used as the baseline value for all three pesticides. This

nominal quantitation limit was determined from the results of low-point calibration standards. 

A.4.9 Methods 365.2 and 365.3 (Dissolved Total Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus)

Dissolved total phosphorus and total phosphorus were measured using Method 365.2 and

365.3, respectively. Both methods are approved for compliance monitoring of total phosphorus

in 40 CFR Part 136. Total phosphorus represents all of the phosphorus present in the sample,

regardless of form, as measured by the persulfate digestion procedure.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-15

The two methods differ only in the preparation of one of the reagents. Method 365.2

specifies the separation of the ammonium molybdate and the antimony potassium tartrate from

the ascorbic acid reagent. Method 365.3 allows combining these reagents into a single solution. 

Because the chemistry is unaffected, the data are directly comparable. 

These methods have the same nominal quantitation limit of 0.01 mg/L for both analytes. 

EPA used this value as the baseline value for both dissolved total phosphorus and total

phosphorus.

A.4.10 Methods 300.0, 353.1, and 353.2 (Nitrate/Nitrite)

Nitrate/nitrite was measured using Methods 300.0, 353.1, and 353.2. Methods 353.1 and

353.2 are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136, while Method 300.0 is not

listed in Part 136. However, because nitrate/nitrite is a component of total nitrogen (see Section

A.5), EPA is proposing to approve EPA Method 300.0 at 40 CFR Part 432 for compliance

monitoring of nitrate/nitrite. Alternatively, EPA may amend 40 CFR Part 136 to include Method

300.0 for determination of nitrate/nitrite from wastewaters in the meat and poultry products point

source category. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA has requested comment on the use of

this method for the meat and poultry point source category and whether the method should be

approved at 40 CFR Part 432 or at 40 CFR Part 136 or both.

Many of the analytical methods for nitrite/nitrate that are currently approved at 40 CFR

Part 136, including Methods 353.1 and 353.2, are based on colorimetric techniques (i.e., adding

reagents to a sample that form a colored product when they react with the nitrate/nitrite and

measuring the intensity of the colored product). Such methods can be subject to interferences in

the difficult matrices associated with this industry where samples may contain blood, animal

tissue, and/or other particulates which affect both the color development and ability to pass light

through the sample to measure the intensity of the colored product. In contrast, Method 300.0

employs the technique known as ion chromatography to measure 10 inorganic anions, including

nitrate and nitrite. Ion chromatography permits the various inorganic anions to be separated from

one another, as well as from other materials and contaminants present in the sample. Each anion

can be identified on the basis of its characteristic retention time (the time required to pass
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-16

through the instrumentation). After separation, the anions are measured by a conductivity

detector that responds to changes in the effluent from the ion chromatograph that occur when the

negatively charged anions (analytes) elute at characteristic retention times, thereby changing the

conductivity of the solution. Thus, Method 300.0 offers better specificity for nitrate and nitrite in

the presence of interferences compared to the approved colorimetric methods. Method 300.0 is

located in the rulemaking record (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.10036).

Methods 353.1 and 353.2 are essentially the same method, with variations in the

technique used to reduce the nitrite (NO2) present in the sample to nitrate (NO3). Method 353.1

uses hydrazine to accomplish the reduction, while 353.2 uses cadmium granules. Method 353.2

is generally preferred simply because the cadmium granules are far easier to handle and less toxic

than hydrazine. The chemistry of the colorimetric determination is the same, as are the

interferences.

Each of the three methods lists slightly different nominal quantitation limits that are

expressed in the methods as the lower limit of the measurement range. The nominal quantitation

limit for Method 353.1 is 0.01 mg/L and the nominal quantitation limit for Method 353.2 is 0.05

mg/L. Rather than use different baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the nominal

quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L from Method 353.1 as the baseline value for nitrate/nitrite. EPA

chose this value because Method 353.1 was used to obtain most of the data used in the pollutants

of concern analysis. It is also the maximum of the nominal quantitation limits from the three

methods.

A.4.11 Method 160.1 (Total Dissolved Solids)

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) was measured by Method 160.1, which is approved for

compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 (see ‘residue – filterable’). Method 160.1 is a

gravimetric method with a lower limit measurement range of 10 mg/L. EPA used this nominal

quantitation limit of 10 mg/L as the baseline value.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-17

A.4.12 Methods 351.2 and 351.3 (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN))

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was measured by Methods 351.2 and 351.3, both of which

are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 351.2 is designed to be

used with a flow colorimetry apparatus with a lower measurement range limit of 0.1 mg/L. 

Method 351.3 is a manual colorimetric analysis that has a lower measurement range limit of 0.5

mg/L. Rather than use different baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the nominal

quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L from Method 351.3 as the baseline value for TKN. EPA chose

this value because Method 351.3 was used to obtain most of the data used in the pollutants of

concern analysis. It is also the maximum of the nominal quantitation limits from the two

methods.

A.4.13 Method 415.1 (Total Organic Carbon (TOC))

Total organic carbon (TOC) was determined by Method 415.1, which is approved for

compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 415.1 is a combustion (or oxidation)

method with a lower measurement range limit of 1 mg/L. EPA used this nominal quantitation

limit of 1 mg/L as the baseline value.

A.4.14 Methods 365.2 and 300.0 (Total Orthophosphate)

Methods 365.2 and 300.0 were used to measure orthophosphate concentrations. Total

orthophosphate is the inorganic phosphorus (PO4) in the sample. Method 365.2 is approved for

compliance monitoring of total orthophosphate in 40 CFR Part 136, while Method 300.0 is not. 

As explained previously (see Sections A.4.7 and A.4.10), EPA allowed laboratories to use

Method 300.0 because interferences, sometimes present in samples containing blood, animal

tissue, and/or other particulates, are not a factor in the analysis.

Method 365.2 is a colorimetric method for determining orthophosphate and measures

concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/L. Method 300.0 uses ion chromatography and can measure

down to 0.20 mg/L. For all orthophosphate data, EPA used the baseline value of 0.01 mg/L, that

is associated with the lower quantitation limit for the colorimetric procedure because the
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-18

laboratories used Method 365.2 to produce the majority of the data used in the pollutants of

concern analysis.

A.4.15 Methods HACH 8167 and 330.5 (Total Residual Chlorine)

Total residual chlorine was determined by Methods 330.5 and HACH 8167. Method

330.5 is approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Methods 330.5 and HACH

8167 use the same colorimetric reagent, N,N-diethyl-p-phenylene diamine (DPD), and are

essentially the same procedure; thus, the data are directly comparable.

The nominal quantitation limit in Method 330.5 is 0.2 mg/L; the nominal quantitation

limit for method HACH 8167 is 0.1 mg/L. Rather than use two different baseline values for the

same pollutant, EPA used the value associated with Method 330.5 (i.e., 0.2 mg/L) as the baseline

value because Method 330.5 produced the majority of the data used in the pollutants of concern

analysis. It also is the higher of the two values.

A.4.16 Method 160.2 (Total Suspended Solids)

Total suspended solids (TSS) was determined by Method 160.2, which is approved for

compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 160.2 is a gravimetric method with a lower

limit measurement range of 4 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit of 4 mg/L was used as the

baseline value.

A.4.17 Method 160.4 (Volatile Residue)

Volatile residue was determined by Method 160.4, which is approved for compliance

monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 160.4 is a gravimetric and ignition method with a lower

limit measurement range of 10 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit of 10 mg/L was used as the

baseline value.

A.4.18 EPA Method 1622 (Cryptosporidium)

Cryptosporidium was determined by EPA Method 1622, which, as explained in Section

A.1, has not been approved for compliance monitoring. There are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-19

methods for Cryptosporidium; however, EPA proposed Method 1622 for ambient water

monitoring on August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages 45811-45829). In Method 1622, the

laboratory filters a 10-L sample through an absolute-porosity filter to capture any target

organisms that may be present, elutes the filter, concentrates the eluate, purifies the concentrate

using immunomagnetic separation, and applies the purified sample to a microscope slide. The

purified sample is stained with an antibody stain and a vital dye stain, and target organisms are

identified and counted based on immunofluorescence assay, differential interference microscopy,

and vital dye staining characteristics.

Due to the high turbidity of the sample matrices for these episodes, it was necessary for

the analytical laboratory to modify the sample processing steps of the method, depending on the

nature of the particulates in the sample. For samples that contained a high concentration of

biological particles, a small volume of the sample (100 - 250 mL) was concentrated using

centrifugation and then processed according to EPA Method 1622. For samples with lower

concentrations of biological particulates that could be filtered, a 10-L sample was filtered through

a compressed foam filter, the filter was eluted, and the eluate was concentrated by centrifugation

and then processed according to EPA Method 1622.

As explained earlier, there is no detection limit or baseline value associated with EPA

Method 1622; however, EPA used the baseline value of zero in the pollutant of concern analysis. 

Further, if Cryptosporidium was not quantitated, the sample was reported as zero.

A.4.19 SM9221B, SM9221E, SM9221F, SM9230B, SM9260L, FDA-BAM Chapter 5

(total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal Streptococcus, Aeromonas,

Salmonella)

Laboratories measured the densities of total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal

Streptococcus, Aeromonas, and Salmonella in 100-mL samples using the multiple-tube

fermentation test specified in Standard Methods. EPA used methods approved for compliance

monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 for total coliform (SM9221B), fecal coliform (SM9221E), and

fecal streptococcus (SM9230B). There are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved methods for E.coli,
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-20

Aeromonas, and Salmonella; however, EPA proposed ambient water monitoring methods for

E.coli on August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages 45811-45829).

In measuring total coliforms (SM 9221B), fecal coliforms (SM 9221E), and E. coli (SM

9221F), samples were inoculated into a presumptive medium (Lauryl tryptose broth) and

incubated. Tubes positive for growth and gas production were transferred into confirmatory

media: brilliant green bile broth (for total coliforms), EC (for fecal coliforms), or EC-MUG (for

E. coli). Tubes with acidic growth and gas production in their respective media were recorded as

positive.

In measuring fecal streptococcus (SM 9230B), samples were inoculated into a

presumptive medium (azide dextrose broth) and incubated. Tubes positive for turbidity (growth)

were confirmed by streaking onto bile esculin agar plates. All plates with typical growth were

recorded as positive for fecal streptococcus.

Aeromonas densities were determined using SM9260L, followed by the confirmation

steps in EPA Method 1605, to minimize false positive results. Samples were inoculated into a

presumptive medium (TSB30) and incubated. Tubes with growth were streaked onto ADA. All

yellow colonies were isolated on nutrient agar and confirmed as Aeromonas if they were oxidase

positive and were able to ferment trehalose. In addition to the biochemical confirmation, colony

morphologies from ADA and nutrient agar were recorded and used to differentiate between

Aeromonas and Bacillus.

The Food and Drug Administration-Biological Analytical Manual (FDA-BAM) Chapter 5

method was used to determine Salmonella densities. Samples were inoculated into a

presumptive medium (tetrathionate broth) and incubated. Tubes with growth were streaked onto

Hektoen enteric agar plates. Typical colonies were confirmed on triple sugar iron agar slants. 

The FDA-BAM method was used instead of the approved EPA Kenner-Clark method because

FDA-BAM method performance is better suited for samples that contain blood and particulates.

The nominal quantitation limit for these analytes was determined using the most probable

number (MPN) approach specified in Standard Methods. The MPN of each target organism per
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

8

 Per Table IA of 40 CFR 136.3.

A-21

100 mL was calculated based on the positive and negative results from the analysis of multiple

replicates at multiple dilutions for each sample (see Table 9221.IV of Standard Methods and

Table 2 in Appendix 2 of FDA-BAM). Based on the tables in Standard Methods, the nominal

quantitation limit for all analytes was 2 MPN per 100 mL. The nominal quantitation limit was

used as the baseline value. No values were reported below the baseline value.

Table II in 40 CFR 136.3 specifies holding times of six hours for some pathogens. In its

sampling for this proposed rule, EPA measured counts in samples that had been retained longer

than the six hours specified in Table II. In its data review narratives (located in Section 6.1.4.2 of

the administrative record for the proposal), EPA has identified those samples that were retained

longer than eight hours at the laboratory (includes the six hours holding time allotted for delivery

to the laboratory plus an additional two hours at the laboratory). Method 9221E, an approved

method8

 for fecal coliform, states that “Water treatment and other adverse environmental

conditions often place great stress on indicator bacteria, resulting in an extended lag phase before

logarithmic growth takes place.” EPA is currently conducting a holding time study to assess

potential changes in pathogen concentrations in effluents over time (8, 24, 30, and 48 hours after

sample collection). This study will evaluate total and fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli,

Aeromonas species, and fecal streptococci for both the meat products and aquaculture industries

effluents. Additionally, Salmonella will be analyzed in meat products effluents. EPA is

conducting this holding time study for two purposes: to evaluate the use of data in developing the

limitations and standards; and for possible revisions to Table II. EPA notes that if the holding

time can be extended to longer periods, overnight shipping of samples would be possible for

compliance monitoring. However, EPA has not proposed any new limitations and standards for

these analytes. Rather, EPA plans to retain the current limitations and standards for fecal

coliform. The study plan for the holding time study is located at DCN 15060 in Section 6.1.4 of

the administrative record for the proposal. In the forthcoming NODA, EPA will provide the data

collected during the study and its evaluation of the results.
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-22

A.5 TOTAL NITROGEN

EPA proposes to regulate total nitrogen to ensure that the relationship between organic

nitrogen (estimated by TKN) and inorganic nitrogen (estimated by nitrate/nitrite) is maintained,

thus EPA is defining for the purposes of this industry ‘total nitrogen’ to be the sum of

nitrate/nitrite and TKN. This summation will include nitrogen in the trinegative oxidation state

(the dominant oxidation state of nitrogen in organic compounds), ammonia-nitrogen, and

nitrogen in nitrite (NO2

-

) and nitrate (NO3

-

). In developing the limitations (see Section 13), EPA

used a baseline value of 0.1 mg/L which is the sum of the baseline values for nitrate/nitrite (0.05

mg/L) and TKN (0.05 mg/L).
B-1

APPENDIX B

SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF NATIONAL

ESTIMATES
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-2

In 2001, EPA distributed two industry surveys. The first survey, entitled 2001 Meat

Products Industry Screener Survey (short survey), was mailed to 1,650 meat products industry

facilities. The second survey, entitled 2001 Meat Products Industry Survey (detailed survey),

was mailed to 350 meat products industry facilities.

Section B.1 of this appendix describes the survey design (identification of facilities in the

industry and sample design). Section B.2 of this appendix describes the selection of the sample.

Section B.3 of this appendix describes response status of short survey facilities. Section B.4 of

this appendix describes the calculation of sample weights. Section B.5 of this appendix

describes the methodology for estimating national totals and their variance estimates. Section B.6

of this appendix summarizes EPA’s plans for the analysis of the detailed survey.

B.1 SURVEY DESIGN

This section describes the development of the sampling plan, which includes

identification of the meat products industry and stratification of facilities.

B.1.1 Sample Frame

To produce a mailing list of facilities for the detailed survey and short survey, EPA

developed a sample frame of the meat products industry. A sample frame is a list of all members

(sampling units) of a population, from which a random sample of members will be drawn for the

survey. Therefore, a sample frame is the basis for the development of a sampling plan to select a

random sample. EPA used several data sources to construct this sample frame. The March 2000

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) database was the main source of data. It

was supplemented with information from the Urner-Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 and

an April 2000 list of 236 renderers provided by the National Renderers Association (NRA). The

sample frame for the meat product survey contained 8,217 facilities.

EPA classified each facility into sampling strata by considering facility type, facility size,

and type of animal used at the facility. Each facility was of one of the following 3 types: further

processor, first processor, or renderer. Three size categories were used to determine the facility

size. The size category was defined as large for facilities with 500 employees or more, small for
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-3

facilities with 10 to 499 employees, and very small for facilities with 9 employees or less. Each

facility on the sample frame specialized in one or several types of animal. These types of animal

corresponded to poultry, beef, pork, and other. Renderers were not identified by size or animal

type.

B.1.2 Sample Design

The sample frame for the survey included an unknown number of out-of-scope facilities.

In order to obtain reliable counts of eligible meat product facilities, i.e., the facilities that were inscope, by type and facility size directly from the frame, the survey was designed as a two-phase

sample.

A first-phase sample of 2,000 facilities was selected from a sample frame containing

8,217 facilities. Additionally, a second-phase sample of 350 facilities was selected from the firstphase sample. All 350 second-phase sample facilities were mailed the detailed questionnaire,

while the remaining 1,650 first-phase sample facilities received the short questionnaire. While

the abridged form collected basic data to determine eligibility status and types of meat processed,

the long form collected data about the 350 second-phase sample facilities for technical and

financial information. Because of time constraints, both surveys were sent out simultaneously. 

To improve the accuracy of estimates from the detailed survey, the final weights will be

calibrated to the estimated counts of eligible facilities from the short survey.

EPA identified a list of 65 facilities that were to be selected for the second-phase detailed

sample with certainty to obtain information necessary for evaluating facility operations and best

technology options. The first-phase and second-phase facility samples were stratified samples.

Stratification separated the eligible population into non-overlapping strata that were as

homogeneous as possible. Stratification assured that the sample would contain the same

proportions as found on the sample frame, for those variables used to define the strata. The firstphase sample (selecting 1,935 non-certainties from 8,152) was stratified by facility type and size. 

The stratification of the second-phase sample was based only on facility type, since just 285

facilities were to be selected from the 1,935 first-phase non-certainties. 
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

1

 It should be noted that no imputation was carried out on the 4 certainty facilities with missing facility type,

as they were to be included in the sample by design.

B-4

Table B-1 shows the distribution of facilities on the sample frame by facility type (first

processor, further processor, renderer, or missing), size, and certainty status. Most certainty

facilities were large first processors. Only 5 certainty facilities were small and none of the very

small facilities were included in the sample with certainty.

B.1.3 Imputing for Missing Facility Type

In order to estimate the number of eligible facilities by type, size, and meat product (the

purpose of the short survey) it was necessary to include samples of sufficient size from each

facility-type-by-size stratum. This required assigning each facility on the frame to one of these

strata; however, this information was unknown for many facilities; thus, EPA imputed the

missing stratification data.

Table B-1. Distribution of facilities in the sample frame by certainty, facility type, and size

Certainty status Facility type

Size

Large Small Very small Unknown Total

Non-certainties

First Processor 149 234 0 0 383

Further Processor 34 883 0 0 917

Renderer 0 0 0 235 235

Unknown 50 1,259 5,308 0 6,617

Non-certainty total 233 2,376 5,308 235 8,152

Certainties

First Processor 56 3 0 0 59

Further Processor 1 0 0 0 1

Renderer 0 0 0 1 1

Unknown 2 2 0 0 4

Certainty total 59 5 0 1 65

Grand total 292 2,381 5,308 236 8,217

From Table B-1 it is seen that facility type had to be imputed for 6,617 non-certainty

facilities.1

 The facilities to be imputed a specific type were chosen randomly from the set of

facilities with missing type. The facilities with unknown facility type were distributed between

"first processors" and "further processors" proportionally to the reported size of each type. 
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-5

Therefore, 9 (=50 x (34/(34+149))) of the 50 large facilities with missing facility type were

assigned to the further processor category, while the remaining 41 large facilities were assigned

to the "first processor" category. Similarly, 995 of the 1,259 small facilities with missing facility

type were assigned the "further processor" type, and the remaining 264 small facilities were

assigned the "first processor" type. All very small facilities were assumed to be further

processors because very small facilities in this industry were typically further processors.

All imputed values were used only for allocating the sample. None of the values were

used for estimation and any wrong assumption simply resulted in a less efficient sample (larger

variance). In addition, this imputation process was not expected to introduce any bias in the

statistical procedure. For example, all very small facilities were assumed to be further

processors; however, if any very small facility reported as a first processor it was treated as such

in all analyses.

B.1.4 Imputing for Missing Animal Type

Before selecting the samples, the frame was sorted by animal type within each stratum. 

This allowed for appropriate representation of the different animal types in random selection of

the sample. Table B-2 shows the distribution by animal type of noncertainty facilities that were

not renderers. It should be noted that the stratification did not require the specification of animal

type for the renderers. All large facilities with missing animal type were randomly assigned to

one of the 7 animal type categories described in Table B-2 proportionally to the large facilities

with animal types reported in the frame. On the other hand, small and very small facilities were

combined and randomly assigned to animal type groups proportionally to the number of small

facilities reported with animal types.
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

2 DCN-55,001 July 28, 2000 memorandum from David Marker to Helen Jacobs and Jade Lee-Freeman.

B-6

Table B-2. Distribution of noncertainty and non-renderer facilities imputed for animal type

Facility size Animal type

Number of facilities

reported on frame

Number of facilities

imputed

Large Pork only 17 4

Poultry only 127 30

Poultry & Pork 2 0

Beef only 10 2

Beef & Pork 6 1

Beef & Poultry 3 2

Beef & Poultry & Pork 23 6

Missing 45 N/A

Small and very small Pork only 157 805

Poultry only 152 779

Poultry & Pork 32 164

Beef only 196 1,005

Beef & Pork 203 1,041

Beef & Poultry 76 390

Beef & Poultry & Pork 438 2,246

Missing 6,430 N/A

Total 7,917 6,475

B.2 SAMPLE SELECTION OF FACILITIES

The design of the first-phase sample was based upon the assumption that large facilities

were more likely to be eligible than small facilities, which in turn were expected to be eligible

more frequently than very small facilities. Thus, EPA determined that oversampling of the large

facilities would be appropriate, in order to include many eligible facilities. Too much

oversampling would reduce the accuracy of estimates because some facilities would have much

greater weights than other facilities. An examination of alternative oversampling schemes2

suggested balancing these two constraints by selecting large facilities at six times the rate of very

small facilities, and at twice the rate of small facilities.
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-7

After sorting by animal type, the facilities were selected from each stratum using

systematic sampling scheme. Systematic sampling involve selecting every kth facility where k is

determined by the selection rate. The allocation of the sample is described in Table B-3. The

allocation in Table B-3 was based upon the 6-3-1 rule according to which, large facilities were

selected at a rate that

was 6 times higher than that of very small facilities and twice higher than that of small

facilities. Using this allocation scheme, EPA selected a total of 2,000 facilities from the frame of

8,217 facilities.

Table B-3. Allocation of the first-phase sample

Stratum h

Sample frame size

(Nh)

First phase sample size

(nh)

Certainty 65 65

Large First Processor 190 152

Large FurtherProcessor 43 34

Small First Processor 498 199

Small Further Processor 1,878 750

Very Small Further Processor 5,308 706

Renderer 235 94

Total 8,217 2,000

The 350 sample facilities were allocated in the second-phase sample to provide similar

precision for each of seven analytic domains of interest. These domains were: poultry, beef, and

pork further processors; poultry, beef, and pork first processors; and renderers. The 285

noncertainty sample facilities were therefore allocated so that approximately 41 (=285/7) were in

each of these seven domains. The entire second-phase sample, including the noncertainty

sample, consisted of 122 further processors, 121 first processors, and 42 renderers, along with 65

facilities selected with certainty. The facilities were sorted within facility type by animal type (as

listed in Table B-4) before selecting the samples. Table B-4 shows how the first-phase sample in

the previous table was distributed across the short and detailed surveys.
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

3

 Any surveys processed after that date will be included in the revised estimates for the final rule.

B-8

Table B-4. Allocation of the sample to the short and detailed surveys

Facility size and type

Sample size

First phase Short survey Detailed Survey

Certainty 65 0 65

Large First processor 152 100 52

Large Further processor 34 31 3

Small First processor 199 130 69

Small Further processor 750 688 62

Very small Further processor 706 649 57

Renderer 94 52 42

Total 2,000 1,650 350

For the purpose of selecting the sample of facilities, the WESSAMP SAS macro

developed at Westat was used. WESSAMP selects systematic samples within sampling strata

defined through a set of parameters.

B.3 RESPONSE STATUS OF SHORT (SCREENER) SAMPLE FACILITIES

Of the 1,650 facilities to which a short form was mailed, 601 did not return the form and

their eligibility status was unknown as of April 24, 20013. A total of 193 facilities that were

either out-of-scope or could not be located were classified as ineligible. EPA assumed that some

of the 601 facilities that did not return the short form were eligible nonrespondents. Therefore, it

was necessary to estimate the number of ineligible facilities for sample weight adjustments. (See

Section B.4.) The remaining 856 facilities were eligible respondents. These were facilities that

returned a complete form and indicated that they engaged in meat processing. Table B-5 shows

the response status by stratum for the facilities that were mailed a short survey.
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-9

Table B-5. Response status for the short survey by first-phase stratum

Stratum

Sample

size

Eligible

Respondent

(S1)

Nonrespondent

(S4)

Ineligible

Out-of-Scope

(S3)

Nondeliverable

Large First Processor 100 81 18 1 0

Large Further Processor 31 25 5 1 0

Small First Processor 130 76 41 10 3

Small Further Processor 688 350 247 53 38

Very Small Further Processor 649 287 281 36 45

Renderer 52 37 9 4 2

Total 1,650 856 601 105 88

B.4 WEIGHTING OF THE SHORT SURVEY

This section describes the methodology used to calculate the base weights, non-response

adjustments, and the final weights for the short survey. In its analysis, EPA applied sample

weights to survey data. The short survey was weighted in order to account for variable

probabilities of selection, differential response rates, and ineligible facilities. The base weights

and non-response adjustments reflect the probability of selection for each facility and

adjustments for facility level non-responses, respectively. Weighting the data allows inferences

to be made about all eligible facilities, not just those included in the sample, but also those not

included in the sample or those that did not respond to the survey. Also, the weighted estimates

have a smaller variance than unweighted estimates (see Section B.5 of this appendix for variance

estimation.)

B.4.1 Base Weight Calculation

The first step in weighting the short survey was to assign a base weight to each of the

sample facilities. The base weight associated with a short survey facility was calculated by

multiplying the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the first-phase sample of

2,000 facilities, by the reciprocal of the probability of not including that facility in the detailed

survey sample in the second phase. Table B-6 shows the calculation of the base weight. The
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-10

short survey base weight for a given first-phase stratum h and second-phase stratum l can

formally be written as follows:

Base weight n

N

m

M h l

h

h

l

l

=





 



 × −





 





− − 1 1

1

where Nh is the number of facilities in the sample frame that belong to first-phase stratum h, nh is

the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample that belong to first-phase stratum h (Nh

and nh are shown in Table B-5), Ml is the number of first-phase sample facilities that belonged to

second-phase stratum l, and ml

 is the number of facilities selected in the detailed survey sample

from second-phase stratum l.

For example, in the first-phase sample, 34 of 43 large further processors were selected, so

the first-phase inclusion probability was 0.7907. The second-phase sample only stratified by

facility type, so the second-phase inclusion probability for further processors in the detailed

survey was (3 + 62 + 57)/(34 + 750 + 706) = 0.0819 (see Table B-4). The overall inclusion

probability for the short survey was (0.7907) x (1 - 0.0819) = 0.72596. The base weight was the

reciprocal of this probability, 1.3775.

Table B-6. Base weight calculation for the short survey

Stratum

First-phase

inclusion

probability

(nh/Nh)

Second-phase

detailed survey

inclusion

probabilities 

(m1/M1)

Short survey

inclusion

probabilities

n

N

m

M

h

h

l

l

1 − 



 



 



 





Short survey base

weights 

n

N

m

M

h

h

l

l





 



 × −





 





















− − 1 1

1

Large First processor 0.8000 0.3447 0.52422 1.9076

Small First processor 0.3996 0.3447 0.26185 3.8191

Large Further processor 0.7907 0.0819 0.72596 1.3775

Small Further processor 0.3994 0.0819 0.36666 2.7273

Very Small Further processor 0.1330 0.0819 0.12212 8.1889

Renderer 0.4000 0.4468 0.22128 4.5192
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-11

B.4.2 Eligibility and Non-response Adjustment

The base weights associated with the short survey facilities were adjusted for nonresponse. Because the 601 nonresponding facilities had an unknown eligibility status, it was

assumed that they were distributed among eligible and out-of-scope facilities in the same

proportions as the respondents within each stratum. It was assumed that all nonrespondents did

receive their surveys. The base weights of facilities were multiplied by the adjustment factor

obtained by dividing the count of all sample facilities by the count of facilities with known

eligibility status. The final weight, whi for a facility i in stratum h, can be written as follows:

( ) ( )

( )

w base weight nonresponse adjustm ent

base weight SSS

S S

h i hi h

h i

h

= ×

= ×

+ +

+





 



 134

1 3

where S1, S3, and S4 represent counts for stratum h of eligible respondents, out-of-scope

respondents who received their surveys, and facilities who did not respond, respectively (see

Table B-6). This non-response adjustment was performed within strata in order to account for

differential response rates in the short survey. For example, large further processors had 25

eligible respondents, 1 not involved in meat products, and 5 non-respondents. Its non-response

adjustment factor was therefore 1.1923 (=31/26). Table B-7 shows the non-response adjustment

factors and final weights for each stratum.

Table B-7. Non-response adjustment and final weight for the short survey

Stratum h

Short survey base

weight

Non-response

adjustment

SSS

S S

134

1 3

+ +

+





 





Short survey final

weight

(Wh i)

Large First Processor 1.9076 1.2195 2.3264

Small First Processor 3.8191 1.4767 5.6398

Large Further Processor 1.3775 1.1923 1.6400

Small Further Processor 2.7273 1.6129 4.3880

Very Small Further Processor 8.1889 1.8670 15.2658

Renderer 4.5192 1.2195 5.5113
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-12

EPA plans to revise the short survey weighting and estimation to include the facilities

whose responses were processed after the initial deadline. The same procedures will be used as

described above, but the number of completes, ineligibles, and nonrespondents will change, and

so will the weights. These revised short survey weights also will be used to revise the detailed

survey weights. (See Section B.6.)

B.5 ESTIMATION METHOD

This section presents the general methodology and equations for calculating estimates

from the short survey.

B.5.1 National Estimates

National total estimates were obtained for each characteristic and domain of interest by

multiplying the reported value by the non-response-adjusted weight and by summing all weighted

values for the facilities that belong to the domain of interest k.

y wy  k ki ki

i

=∑

Similarly, ratio estimates (for example, of the mean) in a given domain k were obtained as

a ratio of two national total estimates. For example, the average cattle production by facilities

doing first processoring was calculated by dividing the weighted production of cattle by the

weighted count of first processors.

y

w y

w

k

ki ki

i

k i

i

=

∑

∑

where whi is the non-response adjusted weight for facility i, yki is the cattle production for facility

i, both in domain k, and the summation is over all facilities reporting cattle production.

Note that many facilities were involved in more than one type of activity or production. 

Their classification into one activity type, either first processoring, processing, rendering, or

some combination was determined by the relative concentration of their production in any
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

4

 Wolters, K. M. (1985) Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York.

B-13

activity. Similar classification issues arose when reporting production by animal type (red meat,

poultry, or mixed). If at least 85 percent of total production was of a given type of activity, it was

classified accordingly (e.g., first processor). If no activity type accounted for 85 percent of

production it was classified as mixed type. The same rule was used for animal type.

Further, note that the 65 certainty facilities were excluded from the short survey. The

above estimation procedure will produce national estimates for all facilities except for those 65. 

To produce national estimates from the short survey that cover the entire meat products industry

it will be necessary to combine these estimates with the reported data from the detailed

questionnaires filled out for those 65 certainty facilities. Since these 65 facilities represent only

themselves, they are each given a weight of one for such analyses. For the final rule, EPA will

incorporate the values for the 65 facilities into its revised national estimates.

B.5.2 Variance Estimates

To compute the correct estimates of standard errors a set of jackknife replicate weights

was constructed and attached to each facility. Under the jackknife replication method, a number

of subsamples (called jackknife replicates) were generated from the full sample, and the entire

weighting process as described in the previous sections was repeated for each replicate. In this

way, a series of replicate weights were generated for each facility, which together with the fullsample weight were used to calculate sampling errors (see Wolters, 1985 for a description of the

jackknife and other variance estimation methods)4. Given that there were almost 900 responding

facilities for the short survey, it was decided to create 90 replicates for variance estimation. Each

respondent was assigned a number between 1 and 90. The first replicate used the values from all

facilities except those assigned to group 1. The other replicates were derived in a similar way by

excluding the values for a different group each time.

In order to illustrate how the sampling errors have been calculated, let be the weighted

national average estimate of a characteristic y (e.g., first processor meat production of cattle) for
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-14

the entire data set. If is the corresponding estimate for jackknife replicate r, then the estimated

variance of y is given by the following formula:

var( ) y yy ( ( ) r ) r

= − =

∑ 2

1

9 0

where the summation extends over all 90 jackknife replicates that were formed for the short

survey. This jackknife variance was often used to compute 95 percent confidence limits around

the estimate. These limits are given by:

y y ±196 . var( )

The WesVar program was used to compute estimates of standard errors.

B.6 ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILED SURVEY

The process of detailed surveys is more complex and time-consuming than the process of

short surveys due to its length and the details of survey responses. In order to meet the court

ordered deadline for the proposed rule, EPA only analyzed the short surveys. Detailed surveys

will be analyzed for the final rule using similar methodology described in Sections B.4 and B.5.

For the final rule, the base weight associated with a detailed sample facility was calculated by

multiplying the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the first-phase sample of

2,000 facilities, by the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the detailed survey

sample. Table B-8 shows the calculation of the base weight. The detailed survey base weight for

a given first-phase stratum h and second-phase stratum l can formally be written as follows:

Base weight n

N

m

M h l

h

h

l

l

=



 



 



 





− − 1 1

where Nh is the number of facilities in the sample that belong to first-phase stratum h (Nh and nh

are shown in Table B-3), nh is the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample that

belong to first-phase stratum h, Ml

 is the number of first-phase sample facilities that belong to

second-phase stratum l, and ml

 is the number of facilities selected in the detailed survey sample
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-15

from second-phase stratum l (second-phase stratum totals can be found in the column labeled

“Detailed Survey” in Table B-4).

Table B-8. Base weight calculation for the detailed survey sample

Stratum

First-phase

inclusion

probability

(nn / Nh)

Second-phase

inclusion

probabilities 

(ml

 / Ml)

Detailed survey

inclusion

probabilities

n

N

m

M

h

h

l

l





 









 



 



 





Detailed survey

base weights

n

N

m

M

h

h

l

l





 



 



 





















− − 1 1

Large First Processor 0.8000 0.3447 0.2758 3.6260

Small First Processor 0.3996 0.3447 0.1378 7.2594

Large Further Processor 0.7907 0.0819 0.0647 15.4460

Small Further Processor 0.3994 0.0819 0.0327 30.5816

Very Small Further Processor 0.1330 0.0819 0.0109 91.8232

Renderer 0.4000 0.4468 0.1787 5.5952

Certainties 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Due to duplication on the sample frame, a few facilities were sampled for both the short

and detailed surveys. Such facilities were encouraged to complete both forms since estimates are

made independently from both surveys.

The non-response adjustment for the detailed survey will be carried out with the same

methodology used to adjust the base weights for the short survey (see Section B.4.2). However,

the non-response-adjusted weights will further be adjusted to benchmark them to the weighted

counts of eligible facilities calculated from the short survey. This is because the much larger

sample size in the short survey provides better estimates of the number of eligible facilities in

each stratum. This second adjustment will be done within the type and size categories and will

yield the final weight. If h designates a first-phase stratum, then the detailed survey final weight

wi

 for a given facility i can be written as follows:

( ) ( )

( ) W NR Adjusted W eight Estim ated Number of Facilities from Short Survey

Estim ated Number of Facilities from Detailed Survey i i

h

h

=− ×
Appendix B. Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates

B-16

National estimates and corresponding standard errors for the detailed survey will be

calculated using the same methods described in Section B.5 for the short survey with the

exception that for each jackknife replicate sample will be based on a different number of

subsamples. In the documentation for the final rule, EPA will further describe the detailed

questionnaire estimates.
C-1

APPENDIX C

TABLES TO SECTION 9
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-2

Table C-1. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First Processing (R1) Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 99.00 7.60 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 172.0 8.00 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 9.00 14.54 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 508.0 20.00 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 6.12 8.77 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.001 0.001 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 5.80 11.00 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 85.37 118.4 mg/L

Chloride 513.0 2,070 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 5.00 5.20 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 20.62 7.10 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 245.5 102.0 mg/L

Total nitrogen 239.3 89.82 mg/L

Orthophosphate 24.09 11.73 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,953 3,067 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 5.66 7.65 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 17.69 19.14 mg/L

Total phosphorus 23.42 7.63 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.594 0.030 mg/L

Volatile residue 273.5 121.2 mg/L

Barium —a —

Copper 0.00367 0.00297 mg/L

Chromium 1.21 0.00656 mg/L

Manganese 0.05069 0.19680 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00679 0.00755 mg/L

Nickel 0.00305 0.03117 mg/L

Titanium 0.00153 0.00387 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00583 0.00356 mg/L

Zinc 0.05881 0.02281 mg/L

Aeromonas 2,951 1,296 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.3000 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 228.3 180.1 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 30.98 150.1 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 400.0 476.5 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0160 0.0040 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0160 0.0040 mg/L a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-3

Table C-2. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing (R12)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 6.16 6.16 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 25.67 25.67 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 11.78 11.78 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 38.94 38.94 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.38 0.38 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 4.00 4.00 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 48.33 48.33 mg/L

Chloride 1,587 1,587 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 4.00 4.00 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 13.57 13.57 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 300.7 300.7 mg/L

Total nitrogen 304.7 304.7 mg/L

Orthophosphate 12.27 12.27 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,930 3,930 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.99 3.99 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 11.50 11.50 mg/L

Total phosphorus 15.43 15.43 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.792 0.792 mg/L

Volatile residue 270.0 270.0 mg/L

Barium —b —

Copper 0.00417 0.00417 mg/L

Chromium 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Manganese 0.00553 0.00553 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00757 0.00757 mg/L

Nickel 0.00183 0.00183 mg/L

Titanium 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00573 0.00573 mg/L

Zinc 0.02337 0.02337 mg/L

Aeromonas 36.33 36.33 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.300 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 54.00 54.00 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 20.67 20.67 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 124.7 124.7 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0160 0.0160 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0160 0.0160 mg/L a Baseline concentration of R12 (small) was derived using R12 (non-small) since no R12 small direct discharge

facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-4

Table C-3. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First Processing and Rendering (R13)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 32.08 32.08 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 19.13 19.13 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 84.67 84.67 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 92.36 92.36 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 2.47 2.47 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 24.21 24.21 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 63.17 63.17 mg/L

Chloride 856.8 856.8 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 11.29 11.29 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 23.87 23.87 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 134.4 134.4 mg/L

Total nitrogen 140.8 140.8 mg/L

Orthophosphate 12.72 12.72 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,610 2,610 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 7.46 7.46 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 16.72 16.72 mg/L

Total phosphorus 30.17 30.17 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 2.66 2.66 mg/L

Volatile residue 182.7 182.7 mg/L

Barium —b —

Copper 0.00888 0.00888 mg/L

Chromium 0.00308 0.00308 mg/L

Manganese 0.07028 0.07028 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00395 0.00395 mg/L

Nickel 0.01530 0.01530 mg/L

Titanium 0.00132 0.00132 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00454 0.00454 mg/L

Zinc 0.06153 0.06153 mg/L

Aeromonas 89,822 89,822 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.371 0.371 cysts/L

E. Coli 106,326 106,326 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,478.18 1,478.18 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 84,624 84,624 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0069 0.0069 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0069 0.0069 mg/L a Baseline concentration of R13 (small) was derived using R13 (non-small) since no R13 small direct discharge

facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-5

Table C-4. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing and

Rendering (R123)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 30.51 30.51 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 44.94 44.94 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 36.08 36.08 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 131.76 131.76 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 3.43 3.43 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 12.20 12.20 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 71.13 71.13 mg/L

Chloride 1,245 1,245 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 6.80 6.80 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 17.10 17.10 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 202.9 202.9 mg/L

Total nitrogen 203.3 203.3 mg/L

Orthophosphate 14.30 14.30 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,017 3,017 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 6.03 6.03 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 15.54 15.54 mg/L

Total phosphorus 20.38 20.38 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 1.26 1.26 mg/L

Volatile residue 216.7 216.7 mg/L

Barium —b —

Copper 0.00546 0.00546 mg/L

Chromium 0.20412 0.20412 mg/L

Manganese 0.06652 0.06652 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00623 0.00623 mg/L

Nickel 0.01142 0.01142 mg/L

Titanium 0.00168 0.00168 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00499 0.00499 mg/L

Zinc 0.04190 0.04190 mg/L

Aeromonas 30,661 30,661 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.324 0.324 cysts/L

E. Coli 35,528 35,528 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 529.79 529.79 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 28,396 28,396 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0110 0.0110 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0110 0.0110 mg/L a Baseline concentration of R123 was derived using average concentrations of R1 (small and non-small facilities) +

R12 (non-small) + R13 (non-small facilities), since no R123 small or non-small direct discharge facilities were

represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-6

Table C-5. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat Further Processing (R2)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small

Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 6.16 6.16 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 25.67 25.67 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 11.78 11.78 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 38.94 38.94 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.38 0.38 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 4.00 4.00 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 48.33 48.33 mg/L

Chloride 1,587 1,587 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 4.00 4.00 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 13.57 13.57 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 300.7 300.7 mg/L

Total nitrogen 304.7 304.7 mg/L

Orthophosphate 12.27 12.27 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,930 3,930 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.99 3.99 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 11.50 11.50 mg/L

Total phosphorus 15.43 15.43 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.792 0.792 mg/L

Volatile residue 270.0 270.0 mg/L

Barium —b —

Copper 0.00417 0.00417 mg/L

Chromium 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Manganese 0.00553 0.00553 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00757 0.00757 mg/L

Nickel 0.00183 0.00183 mg/L

Titanium 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00573 0.00573 mg/L

Zinc 0.02337 0.02337 mg/L

Aeromonas 36.33 36.33 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.300 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 54.00 54.00 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 20.67 20.67 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 124.7 124.7 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0160 0.0160 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0160 0.0160 mg/L a Baseline concentration of R2 was derived using R12 (non-small), since no R2 small or non-small direct discharge

facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-7

Table C-6. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat Further Processing and Rendering (R23)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 19.12 19.12 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 22.40 22.40 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 48.23 48.23 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 65.65 65.65 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.42 1.42 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 14.11 14.11 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 55.75 55.75 mg/L

Chloride 1,222 1,222 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 7.64 7.64 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 18.72 18.72 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 217.5 217.5 mg/L

Total nitrogen 222.7 222.7 mg/L

Orthophosphate 12.49 12.49 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,270 3,270 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 5.72 5.72 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 14.11 14.11 mg/L

Total phosphorus 22.80 22.80 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 1.73 1.73 mg/L

Volatile residue 226.3 226.3 mg/L

Barium —b —

Copper 0.00652 0.00652 mg/L

Chromium 0.00204 0.00204 mg/L

Manganese 0.03791 0.03791 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00576 0.00576 mg/L

Nickel 0.00857 0.00857 mg/L

Titanium 0.00116 0.00116 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00514 0.00514 mg/L

Zinc 0.04245 0.04245 mg/L

Aeromonas 44,929 44,929 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.336 0.336 cysts/L

E. Coli 53,190 53,190 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 749.42 749.42 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 42,374 42,374 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0114 0.0114 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0114 0.0114 mg/L a Baseline concentration of R23 was derived using average concentrations of R12 (non-small) + R13 (non-small),

since no R23 small or non-small direct discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-8

Table C-7. Average Baseline Concentration for Meat First Processing (R1) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small

Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1,823 1,636 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 1,266 1,233 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 246.2 256.5 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,982,510 1,763,340 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 381.0 217.2 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.0116 0.0148 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,925 1890.6 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 3,884 3,600 mg/L

Chloride 1,087 1,381 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 1,174 1,152 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 40.09 44.25 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 4.26 6.35 mg/L

Total nitrogen 393.1 369.0 mg/L

Orthophosphate 36.66 39.02 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,554 2,400 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 388.8 362.6 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 661.1 592.0 mg/L

Total phosphorus 55.15 61.96 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.611 0.676 mg/L

Volatile residue 2,028 1,800 mg/L

Barium —a —

Copper 0.100 0.1193 mg/L

Chromium 0.0361 0.0318 mg/L

Manganese 1.02 0.7994 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0164 0.0158 mg/L

Nickel 0.0321 0.0267 mg/L

Titanium 0.00864 0.0113 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00382 0.0047 mg/L

Zinc 0.457 0.4899 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,467,870 1,321,636 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 106.3 127.5 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,844,750 1,763,167 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 918,043 820,620 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 1,600,000 1,600,000 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.00411 0.00414 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.00434 0.00400 mg/L a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-9

Table C-8. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat First/Further Processing (R12)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1,406 1,083 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 1,256 568.9 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 192.6 117.1 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,400,769 1,341,847 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 334.4 404.5 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.01228 0.00952 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,883 868.9 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,691 1,965 mg/L

Chloride 1,269 793.6 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 1,183 921.6 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 40.92 36.19 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 4.97 45.20 mg/L

Total nitrogen 246.0 276.8 mg/L

Orthophosphate 32.44 24.58 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,871 2,412 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 241.0 231.6 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 684.2 477.1 mg/L

Total phosphorus 56.51 48.80 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.671 0.436 mg/L

Volatile residue 2,104 1,491 mg/L

Barium —a —

Copper 0.108 0.0755 mg/L

Chromium 0.0315 0.0445 mg/L

Manganese 0.505 0.6194 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0166 0.0136 mg/L

Nickel 0.0183 0.0205 mg/L

Titanium 0.0100 0.0059 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00363 0.00324 mg/L

Zinc 0.501 0.3204 mg/L

Aeromonas 839,877 1,127,373 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 127.5 59.53 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,600,000 1,500,066 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 950,517 656,497 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 1,600,000 1,431,028 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.00411 0.00649 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.00445 0.00640 mg/L a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-10

Table C-9. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat First Processing and Rendering (R13)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 412.0 1,514 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 93.00 581.4 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 2.40 108.0 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,811,050 1,811,050 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 91.00 611.9 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.0010 0.0098 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 478.0 1,546 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 862.0 2,725 mg/L

Chloride 542.0 542.0 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 7.11 1,150 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 13.86 37.59 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 128.7 2.13 mg/L

Total nitrogen 250.5 336.0 mg/L

Orthophosphate 27.07 23.28 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,517 2,400 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 98.20 333.8 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 23.33 592.0 mg/L

Total phosphorus 14.38 51.07 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.404 0.248 mg/L

Volatile residue 257.7 1,800 mg/L

Barium —a —

Copper 0.0027 0.0779 mg/L

Chromium 0.0500 0.0500 mg/L

Manganese 0.0303 0.9936 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0065 0.0158 mg/L

Nickel 0.0029 0.0288 mg/L

Titanium 0.0010 0.0045 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0047 0.0021 mg/L

Zinc 0.0487 0.3234 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,251,966 1,251,966 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.150 42.50 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,487,234 1,600,000 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 16,664 820,620 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 1,177,498 1,600,000

cfu/100 mL

cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.00400 0.00409 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.00400 0.00400 mg/L a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-11

Table C-10. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat First/Further Processing and

Rendering (R123)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 156.7 156.7 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 210.1 210.1 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 50.48 50.48 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 728,066 728,066 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 210.5 210.5 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.0054 0.0054 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 654.6 654.6 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1,201 1,201 mg/L

Chloride 1,306 1,306 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 577.6 577.6 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 22.34 22.34 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 3.95 3.95 mg/L

Total nitrogen 120.4 120.4 mg/L

Orthophosphate 14.08 14.08 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,827 2,827 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 116.5 116.5 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 305.6 305.6 mg/L

Total phosphorus 29.08 29.08 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.179 0.179 mg/L

Volatile residue 960.6 960.6 mg/L

Barium —b —

Copper 0.0404 0.0404 mg/L

Chromium 0.0266 0.0266 mg/L

Manganese 0.4409 0.4409 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0110 0.0110 mg/L

Nickel 0.0169 0.0169 mg/L

Titanium 0.0028 0.0028 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0016 0.0016 mg/L

Zinc 0.1709 0.1709 mg/L

Aeromonas 496,918 496,918 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 21.40 21.40 cysts/L

E. Coli 803,169 803,169 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 410,313 410,313 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 803,664 803,664 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0040 0.0040 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0040 0.0040 mg/L a Baseline concentration of R123 (small) was derived using R123 (non-small), since no R123 small indirect

discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-12

Table C-11. Average Baseline Concentration for Red Meat Further Processing (R2)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small

Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1,301 1,035 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 374.4 258.5 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 135.0 96.59 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 810,899 820,000 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 22.81 37.87 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00968 0.0108 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,385 1,220 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,330 2,368 mg/L

Chloride 6,421 6,674 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 1,076 1,150 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 65.09 59.05 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 15.61 2.13 mg/L

Total nitrogen 39.0 21.46 mg/L

Orthophosphate 21.82 22.80 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 8,145 8,238 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 23.39 19.33 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 566.6 600.2 mg/L

Total phosphorus 73.67 68.56 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.265 0.248 mg/L

Volatile residue 1,857 1,911 mg/L

Barium —a —

Copper 0.0733 0.0779 mg/L

Chromium 0.0172 0.0267 mg/L

Manganese 0.0284 0.0293 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0176 0.0176 mg/L

Nickel 0.00682 0.0067 mg/L

Titanium 0.00431 0.0045 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00224 0.0021 mg/L

Zinc 0.2902 0.2877 mg/L

Aeromonas 341,181 345,000 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 39.77 42.50 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,197,695 1,352,381 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,422,046 1,375,958 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 1,571,742 1,600,000 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.00486 0.00410 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.00477 0.00400 mg/L a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-13

Table C-12. Average Baseline Concentration for Meat Further Processing and Rendering (R23)a

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 883.1 883.1 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 444.1 444.1 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 94.09 94.09 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,181,468 1,181,468 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 240.4 240.4 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.0080 0.0080 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,086 1,086 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1,918 1,918 mg/L

Chloride 2,357 2,357 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 830.3 830.3 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 37.17 37.17 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 25.83 25.83 mg/L

Total nitrogen 176.3 176.3 mg/L

Orthophosphate 22.52 22.52 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,905 3,905 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 147.5 147.5 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 444.3 444.3 mg/L

Total phosphorus 46.39 46.39 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.329 0.329 mg/L

Volatile residue 1,418 1,418 mg/L

Barium —b —

Copper 0.0620 0.0620 mg/L

Chromium 0.0341 0.0341 mg/L

Manganese 0.3860 0.3860 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0137 0.0137 mg/L

Nickel 0.0147 0.0147 mg/L

Titanium 0.0045 0.0045 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0026 0.0026 mg/L

Zinc 0.2642 0.2642 mg/L

Aeromonas 768,900 768,900 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 44.34 44.34 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,292,964 1,292,964 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 757,866 757,866 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — —

Total coliform 1,323,449 1,323,449cfu/1 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0045 0.0045 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0045 0.0045 mg/L a Baseline concentration of R23 was derived using average concentrations of R12 (small and non-small facilities) +

R123 (non-small), +R13 (small and non-small facilities) + R2 (small and non-small facilities), since no R23 small

or non-small indirect discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-14

Table C-13. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First Processing (P1)

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 7.00 4.15 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 31.50 11.73 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 23.60 9.96 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 560.0 173.4 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 2.00 1.09 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 478.0 4.08 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 862.0 25.09 mg/L

Chloride 542.0 81.55 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 5.20 2.08 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 7.10 0.36 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 27.18 33.54 mg/L

Total nitrogen 89.82 27.22 mg/L

Orthophosphate 14.00 1.95 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,067 721.3 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 98.20 1.80 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 19.14 5.70 mg/L

Total phosphorus 7.63 2.39 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —a —

Volatile residue 178.8 174.6 mg/L

Barium 0.06797 0.0057 mg/L

Copper 0.00876 0.0082 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.19680 0.0111 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.01212 0.0011 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.0769 0.0715 mg/L

Aeromonas 65,085 1,431 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 66,480 5.05 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,980 36.65 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 111.2 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 163,280 580 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — mg/L

trans-Permethrin — — mg/L a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-15

Table C-14. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing (P12)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 15.67 15.67 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 30.92 30.92 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 19.12 19.12 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 200,311 200,311 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 2.22 2.22 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 7.41 7.41 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 32.50 32.50 mg/L

Chloride 125.9 125.9 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 2.49 2.49 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 7.44 7.44 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 39.32 39.32 mg/L

Total nitrogen 41.80 41.80 mg/L

Orthophosphate 4.28 4.28 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 900.5 900.5 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 2.76 2.76 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 8.68 8.68 mg/L

Total phosphorus 7.97 7.97 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 526.4 526.4 mg/L

Barium 0.00531 0.00531 mg/L

Copper 0.02450 0.02450 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.01598 0.01598 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.00324 0.00324 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.1173 0.1173mg/L

Aeromonas 49,288 49,288 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 16,622 16,622 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 929.6 929.6 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 29.30 29.30 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 200,753 200,753 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P12 (small) was derived using P12 (non-small), since no P12 small direct discharge

facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-16

Table C-15. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First Processing and Rendering (P13)

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small

Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 4.00 7.26 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 9.40 13.43 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 5.97 15.25 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 434.0 163 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.33 0.78 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00127 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 3.20 4.62 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 29.60 44.25 mg/L

Chloride 94.40 89.34 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 2.20 4.67 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 14.50 11.49 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 64.76 50.00 mg/L

Total nitrogen 66.58 57.16 mg/L

Orthophosphate 12.56 9.73 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,916 1,505 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 1.82 2.50 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 11.49 11.51 mg/L

Total phosphorus 15.22 10.62 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —a —

Volatile residue 130.0 166 mg/L

Barium 0.00256 0.00668 mg/L

Copper 0.04024 0.03279 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.02456 0.03721 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.00544 0.00562 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.0925 0.0867 mg/L

Aeromonas 57.67 289.0 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 123.3 91.69 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 73.20 58.88 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 1,308 959.1 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-17

Table C-16. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing and

Rendering (P123)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 5.83 5.83 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 8.60 8.60 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 95.26 95.26 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 2.55 2.55 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.44 0.44 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 4.61 4.61 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 131.4 131.4 mg/L

Chloride 53.00 53.00 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 4.62 4.62 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 7.44 7.44 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 39.32 39.32 mg/L

Total nitrogen 77.99 77.99 mg/L

Orthophosphate 4.28 4.28 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 460.0 460.0 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 4.18 4.18 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 12.38 12.38 mg/L

Total phosphorus 7.97 7.97 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 577.0 577 mg/L

Barium 0.00600 0.00600 mg/L

Copper 0.02450 0.02450 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.01598 0.01598 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.00324 0.00324 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.1362 0.1362 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,550 1,550 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 0.0300 0.03 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 621.0 621.0 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P123 (small) was derived using P123 (non-small), since no P123 small direct discharge

facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-18

Table C-17. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing (P2)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 10.75 10.75 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 19.76 19.76 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 57.19 57.19 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 100,157 100,157 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.33 1.33 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 6.01 6.01 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 81.96 81.96 mg/L

Chloride 89.43 89.43 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 3.55 3.55 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 7.44 7.44 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 39.32 39.32 mg/L

Total nitrogen 59.89 59.89 mg/L

Orthophosphate 4.28 4.28 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 680 680 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.47 3.47 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 10.53 10.53 mg/L

Total phosphorus 7.97 7.97 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 552 552 mg/L

Barium 0.0057 0.0057 mg/L

Copper 0.0245 0.0245 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.0160 0.0160 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0032 0.0032 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.1268 0.1268 mg/L

Aeromonas 25,419 25,419 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 8,312 8,312 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 464.80 464.80 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 15.65 15.65 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 100,687 100,687 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P2 was derived using average concentrations of P12 (non-small) +P123 (non-small)

since no P2 small or non-small direct discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-19

Table C-18. Average Baseline Concentrations for Non-Small Poultry Further Processing and

Rendering (P23)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 9.04 9.04 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 16.98 16.98 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 41.66 41.66 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 66,871 66,871 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.24 1.24 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00105 0.00105 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 5.31 5.31 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 66.95 66.95 mg/L

Chloride 90.24 90.24 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 3.51 3.51 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 9.29 9.29 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 45.34 45.34 mg/L

Total nitrogen 60.55 60.55 mg/L

Orthophosphate 6.57 6.57 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,024 1,024 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.03 3.03 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 10.85 10.85 mg/L

Total phosphorus 9.62 9.62 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 417 417 mg/L

Barium 0.0053 0.0053 mg/L

Copper 0.0285 0.0285 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.0209 0.0209 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0040 0.0040 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.1144 0.1144 mg/L

Aeromonas 17,004 17,004 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 5,577 5,577 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 331.88 331.88 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 11.10 11.10 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 67,503 67,503 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P23 was derived using average concentrations of P12 (non-small) + P13 (small and nonsmall facilities) + P123 (non-small), since no P23 small or non-small direct discharge facilities were represented in

the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-20

Table C-19. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First Processing (P1)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1,657 392.2 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 667 147.5 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 743.7 55.77 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 790,333 1,243,178 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 7.82 10.62 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.163 0.00227 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,013 345.4 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1,990 472.9 mg/L

Chloride 92.74 217.3 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 314.5 498.3 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 13.17 3.40 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.613 2.75 mg/L

Total nitrogen 38.44 48.77 mg/L

Orthophosphate 5.20 6.08 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 503.8 752.0 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 37.83 53.62 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 193.9 139.5 mg/L

Total phosphorus 10.61 17.40 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —a —

Volatile residue 1,171 282.4 mg/L

Barium 0.0371 0.0180 mg/L

Copper 0.1218 0.0283 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.0575 0.1614 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0066 0.0065 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.239 0.0598 mg/L

Aeromonas 39,593 182,879 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 786,333 1,291,380 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 663,583 58,746 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 188.5 11.93 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 1,054,000 1,248,749 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-21

Table C-20. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First/Further Processing (P12)a

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 403.8 403.8 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 188.6 188.6 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 42.26 42.26 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 923,559 923,559 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 13.60 13.60 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 160.0 160.0 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 466.5 466.5 mg/L

Chloride 185.1 185.1 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 59.57 59.57 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 6.14 6.14 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 16.12 16.12 mg/L

Total nitrogen 47.00 47.00 mg/L

Orthophosphate 4.46 4.46 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 954.9 954.9 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 78.55 78.55 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 59.64 59.64 mg/L

Total phosphorus 13.89 13.89 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 710.7 710.7 mg/L

Barium 0.0095 0.0095 mg/L

Copper 0.0236 0.0236 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.0673 0.0673 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0044 0.0044 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.1358 0.1358 mg/L

Aeromonas 192,500 192,500 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 920,652 920,652 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 4,140 4,140 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 45.68 45.68 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 900,898 900,898 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P12 (small) was derived using P12 (non-small), since no P12 small indirect discharge

facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-22

Table C-21. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First Processing and Rendering (P13)a

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 253.0 253.0 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 41.33 41.33 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 111.6 111.6 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 944,808 944,808 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 13.16 13.16 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 232.7 232.7 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 434.0 434.0 mg/L

Chloride 214.0 214.0 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 97.53 97.53 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 4.59 4.59 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 8.37 8.37 mg/L

Total nitrogen 71.42 71.42 mg/L

Orthophosphate 4.57 4.57 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 890.5 890.5 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 65.49 65.49 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 93.62 93.62 mg/L

Total phosphorus 18.18 18.18 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 228.2 228.2 mg/L

Barium 0.0118 0.0118 mg/L

Copper 0.0234 0.0234 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.1016 0.1016 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0052 0.0052 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.0703 0.0703 mg/L

Aeromonas 192,500 192,500 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 933,564 933,564 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 4,645 4,645 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 36.05 36.05 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 914,926 914,926 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P12 (small) was derived using P12 (non-small), since no P12 small indirect discharge

facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-23

Table C-22. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First/Further Processing and

Rendering (P123)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1,215 1,215 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 3,672 3,672 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 244.6 244.6 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 772,891 772,891 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 15.56 15.56 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.02427 0.02427 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,159 1,159 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,026 2,026 mg/L

Chloride 212.8 212.8 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 287.9 287.9 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 21.98 21.98 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 6.78 6.78 mg/L

Total nitrogen 71.95 71.95 mg/L

Orthophosphate 6.65 6.65 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 969.7 969.7 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 79.55 79.55 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 215.8 215.8 mg/L

Total phosphorus 48.37 48.37 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 4,198 4,198 mg/L

Barium 0.0249 0.0249 mg/L

Copper 0.0334 0.0334 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.0788 0.0788 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0094 0.0094 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.313 0.313 mg/L

Aeromonas 163,955 163,955 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 774,597 774,597 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 104,827 104,827 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 45.99 45.99 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 830,389 830,389 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P123 was derived using average concentrations of P1 (small and non-small facilities) +

P12 (non-small) +P13 (non-small) + P2 (small and non-small facilities), since no P123 small or non-small indirect

discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-24

Table C-23. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry Further Processing (P2)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 5,481 872.7 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 27,523 582.7 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 608.0 241.6 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 87,500 325,383 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 27.68 24.86 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.0150 0.0103 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 4,185 2,941 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 7,032 4,910 mg/L

Chloride 297.3 297.3 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 686.2 489.9 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 78.68 59.15 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.938 0.938 mg/L

Total nitrogen 141.9 109.6 mg/L

Orthophosphate 13.18 10.68 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,707 1,105 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 141.0 115.8 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 633.0 453.2 mg/L

Total phosphorus 192.5 102.4 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —a — mg/L

Volatile residue 17,574 12,677 mg/L

Barium 0.0583 0.0432 mg/L

Copper 0.0100 0.0134 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.0242 0.0500 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0242 0.0189 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.986 0.810 mg/L

Aeromonas 153,000 166,167 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 86,150 324,483 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 58,500 40,217 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 265,000 443,717 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-25

Table C-24. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry Further Processing and

Rendering (P23)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1,278 1,278 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 4,761 4,761 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 192.9 192.9 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 691,603 691,603 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 17.67 17.67 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00489 0.00489 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,318 1,318 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,290 2,290 mg/L

Chloride 232.1 232.1 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 248.4 248.4 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 26.55 26.55 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 8.47 8.47 mg/L

Total nitrogen 81.40 81.40 mg/L

Orthophosphate 6.98 6.98 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,084 1,084 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 90.82 90.82 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 232.1 232.1 mg/L

Total phosphorus 59.83 59.83 mg/L

Total residual chlorine —b —

Volatile residue 5,355 5,355 mg/L

Barium 0.0240 0.0240 mg/L

Copper 0.0195 0.0195 mg/L

Chromium — —

Manganese 0.0687 0.0687 mg/L

Molybdenum — —

Nickel 0.0104 0.0104 mg/L

Titanium — —

Vanadium — —

Zinc 0.3680 0.3680 mg/L

Aeromonas 181,528 181,528 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —

E. Coli 686,511 686,511 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 19,381 19,381 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 27.91 27.91 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 723,394 723,394 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —

trans-Permethrin — — a Baseline concentration of P23 was derived using average concentrations of P12 (non-small) + P13 (non-small) +

P2 (small and non-small facilities), since no P23 small or non-small indirect discharge facilities were represented

in the detailed survey b not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-26

Table C-25. Average Baseline Concentrations for Rendering Only (REND)a

 Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 389.5 389.5 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 885 885 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 155 155 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 163.2 163.2 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 4.42 4.42 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.001 0.001 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 4.73 4.73 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 3,940 3,940 mg/L

Chloride 347 347 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 11.5 11.5 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 11.5 11.5 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 40.1 40.1 mg/L

Total nitrogen 94.5 94.5 mg/L

Orthophosphate 33.02 33.02 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,749 1,749 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 108.8 108.8 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 36.07 36.07 mg/L

Total phosphorus 23.94 23.94 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.52 0.52 mg/L

Volatile residue 406.1 406.1 mg/L

Barium 0.01404 0.01404 mg/L

Copper 0.0086 0.0086 mg/L

Chromium 0.00344 0.00344 mg/L

Manganese 0.05477 0.05477 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00438 0.00438 mg/L

Nickel 0.01211 0.01211 mg/L

Titanium 0.00961 0.00961 mg/L

Vanadium 0.02985 0.02985 mg/L

Zinc 0.08734 0.08734 mg/L

Aeromonas 806.9 806.9 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.50 0.50 cysts/L

E. Coli 271.9 271.9 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 240.5 240.5 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 593.8 593.8 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.004 0.004 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.004 0.004 mg/L a Baseline concentration of small REND was derived using REND (non-small), since no REND small direct

discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-27

Table C-26. Average Baseline Concentration for Rendering (Rend) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 476.4 1,691 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 352.6 694.7 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 73.95 163.6 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,021,164 562,878 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 98.98 71.87 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.0098 0.0010 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,715 720.1 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,629 2,887 mg/L

Chloride 542.0 339.9 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 1,889 635.5 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 37.59 19.52 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 2.13 18.49 mg/L

Total nitrogen 1,130 611.5 mg/L

Orthophosphate 22.80 22.89 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,453 1,807 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 1,128 1,557 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 1,258 836.4 mg/L

Total phosphorus 51.07 26.24 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.248 0.3226 mg/L

Volatile residue 1,800 1,466 mg/L

Barium N/Aa 0.0281 mg/L

Copper 0.0779 0.0095 mg/L

Chromium 0.0500 0.0045 mg/L

Manganese 0.182 0.124 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0158 0.0036 mg/L

Nickel 0.0067 0.0084 mg/L

Titanium 0.0045 0.0097 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0021 0.0272 mg/L

Zinc 0.323 0.0882 mg/L

Aeromonas 345,000 154,667 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 42.50 0.1500 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,600,000 1,233,333 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,385,099 1,600,000 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella N/A 51.64 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 1,600,000 1,233,333 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0041 0.0040 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0040 0.0040 mg/L a not available
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-28

Table C-27. Average Baseline Concentrations for Mixed Poultry/Meat Further Processing (M2)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 8.45 8.45 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 22.72 22.72 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 34.49 34.49 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 50,098 50,098 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.854 0.854 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.001 0.001 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 5.01 5.01 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 65.15 65.15 mg/L

Chloride 838.0 838.0 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 3.78 3.78 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 10.50 10.50 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 170.0 170.0 mg/L

Total nitrogen 182.3 182.3 mg/L

Orthophosphate 8.27 8.27 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,305 2,305 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.73 3.73 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 11.02 11.02 mg/L

Total phosphorus 11.70 11.70 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.555 0.555 mg/L

Volatile residue 410.8 410.8 mg/L

Barium 0.09816 0.09816 mg/L

Copper 0.01433 0.01433 mg/L

Chromium 0.00473 0.00473 mg/L

Manganese 0.01076 0.01076 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.00529 0.00529 mg/L

Nickel 0.00254 0.00254 mg/L

Titanium 0.00112 0.00112 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00772 0.00772 mg/L

Zinc 0.07507 0.07507 mg/L

Aeromonas 12,728 12,728 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 0.150 0.150 cysts/L

E. Coli 4,183 4,183 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 242.7 242.7 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 8.83 8.83 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 50,406 50,406 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/Ab N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A a Baseline concentration of M2 was derived using average concentrations of P2 (non-small) + R2 (non-small), since

no M2 small or non-small direct discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey b not available
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-29

Table C-28. Average Baseline Concentration for Mixed Poultry/Meat Further Processing (M2)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration

Non-Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 2,026 2,201 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 808.8 531.8 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 170.2 98.69 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 960,000 820,000 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 92.81 41.66 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.0133 0.0092 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,702 1,556 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,542 1,770 mg/L

Chloride 4,658 5,080 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 1,151 1,150 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 59.70 59.70 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 3.71 2.13 mg/L

Total nitrogen 87.17 26.42 mg/L

Orthophosphate 27.23 56.90 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 5,907 6,494 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 83.68 24.73 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 599.2 599.2 mg/L

Total phosphorus 80.44 74.54 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.822 1.10 mg/L

Volatile residue 1,897 1,897 mg/L

Barium 0.079405 0.0829 mg/L

Copper 0.0934 0.0779 mg/L

Chromium 0.0116 0.0112 mg/L

Manganese 0.0314 0.0293 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0173 0.0173 mg/L

Nickel 0.0090 0.0071 mg/L

Titanium 0.0071 0.0045 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0029 0.0021 mg/L

Zinc 0.241 0.1587 mg/L

Aeromonas 470,000 345,000 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 74.38 42.50 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,383,333 1,383,333 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,140,310 1,140,310 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 1,600,000 1,600,000 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0042 0.0042 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0040 0.0040 mg/L
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-30

Table C-29. Average Baseline Concentration for Mixed Poultry/Meat Further

Processing and Rendering (M23)a, b Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern

Small Facility

Concentration Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1,080 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 2,603 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 143.5 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 936,536 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 129.1 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.006433296 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 1,202 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,104 mg/L

Chloride 1,294 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 539.4 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 31.86 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 17.15 mg/L

Total nitrogen 128.9 mg/L

Orthophosphate 14.75 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,494 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 119.2 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 338.2 mg/L

Total phosphorus 53.11 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.164 mg/L

Volatile residue 3,386 mg/L

Barium N/Ac

Copper 0.0408 mg/L

Chromium 0.0171 mg/L

Manganese 0.227 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0069 mg/L

Nickel 0.0126 mg/L

Titanium 0.0022 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0013 mg/L

Zinc 0.316 mg/L

Aeromonas 475,214 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium 22.17 cysts/L

E. Coli 989,737 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 388,624 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella N/A

Total coliform 1,023,422 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin 0.0022 mg/L

trans-Permethrin 0.0022 mg/L a Baseline concentration of M23 was derived using average concentrations of P23 (small) + R23 (small) since no

M23 small indirect discharge facilities were represented in the detailed survey b No non-small indirect discharge facilities exist for Mixed Poultry/Red Meat Further Processing/Rendering (M23). c not available
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-31

Table C-30. Data to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering

Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-1 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

First Processing (R1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (R2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (R3)

Effluent Concentrations

Option Average For All Pollutants ExceptAmmonia, Nitrate/Nitrite, TKN

R1 of BAT-2 R2 of BAT-2 R3 of BAT-2

Option Average For Ammonia,Nitrate/Nitrite, TKN

See methodology described in

Section 9

See methodology described in

Section 9

See methodology described in

Section 9

R1 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of meat first processing wastewaterR2 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of meat further processing wastewaterR3 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of meat rendering wastewater
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-32

Table C-31. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-2 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

Facility

First Processing (R1) Further Processing (R2) Rendering (R3) Total

Flow

(MGD) Effluent Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

6440 [(effluent@6440 • total flow of 6440) -

(R3 concentration of 6440 • R3 flow of 6440)] /(R1 flow of 6440)

0.83 N/A N/A (a) • (rendering

influent@6447)

0.52 1.35

6441 [(effluent@6441 • total flow of 6441) - 

(R3 concentration of 6441 • R3 flow of 6441)] /(R1flow of 6441)

1.31 N/A N/A (a) • (rendering

influent@6447)

0.48 1.79

6442 [(effluent@6442 • total flow of 6442) - 

(R3 concentration of 6442 • R3 flow of 6442)] /(R1flow of 6442)

1.53 N/A N/A (a) • (rendering

influent@6447) 

0.42 1.95

6447 [(effluent@6447 • total flow of 6447) - 

(R2 concentration of 6447 • R2 flow of 6447) -(R3 concentration of 6447 • R3 flow of 6447)] /(R1 flow of 6447)

0.51 (a) • (further

processing

influent@6335)

0.07 (a) • (rendering

influent@6447) 

0.15 0.73

OptionAverage

Average of R1 concentrations for facilities 6440, 6441,

6442, and 6447

R2 concentration for 6447 Average of R3 concentrations for

6440, 6441, 6442, and 6447

(a) = (1- removal fraction) where the removal fraction is the average removal fraction of sampling episodes 6440, 6441, 6442, and 6447.
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-33

Table C-32. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities.

Facility

First Processing (R1) Further Processing (R2) Rendering (R3) Total

Flow

(MGD) Effluent Concentrations

 Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

 Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

 Flow

(MGD)

6335 [(reuse water effluent@6335 • total flow) -

 (R2 concentration • R2 flow) - 

(R3 concentration • R3 flow)] / (R1 flow)

0.17 (b) • (further

processing

influent@6335) 

0.45 (b) • (rendering

influent@6447)

0.13 0.75

OptionAverage

R1 concentration for 6335 R2 concentration for 6335 R3 concentrations for 6335

(b) = 1 - removal fraction of sampling episode 6335 (through reuse water effluent)

Table C-33. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities.

First Processing (R1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (R2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (R3)

Effluent Concentrations

Option Average (c) • (R1 of BAT-3) (c) • (R2 of BAT-3) (c) • (R3 of BAT-3)

(c) = (1- removal fraction between poultry BAT-3 and BAT-4 pollutant averages), where the “removal fraction between poultry BAT-3 and BAT-4 pollutant

averages” is the removal fraction between the poultry BAT-3 option pollutant average concentration and corresponding poultry BAT-4 option average

concentration. The removal fraction for each pollutant and subcategory is calculated as follows:

Removal fraction = [BAT-3 poultry concentration - BAT-4 poultry concentration] / [BAT-3 poultry concentration]

R1 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of meat first processing wastewaterR2 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of meat further processing wastewaterR3 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of meat rendering wastewater
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-34

Table C-34. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-1 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

Option Average For All PollutantsExcept Ammonia, Nitrate/Nitrite,TKN

P1 of BAT-2 P2 of BAT-2 P3 of BAT-2

Option Average For Ammonia,Nitrate/Nitrite, TKN

See methodology described in

Section 9

See methodology described in

Section 9

See methodology described in

Section 9

P1 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry first processing wastewaterP2 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry further processing wastewaterP3 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry rendering wastewater

Table C-35. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

Facility

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

6445 effluent@6445 N/A N/AOption Average P1 for 6445 A1 B1

A1 = average of [(further processing influent@6443) • (1 - removal fraction of 6445)] and [(further processing influent@6444) • (1 - removal fraction of 6445)]

B1 = (rendering influent@6448) • (1 - removal fraction of 6445)
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-35

Table C-36. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-3 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

Option Average (1 - Z) • (P1 of BAT-2) (1 - Z) • (P2 of BAT-2) (1 - Z) • (P3 of BAT-2)

‘Z’ values were calculated for each wastewater stream (P1, P2, or P3) as follows:

Z (P1, P2, or P3) = [BAT-2 meat concentration (R1, R2, or R3) - BAT-3 meat concentration (R1, R2, or R3)] / [BAT-2 meat concentration (R1, R2, or

R3)]

P1 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry first processing wastewaterP2 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry further processing wastewaterP3 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry rendering wastewater

Table C-37. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-4 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities 

Facility

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

6304 effluent prior to filter@6304 N/A N/AOption Average P1 for 6304 A2 B2

A2 = average of [(influent@6443) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 prior to filter)] and [(influent@6444) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 prior to filter)]

B2 = (influent@6448) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 prior to filter)
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-36

Table C-38. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

BAT-5 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

Facility

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

6304 effluent through filter@6304 N/A N/AOption Average P1 for 6304 A3 B3

A3 = average of [(further processing influent@6443) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 through filter)] and [(further processing influent@6444) • (1 - removal

fraction of 6304 through filter)]B3 = (rendering influent@6448) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 through filter)

Table C-39. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-1 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

Facility

First Processing (R1) Further Processing (R2) Rendering (R3)

Total

Flow

(MGD) Effluent Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

Flow

(MGD

)

6335 ((effluent1@6335 • (total flow)) - 

([R2] • (R2 flow)) - ([R3] • (R3 flow)))

 / (R1 flow)

0.17 (e) • (further processing

influent@6335)

0.45 (e) • (rendering

influent@6447)

0.13 0.75

OptionAverage

R1 for 6335 R2 for 6335 R3 for 6335

(e) = 1 - removal fraction @ 6335

1 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located after DAF and equalization of the treatment train to represent the performance of the PSES-1

technology option. 
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-37

Table C-40. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-2 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

First Processing (R1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (R2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (R3)

Effluent Concentrations

Option Average For All Pollutants Except Microbials

R1 of BAT-2 R2 of BAT-2 R3 of BAT-2

Option Average ForMicrobials

R1 of PSES-1 R2 of PSES-1 R3 of PSES-1

R1 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of meat first processing wastewaterR2 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of meat further processing wastewaterR3 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of meat rendering wastewaterR1 of PSES-1 = average PSES-1 treated pollutant concentration of meat first processing wastewaterR2 of PSES-1 = average PSES-1 treated pollutant concentration of meat further processing wastewaterR3 of PSES-1 = average PSES-1 treated pollutant concentration of meat rendering wastewater

Table C-41. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

First Processing (R1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (R2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (R3)

Effluent Concentrations

Option Average For AllPollutants Except Microbials

R1 of BAT-3 R2 of BAT-3 R3 of BAT-3

Option Average ForMicrobials

effluent2@6335 effluent2@6335 effluent2@6335

R1 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of meat first processing wastewaterR2 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of meat further processing wastewaterR3 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of meat rendering wastewater

2 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfection.
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-38

Table C-42. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

First Processing (R1)

Effluent Concentrations

Further Processing (R2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (R3)

Effluent Concentrations

Option Average For AllPollutants Except Microbials

R1 of BAT-4 R2 of BAT-4 R3 of BAT-4

Option Average ForMicrobials

effluent2@6335 effluent2@6335 effluent2@6335

R1 of BAT-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentration of meat first processing wastewaterR2 of BAT-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentration of meat further processing wastewaterR3 of BAT-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentration of meat rendering wastewater

2 EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfection

Table C-43. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-1 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

Facility

First Processing (P1) First Processing (P2) Rendering (P3) Total

Flow

(MGD) Effluent Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

Effluent

Concentrations

Flow

(MGD)

6443 [(effluent@6443 • total flow of 6443) - 

(P2 concentration of 6443 • P2 flow of

6443)] 

/ (P1 flow)

0.91 (f) • (further processing

influent@6443) 

0.84 N/A N/A 1.57

6444 [(effluent@6444 • total flow of 6444) - 

(P2 concentration of 6444 • P2 flow of

6444)] 

/ (P1 flow)

0.53 (f) • (further procssing

influent@6444) 

0.02 N/A N/A 0.55

OptionAverage

Average of P1 for 6443 and 6444 Average of P2 for 6443 and 6444 M

(f) = (1 - removal fraction of 6443)M = (rendering influent@6448) • (1 - removal fraction of 6443)
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-39

Table C-44. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

First Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

Options Average For AllPollutants Except Microbials

P1 of BAT-2 P2 of BAT-2 P3 of BAT-2

Options Average ForMicrobials

effluent after DAF@6304 effluent after DAF@6304 effluent after DAF@6304

P1 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry first processing wastewaterP2 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry further processing wastewaterP3 of BAT-2 = average BAT-2 treated pollutant concentration of poultry rendering wastewater

Table C-45. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-3 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

First Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

Options Average For AllPollutants Except Microbials

P1 of BAT-3 P2 of BAT-3 P3 of BAT-3

Options Average ForMicrobials

effluent@6443 effluent@6443 effluent@6443

P1 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of poultry first processing wastewaterP2 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of poultry further processing wastewaterP3 of BAT-3 = average BAT-3 treated pollutant concentration of poultry rendering wastewater
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-40

Table C-46. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and

Rendering Effluent Wastewaters

PSES-4 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

First Processing (P1)

Effluent Concentrations

First Processing (P2)

Effluent Concentrations

Rendering (P3)

Effluent Concentrations

Options Average For AllPollutants Except Microbials

P1 of BAT-4 P2 of BAT-4 P3 of BAT-4

Options Average ForMicrobials

effluent@6443 effluent@6443 effluent@6443

P1 of BAT-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentration of poultry first processing wastewaterP2 of BAT-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentration of poultry further processing wastewaterP3 of BAT-4 = average BAT-4 treated pollutant concentration of poultry rendering wastewater
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-41

Table C-47. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing (R1)

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 6.28 6.28 6.17 6.17 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 24.28 24.28 14.75 14.75 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 7.28 7.28 14.28 3.31 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 343.0 343.0 47.61 47.61 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 5.03 0.408 15.40 12.06 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A a N/A N/A N/A mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

(CBOD) 5.62 5.62 9.44 9.44 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 62.01 62.01 41.98 41.98 mg/L

Chloride 733.9 733.9 N/A 774.3 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 2.19 2.19 1.38 1.38 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 17.46 17.46 0.340 0.340 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 240.9 245.5 22.66 5.65 mg/L

Total nitrogen 239.3 239.3 30.62 15.12 mg/L

Orthophosphate 17.53 17.53 11.73 2.92 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,964 2,964 N/A 2,162 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 7.07 2.45 7.65 5.82 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 1.54 1.54 N/A N/A mg/L

Total phosphorus 19.97 19.97 6.10 6.10 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.336 0.336 58.18 58.18 mg/L

Volatile residue 273.5 273.5 74.07 74.07 mg/L

Barium — b — — — 

Copper 0.0023 0.0023 0.0030 0.0015 mg/L

Chromium 0.0019 0.0019 0.0066 0.0066 mg/L

Manganese 0.0507 0.0507 0.1326 0.1326 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0068 0.0068 0.0076 0.0024 mg/L

Nickel 0.0031 0.0031 0.0312 0.0312 mg/L

Titanium 0.0015 0.0015 0.0039 0.0039 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0058 0.0058 0.0036 0.0012 mg/L

Zinc 0.0541 0.0541 0.0228 0.0228 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,235 1,235 6.50 6.50 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 228.3 228.3 3.90 3.90 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 30.98 30.98 N/A 1.82 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — — — 

Total coliform 400.0 400.0 26.53 2.45 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-42

Table C-48. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further

Processing (R12)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 3.31 3.31 3.25 3.25 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 12.78 12.78 7.77 7.77 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 3.84 3.84 7.52 1.74 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 180.6 180.6 25.07 25.07 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 2.65 0.215 8.11 6.35 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 2.96 2.96 4.97 4.97 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 32.65 32.65 22.11 22.11 mg/L

Chloride 386.5 386.5 N/A 407.8 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 1.16 1.16 0.725 0.725 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 9.20 9.20 0.179 0.179 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 126.8 129.3 11.93 N/A mg/L

Total nitrogen 126.0 126.0 16.13 7.96 mg/L

Orthophosphate 9.23 9.23 6.18 1.54 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,561 1,561 N/A 1,139 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.72 1.29 4.03 3.07 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 0.811 0.811 N/A N/A mg/L

Total phosphorus 10.52 10.52 3.21 3.21 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.177 0.177 30.64 30.64 mg/L

Volatile Residue 144.0 144.0 39.01 39.01 mg/L

Barium — c — — — 

Copper 0.0012 0.0012 0.0016 0.0008 mg/L

Chromium 0.0010 0.0010 0.0035 0.0035 mg/L

Manganese 0.0267 0.0267 0.0698 0.0698 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0036 0.0036 0.0040 0.0013 mg/L

Nickel 0.0016 0.0016 0.0164 0.0164 mg/L

Titanium 0.0008 0.0008 0.0020 0.0020 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0031 0.0031 0.0019 0.0006 mg/L

Zinc 0.0285 0.0285 0.0120 0.0120 mg/L

Aeromonas 650.1 650.1 3.42 3.42 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 120.2 120.2 2.05 2.05 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 16.31 16.31 N/A 0.960 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — — — 

Total coliform 210.6 210.6 13.97 1.29 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-43

Table C-49. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing and

Rendering (R13)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 6.86 6.86 7.07 7.07 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 16.53 16.53 8.73 8.73 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 7.67 7.67 10.41 2.02 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 295.9 295.9 34.08 34.08 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 2.70 0.797 8.74 6.99 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

(CBOD) 4.99 4.99 10.48 10.48 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 49.86 49.86 40.69 40.69 mg/L

Chloride 479.3 479.3 N/A 533.0 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 7.11 7.11 3.97 3.97 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 13.86 13.86 1.82 1.77 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 129.1 128.7 12.03 2.99 mg/L

Total nitrogen 138.9 138.9 18.04 8.39 mg/L

Orthophosphate 14.14 14.14 7.58 2.84 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 2,517 2,517 N/A 2,301 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.79 4.18 4.52 3.57 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 23.33 23.33 13.37 13.83 mg/L

Total phosphorus 14.38 14.38 4.74 4.74 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.299 0.299 30.65 30.65 mg/L

Volatile Residue 257.7 257.7 124.1 124.1 mg/L

Barium — c — — — 

Copper 0.0027 0.0027 0.0020 0.0013 mg/L

Chromium 0.0010 0.0010 0.0036 0.0036 mg/L

Manganese 0.0303 0.0303 0.0785 0.0785 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0039 0.0039 0.0045 0.0018 mg/L

Nickel 0.0019 0.0019 0.0182 0.0182 mg/L

Titanium 0.0010 0.0010 0.0024 0.0024 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0034 0.0034 0.0020 0.0008 mg/L

Zinc 0.0352 0.0352 0.0143 0.0143 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,377 1,377 3.58 3.58 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 195.8 195.8 2.78 2.78 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 36.01 36.01 0.111 5.37 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — — — 

Total coliform 326.4 326.4 21.79 4.15 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-44

Table C-50. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing

and Rendering (R123)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 5.59 5.59 5.80 5.80 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 12.35 12.35 6.23 6.23 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 6.38 6.38 7.97 1.46 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 253.2 253.2 27.26 27.26 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.86 0.600 6.01 4.82 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

(CBOD) 4.01 4.01 8.80 8.80 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 39.08 39.08 33.23 33.23 mg/L

Chloride 1,910 1,910 N/A 2,489 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 6.95 6.95 3.85 3.85 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 18.11 18.11 4.26 4.13 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 88.79 88.23 8.66 N/A mg/L

Total nitrogen 96.11 96.11 12.52 5.91 mg/L

Orthophosphate 12.55 12.55 6.00 2.70 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,889 3,889 N/A 4,201 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 2.61 3.17 3.13 2.48 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 21.96 21.96 13.03 13.34 mg/L

Total phosphorus 16.48 16.48 5.86 5.86 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.255 0.255 20.92 20.92 mg/L

Volatile Residue 240.5 240.5 133.0 133.0 mg/L

Barium — c — — — 

Copper 0.0026 0.0026 0.0016 0.0011 mg/L

Chromium 0.00078 0.00078 0.0027 0.0026 mg/L

Manganese 0.0210 0.0210 0.0543 0.0543 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0043 0.0043 0.0055 0.0037 mg/L

Nickel 0.0015 0.0015 0.0138 0.0138 mg/L

Titanium 0.00079 0.00079 0.0018 0.0018 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0026 0.0026 0.0015 0.0007 mg/L

Zinc 0.0287 0.0287 0.0113 0.0113 mg/L

Aeromonas 2,030 2,030 2.69 2.69 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 181.6 181.6 2.36 2.36 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 36.61 36.61 2.78 6.35 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — — — 

Total coliform 323.9 323.9 21.70 5.32 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-45

Table C-51. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing (R2)

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 2.89 2.89 3.11 3.11 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 3.47 3.47 0.912 0.912 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 3.65 3.65 2.78 0.27 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 162.4 162.4 12.78 12.78 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.0639 0.183 0.211 0.211 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A a N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

(CBOD) 1.94 1.94 5.24 5.24 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 16.17 16.17 17.38 17.38 mg/L

Chloride 4,952 4,952 6,674 6,645 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 6.59 6.59 3.59 3.59 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 27.15 27.15 9.44 9.16 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 3.06 2.13 1.51 0.27 mg/L

Total nitrogen 5.21 5.21 0.769 0.631 mg/L

Orthophosphate 9.16 9.16 2.65 2.42 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 6,803 6,803 8,238 8,238 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 0.0897 1.02 0.182 0.182 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 19.07 19.07 12.29 12.29 mg/L

Total phosphorus 20.94 20.94 8.23 8.23 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.161 0.161 0.248 0.248 mg/L

Volatile Residue 203.98 203.98 151.99 151.99 mg/L

Barium — b — — — 

Copper 0.0022 0.0022 0.00069 0.00069 mg/L

Chromium 0.00023 0.00023 0.00084 0.00050 mg/L

Manganese 0.0013 0.0013 0.0031 0.0031 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0050 0.0050 0.0077 0.0077 mg/L

Nickel 0.00070 0.00070 0.0046 0.0046 mg/L

Titanium 0.00024 0.00024 0.00037 0.00037 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00091 0.00091 0.00042 0.00042 mg/L

Zinc 0.0147 0.0147 0.0050 0.0050 mg/L

Aeromonas 3,419 3,419 0.817 0.817 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 151.5 151.5 1.46 1.46 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 37.89 37.89 8.45 8.45 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — — — 

Total coliform 318.6 318.6 21.50 7.81 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-46

Table C-52. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing and

Rendering (R23)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 5.21 5.21 5.60 5.60 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 5.76 5.76 1.51 1.51 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 5.89 5.89 4.48 0.442 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 203.5 203.5 16.02 16.02 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.0987 0.707 0.816 0.816 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

(CBOD) 3.13 3.13 8.45 8.45 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 26.41 26.41 28.39 28.39 mg/L

Chloride 2,560 2,560 3,451 3,436 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 9.57 9.57 5.21 5.21 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 18.47 18.47 6.42 6.23 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 4.73 1.30 0.923 N/A mg/L

Total nitrogen 16.96 16.96 2.51 0.815 mg/L

Orthophosphate 9.79 9.79 2.83 2.58 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 4,399 4,399 5,327 5,327 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 0.139 3.57 0.636 0.636 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 33.26 33.26 21.44 21.44 mg/L

Total phosphorus 14.55 14.55 5.72 5.72 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.210 0.210 0.324 0.324 mg/L

Volatile Residue 222.3 222.3 165.6 165.6 mg/L

Barium — c — — — 

Copper 0.0027 0.0027 0.00084 0.00084 mg/L

Chromium 0.00018 0.00018 0.00064 0.00038 mg/L

Manganese 0.0046 0.0046 0.0111 0.0111 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0028 0.0028 0.0044 0.0044 mg/L

Nickel 0.00065 0.00065 0.0042 0.0042 mg/L

Titanium 0.00037 0.00037 0.00058 0.00058 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00081 0.00081 0.00037 0.00037 mg/L

Zinc 0.0146 0.0146 0.0050 0.0050 mg/L

Aeromonas 2,470 2,470 0.590 0.590 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 155.8 155.8 1.50 1.50 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 39.72 39.72 8.86 8.86 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — — — 

Total coliform 281.9 281.9 19.02 6.91 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-47

Table C-53. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing (R1) Indirect

Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 1,697 6.28 6.17 6.17 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 966.7 24.28 14.75 14.75 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 39.01 7.28 14.28 3.31 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 2,530,020 2,530,020 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1,079 0.408 15.40 12.06 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A a N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 1,392 5.62 9.44 9.44 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,812 62.01 41.98 41.98 mg/L

Chloride N/A 733.9 N/A 774.3 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 381.52 2.19 1.38 1.38 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 1.51 17.46 0.340 0.340 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.324 245.5 22.66 5.65 mg/L

Total nitrogen 564.9 239.3 30.62 15.12 mg/L

Orthophosphate 36.05 17.53 11.73 2.92 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) N/A 2,964 N/A 2,162 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 564.8 2.45 7.65 5.82 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) N/A 1.54 N/A N/A mg/L

Total phosphorus 28.62 19.97 6.10 6.10 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.340 0.34 58.18 58.18 mg/L

Volatile Residue 307.1 273.5 74.07 74.07 mg/L

Barium — b — ——

Copper 0.0310 0.0023 0.0030 0.0015 mg/L

Chromium 0.0200 0.0019 0.0066 0.0066 mg/L

Manganese 1.73 0.0507 0.133 0.133 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0033 0.0068 0.0076 0.0024 mg/L

Nickel 0.0499 0.0031 0.0312 0.0312 mg/L

Titanium 0.0042 0.0015 0.0039 0.0039 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0032 0.0058 0.0036 0.0012 mg/L

Zinc 0.125 0.0541 0.0228 0.0228 mg/L

Aeromonas 2,274,907 2,274,907 51,000 51,000 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A 0.300 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 2,089,500 2,089,500 6,338 6,338 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci N/A N/A 6.50 6.50 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — ——

Total coliform 1,433,988 1,433,988 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-48

Table C-54. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further

Processing (R12)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 1,298 3.31 4.72 3.25 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 537.4 12.78 8.20 7.77 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 24.14 3.84 8.83 1.74 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,653,717 1,332,308 7,328 3,859 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 575.1 0.215 8.21 6.35 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 1,098 2.96 7.45 4.97 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,032 32.65 30.34 22.11 mg/L

Chloride N/A 386.5 N/A 407.8 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 672.0 1.16 2.42 0.725 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 20.69 9.20 4.65 0.179 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total nitrogen 304.2 126.0 16.49 7.96 mg/L

Orthophosphate 22.84 9.23 7.43 1.54 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) N/A 1,561 N/A 1,139 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 303.8 1.29 4.11 3.07 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 192.5 0.811 4.66 N/A mg/L

Total phosphorus 33.36 10.52 7.11 3.21 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.193 0.177 30.76 30.64 mg/L

Volatile Residue 460.0 144.0 111.0 39.01 mg/L

Barium — c — ——

Copper 0.0198 0.0012 0.0019 0.00081 mg/L

Chromium 0.0117 0.0010 0.0039 0.0035 mg/L

Manganese 0.926 0.0267 0.0713 0.0698 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0033 0.0036 0.0076 0.0013 mg/L

Nickel 0.0295 0.0016 0.0186 0.0164 mg/L

Titanium 0.0024 0.00081 0.0022 0.0020 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0019 0.0031 0.0021 0.00064 mg/L

Zinc 0.0788 0.0285 0.0144 0.0120 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,333,263 1,197,966 51,000 26,857 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A 0.300 0.158 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,470,027 1,100,331 6,338 3,337 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci N/A N/A 6.50 3.42 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — ——

Total coliform 1,305,229 755,138 7,328 3,859 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-49

Table C-55. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First Processing and

Rendering (R13)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 1,945 6.86 7.07 7.07 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 571.8 16.53 8.73 8.73 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 28.45 7.67 10.41 2.02 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,811,050 1,811,050 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 611.9 0.797 8.74 6.99 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 1,546 4.99 10.48 10.48 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,725 49.86 40.69 40.69 mg/L

Chloride N/A 479.3 N/A 533.0 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 1,100 7.11 3.97 3.97 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 8.09 13.86 1.82 1.77 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.172 128.7 12.03 2.99 mg/L

Total nitrogen 332.8 138.9 18.04 8.39 mg/L

Orthophosphate 23.28 14.14 7.58 2.84 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) N/A 2,517 N/A 2,301 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 333.8 4.18 4.52 3.57 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 551.8 23.33 13.37 13.83 mg/L

Total phosphorus 22.23 14.38 4.74 4.74 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.201 0.299 30.65 30.65 mg/L

Volatile Residue 514.6 257.7 124.1 124.1 mg/L

Barium — c — ——

Copper 0.0212 0.0027 0.0020 0.0013 mg/L

Chromium 0.0111 0.0010 0.0036 0.0036 mg/L

Manganese 0.994 0.0303 0.0785 0.0785 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0020 0.0039 0.0045 0.0018 mg/L

Nickel 0.0288 0.0019 0.0182 0.0182 mg/L

Titanium 0.0026 0.0010 0.0024 0.0024 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0018 0.0034 0.0020 0.00079 mg/L

Zinc 0.0783 0.0352 0.0143 0.0143 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,251,966 1,251,966 51,000 51,000 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A 0.300 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,487,234 1,487,234 6,338 6,338 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 16,664 16,664 6.50 6.50 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — ——

Total coliform 1,177,498 1,177,498 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-50

Table C-56. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat First/Further Processing and

Rendering (R123)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 1,596 5.59 5.80 5.80 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 407.9 12.35 6.23 6.23 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 21.78 6.38 7.97 1.46 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,448,804 1,448,804 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 420.9 0.600 6.01 4.82 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 1,298 4.01 8.80 8.80 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 2,225 39.08 33.23 33.23 mg/L

Chloride N/A 1,910 N/A 2,489 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 1,066 6.95 3.85 3.85 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 18.95 18.11 4.26 4.13 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total nitrogen 230.9 96.11 12.52 5.91 mg/L

Orthophosphate 18.44 12.55 6.00 2.70 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) N/A 3,889 N/A 4,201 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 231.3 3.17 3.13 2.48 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 537.5 21.96 13.03 13.34 mg/L

Total phosphorus 27.48 16.48 5.86 5.86 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.146 0.255 20.92 20.92 mg/L

Volatile Residue 551.6 240.5 133.0 133.0 mg/L

Barium — c — ——

Copper 0.0167 0.0026 0.0016 0.0011 mg/L

Chromium 0.0084 0.00078 0.0027 0.0026 mg/L

Manganese 0.685 0.0210 0.0543 0.0543 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0024 0.0043 0.0055 0.0037 mg/L

Nickel 0.0217 0.0015 0.0138 0.0138 mg/L

Titanium 0.0019 0.00079 0.0018 0.0018 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0014 0.0026 0.0015 0.00067 mg/L

Zinc 0.0621 0.0287 0.0113 0.0113 mg/L

Aeromonas 942,835 942,835 51,000 51,000 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A 0.300 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 1,261,244 1,261,244 6,338 6,338 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 415,728 415,728 6.50 6.50 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — ——

Total coliform 1,172,549 1,172,549 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-51

Table C-57. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing (R2)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 854.7 2.89 3.11 3.11 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 59.75 3.47 0.912 0.912 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 7.59 3.65 2.78 0.274 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 678,936 678,936 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 14.80 0.183 0.211 0.211 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A a N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 772.0 1.94 5.24 5.24 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1,164 16.17 17.38 17.38 mg/L

Chloride 6,674 4,952 6,674 6,645 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 995.2 6.59 3.59 3.59 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 42.02 27.15 9.44 9.16 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.0216 2.13 1.51 0.275 mg/L

Total nitrogen 14.19 5.21 0.769 0.631 mg/L

Orthophosphate 8.15 9.16 2.65 2.42 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 8,238 6,803 8,238 8,238 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 13.44 1.02 0.182 0.182 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 507.2 19.07 12.29 12.29 mg/L

Total phosphorus 38.63 20.94 8.23 8.23 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.0300 0.161 0.248 0.248 mg/L

Volatile Residue 630.1 204.0 152.0 152.0 mg/L

Barium — b — ——

Copper 0.0072 0.0022 0.00069 0.00069 mg/L

Chromium 0.0026 0.0002 0.00084 0.00050 mg/L

Manganese 0.0293 0.0013 0.0031 0.0031 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0034 0.0050 0.0077 0.0077 mg/L

Nickel 0.0067 0.0007 0.0046 0.0046 mg/L

Titanium 0.00040 0.00024 0.00037 0.00037 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00038 0.00091 0.00042 0.00042 mg/L

Zinc 0.0276 0.0147 0.0050 0.0050 mg/L

Aeromonas 285,799 285,799 51,000 51,000 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A 0.300 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 780,938 780,938 6,338 6,338 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,263,903 1,263,903 6.50 6.50 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — ——

Total coliform 1,162,000 1,162,000 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-52

Table C-58. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Meat Further Processing and

Rending (R23)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5) 1,540 5.21 5.60 5.60 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 99.06 5.76 1.51 1.51 mg/L

Hexane extractable material

(HEM) 12.25 5.89 4.48 0.44 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 851,145 851,145 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 57.16 0.707 0.816 0.816 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 1,247 3.13 8.45 8.45 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1,902 26.41 28.39 28.39 mg/L

Chloride 3,451 2,560 3,451 3,436 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 1,445 9.57 5.21 5.21 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 28.58 18.47 6.42 6.23 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total nitrogen 46.23 16.96 2.51 0.81 mg/L

Orthophosphate 8.70 9.79 2.83 2.58 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 5,327 4,399 5,327 5,327 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 46.97 3.57 0.636 0.636 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 884.8 33.26 21.44 21.44 mg/L

Total phosphorus 26.85 14.55 5.72 5.72 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.0392 0.210 0.324 0.324 mg/L

Volatile Residue 686.7 222.3 165.6 165.6 mg/L

Barium — c — ——

Copper 0.0088 0.0027 0.00084 0.00084 mg/L

Chromium 0.0020 0.00018 0.00064 0.00038 mg/L

Manganese 0.106 0.0046 0.0111 0.0111 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0019 0.0028 0.0044 0.0044 mg/L

Nickel 0.0062 0.00065 0.0042 0.0042 mg/L

Titanium 0.0006 0.00037 0.00058 0.00058 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00034 0.00081 0.00037 0.00037 mg/L

Zinc 0.0274 0.0146 0.0050 0.0050 mg/L

Aeromonas 206,458 206,458 51,000 51,000 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A 0.300 0.300 cysts/L

E. Coli 803,393 803,393 6,338 6,338 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,324,889 1,324,889 6.50 6.50 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella — — — —

Total coliform 1,028,002 1,028,002 7,328 7,328 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-53

Table C-59. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing (P1)

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 BAT 5 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 2.00 2.00 1.96 8.60 3.00 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 8.20 8.20 4.98 5.60 4.00 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 23.60 23.60 23.60 5.47 5.50 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 2.00 2.00 0.278 2.00 41.60 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 2.02 0.258 0.258 0.202 0.200 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00100 0.00100 N/A a 0.00229 0.00100 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.60 3.00 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 25.60 25.60 17.33 20.40 19.00 mg/L

Chloride 87.20 87.20 N/A 92.00 92.20 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 2.00 2.00 1.26 4.80 3.00 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 0.378 0.378 0.00737 0.0500 0.0960 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 25.42 27.18 2.51 0.626 0.714 mg/L

Total nitrogen 28.74 28.74 3.68 1.82 2.00 mg/L

Orthophosphate 0.108 0.108 0.0723 0.0180 0.0100 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 822.4 822.4 N/A 600.0 618.8 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.32 1.56 1.56 1.19 1.29 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 5.86 5.86 5.86 3.52 3.77 mg/L

Total phosphorus 0.722 0.722 0.220 0.472 0.410 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — b — — — — 

Volatile Residue 178.8 178.8 48.42 122.4 124.0 mg/L

Barium 0.00444 0.00444 0.00019 0.02132 0.02108 mg/L

Copper 0.00876 0.00876 0.00876 0.00456 0.00100 mg/L

Chromium — — — — — 

Manganese 0.00740 0.00740 0.00740 0.07432 0.05514 mg/L

Molybdenum — — — — — 

Nickel 0.00104 0.00104 0.00104 0.00288 0.00238 mg/L

Titanium — — — — — 

Vanadium — — — — — 

Zinc 0.07694 0.07694 0.03246 0.05004 0.00624 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,550 1,550 8.16 468.6 3.40 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — — — — 

E. Coli 2.00 2.00 0.03418 2.00 41.60 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 34.00 34.00 N/A 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 1.82 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 621.0 621.0 41.19 3.80 81.60 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — — — — 

trans-Permethrin — — — — — a not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-54

Table C-60. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further

Processing (P12)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 BAT 5 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 3.01 3.01 2.99 19.26 6.72 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 81.46 81.46 23.49 60.10 42.93 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 25.12 25.12 23.30 4.62 4.65 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1.52 1.52 0.208 1.66 34.50 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.63 0.387 0.387 0.347 0.344 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00074 0.00074 N/Ab 0.00170 0.00074 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 2.96 2.96 2.96 12.34 5.61 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 34.04 34.04 27.91 35.81 33.36 mg/L

Chloride 141.6 141.6 N/A 144.9 145.2 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 2.62 2.62 1.55 6.92 4.33 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 1.09 1.09 0.288 0.311 0.597 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 20.52 20.38 2.03 0.495 0.565 mg/L

Total nitrogen 50.00 50.00 6.97 4.82 5.32 mg/L

Orthophosphate 0.131 0.131 0.0684 0.0269 0.0149 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,052 1,052 N/A 886.8 900.8 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 2.68 2.82 1.45 3.91 4.24 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 8.14 8.14 6.79 7.07 7.56 mg/L

Total phosphorus 3.71 3.71 1.41 4.67 4.06 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c — — — — 

Volatile Residue 579.0 579.0 368.6 557.6 564.9 mg/L

Barium 0.00592 0.00592 0.00134 0.02108 0.02084 mg/L

Copper 0.00715 0.00715 0.00669 0.00400 0.00088 mg/L

Chromium — — — — — 

Manganese 0.00645 0.00645 0.00645 0.06069 0.04502 mg/L

Molybdenum — — — — — 

Nickel 0.00196 0.00196 0.00196 0.00519 0.00429 mg/L

Titanium — — — — — 

Vanadium — — — — — 

Zinc 0.128 0.128 0.0484 0.0823 0.0103 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,222 1,222 6.06 438.5 3.18 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — — — — 

E. Coli 1.52 1.52 0.0257 1.66 34.62 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 25.64 25.64 N/A 2.25 2.25 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 1.86 1.48 1.48 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 494.2 494.2 32.82 3.65 78.41 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — — — — 

trans-Permethrin — — — — — a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-55

Table C-61. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing and

Rendering (P13)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 BAT 5 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5) 2.04 2.04 2.02 11.56 4.03 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 16.41 16.41 6.25 11.85 8.46 mg/L

Hexane extractable material

(HEM) 111.0 111.0 88.41 10.87 10.94 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 2.11 2.11 0.248 4.96 103.1 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 2.14 1.50 1.50 1.47 1.46 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00073 0.00073 N/A b 0.00157 0.00069 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 2.23 2.23 2.23 8.84 4.02 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 65.79 65.79 60.12 80.25 74.74 mg/L

Chloride 91.66 91.66 N/A 94.82 95.02 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 4.67 4.67 2.66 13.10 8.18 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 0.647 0.647 0.140 0.165 0.317 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 26.94 26.82 7.55 1.49 1.69 mg/L

Total nitrogen 70.14 70.14 9.97 3.00 3.32 mg/L

Orthophosphate 0.216 0.216 0.0907 0.0499 0.0277 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,027 1,027 N/A 874.1 887.0 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.52 3.64 1.53 5.49 5.95 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 11.84 11.84 9.06 11.59 12.40 mg/L

Total phosphorus 1.25 1.25 0.446 1.35 1.17 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c — — — — 

Volatile Residue 302.3 302.3 167.1 271.9 275.5 mg/L

Barium 0.0050 0.0050 0.0010 0.0186 0.0184 mg/L

Copper 0.0098 0.0098 0.0072 0.0067 0.0015 mg/L

Chromium — — — — — 

Manganese 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0815 0.0604 mg/L

Molybdenum — — — — — 

Nickel 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0063 0.0052 mg/L

Titanium — — — — — 

Vanadium — — — — — 

Zinc 0.103 0.103 0.0395 0.0663 0.0083 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,088 1,088 5.60 352.7 2.56 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — — — — 

E. Coli 2.18 2.18 0.0312 5.49 114.26 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 36.88 36.88 N/A 24.55 24.55 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 1.87 1.37 1.37 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 675.7 675.7 45.10 8.73 187.5 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — — — — 

trans-Permethrin — — — — — a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-56

Table C-62. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing

and Rendering (P123)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 BAT 5 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 2.79 2.79 2.77 18.94 6.61 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 69.48 69.48 19.81 51.30 36.65 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 95.26 95.26 75.65 9.20 9.26 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1.73 1.73 0.202 4.13 85.90 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.83 1.36 1.36 1.34 1.32 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00059 0.00059 N/Ab 0.00127 0.00055 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 2.90 2.90 2.90 12.69 5.77 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 64.31 64.31 59.73 80.17 74.67 mg/L

Chloride 131.4 131.4 N/A 133.7 134.0 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 4.62 4.62 2.61 13.07 8.17 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 1.13 1.13 0.323 0.337 0.648 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 22.98 21.81 6.22 1.22 1.39 mg/L

Total nitrogen 77.99 77.99 11.21 5.02 5.54 mg/L

Orthophosphate 0.213 0.213 0.0842 0.0503 0.0280 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,158 1,158 N/A 1,035 1,045 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.01 4.18 1.45 6.69 7.25 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 12.38 12.38 9.14 12.68 13.56 mg/L

Total phosphorus 3.37 3.37 1.29 4.31 3.75 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c — — — — 

Volatile Residue 577.0 577.0 383.0 567.7 575.1 mg/L

Barium 0.00600 0.00600 0.0017 0.0189 0.0187 mg/L

Copper 0.00841 0.00841 0.00595 0.00587 0.00129 mg/L

Chromium — — — — — 

Manganese 0.00907 0.00907 0.00907 0.06990 0.05186 mg/L

Molybdenum — — — — — 

Nickel 0.00282 0.00282 0.00282 0.00733 0.00606 mg/L

Titanium — — — — — 

Vanadium — — — — — 

Zinc 0.136 0.136 0.0501 0.0872 0.0109 mg/L

Aeromonas 933.0 933.0 4.53 352.6 2.56 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — — — — 

E. Coli 1.78 1.78 0.0254 4.57 95.00 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 30.08 30.08 N/A 20.37 20.37 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 1.90 1.11 1.11 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 570.4 570.4 38.09 7.67 164.6 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — — — — 

trans-Permethrin — — — — — a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-57

Table C-63. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing (P2)

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 BAT 5 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5) 5.91 5.91 5.91 49.73 17.35 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 290.8 290.8 76.39 215.9 154.2 mg/L

Hexane extractable material

(HEM) 29.48 29.48 22.45 2.21 2.23 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 0.140 0.140 0.0110 0.684 14.22 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.518 0.757 0.757 0.763 0.755 mg/L

Carbaryl N/Aa N/A N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 5.71 5.71 5.71 28.75 13.07 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 58.14 58.14 58.14 79.87 74.39 mg/L

Chloride 297.3 297.3 297.3 296.0 296.6 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 4.38 4.38 2.38 12.99 8.12 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 3.13 3.13 1.09 1.06 2.03 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 6.51 0.938 0.668 0.121 0.138 mg/L

Total nitrogen 110.8 110.8 16.36 13.41 14.80 mg/L

Orthophosphate 0.198 0.198 0.057 0.052 0.029 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,707 1,707 1,707 1,707 1,707 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 0.852 6.42 1.14 11.68 12.66 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 14.65 14.65 9.44 17.20 18.40 mg/L

Total phosphorus 12.23 12.23 4.81 16.68 14.49 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — b — — — — 

Volatile Residue 1,723 1,723 1,284 1,802 1,825 mg/L

Barium 0.0101 0.0101 0.0046 0.0204 0.0202 mg/L

Copper 0.0026 0.0026 0.0008 0.0024 0.0005 mg/L

Chromium — — — — — 

Manganese 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0217 0.0161 mg/L

Molybdenum — — — — — 

Nickel 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0118 0.0097 mg/L

Titanium — — — — — 

Vanadium — — — — — 

Zinc 0.275 0.275 0.094 0.175 0.0218 mg/L

Aeromonas 285.9 285.9 0.068 352.4 2.56 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — — — — 

E. Coli 0.138 0.138 0.0013 0.706 14.69 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1.73 1.73 0.386 2.95 2.95 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.0071 0.0071 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 131.7 131.7 8.88 3.23 69.31 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — — — — 

trans-Permethrin — — — — — a

 not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-58

Table C-64. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing and

Rendering (P23)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 BAT 5 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5) 3.77 3.77 3.77 31.73 11.07 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 145.3 145.3 38.17 107.9 77.06 mg/L

Hexane extractable material

(HEM) 183.9 183.9 140.1 13.82 13.90 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1.39 1.39 0.11 6.77 140.7 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.59 2.72 2.72 2.74 2.71 mg/L

Carbaryl 0.00008 0.00008 N/A b 0.000004 0.000002 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical

oxygen demand (CBOD) 4.02 4.02 4.02 20.22 9.19 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 112.2 112.2 112.2 154.1 143.6 mg/L

Chloride 186.2 186.2 186.2 185.4 185.8 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 7.86 7.86 4.28 23.31 14.57 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 2.06 2.06 0.715 0.693 1.33 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 19.97 15.16 10.80 1.96 2.23 mg/L

Total nitrogen 138.94 138.94 20.53 8.98 9.91 mg/L

Orthophosphate 0.342 0.342 0.099 0.0903 0.0502 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,574 1,574 1,574 1,574 1,574 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 2.61 7.42 1.32 13.49 14.62 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 20.45 20.45 13.18 24.01 25.69 mg/L

Total phosphorus 6.65 6.65 2.61 9.07 7.87 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c — — — — 

Volatile Residue 1,070 1,070 797.2 1,119 1,134 mg/L

Barium 0.0079 0.0079 0.0036 0.0159 0.0158 mg/L

Copper 0.0080 0.0080 0.0025 0.0075 0.0016 mg/L

Chromium — — — — — 

Manganese 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0645 0.0478 mg/L

Molybdenum — — — — — 

Nickel 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0128 0.0106 mg/L

Titanium — — — — — 

Vanadium — — — — — 

Zinc 0.210 0.210 0.0718 0.133 0.0166 mg/L

Aeromonas 169.7 169.7 0.0405 209.11 1.52 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — — — — 

E. Coli 1.51 1.51 0.0146 7.74 161.1 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 25.23 25.23 5.63 43.10 43.10 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.0071 0.0071 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 507.8 507.8 34.27 12.45 267.3 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — — — — 

trans-Permethrin — — — — — a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-59

Table C-65. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing (P1)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 152.4 2.00 1.96 8.60 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) N/A a 8.20 4.98 5.60 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 24.36 23.60 23.60 5.47 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,341,534 79,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 7.52 0.258 0.258 0.202 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A 0.0010 N/A 0.0023 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 193.4 2.00 2.00 6.60 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 355.8 25.60 17.33 20.40 mg/L

Chloride 53.95 87.20 N/A 92.00 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 55.53 2.00 1.26 4.80 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 0.0928 0.38 0.0074 0.0500 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.273 27.18 2.51 0.63 mg/L

Total nitrogen 30.61 28.74 3.68 1.82 mg/L

Orthophosphate 2.76 0.108 0.0723 0.0180 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 458.5 822.4 N/A 600.0 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 30.24 1.56 1.56 1.19 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 87.86 5.86 5.86 3.52 mg/L

Total phosphorus 6.96 0.722 0.220 0.472 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — b ———

Volatile Residue 68.76 178.8 48.42 122.40 mg/L

Barium 0.0108 0.0044 0.0002 0.0213 mg/L

Copper 0.0285 0.0088 0.0088 0.0046 mg/L

Chromium — — — —

Manganese 0.1065 0.0074 0.0074 0.0743 mg/L

Molybdenum — — — —

Nickel 0.0040 0.0010 0.0010 0.0029 mg/L

Titanium — — — —

Vanadium — — — —

Zinc 0.0291 0.0769 0.0325 0.0500 mg/L

Aeromonas 190,767 65,085 192,500 192,500 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — ———

E. Coli 1,331,004 66,480 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 5,867 1,980 3,650 3,650 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 1.60 111.2 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 1,259,454 163,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — — —

trans-Permethrin — — — — a not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-60

Table C-66. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further

Processing (P12)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 258.5 3.01 2.99 19.26 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 612.2 81.46 23.49 60.10 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 34.02 25.12 23.30 4.62 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 1,005,165 79,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 10.55 0.387 0.387 0.347 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b 0.00074 N/A 0.0017 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 260.5 2.96 2.96 12.34 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 436.2 34.04 27.91 35.81 mg/L

Chloride 117.0 141.6 N/A 144.9 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 64.83 2.62 1.55 6.92 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 5.28 1.09 0.288 0.311 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.445 20.38 2.03 0.495 mg/L

Total nitrogen 32.98 50.00 6.97 4.82 mg/L

Orthophosphate 3.52 0.131 0.0684 0.0269 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 667.1 1,052 N/A 886.8 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 32.25 2.82 1.45 3.91 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 85.71 8.14 6.79 7.07 mg/L

Total phosphorus 21.77 3.71 1.41 4.67 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c — ——

Volatile Residue 798.4 579.0 368.6 557.6 mg/L

Barium 0.0114 0.0059 0.0013 0.0211 mg/L

Copper 0.0229 0.0072 0.0067 0.0040 mg/L

Chromium — — ——

Manganese 0.0814 0.0065 0.0065 0.0607 mg/L

Molybdenum — — ——

Nickel 0.0052 0.0020 0.0020 0.0052 mg/L

Titanium — — ——

Vanadium — — ——

Zinc 0.141 0.128 0.0484 0.0823 mg/L

Aeromonas 180,978 65,085 192,500 192,500 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — ——

E. Coli 1,000,319 66,480 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 4,467 1,980 3,650 3,650 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 1.71 111.2 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 967,397 163,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — ——

trans-Permethrin — — —— a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-61

Table C-67. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First Processing and

Rendering (P13)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 105.2 2.04 2.02 11.56 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 6.74 16.41 6.25 11.85 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 111.6 111.0 88.41 10.87 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 944,808 79,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 6.48 1.50 1.50 1.47 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b 0.00073 N/A 0.0016 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 133.4 2.23 2.23 8.84 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 292.2 65.79 60.12 80.25 mg/L

Chloride 68.86 91.66 N/A 94.82 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 41.38 4.67 2.66 13.10 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 0.451 0.647 0.140 0.165 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 8.37 26.82 7.55 1.49 mg/L

Total nitrogen 71.42 70.14 9.97 3.00 mg/L

Orthophosphate 2.04 0.22 0.0907 0.0499 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 777.0 1026.57 N/A 874.1 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 23.31 3.64 1.53 5.49 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 68.06 11.84 9.06 11.59 mg/L

Total phosphorus 5.52 1.25 0.446 1.35 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c — ——

Volatile Residue 226.9 302.3 167.1 271.9 mg/L

Barium 0.0094 0.0050 0.0010 0.0186 mg/L

Copper 0.0234 0.0098 0.0072 0.0067 mg/L

Chromium — — ——

Manganese 0.0783 0.0103 0.0103 0.0815 mg/L

Molybdenum — — ——

Nickel 0.0044 0.0024 0.0024 0.0063 mg/L

Titanium — — ——

Vanadium — — ——

Zinc 0.0703 0.103 0.0395 0.0663 mg/L

Aeromonas 151,265 65,085 192,500 192,500 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — ——

E. Coli 933,564 66,480 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 4,645 1,980 3,650 3,650 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 36.05 111.2 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 914,926 163,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — ——

trans-Permethrin — — —— a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-62

Table C-68. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry First/Further Processing

and Rendering (P123)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 193.4 2.79 2.77 18.94 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 465.5 69.48 19.81 51.30 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 101.9 95.26 75.65 9.20 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 770,439 79,272 801,070 801,070 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 8.95 1.36 1.36 1.34 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b 0.00059 N/A 0.0013 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 195.1 2.90 2.90 12.69 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 364.4 64.31 59.73 80.17 mg/L

Chloride 113.0 131.4 N/A 133.7 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 51.05 4.62 2.61 13.07 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 4.25 1.13 0.323 0.337 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 6.93 21.81 6.22 1.22 mg/L

Total nitrogen 65.29 77.99 11.21 5.02 mg/L

Orthophosphate 2.74 0.213 0.0842 0.0503 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 871.0 1,158 N/A 1,035 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 26.14 4.18 1.45 6.69 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 70.28 12.38 9.14 12.68 mg/L

Total phosphorus 16.85 3.37 1.29 4.31 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c — ——

Volatile Residue 740.7 577.0 383.0 567.7 mg/L

Barium 0.0101 0.0060 0.0017 0.0189 mg/L

Copper 0.0202 0.0084 0.0059 0.0059 mg/L

Chromium — — ——

Manganese 0.0650 0.0091 0.0091 0.0699 mg/L

Molybdenum — — ——

Nickel 0.0052 0.0028 0.0028 0.0073 mg/L

Titanium — — ——

Vanadium — — ——

Zinc 0.146 0.136 0.0501 0.0872 mg/L

Aeromonas 151,584 65,079 192,481 192,481 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — — ——

E. Coli 763,576 66,473 801,070 801,070 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 3,836 1,980 3,650 3,650 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 29.46 111.2 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 763,532 163,264 801,070 801,070 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — — ——

trans-Permethrin — — —— a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-63

Table C-69. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing (P2)

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 561.6 5.91 5.91 49.73 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 2,379 290.8 76.39 215.9 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 61.62 29.48 22.45 2.21 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 43,813 79,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 19.23 0.757 0.757 0.763 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A a N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 452.3 5.71 5.71 28.75 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 665.9 58.14 58.14 79.87 mg/L

Chloride 297.3 297.3 297.3 296.0 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 91.38 4.38 2.38 12.99 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 20.10 3.13 1.09 1.06 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 0.938 0.938 0.668 0.121 mg/L

Total nitrogen 39.75 110.76 16.36 13.41 mg/L

Orthophosphate 5.67 0.198 0.0572 0.0522 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,263 1,707 1,707 1,707 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 37.97 6.42 1.14 11.68 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 79.57 14.65 9.44 17.20 mg/L

Total phosphorus 64.10 12.23 4.81 16.68 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — b ———

Volatile Residue 2,884 1,723 1,284 1,802 mg/L

Barium 0.0131 0.0101 0.0046 0.0204 mg/L

Copper 0.0068 0.0026 0.0008 0.0024 mg/L

Chromium — ———

Manganese 0.0098 0.0038 0.0038 0.0217 mg/L

Molybdenum — ———

Nickel 0.0085 0.0046 0.0046 0.0118 mg/L

Titanium — ———

Vanadium — ———

Zinc 0.460 0.275 0.0941 0.175 mg/L

Aeromonas 153,000 65,085 192,500 192,500 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — ———

E. Coli 55,215 66,480 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 464.7 1,980 3,650 3,650 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 111.2 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 132,690 163,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — ———

trans-Permethrin — ——— a not available

b

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-64

Table C-70. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Poultry Further Processing and

Rendering (P23)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5) 244.3 3.77 3.77 31.73 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 1,049 145.3 38.17 107.9 mg/L

Hexane extractable material

(HEM) 197.9 183.9 140.1 13.82 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 63,930 79,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 10.71 2.72 2.72 2.74 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b 0.000076 N/A 0.000004 mg/L

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 197.3 4.02 4.02 20.22 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 375.3 112.2 112.2 154.1 mg/L

Chloride 186.2 186.2 186.2 185.4 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 45.51 7.86 4.28 23.31 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 9.40 2.06 0.715 0.693 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 15.16 15.16 10.80 1.96 mg/L

Total nitrogen 108.2 138.9 20.53 8.98 mg/L

Orthophosphate 2.71 0.342 0.0990 0.0903 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,382 1,574 1,574 1,574 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 21.07 7.42 1.32 13.49 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 48.55 20.45 13.18 24.01 mg/L

Total phosphorus 29.10 6.65 2.61 9.07 mg/L

Total residual chlorine — c —— —

Volatile Residue 1,573 1,070 797.2 1,119 mg/L

Barium 0.0092 0.0079 0.0036 0.0159 mg/L

Copper 0.0098 0.0080 0.0025 0.0075 mg/L

Chromium — —— —

Manganese 0.0137 0.0111 0.0111 0.0645 mg/L

Molybdenum — —— —

Nickel 0.0067 0.0050 0.0050 0.0128 mg/L

Titanium — —— —

Vanadium — —— —

Zinc 0.290 0.210 0.0718 0.133 mg/L

Aeromonas 103,135 65,085 192,500 192,500 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium — —— —

E. Coli 61,605 66,480 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 1,324 1,980 3,650 3,650 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 63.94 111.2 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 150,041 163,280 801,150 801,150 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin — —— —

trans-Permethrin — —— — a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available

c

 not applicable
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-65

Table C-71. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Mixed Meat/Poultry Further

Processing (M2)a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 4.40 4.40 4.51 26.42 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 147.2 147.2 38.65 108.4 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 16.56 16.56 12.61 1.24 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 81.25 81.25 6.39 6.73 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 0.291 0.470 0.484 0.487 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 3.82 3.82 5.47 16.99 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 37.15 37.15 37.76 48.63 mg/L

Chloride 2,624 2,624 3,486 3,471 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 5.48 5.48 2.99 8.29 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 15.14 15.14 5.26 5.11 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 4.78 1.53 1.09 N/A mg/L

Total nitrogen 57.98 57.98 8.57 7.02 mg/L

Orthophosphate 4.68 4.68 1.35 1.24 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 4,255 4,255 4,972 4,972 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 0.471 3.72 0.663 5.93 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 16.86 16.86 10.87 14.74 mg/L

Total phosphorus 16.59 16.59 6.52 12.46 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 2.01 2.01 2.06 2.06 mg/L

Volatile Residue 963.3 963.3 717.8 976.8 mg/L

Barium 0.0106 0.0106 0.0048 0.0127 mg/L

Copper 0.0024 0.0024 0.00074 0.0015 mg/L

Chromium 0.0122 0.0122 0.0125 0.0075 mg/L

Manganese 0.0025 0.0025 0.0034 0.0124 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0070 0.0070 0.0084 0.0086 mg/L

Nickel 0.0027 0.0027 0.0046 0.0082 mg/L

Titanium 0.00086 0.00086 0.00092 0.0013 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0011 0.0011 0.00050 0.00076 mg/L

Zinc 0.145 0.145 0.0496 0.0898 mg/L

Aeromonas 1,853 1,853 0.442 176.6 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 75.81 75.81 0.730 1.08 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 19.81 19.81 4.42 5.70 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 1.61 1.61 2.00 0.0071 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 225.1 225.1 15.19 5.52 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-66

Table C-72. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Mixed Meat/Poultry Further

Processing (M2)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 708.1 4.40 4.51 26.42 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 1,219 147.2 38.65 108.4 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 34.61 16.56 12.61 1.24 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 361,375 379,108 404,239 404,239 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 17.02 0.470 0.484 0.487 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 612.2 3.82 5.47 16.99 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 915.1 37.15 37.76 48.63 mg/L

Chloride 3,486 2,624 3,486 3,471 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 543.3 5.48 2.99 8.29 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 31.06 15.14 5.26 5.11 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total nitrogen 26.97 57.98 8.57 7.02 mg/L

Orthophosphate 6.91 4.68 1.35 1.24 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 4,751 4,255 4,972 4,972 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 25.71 3.72 0.663 5.93 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 293.4 16.86 10.87 14.74 mg/L

Total phosphorus 51.37 16.59 6.52 12.46 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 1.95 2.01 2.06 2.06 mg/L

Volatile Residue 1,757 963.3 717.8 976.8 mg/L

Barium 0.0111 0.0106 0.0048 0.0127 mg/L

Copper 0.0070 0.0024 0.00074 0.0015 mg/L

Chromium 0.0053 0.0122 0.0125 0.0075 mg/L

Manganese 0.0195 0.0025 0.0034 0.0124 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0054 0.0070 0.0084 0.0086 mg/L

Nickel 0.0076 0.0027 0.0046 0.0082 mg/L

Titanium 0.0012 0.0009 0.00092 0.0013 mg/L

Vanadium 0.00082 0.0011 0.00050 0.00076 mg/L

Zinc 0.244 0.145 0.0496 0.0898 mg/L

Aeromonas 219,399 175,442 121,750 121,750 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 418,076 423,709 403,744 403,744 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 632,184 632,941 1,828 1,828 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 2.00 56.60 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 647,345 662,640 404,239 404,239 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-67

Table C-73. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Mixed Meat/Poultry Further

Processing and Rendering (M23)a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 892.2 4.49 4.69 18.67 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 574.1 75.55 19.84 54.69 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 105.1 94.92 72.27 7.13 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 457,538 465,213 404,239 404,239 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 33.94 1.71 1.77 1.78 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 721.9 3.57 6.23 14.34 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1,138 69.31 70.30 91.27 mg/L

Chloride 1,819 1,373 1,819 1,811 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 745.3 8.71 4.75 14.26 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 18.99 10.26 3.57 3.46 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total nitrogen 77.22 77.95 11.52 4.90 mg/L

Orthophosphate 5.71 5.07 1.47 1.34 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 3,354 2,987 3,450 3,450 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 34.02 5.50 0.979 7.06 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 466.7 26.85 17.31 22.72 mg/L

Total phosphorus 27.97 10.60 4.17 7.39 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.912 1.00 1.06 1.06 mg/L

Volatile Residue 1,130 646.1 481.4 642.3 mg/L

Barium 0.0077 0.0077 0.0035 0.0097 mg/L

Copper 0.0093 0.0053 0.0017 0.0042 mg/L

Chromium 0.0047 0.0072 0.0075 0.0045 mg/L

Manganese 0.0599 0.0079 0.0111 0.0378 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0041 0.0049 0.0057 0.0059 mg/L

Nickel 0.0064 0.0028 0.0046 0.0085 mg/L

Titanium 0.0061 0.0058 0.0059 0.0090 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0172 0.0174 0.0080 0.0149 mg/L

Zinc 0.159 0.112 0.0384 0.0691 mg/L

Aeromonas 154,796 135,772 121,750 121,750 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 432,499 434,936 403,744 403,744 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 663,106 663,434 1,828 1,828 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 32.97 56.60 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 589,021 595,641 404,239 404,239 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-68

Table C-74. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Rendering (REND)a

Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 4.82 4.82 5.10 13.03 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 21.17 21.17 5.56 13.79 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 155.0 155.0 118.0 11.64 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 123.3 123.3 9.70 15.31 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 1.27 2.72 2.81 2.83 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

(CBOD) 3.51 3.51 7.18 12.67 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 94.99 94.99 96.37 125.0 mg/L

Chloride 150.5 150.5 185.2 184.4 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand 11.51 11.51 6.27 19.00 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 5.56 5.56 1.93 1.88 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 18.31 13.25 9.44 1.71 mg/L

Total nitrogen 94.51 94.51 13.96 3.30 mg/L

Orthophosphate 5.43 5.43 1.57 1.43 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,749 1,749 1,963 1,963 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 2.07 7.13 1.27 7.98 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 36.07 36.07 23.26 29.84 mg/L

Total phosphorus 5.32 5.32 2.09 3.25 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.230 0.230 0.300 0.300 mg/L

Volatile Residue 406.1 406.1 302.6 388.6 mg/L

Barium 0.0051 0.0051 0.0023 0.0072 mg/L

Copper 0.0076 0.0076 0.0024 0.0062 mg/L

Chromium 0.0034 0.0034 0.0036 0.0021 mg/L

Manganese 0.0123 0.0123 0.0179 0.0580 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0031 0.0031 0.0033 0.0034 mg/L

Nickel 0.0030 0.0030 0.0046 0.0088 mg/L

Titanium 0.0096 0.0096 0.0098 0.0149 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0299 0.0299 0.0137 0.0257 mg/L

Zinc 0.0873 0.0873 0.0299 0.0534 mg/L

Aeromonas 806.9 806.9 0.193 50.08 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 81.35 81.35 0.783 7.33 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 42.35 42.35 9.44 41.50 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 1.61 1.61 2.00 0.0071 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 520.2 520.2 35.10 12.75 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available
Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-69

Table C-75. Average Technology Option Concentrations for Rendering Only (REND)a

Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units

5-Day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) 1,109 4.82 5.10 13.03 mg/L

Total suspended solids (TSS) 86.10 21.17 5.56 13.79 mg/L

Hexane extractable material (HEM) 159.3 155.0 118.0 11.64 mg/L

Fecal coliform bacteria 550,222 550,222 404,239 404,239 cfu/100 mL

Ammonia as nitrogen 51.60 2.72 2.81 2.83 mg/L

Carbaryl N/A b N/A N/A N/A

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) 858.9 3.51 7.18 12.67 mg/L

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1,391 94.99 96.37 125.0 mg/L

Chloride 185.2 150.5 185.2 184.4 mg/L

Dissolved biochemical oxygen

demand 950.0 11.51 6.27 19.00 mg/L

Dissolved phosphorus 8.27 5.56 1.93 1.88 mg/L

Nitrate-nitrite 13.01 13.25 9.44 1.71 mg/L

Total nitrogen 119.2 94.51 13.96 3.30 mg/L

Orthophosphate 4.85 5.43 1.57 1.43 mg/L

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1,963 1,749 1,963 1,963 mg/L

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 44.12 7.13 1.27 7.98 mg/L

Total organic carbon (TOC) 641.20 36.07 23.26 29.84 mg/L

Total phosphorus 8.80 5.32 2.09 3.25 mg/L

Total residual chlorine 0.124 0.230 0.300 0.300 mg/L

Volatile Residue 657.2 406.1 302.6 388.6 mg/L

Barium 0.0047 0.0051 0.0023 0.0072 mg/L

Copper 0.0112 0.0076 0.0024 0.0062 mg/L

Chromium 0.0041 0.0034 0.0036 0.0021 mg/L

Manganese 0.099 0.0123 0.0179 0.0580 mg/L

Molybdenum 0.0030 0.0031 0.0033 0.0034 mg/L

Nickel 0.0055 0.0030 0.0046 0.0088 mg/L

Titanium 0.0098 0.0096 0.0098 0.0149 mg/L

Vanadium 0.0296 0.0299 0.0137 0.0257 mg/L

Zinc 0.0937 0.0873 0.0299 0.0534 mg/L

Aeromonas 96,606 96,606 121,750 121,750 cfu/100 mL

Cryptosporidium N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Coli 446,021 446,021 403,744 403,744 cfu/100 mL

Fecal streptococci 693,540 693,540 1,828 1,828 cfu/100 mL

Salmonella 56.60 56.60 2.00 2.00 cfu/100 mL

Total coliform 529,494 529,494 404,239 404,239 cfu/100 mL

cis-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A

trans-Permethrin N/A N/A N/A N/A a

 Data for this category were derived using methods described in Section 9.2.3

b

 not available
D-1

APPENDIX D

INPUT VALUES TO ESTIMATE ENERGY USAGE AND SLUDGE

GENERATION
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-2

ENERGY USAGE INPUT VALUES

Number of MPP Facilities

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

Facility Size

Small Non small

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

A, B, C, D 59 1003 82 70

E, F, G, H, I 48 2940 19 234

J 6 17 21 75

K 0 39 104 143

L 4 568 16 209

Data from EPA 1999 Screener Survey

Energy Usagea for Non Small Direct Dischargers per Treatment Option

40 CFR

432Subcategory

Groupings BAT2 BAT3 BAT4 BAT5

A, B, C, D 316,332,807 238,067,261 226,294,728 NAb

E, F, G, H, I 7,826,280 7,338,834 7,119,912 NA

J 9,930,289 4,859,038 4,450,288 NA

K 166,178,474 100,648,346 102,658,500 103,106,497

L 4,901,141 3,125,891 3,116,588 2,437,379

a Units are in kWH/yr

b Not applicable

Estimated using CAPDET

Energy Usagea for Non Small Indirect Discharges per Treatment Option

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings PSES1 PSES2 PSES3 PSES4

A, B, C, D 299,309,503 599,067,236 424,113,474 393,228,477

E, F, G, H, I 147,626,497 259,816,154 198,576,619 192,326,157

J 71,418,737 104,225,644 70,057,246 65,496,995

K 404,909,080 766,707,568 518,761,087 500,079,836

L 135,931,037 251,384,650 181,888,936 176,441,950

a Units are in kWH/yr

Estimated using CAPDE
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-3

Total Baseline MPP Energy Usagea for Non Small Direct Dischargers

40 CFR 432 Subcategory

Groupings

Total Baseline Energy

(KWh/yr)

A, B, C, D 314,521,360

E, F, G, H, I 7,793,105

J 9,930,289

K 165,853,063

L 4,867,236

a Units are in kWH/yr

Estimated using CAPDET

Total MPP Energy Usagea for Non Small Indirect Dischargers

40 CFR 432 Subcategory

Groupings

Total Baseline Energy

(KWh/yr)

A, B, C, D 280,799,419

E, F, G, H, I 118,919,076

J 69,596,688

K 384,558,363

L 115,134,700

a Units are in kWH/yr

Estimated using CAPDET
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-4

Total MPI Facility Energya Purchased

Subcategory

Groupings

Purchased

(KWH/yr) Not-Small Facilities Small Facilities

A, B, C, D 4,751,145,000 386 1007

E, F, G, H, I 8,642,867,525 622 675

J 798,082,000 143 97

K 1,961,046,285 144 32

L 3,292,702,715 243 55

a Units are in kWH/yr

(Source: 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers Data)

Note: Census energy use data is not given for Group E-I

Group E-I Total Energy Purchased is based on the following calculation:

Number of Group E-I Facilities w/ 20 or more employess: 622

Number of Group E-I Facilities w/ 19 or fewer employess: 675

Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased per Group E-I Not-Small Facility: 13,459,281

Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased per Group E-I Small Facility: 401,770

Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased for all Group E-I Facilities: 8,642,867,525

Note: Census data combines data for Groups K and L

Facility Counts and Energy Use for Groups K and L are estimated

using ratios from Screener Survey

Subpart K Facilities from Screener Survey: 296

Subpart L Facilities from Screener Survey: 497

Number of Combination Census K&L Facilities w/ 20 or more employess: 387

Number of Combination Census K&L Facilities w/ 19 or fewer employess: 87

Total Energy (KWH/yr) purchased for Groups K and L: 5,253,749,000
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-5

Total MPI Facility Energy Purchased per Facility

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

Total Energy Purchased Per

Small Facility

(KWH/yr)

Total Energy Purchased Per

Non Small Facility

(KWH/yr)

A, B, C, D 340,877 11,419,383

E, F, G, H, I 401,770 13,459,281

J 163,290 5,470,230

K 403,840 13,528,635

L 401,770 13,459,281

a Units are in kWH/facility-yr

Ratio of Energy Use for Not-Small Facilities:Small Facilities: 33.5

Source: EPA 1974 Red Meat TDD (page 133)

Note: Assume the same Ratio of Energy Use for Not-Small Facilities:Small Facilities for Both Meat and Poultry

Note: Assume that Meat Further Processors and Poultry Further Processors 

have similar energy requirements

Note: Assume that direct and indirect MPP facilities have similar energy requirements
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-6

SLUDGE GENERATION INPUT VALUES

Number of MPP Facilities 

40 CFR 432 Facility Size

Subcategory Small M, L, VL

Groupings Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

A, B, C, D 59 1,003 82 70

E, F, G, H, I 48 2,940 19 234

J 6 17 21 75

K 0 39 104 143

L 4 568 16 209

Data from EPA 1999 Screener Survey

Sludge Generation for Non Small Direct Dischargers

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

BAT2

Nitrification

BAT3

Nit./De-Nit.

BAT4

P Removal

BAT5

Filter

A, B, C, D 353,794 347,818 348,460 NA

E, F, G, H, I 6,564 6,520 6,538 NA

J 3,655 3,531 3,531 NA

K 129,917 119,564 138,450 138,450

L 3,326 3,180 3,189 2,417

Sludge Generation for Non Small Indirect Dischargers

40 CFR 432

Subcategory

Groupings

PSES1

DAF

PSES2

Nitrification

PSES3

Nit./De-Nit.

PSES4

P Removal

A, B, C, D 63,466 291,033 250,477 253,161

E, F, G, H, I 2,900 60,670 51,197 52,645

J 9,552 20,778 18,732 19,041

K 38,518 226,433 201,043 201,010

L 2,588 63,573 56,154 56,593
Appendix D. Input Values to Estimate Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-7

Total Baseline MPP Sludge Generated for Non Small Direct Dischargers

40 CFR 432 Subcategory

Groupings

Total Baseline Sludge Generated

(tons/yr)

A, B, C, D 353,794

E, F, G, H, I 6,564

J 3,655

K 129,917

L 3,326

Total Baseline MPP Sludge Generated for Non Small Indirect Dischargers

40 CFR 432 Subcategory

Groupings

Total Baseline Sludge Generated

(tons/yr)

A, B, C, D 63,466

E, F, G, H, I 2,599

J 9,520

K 38,422
E-1

APPENDIX E

ATTACHMENTS FOR COST ESTIMATION (CHAPTER 11)
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-2

ATTACHMENT 11-1. DEVELOPMENT OF COST FACTORS TO ESTIMATE

CAPITAL COSTS FROM CONSTRUCTION COST

Capital cost can be categorized into two categories: (1) unit process construction costs;

and (2) other direct and indirect costs. The summation of the above two costs provides the total

capital costs. Often other direct and indirect costs are expressed as a percentage of the

construction costs to determine the capital cost. Similar approach was followed to estimate the

capital costs of the treatment units for the proposed regulation. The construction cost of

treatment units obtained from CAPDET model runs were multiplied by a factor to determine the

capital cost. This section discusses the method used to determine the factor that converts

construction cost to capital cost.

The factor is determined from the costing document of the centralized waste treatment

(CWT) industry (USEPA, 1998). The breakdown of the capital costs as provided in the costing

document of CWT industry (USEPA, 1998) and the selected percentage for the MPP Industry are

shown in table below. The percentage selected are the average of the ranges provided for the

cost items. However, for piping the selected percentage is half the average of the range provided. 

Cost Factors Used in Centralized Waste Treatment Industry and the Selected Cost Factors for the

MPP Industry

Cost Item

Percentage Used in CWT

Industry

Cost Item on which The

Percentage is Based

Percentage Selected for

MPP Industry

Equipment Technology-Specific

Installation 25 to 55 Percent Equipment Cost 40 Percent

Piping 31 to 66 Percent Equipment Cost 24 Percent

Instrumentation & Control 6 to 30 Percent Equipment Cost 18 Percent

Engineering 15 Percent Construction Costa 15 Percent

Contingency 15 Percent Construction Costa 15 Percent

a

 Construction cost in CWT industry = cost of equipment + installation + piping + instrumentation and control

The unit process construction cost in CAPDET is less than the construction cost for CWT

industry shown in the table above. After reviewing the components that constitute unit process

construction cost in CAPDET (see Section 11.5.1.1 in Chapter 11), EPA determined that the unit
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-3

process construction cost in CAPDET is at least equal to the installed equipment cost (equipment

+ installation) and partial cost of piping. Therefore, based on engineering judgement the Agency

selected half the average of the range of percentages provided for piping to estimate capital costs. 

The selected percentages for the cost items were converted as a percentage of the unit process

construction cost and is shown in Table 11- 3 in Chapter 11. Summation of the factors for the

cost items shows that the capital cost is 1.69 times the unit process construction cost. 

The method of expressing the selected percentages for the cost items shown in the table

above as a percent of unit process construction cost of CAPDET is shown below: 

E = Equipment Cost

I = Installation Cost

= 0.4 * E

Therefore,

INS = Installed Cost

= equipment + installation cost

= E + I

=1.4* E

U = Unit Process Construction Cost

Unit process construction cost is equal to the installed cost. Therefore,

U = INS

= 1.4*E

and

E = U/1.4

P = Piping Cost

= 0.24 * E

= 0.17*U
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-4

IC = Instrumentation and control cost

= 0.18 * E

= 0.13*U

C = Construction Cost in CWT

= E + I + P + IC

= E + 0.4*E + 0.24*E + 0.18*E

= 1.82*E

EN = Engineering

= 0.15*C

= 0.15*1.82*E

= 0.195*U

CONT = Contingency

= 0.15*C

= 0.15*1.82*E

= 0.195*U

CAP = total capital cost

= U + P + IC + EN +CONT

= U + 0.17*U + 0.13*U + 0.195*U + 0.195*U

= 1.69*U
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-5

ATTACHMENT 11-2. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TREATMENT

UNITS AND PERFORMANCE FACTORS

EPA received 241 of the MPP Detailed Surveys (MPP Detailed Survey, 2001) before the

cut-off date of May 29, 2001. Of 241 surveys, the Agency used 200 surveys for the development

of frequency of occurrence and performance factors. The rest 41 surveys were not analyzed

because of one or of the following reasons:

1. some were duplicate facilities, 

2. some were not meat processing facility, 

3. some have insufficient data, and 

4. some were not processed at the time the cost estimation was performed. 

EPA will use all surveys including those that were collected after the deadlines in

upcoming analyses for the forthcoming Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and final rule.
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-6

Table E-1. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-Small

Facilities

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Meat R1 Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.98 0.60Meat R12 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Meat R13 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.93 0.79Meat R23 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.98 0.60Meat R123 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.98 0.60Meat R1 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Meat R2 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 N/A 0.98 0.38Meat R12 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R13 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 N/A 0.93 0.14Meat R23 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 N/A 0.98 0.38Meat R123 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 N/A 0.98 0.38Meat R1 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R2 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.98 0.00Meat R12 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R13 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.93 0.00Meat R23 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.98 0.00Meat R123 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.98 0.00Meat R1 Indirect 1 1.00 0.33 0.67 N/A N/A N/A 0.33Meat R2 1 0.57 0.43 0.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Meat R12 1 1.00 0.80 0.60 N/A N/A N/A 0.40Meat R13 1 1.00 1.00 0.33 N/A N/A N/A 0.33Meat R23 1 0.91 0.71 0.42 N/A N/A N/A 0.21Meat R123 1 1.00 1.00 0.50 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Meat R1 2 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R2 2 0.57 0.43 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R12 2 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.20 N/A N/A 0.20Meat R13 2 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R23 2 0.91 0.71 0.42 0.14 N/A N/A 0.04Meat R123 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R1 3 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R2 3 0.57 0.43 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-7

Table E-1. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-Small

Facilities (continued)

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Meat R12 2 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.20 N/A N/A 0.20Meat R13 2 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R23 2 0.91 0.71 0.42 0.14 N/A N/A 0.04Meat R123 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R1 3 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R2 3 0.57 0.43 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R12 3 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R13 3 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R23 3 0.91 0.71 0.42 0.10 N/A N/A 0.10Meat R123 3 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 N/A N/A 0.50Meat R1 4 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R2 4 0.57 0.43 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R12 4 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R13 4 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R23 4 0.91 0.71 0.42 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R123 4 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P1 Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 0.77Poultry P2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.91 0.71Poultry P12 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.75 0.50Poultry P13 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.89 0.56Poultry P23 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.91 0.71Poultry P123 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Poultry P1 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 N/A 1.00 0.15Poultry P2 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 N/A 0.91 0.13Poultry P12 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 N/A 0.75 0.25Poultry P13 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 N/A 0.89 0.11Poultry P23 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 N/A 0.91 0.13Poultry P123 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Poultry P1 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 N/A 1.00 0.00Poultry P2 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 N/A 0.91 0.06Poultry P12 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.75 0.00Poultry P13 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 N/A 0.89 0.22
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-8

Table E-1. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-Small

Facilities (continued)

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Poultry P23 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 N/A 0.91 0.06Poultry P123 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Poultry P1 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.31 1.00 0.08Poultry P2 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.10 0.91 0.02Poultry P12 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00Poultry P13 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.11 0.89 0.00Poultry P23 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.10 0.91 0.02Poultry P123 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00Poultry P1 Indirect 1 1.00 0.73 0.73 N/A N/A N/A 0.55Poultry P2 1 0.67 0.33 0.33 N/A N/A N/A 0.33Poultry P12 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.60Poultry P13 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00Poultry P23 1 0.92 0.77 0.77 N/A N/A N/A 0.62Poultry P123 1 0.92 0.77 0.77 N/A N/A N/A 0.62Poultry P1 2 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.09 N/A N/A 0.09Poultry P2 2 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P12 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 N/A N/A 0.40Poultry P13 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P23 2 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12Poultry P123 2 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12Poultry P1 3 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P2 3 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P12 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P13 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P23 3 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P123 3 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P1 4 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P2 4 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P12 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P13 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P23 4 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P123 4 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-9

Table E-1. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-Small

Facilities (continued)

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Mixed M2 Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.95 0.66Mixed M2 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 N/A 0.95 0.25Mixed M2 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 N/A 0.95 0.03Mixed M2 Indirect 1 1.00 0.50 0.50 N/A N/A N/A 0.50Mixed M2 2 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Mixed M2 3 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Mixed M2 4 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat and/orPoultry

Render Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00

Meat and/orPoultry

Render 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00

Meat and/orPoultry

Render 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00

Meat and/orPoultry

Render Indirect 1 0.91 0.91 0.82 N/A N/A N/A 0.36

Meat and/orPoultry

Render 2 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.45 N/A N/A 0.45

Meat and/orPoultry

Render 3 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00

Meat and/orPoultry

Render 4 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00

Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shownN/A: Not applicableNote 1: lagoon for direct dischargers and equalization for indrect dischargers.Note 2: N= nitrification; N+DN = nitrification and denitrification; N+DN+DP = nitrification and denitrification and phosphorus removal.Note 3: Fraction of facilities that need performance cost.
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-10

Table E-2. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Small Facilities

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Meat R1 Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Meat R2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.98 0.60Meat R12 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Meat R13 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.93 0.79Meat R23 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.98 0.60Meat R123 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.98 0.60Meat R1 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R2 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 N/A 0.98 0.38Meat R12 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R13 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 N/A 0.93 0.14Meat R23 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 N/A 0.98 0.38Meat R123 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 N/A 0.98 0.38Meat R1 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R2 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.98 0.00Meat R12 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat R13 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.93 0.00Meat R23 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.98 0.00Meat R123 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.98 0.00Meat R1 Indirect 1 0.75 0.50 0.50 N/A N/A N/A 0.25Meat R2 1 0.35 0.19 0.16 N/A N/A N/A 0.10Meat R12 1 0.67 0.33 0.33 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Meat R13 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Meat R23 1 0.91 0.71 0.42 N/A N/A N/A 0.21Meat R123 1 1.00 1.00 0.50 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Meat R1 2 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R2 2 0.35 0.19 0.16 0.03 N/A N/A 0.03Meat R12 2 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R13 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00Meat R23 2 0.91 0.71 0.42 0.14 N/A N/A 0.04Meat R123 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R1 3 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R2 3 0.35 0.19 0.16 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R12 3 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-11

Table E-2. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Small

Facilities (continued)

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Meat R13 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R23 3 0.91 0.71 0.42 0.10 N/A N/A 0.10Meat R123 3 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 N/A N/A 0.50Meat R1 4 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R2 4 0.35 0.19 0.16 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R12 4 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R13 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R23 4 0.91 0.71 0.42 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat R123 4 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P1 Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Poultry P2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.91 0.71Poultry P12 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.75 0.50Poultry P13 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.00 0.00Poultry P23 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.91 0.71Poultry P123 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Poultry P1 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Poultry P2 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 N/A 0.91 0.13Poultry P12 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 N/A 0.75 0.25Poultry P13 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00Poultry P23 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 N/A 0.91 0.13Poultry P123 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Poultry P1 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Poultry P2 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 N/A 0.91 0.06Poultry P12 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.75 0.00Poultry P13 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00Poultry P23 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 N/A 0.91 0.06Poultry P123 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Poultry P1 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00Poultry P2 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.10 0.91 0.02Poultry P12 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00Poultry P13 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Poultry P23 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.10 0.91 0.02
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-12

Table E-2. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Small

Facilities (continued)

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Poultry P123 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00Poultry P1 Indirect 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P2 1 0.33 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P12 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.60Poultry P13 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00Poultry P23 1 0.92 0.77 0.77 N/A N/A N/A 0.62Poultry P123 1 0.92 0.77 0.77 N/A N/A N/A 0.62Poultry P1 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P2 2 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P12 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 N/A N/A 0.40Poultry P13 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P23 2 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12Poultry P123 2 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12Poultry P1 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P2 3 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P12 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P13 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P23 3 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P123 3 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P1 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P2 4 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P12 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P13 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P23 4 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Poultry P123 4 0.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Mixed M2 Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.95 0.66Mixed M2 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 N/A 0.95 0.25Mixed M2 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 N/A 0.95 0.03Mixed M2 Indirect 1 0.25 0.25 0.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Mixed M23 1 0.92 0.74 0.60 N/A N/A N/A 0.42Mixed M2 2 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Mixed M23 2 0.92 0.74 0.60 0.13 N/A N/A 0.08
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-13

Table E-2. Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Small

Facilities (continued)

Meat Type

Model FacilityGrouping Code

DischargeType

TechnologyOption Screen DAF

Lagoon orEqualization1

N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2 Filter Disinfection

PerformanceFactor3

Mixed M2 3 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Mixed M23 3 0.92 0.74 0.60 0.05 N/A N/A 0.05Mixed M2 4 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Mixed M23 4 0.92 0.74 0.60 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat and/or Poultry Render Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Meat and/or Poultry Render 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat and/or Poultry Render 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat and/or Poultry Render Indirect 1 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.00Meat and/or Poultry Render 2 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat and/or Poultry Render 3 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat and/or Poultry Render 4 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00

Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shownNote 1: lagoon for direct dischargers and equalization for indrect dischargers.Note 2: N= nitrification; N+DN = nitrification and denitrification; N+DN+DP = nitrification and denitrification and phosphorus removal.Note 3: Fraction of facilities that need performance cost.
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-14

ATTACHMENT 11-3. MPP COST MODEL RESULTS

Table E-3. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the

Technology Options for Non-Small Direct Discharging Facilities

Meat Type

Model Facility

GroupingCode

Technology

Option Size

Incremental

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Retrofit

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Meat R1 2 medium $0 $0

Meat R1 3 medium $0 $68,389 $0

Meat R1 4 medium $4,805,019 $600,155 $0

Meat R2 2 medium $40,801 $83,974

Meat R2 3 medium $219,589 $73,742 $98,815

Meat R2 4 medium $11,298,280 $1,190,031 $142,733

Meat R12 2 medium $0 $0

Meat R12 3 medium $0 $0 $0

Meat R12 4 medium $0 $0 $0

Meat R13 2 medium $1,318,515 $1,048,562

Meat R13 3 medium $62,407,672 $6,029,242 $28,083,452

Meat R13 4 medium $77,759,176 $6,922,657 $40,564,987

Meat R23 2 medium $86,867 $195,813

Meat R23 3 medium $263,930 $79,640 $118,769

Meat R23 4 medium $13,428,162 $1,206,290 $171,555

Meat R123 2 medium $1,197,050 $2,418,999

Meat R123 3 medium $3,044,534 $856,979 $1,370,040

Meat R123 4 medium $148,196,608 $13,012,161 $1,978,947

Meat R2 2 large $2,441 $6,111

Meat R2 3 large $14,440 $5,772 $6,498

Meat R2 4 large $728,549 $94,430 $9,386

Meat R13 2 large $746,101 $600,468

Meat R13 3 large $35,198,172 $3,352,896 $15,839,177

Meat R13 4 large $43,338,480 $3,811,846 $22,878,812

Meat R123 2 large $796,937 $1,543,199

Meat R123 3 large $2,128,235 $536,065 $957,706

Meat R123 4 large $101,300,856 $8,111,398 $1,383,353

Meat R2 2 very large $2,441 $5,794

Meat R2 3 very large $13,383 $5,469 $6,022

Meat R2 4 very large $666,963 $90,322 $8,699

Meat R13 2 very large $4,188,223 $2,730,129

Meat R13 3 very large $171,858,096 $15,249,847 $77,336,143

Meat R13 4 very large $191,899,520 $16,829,802 $111,707,762

Poultry P1 2 medium $0 $464,331

Poultry P1 3 medium $28,211,594 $2,771,936 $12,695,217

Poultry P1 4 medium $38,423,532 $3,388,889 $18,337,536

Poultry P1 5 medium $43,328,776 $3,559,653

Poultry P2 2 medium $109,867 $157,341
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

Meat Type

Model Facility

GroupingCode

Technology

Option Size

Incremental

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Retrofit

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

E-15

Poultry P2 3 medium $7,961,311 $971,382 $3,582,590

Poultry P2 4 medium $11,202,192 $1,223,752 $5,174,852

Poultry P2 5 medium $12,980,543 $1,263,043

Poultry P12 2 medium $183,111 $122,294

Poultry P12 3 medium $7,544,483 $799,360 $3,395,017

Poultry P12 4 medium $12,174,484 $1,142,777 $4,903,914

Poultry P12 5 medium $14,069,858 $1,196,707

Poultry P13 2 medium $94,947 $201,577

Poultry P13 3 medium $10,240,157 $1,023,951 $4,608,071

Poultry P13 4 medium $13,578,900 $1,268,555 $6,656,102

Poultry P13 5 medium $15,686,408 $1,279,957

Poultry P23 2 medium $0 $0

Poultry P23 3 medium $0 $0 $0

Poultry P23 4 medium $0 $0 $0

Poultry P23 5 medium $0 $0

Poultry P123 2 medium $0 $109,992

Poultry P123 3 medium $4,625,987 $453,697 $2,081,694

Poultry P123 4 medium $5,060,322 $465,764 $3,006,892

Poultry P123 5 medium $5,761,179 $485,638

Poultry P1 2 large $0 $771,560

Poultry P1 3 large $47,160,432 $4,578,185 $21,222,194

Poultry P1 4 large $63,844,072 $5,556,303 $30,654,281

Poultry P1 5 large $71,418,344 $5,831,349

Poultry P2 2 large $10,987 $40,757

Poultry P2 3 large $1,753,193 $179,738 $788,937

Poultry P2 4 large $2,533,387 $222,356 $1,139,575

Poultry P2 5 large $2,839,889 $229,323

Poultry P12 2 large $102,003 $78,470

Poultry P12 3 large $4,370,816 $436,401 $1,966,867

Poultry P12 4 large $6,925,654 $591,656 $2,841,030

Poultry P12 5 large $7,814,065 $615,822

Poultry P13 2 large $289,556 $630,111

Poultry P13 3 large $29,404,858 $2,776,481 $13,232,186

Poultry P13 4 large $37,638,488 $3,349,248 $19,113,158

Poultry P13 5 large $41,474,372 $3,333,904

Poultry P23 2 large $0 $0

Poultry P23 3 large $0 $0 $0

Poultry P23 4 large $0 $0 $0

Poultry P23 5 large $0 $0

Poultry P123 2 large $0 $683,867

Poultry P123 3 large $25,802,408 $2,393,216 $11,611,084

Poultry P123 4 large $26,355,690 $2,371,851 $16,771,565

Poultry P123 5 large $29,505,104 $2,434,935
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

Meat Type

Model Facility

GroupingCode

Technology

Option Size

Incremental

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Retrofit

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

E-16

Poultry P1 2 very large $0 $365,712

Poultry P1 3 very large $21,789,980 $2,085,341 $9,805,491

Poultry P1 4 very large $28,721,632 $2,487,245 $14,163,487

Poultry P1 5 very large $31,538,728 $2,600,235

Poultry P2 2 very large $21,973 $22,342

Poultry P2 3 very large $1,184,120 $156,858 $532,854

Poultry P2 4 very large $1,645,928 $197,467 $769,678

Poultry P2 5 very large $1,899,125 $203,594

Poultry P12 2 very large $733,761 $498,609

Poultry P12 3 very large $25,833,008 $2,568,780 $11,624,854

Poultry P12 4 very large $41,519,708 $3,483,518 $16,791,455

Poultry P12 5 very large $45,849,888 $3,605,577

Poultry P13 2 very large $81,529 $166,489

Poultry P13 3 very large $7,730,416 $730,819 $3,478,687

Poultry P13 4 very large $9,884,025 $880,307 $5,024,770

Poultry P13 5 very large $10,860,911 $876,332

Poultry P123 2 very large $0 $225,998

Poultry P123 3 very large $8,561,975 $791,649 $3,852,889

Poultry P123 4 very large $8,713,499 $782,255 $5,565,284

Poultry P123 5 very large $9,773,011 $810,217

Mixed M2 2 medium $30,519 $110,204

Mixed M2 3 medium $3,205,753 $354,157 $1,442,589

Mixed M2 4 medium $9,742,008 $857,795 $2,083,739

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 medium $0 $113,892

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 medium $5,529,846 $721,420 $2,488,431

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 4 medium $6,387,821 $771,669 $3,594,400

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 large $0 $139,221

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 large $6,540,381 $781,690 $2,943,171

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 4 large $7,439,749 $824,591 $4,251,248

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 very large $0 $259,104

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 very large $12,165,567 $1,310,686 $5,474,505

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 4 very large $13,560,700 $1,352,783 $7,907,619

Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-17

Table E-4. Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the

Technology Options for Non-Small Indirect Discharging Facilities

Meat Type

Model Facility

Grouping Code

Technology

Option Size

Incremental

Capital Cost 

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Retrofit

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Meat R1 1 medium $0 $0

Meat R1 2 medium $0 $0

Meat R1 3 medium $0 $0 $0

Meat R1 4 medium $0 $0 $0

Meat R2 1 medium $38,330,452 $7,709,886

Meat R2 2 medium $201,309,152 $25,364,142

Meat R2 3 medium $199,300,688 $23,456,988 $199,300,688

Meat R2 4 medium $281,684,640 $27,090,436 $281,684,640

Meat R12 1 medium $7,674,552 $998,181

Meat R12 2 medium $109,691,736 $17,407,204

Meat R12 3 medium $105,932,768 $9,853,671 $91,985,869

Meat R12 4 medium $110,184,632 $9,662,992 $99,994,413

Meat R13 1 medium $2,287,932 $254,753

Meat R13 2 medium $59,993,712 $6,771,834

Meat R13 3 medium $46,611,616 $4,199,786 $46,611,616

Meat R13 4 medium $47,687,252 $4,048,963 $47,687,252

Meat R23 1 medium $3,588,406 $417,189

Meat R23 2 medium $37,076,732 $5,762,126

Meat R23 3 medium $30,127,418 $2,774,500 $26,398,992

Meat R23 4 medium $34,521,628 $2,955,317 $31,268,069

Meat R123 1 medium $8,745,909 $726,438

Meat R123 2 medium $109,926,016 $16,953,628

Meat R123 3 medium $91,036,424 $8,076,983 $45,518,212

Meat R123 4 medium $177,182,640 $13,376,883 $100,133,552

Meat R2 1 large $655,045 $150,901

Meat R2 2 large $2,912,704 $429,330

Meat R2 3 large $3,182,873 $433,225 $3,182,873

Meat R2 4 large $3,873,326 $476,512 $3,873,326

Meat R13 1 large $1,516,879 $160,959

Meat R13 2 large $40,301,924 $4,170,561

Meat R13 3 large $27,905,144 $2,463,362 $27,905,144

Meat R13 4 large $28,278,274 $2,360,095 $28,278,274

Meat R123 1 large $5,758,217 $440,752

Meat R123 2 large $93,439,408 $10,890,032

Meat R123 3 large $53,024,956 $4,930,998 $26,512,478

Meat R123 4 large $103,721,944 $8,166,034 $61,672,110

Meat R2 1 very large $613,868 $141,092

Meat R2 2 very large $2,613,792 $401,263

Meat R2 3 very large $2,917,641 $412,937 $2,917,641

Meat R2 4 very large $3,453,399 $448,325 $3,453,399
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

Meat Type

Model Facility

Grouping Code

Technology

Option Size

Incremental

Capital Cost 

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Retrofit

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

E-18

Meat R13 1 very large $6,142,098 $552,927

Meat R13 2 very large $211,183,984 $18,120,936

Meat R13 3 very large $135,677,312 $10,966,498 $135,677,312

Meat R13 4 very large $135,718,432 $10,381,650 $135,718,432

Poultry P1 1 medium $9,562,528 $1,258,507

Poultry P1 2 medium $115,037,512 $12,767,587

Poultry P1 3 medium $100,356,304 $8,990,328 $94,740,851

Poultry P1 4 medium $108,674,464 $9,147,063 $104,484,585

Poultry P2 1 medium $30,867,114 $5,828,478

Poultry P2 2 medium $201,298,528 $31,688,606

Poultry P2 3 medium $171,936,096 $20,252,848 $171,936,096

Poultry P2 4 medium $231,890,656 $23,024,832 $231,890,656

Poultry P12 1 medium $0 $68,129

Poultry P12 2 medium $16,303,165 $2,956,783

Poultry P12 3 medium $21,677,976 $2,174,673 $15,158,803

Poultry P12 4 medium $24,012,522 $2,243,099 $17,928,997

Poultry P13 1 medium $0 $23,373

Poultry P13 2 medium $7,641,977 $1,182,946

Poultry P13 3 medium $5,595,342 $536,207 $5,595,342

Poultry P13 4 medium $5,986,901 $538,194 $5,986,901

Poultry P23 1 medium $548,934 $141,398

Poultry P23 2 medium $8,950,510 $1,388,507

Poultry P23 3 medium $8,626,571 $1,065,967 $7,945,823

Poultry P23 4 medium $9,794,832 $1,129,871 $9,199,445

Poultry P123 1 medium $672,122 $99,076

Poultry P123 2 medium $11,549,023 $1,758,065

Poultry P123 3 medium $9,664,684 $905,141 $8,962,263

Poultry P123 4 medium $10,266,829 $905,079 $9,783,186

Poultry P1 1 large $16,734,425 $2,138,543

Poultry P1 2 large $200,073,664 $22,075,687

Poultry P1 3 large $173,983,472 $15,252,051 $164,267,147

Poultry P1 4 large $186,381,744 $15,435,507 $179,330,967

Poultry P2 1 large $2,567,397 $314,432

Poultry P2 2 large $17,001,328 $2,707,538

Poultry P2 3 large $13,121,277 $1,241,668 $13,121,277

Poultry P2 4 large $19,517,834 $1,414,858 $19,517,834

Poultry P12 1 large $0 $39,040

Poultry P12 2 large $12,009,338 $2,187,666

Poultry P12 3 large $14,762,752 $1,387,720 $10,442,884

Poultry P12 4 large $15,789,361 $1,391,181 $12,067,634

Poultry P13 1 large $0 $47,540

Poultry P13 2 large $25,428,288 $3,478,462

Poultry P13 3 large $15,341,535 $1,376,323 $15,341,535
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

Meat Type

Model Facility

Grouping Code

Technology

Option Size

Incremental

Capital Cost 

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Retrofit

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

E-19

Poultry P13 4 large $15,772,579 $1,329,077 $15,772,579

Poultry P23 1 large $2,091,418 $262,429

Poultry P23 2 large $36,721,092 $5,542,879

Poultry P23 3 large $29,499,260 $2,685,068 $27,413,504

Poultry P23 4 large $30,831,876 $2,636,290 $29,511,578

Poultry P123 1 large $6,452,889 $659,240

Poultry P123 2 large $164,122,080 $17,931,432

Poultry P123 3 large $101,593,832 $8,207,464 $95,901,807

Poultry P123 4 large $102,261,784 $7,864,861 $100,625,481

Poultry P1 1 very large $7,150,359 $833,098

Poultry P1 2 very large $91,395,024 $9,882,312

Poultry P1 3 very large $77,402,288 $6,579,022 $73,150,514

Poultry P1 4 very large $81,054,640 $6,495,908 $78,201,521

Poultry P2 1 very large $2,999,867 $627,089

Poultry P2 2 very large $18,458,508 $2,853,309

Poultry P2 3 very large $16,864,996 $2,120,529 $16,864,996

Poultry P2 4 very large $20,471,944 $2,335,519 $20,471,944

Poultry P12 1 very large $0 $181,679

Poultry P12 2 very large $67,846,544 $12,363,762

Poultry P12 3 very large $79,723,664 $7,376,269 $56,789,942

Poultry P12 4 very large $83,178,600 $7,263,729 $64,562,014

Poultry P13 1 very large $0 $24,355

Poultry P13 2 very large $13,342,282 $1,838,376

Poultry P13 3 very large $8,127,148 $726,480 $8,127,148

Poultry P13 4 very large $8,339,379 $700,884 $8,339,379

Poultry P123 1 very large $1,835,588 $187,821

Poultry P123 2 very large $46,649,320 $5,072,465

Poultry P123 3 very large $28,844,226 $2,326,795 $27,230,232

Poultry P123 4 very large $29,002,166 $2,228,601 $28,544,782

Mixed M2 1 medium $30,400,918 $4,048,072

Mixed M2 2 medium $237,813,392 $35,260,908

Mixed M2 3 medium $204,321,312 $20,264,530 $204,321,312

Mixed M2 4 medium $337,282,624 $24,807,622 $337,282,624

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 1 medium $820,897 $250,175

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 medium $16,379,139 $2,714,552

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 medium $24,948,242 $3,170,180 $16,153,835

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 4 medium $27,943,370 $3,303,252 $19,348,984

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 1 large $904,249 $239,983
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

Meat Type

Model Facility

Grouping Code

Technology

Option Size

Incremental

Capital Cost 

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Retrofit

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

E-20

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 large $21,609,332 $3,370,251

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 large $31,996,360 $3,541,991 $20,806,984

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 4 large $34,866,372 $3,604,617 $24,427,572

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 1 very large $1,772,274 $371,875

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 very large $44,720,368 $6,718,449

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 very large $64,101,940 $6,345,284 $41,897,042

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 4 very large $68,115,184 $6,316,723 $48,330,401

Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-21

Table E-5. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the

Technology Options of Small Direct Discharging Facilities

Meat Type

Model Facility

Category Code

Technology

Option Size

Incremental 

Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Incremental 

Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Meat R1 1 small 0 $0

Meat R1 2 small $0 $178,736

Meat R1 3 small $7,299,355 $1,413,095

Meat R2 1 small $104,984 $3,486

Meat R2 2 small $104,984 $235,812

Meat R2 3 small $469,743 $228,987

Meat R12 1 small $0 $0

Meat R12 2 small $0 $0

Meat R12 3 small $0 $0

Meat R13 1 small $148,233 $4,969

Meat R13 2 small $148,233 $146,722

Meat R13 3 small $7,057,751 $1,207,726

Meat R23 1 small $0 $0

Meat R23 2 small $0 $0

Meat R23 3 small $0 $0

Meat R123 1 small $61,037 $2,033

Meat R123 2 small $61,037 $161,208

Meat R123 3 small $289,539 $131,410

Mixed M2 1 small $54,933 $1,799

Mixed M2 2 small $54,933 $64,252

Mixed M2 3 small $1,665,124 $326,958

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 1 small $0 $0

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 small $0 $172,632

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 small $8,192,232 $909,610

Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-22

Table E-6. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs by Model Facility Category for the

Technology Options of Small Indirect Discharging Facilities

Meat Type

Model Facility

Grouping Code

Technology

Option Size

Incremental Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Incremental Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

Readmeat R1 1 small $26,895,344 $3,873,826

Readmeat R1 2 small $151,499,760 $26,848,712

Readmeat R1 3 small $152,128,864 $23,960,492

Readmeat R1 4 small $183,388,576 $25,021,890

Readmeat R2 1 small $412,294,080 $58,444,990

Readmeat R2 2 small $1,276,559,616 $223,432,938

Readmeat R2 3 small $1,578,774,784 $238,175,152

Readmeat R2 4 small $1,867,879,936 $250,308,432

Readmeat R12 1 small $91,858,632 $12,875,693

Readmeat R12 2 small $419,484,096 $71,069,328

Readmeat R12 3 small $420,050,720 $62,482,176

Readmeat R12 4 small $498,965,536 $65,781,584

Readmeat R13 1 small $0 $0

Readmeat R13 2 small $0 $135,533

Readmeat R13 3 small $6,334,605 $988,796

Readmeat R13 4 small $7,825,042 $1,049,669

Readmeat R23 1 small $2,221,331 $418,784

Readmeat R23 2 small $14,641,294 $3,224,597

Readmeat R23 3 small $15,218,554 $3,073,139

Readmeat R23 4 small $20,195,592 $3,475,733

Readmeat R123 1 small $1,073,496 $594,234

Readmeat R123 2 small $13,651,828 $2,666,926

Readmeat R123 3 small $13,717,060 $2,593,285

Readmeat R123 4 small $32,517,392 $4,636,849

Poultry P1 1 small $4,546,294 $902,655

Poultry P1 2 small $16,988,052 $2,405,367

Poultry P1 3 small $17,149,222 $2,127,847

Poultry P1 4 small $20,165,204 $2,257,294

Poultry P2 1 small $55,658,488 $8,136,523

Poultry P2 2 small $187,852,080 $29,771,220

Poultry P2 3 small $188,329,104 $26,325,620

Poultry P2 4 small $221,011,072 $27,650,150

Poultry P12 1 small $0 $33,878

Poultry P12 2 small $5,595,467 $1,236,450

Poultry P12 3 small $9,371,482 $1,693,577

Poultry P12 4 small $11,700,697 $1,774,729

Poultry P13 1 small $0 $0

Poultry P13 2 small $0 $0

Poultry P13 3 small $0 $0

Poultry P13 4 small $0 $0

Poultry P23 1 small $193,859 $40,837
Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

Meat Type

Model Facility

Grouping Code

Technology

Option Size

Incremental Capital Cost

(1999 dollars)

Incremental Annual Cost

(1999 dollars/year)

E-23

Poultry P23 2 small $2,167,089 $366,679

Poultry P23 3 small $2,417,926 $343,616

Poultry P23 4 small $2,943,681 $364,323

Mixed P2 1 small $115,647,168 $19,957,532

Mixed P2 2 small $452,671,584 $76,483,208

Mixed P2 3 small $454,453,536 $68,212,416

Mixed P2 4 small $538,625,664 $71,655,976

Mixed P23 1 small $242,585 $53,873

Mixed P23 2 small $2,105,501 $358,133

Mixed P23 3 small $2,120,554 $333,495

Mixed P23 4 small $2,620,976 $375,810

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 1 small $2,796,848 $513,318

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 2 small $43,635,312 $6,030,492

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 3 small $36,320,992 $3,752,576

Meat and/or

Poultry

Render 4 small $39,443,676 $3,717,570

Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shown
F-1

APPENDIX F

AGGREGATED DAILY DATA FOR PROPOSED POLLUTANTS AND

SUBCATEGORIES
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 1 14.300 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 2 6.490 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 3 6.680 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 1 93.300 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 2 15.100 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 3 30.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 1 11.300 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 2 8.430 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 3 9.900 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 4 9.370 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 5 8.150 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 0.375 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 0.280 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 0.160 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 0.190 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 0.230 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 1 115.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 2 95.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 3 191.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 4 208.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 5 161.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 0.965 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 1.390 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 0.960 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 1.540 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 1.510 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 1 2840.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 2 4250.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 3 2790.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 1 3760.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 2 18600.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 3 645.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 1 1840.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 2 1910.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 3 2060.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 4 1990.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 5 1480.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 1 2.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 2 2.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 3 2.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 4 2.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 5 2.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 1 1720.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 2 2050.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 3 2010.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 4 2070.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 5 2070.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 1 3.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 2 3.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 3 4.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 4 4.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 5 5.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 1 3900.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 2 4770.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 3 2490.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 1 7810.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 2 20000.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 3 3220.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 1 4080.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 2 1720.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 3 2730.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 4 2420.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 5 4530.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 40.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 25.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 37.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 19.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 17.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 1 18600.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 2 17500.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 3 9700.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 4 10200.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 5 36800.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 26.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 28.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 36.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 28.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 30.000 MG/L  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 2 170000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 3 5000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 1 900000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 4 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 5 900000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 1 12.500 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 3 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 4 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 5 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 4 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 5 900000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 1 41.500 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 2 80.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 3 170.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 4 500.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 5 1300.000 /100M  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 1 1656.083 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 2 331.733 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 3 390.633 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 1 238.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 2 801.083 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 3 230.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 1 489.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 2 543.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 3 418.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 4 503.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 5 478.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 1 5.917 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 2 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 3 93.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 4 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 5 6.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 1 2768.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 2 1134.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 3 499.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 4 1986.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 5 24739.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 1 5.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 2 5.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 3 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 4 5.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 5 6.333 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 1 3.230 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 2 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 3 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 1 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 2 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 3 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 1 1.660 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 2 2.970 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 3 3.640 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 4 3.930 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 5 0.570 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 1 16.800 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 2 22.100 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 3 31.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 4 31.400 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 5 33.400 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 1 34.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 2 25.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 3 19.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 4 21.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 5 30.600 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 1 64.800 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 2 63.100 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 3 62.600 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 4 62.800 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 5 70.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 147.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 24.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 68.800 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 1 77.700 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 2 26.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 3 21.100 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 4 27.800 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 5 18.200 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 1 1.275 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 2 1.800 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 3 2.250 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 4 1.610 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 5 1.030 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 171.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 103.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 202.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 212.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 210.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 1 1.315 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 2 1.915 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 3 1.070 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 4 2.250 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 5 2.510 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 150.230 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 25.350 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 69.550 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.300 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.900 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.300 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 1 79.360 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 2 29.570 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 3 24.740 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 4 31.730 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 5 18.770 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 1 18.075 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 2 23.900 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 3 33.750 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 4 33.010 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 5 34.430 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 205.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 128.500 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 221.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 233.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 240.600 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 1 66.115 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 2 65.015 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 3 63.670 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 4 65.050 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 5 72.510 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 1 94.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 2 52.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 3 69.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 1 53.100 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 2 77.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 3 808.000 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 1 11.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 2 10.100 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 3 11.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 4 10.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 5 12.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 0.620 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 1.890 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 0.170 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 0.210 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 0.610 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 1 37.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 2 31.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 3 35.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 4 31.100 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 5 51.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 15.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 15.150 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 14.600 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 14.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 15.600 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 1 10.600 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 2 9.300 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 3 1.180 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 1 1.120 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 3 0.780 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 4 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 5 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 4 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 5 0.300 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 4 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 5 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 4 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 5 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 1 1650.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 2 1330.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 3 1990.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 1 4550.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 2 148000.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 3 7620.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 1 805.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 2 855.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 3 760.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 4 760.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 5 700.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 12.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 5.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 7.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 5.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 11.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 1 1960.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 2 2900.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 3 2260.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 4 1860.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 5 7260.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 5.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 8.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 12.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 10.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 10.000 MG/L -------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ------------------------------ Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 1 14.300 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 2 6.490 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 3 6.680 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-3 1 8.320 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-3 2 6.310 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-3 3 6.310 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 5.490 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 3.205 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 7.410 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 1 93.300 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 2 15.100 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 3 30.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 14.250 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 10.735 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 15.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 1 115.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 2 95.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 3 191.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 4 208.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 5 161.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 1 2840.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 2 4250.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 3 2790.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-3 1 2580.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-3 2 640.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-3 3 3290.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 159.300 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 158.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 325.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 1 3760.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 2 18600.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 3 645.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 187.500 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 139.500 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 282.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 1 1720.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 2 2050.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 3 2010.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 4 2070.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 5 2070.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 1 3900.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 2 4770.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 3 2490.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-3 1 4570.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-3 2 3570.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-3 3 3570.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 1 4131.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 2 431.500 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 3 349.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 1 7810.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 2 20000.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 3 3220.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 1 579.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 2 400.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 3 444.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 1 18600.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 2 17500.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 3 9700.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 4 10200.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 5 36800.000 MG/L  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 2 170000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 3 5000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 2300.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 4 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 5 900000.000 /100M  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 1 1656.083 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 2 331.733 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 3 390.633 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-3 2 293.400 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-3 3 301.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 9.885 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 5.900 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 1 238.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 2 801.083 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 3 230.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 34.892 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 14.613 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 7.800 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 1 2768.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 2 1134.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 3 499.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 4 1986.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 5 24739.833 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 1 3.230 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 2 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 3 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-3 1 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-3 2 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-3 3 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.480 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 1 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 2 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 3 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 1 34.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 2 25.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 3 19.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 4 21.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 5 30.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 147.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 24.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 68.800 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 1 41.300 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 2 94.300 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 3 80.900 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 19.850 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 26.400 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 19.300 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 42.900 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 43.800 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 53.500 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 171.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 103.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 202.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 212.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 210.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 150.230 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 25.350 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 69.550 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 1 42.050 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 2 95.050 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 3 81.650 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 21.330 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 27.150 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 20.050 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.300 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.900 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.300 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 43.200 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 44.100 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 53.800 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 205.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 128.500 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 221.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 233.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 240.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 1 94.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 2 52.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 3 69.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-3 1 29.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-3 2 47.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-3 3 34.800 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 13.250 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 27.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 11.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 1 53.100 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 2 77.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 3 808.000 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.510 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 2.285 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 49.400 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 1 37.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 2 31.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 3 35.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 4 31.100 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 5 51.500 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 1 10.600 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 2 9.300 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 3 1.180 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-3 1 0.210 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-3 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.790 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.640 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 1.010 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 1 1.120 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 3 0.780 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.295 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.240 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 4 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 5 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 1 1650.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 2 1330.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 3 1990.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-3 1 1680.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-3 2 1610.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-3 3 1280.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 114.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 160.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 138.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 1 4550.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 2 148000.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 3 7620.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 59.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 51.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 56.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 1 1960.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 2 2900.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 3 2260.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 4 1860.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 5 7260.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 1 6.810 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 2 10.700 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 3 13.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 4 10.800 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 5 34.100 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-3 1 0.220 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-3 2 0.120 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-3 3 0.100 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.170 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.130 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.080 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-1+SP-3 1 155.784 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-1+SP-3 2 139.464 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-1+SP-3 3 167.238 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-6+SP-5 1 1.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-6+SP-5 2 1.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-6+SP-5 3 1.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 1 38.600 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 2 40.300 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 3 54.600 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 4 40.600 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 5 39.800 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.610 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.435 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 1.220 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 4 0.910 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 5 0.790 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 1 94.500 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 2 86.900 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 3 122.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-3 1 5.790 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-3 2 57.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-3 3 92.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.390 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.480 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.660 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 1 1410.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 2 1220.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 3 1600.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 4 1820.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 5 1410.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-3 1 600.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-3 2 2020.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-3 3 2130.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 8.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 7.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 6.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-1+SP-3 1 1656.408 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-1+SP-3 2 13297.699 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-1+SP-3 3 2945.149 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-6+SP-5 1 11.495 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-6+SP-5 2 5.020 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-6+SP-5 3 2.390 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 1 4340.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 2 8400.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 3 7190.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 4 6320.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 5 5770.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 6.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 6.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 8.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 4 6.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 5 8.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 1 2740.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 2 3350.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 3 5520.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-3 1 3530.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-3 2 2910.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-3 3 4580.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 4.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 4.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 6.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 1 2570.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 2 2600.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 3 2630.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 4 2700.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 5 2650.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.1 SP-3 1 1780.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.1 SP-3 2 3670.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.1 SP-3 3 5920.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 34.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 31.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 34.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-1+SP-3 1 4392.891 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-1+SP-3 2 2694.342 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-1+SP-3 3 3291.873 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-6+SP-5 1 21.650 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-6+SP-5 2 25.350 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-6+SP-5 3 20.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 1 10100.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 2 21600.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 3 18200.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 4 47200.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 5 12300.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 117.500 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 135.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 112.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 4 109.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 5 112.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 1 5550.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 2 5090.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 3 7180.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-3 1 8540.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-3 2 6720.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-3 3 8260.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 41.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 45.500 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 55.000 MG/L  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 1 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 4 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 5 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-5+SP-4 1 26.500 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 36.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-1+SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-1+SP-3 2 407518.610 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-1+SP-3 3 1180694.789 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-6+SP-5 1 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-6+SP-5 2 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-6+SP-5 3 2300.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 4 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 5 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 1 13.500 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 3.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 70.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 4 2300.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 5 80.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 2 500000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-5+SP-4 1 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 66.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 30.000 /100M  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 1 230.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 2 186.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 3 96.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 4 122.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 5 178.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-3 1 107.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-3 2 160.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-3 3 226.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 5.917 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 5.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-1+SP-3 1 183.447 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-1+SP-3 2 57.341 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-1+SP-3 3 99.377 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-6+SP-5 1 5.733 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-6+SP-5 2 5.858 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-6+SP-5 3 5.783 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 1 1926.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 2 4556.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 3 3318.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 4 3159.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 5 2026.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 6.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 4 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 5 5.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 1 119.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 2 312.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 3 651.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-3 1 534.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-3 2 454.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-3 3 868.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 5.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 5.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 24.833 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 1 2.300 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 2 2.160 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 3 1.890 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 4 2.160 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 5 2.120 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-3 1 0.100 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-3 2 0.190 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-3 3 0.190 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 73.750 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 76.450 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 70.800 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-1+SP-3 1 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-1+SP-3 2 0.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-1+SP-3 3 2.154 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-6+SP-5 1 177.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-6+SP-5 2 160.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-6+SP-5 3 148.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 2 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 3 0.040 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 4 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 5 0.020 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 172.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 165.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 168.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 4 156.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 5 159.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 2 0.820 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 3 0.600 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-3 1 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-3 2 0.550 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-3 3 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 313.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 273.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 282.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 36.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 11.500 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 1 153.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 2 15.400 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 3 163.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.985 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 1.645 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 1.840 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 1 399.757 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 2 501.210 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 3 420.923 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 1 1.430 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 2 2.400 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 3 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 1 48.200 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 2 74.700 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 3 173.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 4 42.500 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 5 49.500 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 11.075 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 2.655 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 4.520 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 4 4.680 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 5 5.190 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.400 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 1 47.100 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 2 56.900 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 3 96.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.605 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 2.195 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 5.290 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 38.300 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 13.660 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 1 153.100 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 2 15.590 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 3 163.190 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 75.735 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 78.095 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 72.640 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 1 400.057 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 2 501.510 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 3 423.077 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 1 178.930 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 2 162.900 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 3 149.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 1 48.210 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 2 74.710 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 3 173.040 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 4 42.510 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 5 49.520 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 183.075 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 167.655 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 172.520 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 4 160.680 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 5 164.190 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.410 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.820 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.600 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 1 47.110 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 2 57.450 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 3 96.010 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 315.105 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 275.195 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 287.290 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 1 77.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 2 85.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 3 88.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 4 78.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 5 78.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-3 1 29.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-3 2 47.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-3 3 93.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 10.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 11.850 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 12.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-1+SP-3 1 28.157 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-1+SP-3 2 28.114 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-1+SP-3 3 122.484 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-6+SP-5 1 12.000 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-6+SP-5 2 11.470 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-6+SP-5 3 11.000 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 1 27.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 2 34.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 3 32.800 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 4 32.800 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 5 23.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 31.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 32.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 30.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 4 32.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 5 29.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 1 34.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 2 27.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 3 34.100 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-3 1 34.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-3 2 27.100 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-3 3 42.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 16.850 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 14.250 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 13.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 1 0.370 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 2 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 3 0.370 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 4 0.160 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 5 0.240 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-3 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-3 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-1+SP-3 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-1+SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-1+SP-3 3 0.269 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-6+SP-5 1 0.205 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-6+SP-5 2 0.285 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-6+SP-5 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 4 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 5 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 4 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 5 0.200 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 1 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 2 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 3 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-3 1 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-3 2 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-3 3 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.605 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.330 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.910 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 1 360.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 2 420.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 3 463.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 4 337.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 5 233.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-3 1 840.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-3 2 3080.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-3 3 2900.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 12.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 16.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 8.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-1+SP-3 1 1359.677 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-1+SP-3 2 1213.914 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-1+SP-3 3 827.829 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-6+SP-5 1 18.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-6+SP-5 2 48.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-6+SP-5 3 17.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 1 3340.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 2 2580.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 3 3580.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 4 3340.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 5 3820.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 27.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 22.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 19.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 4 20.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 5 23.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 1 850.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 2 640.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 3 1020.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-3 1 1350.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-3 2 1410.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-3 3 1770.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 16.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 21.500 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 20.000 MG/L -------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ------------------------------ Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 1 6.810 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 2 10.700 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 3 13.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 4 10.800 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 5 34.100 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 1 140.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 2 199.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 3 251.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 4 310.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 5 464.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 1 0.330 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 2 1.250 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 3 2.980 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 4 2.900 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 1 94.500 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 2 86.900 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 3 122.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 1 1410.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 2 1220.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 3 1600.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 4 1820.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 5 1410.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 1 2060.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 2 2070.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 3 2070.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 4 1740.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 5 3100.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 1 7.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 2 3.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 3 3.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 4 4.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 5 6.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 1 2740.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 2 3350.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 3 5520.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 1 2570.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 2 2600.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 3 2630.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 4 2700.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 5 2650.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 1 2000.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 2 4310.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 3 3850.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 4 4880.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 5 4930.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 1 29.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 2 31.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 3 25.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 4 23.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 5 24.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 1 5550.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 2 5090.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 3 7180.000 MG/L  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 1 300000.000 /100M 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 4 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 5 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 4 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 5 500000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 1 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 2 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 4 2.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 5 80.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 2 500000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 1 230.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 2 186.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 3 96.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 4 122.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 5 178.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 1 337.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 2 270.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 3 266.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 4 271.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 5 580.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 1 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 2 5.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 3 6.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 4 6.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 5 5.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 1 119.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 2 312.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 3 651.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 1 2.300 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 2 2.160 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 3 1.890 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 4 2.160 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 5 2.120 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 1 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 2 42.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 3 0.110 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 4 0.080 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 5 0.080 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 1 4.710 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 2 5.840 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 3 5.460 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 4 7.140 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 5 6.970 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 2 0.820 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 3 0.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 36.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 11.500 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 269.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 1 1.420 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 2 1.330 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 3 3.260 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.400 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 38.300 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 13.660 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.010 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 311.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.110 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.080 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 1 6.130 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 2 7.170 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 3 8.720 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.410 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.820 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 1 77.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 2 85.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 3 88.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 4 78.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 5 78.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 1 53.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 2 66.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 3 83.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 4 65.000 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 5 68.800 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 1 3.260 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 2 6.160 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 3 8.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 4 7.950 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ------------------------------ (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 5 7.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 1 34.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 2 27.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 3 34.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 1 0.370 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 2 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 3 0.370 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 4 0.160 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 5 0.240 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 1 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 2 0.320 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 3 1.800 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 4 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 5 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 1 13.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 2 12.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 3 18.300 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 4 19.900 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 5 2.150 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 1 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 2 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 3 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 1 360.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 2 420.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 3 463.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 4 337.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 5 233.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 1 1720.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 2 2000.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 3 1860.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 4 1520.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 5 1250.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 1 4.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 2 5.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 3 4.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 4 4.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 5 4.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 1 850.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 2 640.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 3 1020.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------- Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 1 6.810 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 2 10.700 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 3 13.200 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 4 10.800 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 5 34.100 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 1 140.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 2 199.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 3 251.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 4 310.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 5 464.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 1 134.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 2 193.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 3 246.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 4 321.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 5 441.000 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 1 94.500 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 2 86.900 MG/L  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 3 122.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 1 1410.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 2 1220.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 3 1600.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 4 1820.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 5 1410.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 1 2060.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 2 2070.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 3 2070.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 4 1740.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 5 3100.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 1 945.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 2 969.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 3 1430.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 4 1830.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 5 1150.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 1 2740.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 2 3350.000 MG/L  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 3 5520.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 1 2570.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 2 2600.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 3 2630.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 4 2700.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 5 2650.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 1 2000.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 2 4310.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 3 3850.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 4 4880.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 5 4930.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------- (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 1 1710.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 2 1590.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 3 1870.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 4 1850.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 5 1820.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 1 5550.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 2 5090.000 MG/L  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 3 7180.000 MG/L  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 1 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 4 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 5 300000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 4 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 5 500000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 1 13000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 2 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 3 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 4 900000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 5 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 2 500000.000 /100M  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 1 230.167 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 2 186.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 3 96.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 4 122.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 5 178.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 1 337.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 2 270.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 3 266.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 4 271.500 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 5 580.333 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 1 15.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 2 13.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 3 15.000 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 4 15.833 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 5 21.800 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 1 119.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 2 312.667 MG/L  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 3 651.500 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 1 2.300 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------- (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 2 2.160 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 3 1.890 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 4 2.160 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 5 2.120 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 1 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 2 42.000 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 3 0.110 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 4 0.080 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 5 0.080 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 1 0.070 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 2 0.080 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 3 0.090 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 4 0.090 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 5 0.100 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 2 0.820 MG/L  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 3 0.600 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 36.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 11.500 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 269.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 1 138.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 2 158.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.400 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.000 MG/L  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 38.300 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 13.660 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.010 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 311.000 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.110 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.080 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 1 138.070 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 2 158.080 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.410 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.820 MG/L  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 1 77.600 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 2 85.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 3 88.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 4 78.900 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 5 78.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 1 53.600 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------- (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 2 66.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 3 83.300 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 4 65.000 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 5 68.800 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 1 23.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 2 24.200 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 3 46.400 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 4 32.500 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 5 32.800 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 1 34.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 2 27.700 MG/L  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 3 34.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 1 0.370 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 2 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 3 0.370 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 4 0.160 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 5 0.240 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 1 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 2 0.320 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 3 1.800 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 4 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 5 1.000 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 1 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 2 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 3 0.110 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 4 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 5 0.100 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 1 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 2 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 3 0.400 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 1 360.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 2 420.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 3 463.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 4 337.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 5 233.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 1 1720.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 2 2000.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 3 1860.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 4 1520.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 5 1250.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 1 253.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 2 335.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 3 253.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 4 263.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 5 272.000 MG/L 
 Appendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------- (continued) Sample Sample  Analyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration Unit  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 1 850.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 2 640.000 MG/L  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 3 1020.000 MG/L 
G-1

APPENDIX G

MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

1

 In the remainder of this appendix, references to ‘limitations’ includes ‘standards.’

2

 Aitchison, J. and Brown, J.A.C. (1963) The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge University Press, pages

87-99.

3

 Owen, W.J. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980. “Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data Containing Zeroes

and Left-Censored Values, with Applications to the Measurement of Worker Exposure to Air Contaminants.” 

Biometrics, 36:707-719.

G-2

This appendix describes the modified delta-lognormal distribution and the estimation of

the episode-specific long-term averages and variability factors used to calculate the proposed

limitations and standards.1

 This appendix provides the statistical methodology that was used to

obtain the results presented in Section 13.

G.1 BASIC OVERVIEW OF THE MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL

DISTRIBUTION

EPA selected the modified delta-lognormal distribution to model pollutant effluent

concentrations from the meat products industry in developing the long-term averages and

variability factors. A typical effluent data set from a sampling episode or self-monitoring episode

(see Section 13 for a discussion of the data associated with these episodes) consists of a mixture

of measured (detected) and non-detected values. The modified delta-lognormal distribution is

appropriate for such data sets because it models the data as a mixture of measurements that

follow a lognormal distribution and non-detect measurements that occur with a certain

probability. The model also allows for the possibility that non-detect measurements occur at

multiple sample-specific detection limits.

The modified delta-lognormal distribution is a modification of the ‘delta distribution'

originally developed by Aitchison and Brown.2

 While this distribution was originally developed

to model economic data, other researchers have shown the application to environmental data.3

The resulting mixed distributional model, which combines a continuous density portion with a

discrete-valued spike at zero, is also known as the delta-lognormal distribution. The delta in the

name refers to the proportion of the overall distribution contained in the discrete distributional

spike at zero; that is, the proportion of zero amounts. The remaining non-zero, non-censored

(NC) amounts are grouped together and fit to a lognormal distribution.
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

4

 Previously, EPA had modified the delta-lognormal model to account for non-detected measurements by

placing the distributional “spike” at a single positive value, usually equal to the nominal method detection limit,

rather than at zero. For further details, see Kahn and Rubin, 1989. This adaptation was used in developing

limitations and standards for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) and pesticides

manufacturing rulemakings. EPA has used the current modification in several, more recent, rulemakings.

G-3

EPA modified this delta-lognormal distribution to incorporate multiple detection limits. 

In the modification of the delta portion, the single spike located at zero is replaced by a discrete

distribution made up of multiple spikes. Each spike in this modification is associated with a

distinct sample-specific detection limit associated with non-detected (ND) measurements in the

database.4 A lognormal density is used to represent the set of measured values. This

modification of the delta-lognormal distribution is illustrated in Figure G-1.

Figure G-1.

The following two subsections describe the delta and lognormal portions of the modified

delta-lognormal distribution in further detail.

G.2 CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS OF THE MODIFIED

DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The discrete portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution models the non-detected

values corresponding to the k reported sample-specific detection limits. In the model, 
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-4

represents the proportion of non-detected values in the dataset and is the sum of smaller

fractions, i, each representing the proportion of non-detected values associated with each

distinct detection limit value. By letting Di

 equal the value of the ith smallest distinct detection

limit in the data set and the random variable XD represent a randomly chosen non-detected

measurement, the cumulative distribution function of the discrete portion of the modified deltalognormal model can be mathematically expressed as: 

(G-1) P r ( ) :

Xc c D i

iD c i

≤= <

≤

∑1 0

δ

δ

The mean and variance of this discrete distribution can be calculated using the following

formulas:

EX D D ii (G-2)

i

k

( ) =

=

∑1

1 δ

δ

Var X D E X ( ) (G-3) D iD

i

k

() () = −

=

∑

1

1

2

δ

δι

The continuous, lognormal portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution was used

to model the detected measurements from the meat products industry database. The cumulative

probability distribution of the continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution

can be mathematically expressed as: 

P r[ ] (G-4) ln( ) X c

c

C ≤ =  −



 



Φ 

μ

σ

where the random variable XC represents a randomly chosen detected measurement, is

the standard normal distribution, and  and are parameters of the distribution.
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-5

The expected value, E(XC), and the variance, Var(XC), of the lognormal distribution can

be calculated as:

E X( C ) = + (G-5) 2





 





2

ex p μ

σ

( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) (G-6) ( ) Var X E X C C = − 2 2 ex p σ 1

G.3 COMBINING THE CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS

The continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution is combined with the

discrete portion to model data sets that contain a mixture of non-detected and detected

measurements. It is possible to fit a wide variety of observed effluent data sets to the modified

delta-lognormal distribution. Multiple detection limits for non-detect measurements are

incorporated, as are measured ("detected") values. The same basic framework can be used even

if there are no non-detected values in the data set (in this case, it is the same as the lognormal

distribution). Thus, the modified delta-lognormal distribution offers a large degree of flexibility

in modeling effluent data.

The modified delta-lognormal random variable U can be expressed as a combination of

three other independent variables, that is,

U IX I X ( ) (G-7) = +− uD u C 1

where XD represents a random non-detect from the discrete portion of the distribution, XC

represents a random detected measurement from the continuous lognormal portion, and Iu is an

indicator variable signaling whether any particular random measurement, u, is non-detected or

non-censored (that is, Iu=1 if u is non-detected; Iu=0 if u is non-censored). Using a weighted

sum, the cumulative distribution function from the discrete portion of the distribution (equation

1) can be combined with the function from the continuous portion (equation 4) to obtain the
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-6

overall cumulative probability distribution of the modified delta-lognormal distribution as

follows, 

P r( ) () (G-8)

ln( )

:

U c c

i

iD c i

≤ = +−  −



 





≤

∑ δ δ μ

σ

1 Φ

where Di is the value of the ith sample-specific detection limit.

The expected value of the random variable U can be derived as a weighted sum of the

expected values of the discrete and continuous portions of the distribution (equations 2 and 5,

respectively) as follows

EU E X E X ( ) = +− δ δ ( )1 D C ( ) ( ) (G-9)

In a similar manner, the expected value of the random variable squared can be written as

a weighted sum of the expected values of the squares of the discrete and continuous portions of

the distribution as follows

EU E X E X ( ) ( D C ) ( ) ( ) (G-10) 22 2 = +− δ δ 1

Although written in terms of U, the following relationship holds for all random variables,

U, XD, and XC.

(G-11) E U Var U E U ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) 2 2

= +

So using equation 11 to solve for Var(U), and applying the relationships in equations 9

and 10, the variance of U can be obtained as

Var Var E Var E E () ( ) ( ) U XX XX U [ ] ( ) () () [ ] [ ] ( ) (G-12) = + DD CC 



 



 +− + 



 

 δ δ  − 2 22 1
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-7

G.4 Episode-specific Estimates Under the Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution

In order to use the modified delta-lognormal model to calculate the proposed limitations,

the parameters of the distribution are estimated from the data. These estimates are then used to

calculate the proposed limitations.

The parameters and are estimated from the data using the following formulas: 

δι 

δ

(G-13)

( ) 



δ

δ

i ji

j

n

d

n

Id D

n

n

d

= =

=

=

∑

1

1

where nd is the number of non-detected measurements, dj, j = 1 to nd, are the detection limits for

the non-detected measurements, n is the number of measurements (both detected and nondetected) and I(...) is an indicator function equal to one if the phrase within the parentheses is

true and zero otherwise. The "hat" over the parameters indicates that they are estimated from the

data.

The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified deltalognormal distribution can be calculated from the data as:

( ) (G-14)    EX D D i

i

k

= i

=

∑

1

1 δ

δ

( ) ( ( )) (G-15)    Var X D E X D i

i

k

= −i D

=

∑

1

1

2

δ

δ
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-8

The parameters of the continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution,

μ and , are estimated by σ 2

(G-16)

( )

( ) ( )

 ln

 ln 

μ

σ

μ

=

= −

−

=

2

2

=

∑

∑

x

n

x

n

i

c i

n

i

c i

n

c

c

1

1 1

where xi is the ith detected measurement value and nc is the number of detected measurements. 

Note that n = nd + nc.

The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified deltalognormal distribution can be calculated from the data as:

( ) (G-17)  ex p   E X C = +

2





 





2

μ

σ

( ) [ ] ( ) ( ( ) ) (G-18)   Var X E X exp  C C = − 2 2 σ 1

Finally, the expected value and variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution can

be estimated using the following formulas:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (G-19)      EU E X E X = +− δ δ D C 1

( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ] ( ) (G-20)        Var U Var X E X Var X E X E U = + DD CC 



 



 +− + 



 

 δ δ  − 2 22

1
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-9

Equations 17 through 20 are particularly important in the estimation of episode-specific

long-term averages and variability factors as described in the following sections. These sections

are preceded by a section that identifies the episode data set requirements.

G.4.1 Episode Data Set Requirements

Estimates of the necessary parameters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be

calculated with as few as two distinct detected values in a data set. (In order to calculate the

variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, two distinct detected values are the

minimum number that can be used and still obtain an estimate of the variance for the

distribution.)

If an episode data set for a pollutant contained three or more observations with two or

more distinct detected concentration values, then EPA used the modified delta-lognormal

distribution to calculate long-term averages and variability factors. If the episode data set for a

pollutant did not meet these requirements, EPA used an arithmetic average to calculate the

episode-specific long-term average and excluded the dataset from the variability factor

calculations (because the variability could not be calculated). 

In statistical terms, each measurement was assumed to be independently and identically

distributed from the other measurements of that pollutant in the episode data set. 

The next two sections apply the modified delta-lognormal distribution to the data for

estimating episode-specific long-term averages and variability factors for the iron and steel

industry.

G.4.2 Estimation of Episode-specific Long-Term Averages

If an episode dataset for a pollutant met the requirements described in the last section,

then EPA calculated the long-term average using equation 19. Otherwise, EPA calculated the

long-term average as the arithmetic average of the daily values where the sample-specific

detection limit was used for each non-detected measurement.
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

5

 Compliance with the monthly average limitations will be required in the final rulemaking regardless of the

number of samples analyzed and averaged.

G-10

G.4.3 Estimation of Episode-Specific Variability Factors

For each episode, EPA estimated the daily variability factors by fitting a modified deltalognormal distribution to the daily measurements for each pollutant. In contrast, EPA estimated

monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal distribution to the monthly

averages for the pollutant at the episode. EPA developed these averages using the same number

of measurements as the assumed monitoring frequency for the pollutant. EPA is assuming that

all pollutants will be monitored daily.5

G.4.3.1 Estimation of Episode-specific Daily Variability Factors

The episode-specific daily variability factor is a function of the expected value, and the

99th percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to the daily concentration values

of the pollutant in the wastewater from the episode. The expected value, was estimated using

equation 19 (the expected value is the same as the episode-specific long-term average).

The 99th percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to each data set was

estimated by using an iterative approach. First, the pollutant-specific detection limits were

ordered from smallest to largest. Next, the cumulative distribution function, p, for each detection

limit was computed. The general form, for a given value c, was:

( ) (G-21) ( ) p

c

i

iD c i

= +−

 −













≤  ∑   ln 

 :

δ δ μ

σ

1 Φ

where is the standard normal cumulative distribution function. Next, the interval

containing the 99th percentile was identified. Finally, the 99th percentile of the modified deltalognormal distribution was calculated. The following steps were completed to compute the

estimated 99th percentile of each data subset:
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-11

Step 1 Using equation 21, k values of p at c=Dm, m=1,...,k were computed and

labeled pm.

Step 2 The smallest value of m (m=1,...,k), such that pm  0.99, was determined and

labeled as pj. If no such m existed, steps 3 and 4 were skipped and step 5 was

computed instead.

Step 3 Computed p* = pj

 - . 

δ j

Step 4 If p* < 0.99, then = Dj 

P 9 9

else if p* > 0.99, then 

(G-22)  ex p  



 P

i

i

j

9 9 1

1

= +

0.99 −

1−

























































−1 =

−

∑

μ σ

δ

δ

Φ

where -1 is the inverse normal distribution function.

Step 5 If no such m exists such that pm > 0.99 (m=1,...,k), then

(G-23)  ex p   

 P 9 9 = +

0.99 −

1−

































−1 μ σ

δ

δ

Φ

The episode-specific daily variability factor, VF1, was then calculated as:

(G-24) ( )

V F P

E U

1 9 9 = 



G.4.3.2 Estimation of Episode-Specific Monthly Variability Factors

EPA estimated the monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal

distribution to the monthly averages. These equations use the same basic parameters,  and ,
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-12

calculated for the daily variability factors. Episode-specific monthly variability factors were

based on 30-day monthly averages because the monitoring frequency was assumed to be daily

(approximately thirty times a month). As explained in Section 13.6.2, EPA recognizes that small

poultry facilities are unlikely to operate on weekends and is soliciting comment on whether their

monthly limitations should be based upon 20 days. This section describes the calculations for

monthly variability factors based upon 30-day averages. To calculate the monthly variability

factors based upon 20 days, the same basic procedure is used except that 20-day averages are

used instead of 30-day averages.

Before estimating the episode-specific monthly variability factors, EPA considered

whether autocorrelation was likely to be present in the effluent data. When data are said to be

positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements taken at specific time intervals (such as 1

day or 2 days apart) are related. For example, positive autocorrelation would be present in the

data if the final effluent concentration of HEM was relatively high one day and was likely to

remain at similar high values the next and possibly succeeding days. Because EPA is assuming

that the pollutants will be monitored daily, EPA based the monthly variability factors on the

distribution of the averages of 30 (or 20) measurements. If concentrations measured on

consecutive days were positively correlated, then the autocorrelation would have had an effect on

the estimate of the variance of the monthly average and thus on the monthly variability factor. 

Adjustments for positive autocorrelation would increase the values of the variance and monthly

variability factor. (The estimate of the long-term average and the daily variability factor are

generally only slightly affected by autocorrelation.)

EPA has not incorporated an autocorrelation adjustment into its estimates of the monthly

variability factors. In many industries, measurements in final effluent are likely to be similar

from one day to the next because of the consistency from day-to-day in the production processes

and in final effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of wastewater in basins,

holding ponds, and other components of wastewater treatment systems. To determine if

autocorrelation exists in the data, a statistical evaluation is necessary. However, the data used for

the proposal were insufficient for the purpose of evaluating autocorrelation. To estimate

autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for each pollutant would be required with values
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-13

for every single day over an extended period of time. If such data are available for the final rule,

EPA intends to perform a statistical evaluation of autocorrelation and if necessary provide any

adjustments to the limitations.

In calculating the monthly variability factors, EPA assumed that consecutive daily

measurements were not correlated, and therefore

( ) ( ) ( ) (G-25) ( )   

E U E U and Var U

Var U

30 30 3 0 = =

where and were calculated as shown ( ) in equations 19 and 20. Finally, because 

E U ( ) Var U

 is approximately normally distributed by the Central Limit Theorem, the estimate of the 95th U 3 0

percentile of a 30-day mean and the corresponding episode-specific 30-day variability factor

(VF30) were approximated by

( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) (G-26)   .  P E U Var U 95 0 95 30 30

1 = + 3 0

− Φ

where -1(0.95) is the 95th percentile of the inverse normal distribution. By using the

substitutions in equation 25, equation 26 simplified to

() ( ) [ ] ( ) (G-27)   .  P E U Var U 95 0 95 3 0

1 1 = + 3 0

− Φ

Then

(G-28) ( ) V F ( ) ( ) P

E U

3 0 because E U E U 9 5 = = 3 0



  

G.4.3.3 Evaluation of Episode-Specific Variability Factors

Estimates of the necessary parameters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be

calculated with as few as two distinct measured values in a data set (in order to calculate the

variance); however, these estimates can be unstable (as can estimates from larger data sets). As

stated in Section G.4.1, EPA used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to develop episode-
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-14

specific variability factors for data sets that had a three or more observations with two or more

distinct measured concentration values.

To identify situations producing unexpected results, EPA reviewed all of the variability

factors and compared daily to monthly variability factors. EPA used several criteria to determine

if the episode-specific daily and monthly variability factors should be included in calculating the

option variability factors. One criteria that EPA used was that the daily and monthly variability

factors should be greater than 1.0. A variability factor less than 1.0 would result in a unexpected

result where the estimated 99th percentile would be less than the long-term average. This would

be an indication that the estimate of (the log standard deviation) was unstable. A second σ

criteria was that the daily variability factor had to be greater than the monthly variability factor. 

All the episode-specific variability factors used for the proposed limitations and standards met

these criteria.

G.5 REFERENCES

Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. 1963. The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge University

Press, New York.

Barakat, R. 1976. “Sums of Independent Lognormally Distributed Random Variables.” Journal

of the Optical Society of America, 66: 211-216.

Cohen, A. Clifford. 1976. Progressively Censored Sampling in the Three Parameter LogNormal Distribution. Technometrics, 18:99-103.

Crow, E.L. and K. Shimizu. 1988. Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications. Marcel

Dekker, Inc., New York.

Kahn, H.D., and M.B. Rubin. 1989. "Use of Statistical Methods in Industrial Water Pollution

Control Regulations in the United States." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

Vol. 12:129-148.
Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-15

Owen, W.J. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980. Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data Containing

Zeroes and Left-Censored Values, with Applications to the Measurement of Worker

Exposure to Air Contaminants. Biometrics, 36:707-719.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Development Document for Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category. 

Volume I, Volume II. EPA 440/1-87/009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Development Document for Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source

Category. EPA-821-B-99-011.
H-1

APPENDIX H

ATTACHMENTS TO SECTION 13
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------- Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 9.16 3 0 4.46 6.68 9.16 4.46 6.49 14AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 46.20 3 0 41.48 30.20 46.20 41.48 15.10 93AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6445 SP-3+SP-2 0.25 5 0 0.08 0.23 0.25 0.08 0.16 0AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6445 SP-1 9.43 5 0 1.26 9.37 9.43 1.26 8.15 11AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6448 SP-4+SP-3 1.27 5 0 0.29 1.39 1.27 0.29 0.96 1AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 154.00 5 0 48.31 161.00 154.00 48.31 95.00 208BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3293.33 3 0 828.87 2840.00 3293.33 828.87 2790.00 4250BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 7668.33 3 0 9594.36 3760.00 7668.33 9594.36 645.00 18600BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-3+SP-2 2.00 5 5 0.00 2.00 . . . BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-1 1856.00 5 0 225.90 1910.00 1856.00 225.90 1480.00 2060BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-4+SP-3 3.80 5 0 0.84 4.00 3.80 0.84 3.00 5BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 1984.00 5 0 149.60 2050.00 1984.00 149.60 1720.00 2070CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3720.00 3 0 1150.61 3900.00 3720.00 1150.61 2490.00 4770CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 10343.33 3 0 8672.11 7810.00 10343.33 8672.11 3220.00 20000CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-3+SP-2 27.60 5 0 10.43 25.00 27.60 10.43 17.00 40CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-1 3096.00 5 0 1173.55 2730.00 3096.00 1173.55 1720.00 4530CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-4+SP-3 29.60 5 0 3.85 28.00 29.60 3.85 26.00 36CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 18560.00 5 0 10979.66 17500.00 18560.00 10979.66 9700.00 36800FECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-2 87500.00 2 0 116672.62 87500.00 87500.00 116672.62 5000.00 170000FECAL COLIFORM 6445 SP-3+SP-2 4.63 4 3 5.25 2.00 12.50 . 12.50 12FECAL COLIFORM 6445 SP-1 1250000.00 4 0 404145.19 1250000.00 1250000.00 404145.19 900000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6448 SP-4+SP-3 418.30 5 0 524.92 170.00 418.30 524.92 41.50 1300FECAL COLIFORM 6448 SP-2 1460000.00 5 0 313049.52 1600000.00 1460000.00 313049.52 900000.00 1600000HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-2 792.82 3 0 748.19 390.63 792.82 748.19 331.73 1656HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6444 SP-3 423.25 3 0 327.24 238.50 423.25 327.24 230.17 801HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6445 SP-3+SP-2 23.58 5 4 39.27 6.00 93.83 . 93.83 93HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6445 SP-1 486.80 5 0 45.56 489.67 486.80 45.56 418.33 543HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6448 SP-4+SP-3 5.93 5 4 0.25 5.83 6.33 . 6.33 6HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6448 SP-2 6225.50 5 0 10385.30 1986.00 6225.50 10385.30 499.17 24739NITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-2 1.58 3 2 1.43 0.75 3.23 . 3.23 3NITRATE/NITRITE 6444 SP-3 0.30 3 3 0.00 0.30 . . . NITRATE/NITRITE 6445 SP-3+SP-2 27.04 5 0 7.22 31.40 27.04 7.22 16.80 33NITRATE/NITRITE 6445 SP-1 2.55 5 0 1.41 2.97 2.55 1.41 0.57 3NITRATE/NITRITE 6448 SP-4+SP-3 64.66 5 0 3.11 63.10 64.66 3.11 62.60 70NITRATE/NITRITE 6448 SP-2 26.02 5 0 6.31 25.50 26.02 6.31 19.00 34TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 80.13 3 0 61.98 68.80 80.13 61.98 24.60 147TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 201.87 3 0 119.74 271.00 201.87 119.74 63.60 271
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6445 SP-3+SP-2 1.59 5 0 0.47 1.61 1.59 0.47 1.03 2TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6445 SP-1 34.28 5 0 24.59 26.60 34.28 24.59 18.20 77TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6448 SP-4+SP-3 1.81 5 0 0.61 1.92 1.81 0.61 1.07 2TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 179.60 5 0 45.87 202.00 179.60 45.87 103.00 212TOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 81.71 3 0 63.32 69.55 81.71 63.32 25.35 150TOTAL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 202.17 3 0 119.74 271.30 202.17 119.74 63.90 271TOTAL NITROGEN 6445 SP-3+SP-2 28.63 5 0 7.29 33.01 28.63 7.29 18.08 34TOTAL NITROGEN 6445 SP-1 36.83 5 0 24.29 29.57 36.83 24.29 18.77 79TOTAL NITROGEN 6448 SP-4+SP-3 66.47 5 0 3.49 65.05 66.47 3.49 63.67 72TOTAL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 205.62 5 0 45.16 221.00 205.62 45.16 128.50 240TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-2 72.20 3 0 21.04 69.40 72.20 21.04 52.70 94TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6444 SP-3 312.77 3 0 429.05 77.20 312.77 429.05 53.10 808TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6445 SP-3+SP-2 0.70 5 0 0.70 0.61 0.70 0.70 0.17 1TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6445 SP-1 11.36 5 0 0.88 11.70 11.36 0.88 10.10 12TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6448 SP-4+SP-3 15.17 5 0 0.44 15.15 15.17 0.44 14.60 15TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6448 SP-2 37.54 5 0 8.28 35.90 37.54 8.28 31.10 51TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-2 7.03 3 0 5.10 9.30 7.03 5.10 1.18 10TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6444 SP-3 0.70 3 1 0.47 0.78 0.95 0.24 0.78 1TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6445 SP-3+SP-2 0.22 5 4 0.04 0.20 0.30 . 0.30 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6445 SP-1 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6448 SP-4+SP-3 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6448 SP-2 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-2 1656.67 3 0 330.05 1650.00 1656.67 330.05 1330.00 1990TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6444 SP-3 53390.00 3 0 81949.04 7620.00 53390.00 81949.04 4550.00 148000TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6445 SP-3+SP-2 8.00 5 0 3.32 7.00 8.00 3.32 5.00 12TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6445 SP-1 776.00 5 0 57.81 760.00 776.00 57.81 700.00 855TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6448 SP-4+SP-3 9.10 5 0 2.61 10.00 9.10 2.61 5.00 12TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6448 SP-2 3248.00 5 0 2279.19 2260.00 3248.00 2279.19 1860.00 7260
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------------- Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-5+SP-4 5.37 3 0 2.11 5.49 5.37 2.11 3.21 7AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 9.16 3 0 4.46 6.68 9.16 4.46 6.49 14AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-3 6.98 3 0 1.16 6.31 6.98 1.16 6.31 8AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6444 SP-5+SP-4 13.40 3 0 2.35 14.25 13.40 2.35 10.74 15AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 46.20 3 0 41.48 30.20 46.20 41.48 15.10 93AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 154.00 5 0 48.31 161.00 154.00 48.31 95.00 208BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-5+SP-4 214.10 3 0 96.04 159.30 214.10 96.04 158.00 325BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3293.33 3 0 828.87 2840.00 3293.33 828.87 2790.00 4250BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-3 2170.00 3 0 1371.75 2580.00 2170.00 1371.75 640.00 3290BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-5+SP-4 203.00 3 0 72.50 187.50 203.00 72.50 139.50 282BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 7668.33 3 0 9594.36 3760.00 7668.33 9594.36 645.00 18600BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 1984.00 5 0 149.60 2050.00 1984.00 149.60 1720.00 2070CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-5+SP-4 1637.17 3 0 2160.12 431.50 1637.17 2160.12 349.00 4131CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3720.00 3 0 1150.61 3900.00 3720.00 1150.61 2490.00 4770CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-3 3903.33 3 0 577.35 3570.00 3903.33 577.35 3570.00 4570CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-5+SP-4 474.33 3 0 93.28 444.00 474.33 93.28 400.00 579CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 10343.33 3 0 8672.11 7810.00 10343.33 8672.11 3220.00 20000CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 18560.00 5 0 10979.66 17500.00 18560.00 10979.66 9700.00 36800FECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-5+SP-4 801150.00 2 0 1129744.50 801150.00 801150.00 1129744.50 2300.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-2 87500.00 2 0 116672.62 87500.00 87500.00 116672.62 5000.00 170000FECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-3 1600000.00 2 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6448 SP-2 1460000.00 5 0 313049.52 1600000.00 1460000.00 313049.52 900000.00 1600000HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-5+SP-4 7.89 2 1 2.82 7.89 9.89 . 9.89 9HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-2 792.82 3 0 748.19 390.63 792.82 748.19 331.73 1656HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-3 297.28 2 0 5.49 297.28 297.28 5.49 293.40 301HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6444 SP-5+SP-4 19.10 3 0 14.09 14.61 19.10 14.09 7.80 34HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6444 SP-3 423.25 3 0 327.24 238.50 423.25 327.24 230.17 801HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6448 SP-2 6225.50 5 0 10385.30 1986.00 6225.50 10385.30 499.17 24739NITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-5+SP-4 0.99 3 2 0.42 0.75 1.48 . 1.48 1NITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-2 1.58 3 2 1.43 0.75 3.23 . 3.23 3NITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-3 0.75 3 3 0.00 0.75 . . . NITRATE/NITRITE 6444 SP-5+SP-4 0.30 3 3 0.00 0.30 . . . NITRATE/NITRITE 6444 SP-3 0.30 3 3 0.00 0.30 . . . NITRATE/NITRITE 6448 SP-2 26.02 5 0 6.31 25.50 26.02 6.31 19.00 34TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-5+SP-4 21.85 3 0 3.95 19.85 21.85 3.95 19.30 26TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 80.13 3 0 61.98 68.80 80.13 61.98 24.60 147TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-3 72.17 3 0 27.56 80.90 72.17 27.56 41.30 94
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6444 SP-5+SP-4 46.73 3 0 5.88 43.80 46.73 5.88 42.90 53TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 201.87 3 0 119.74 271.00 201.87 119.74 63.60 271TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 179.60 5 0 45.87 202.00 179.60 45.87 103.00 212TOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-5+SP-4 22.84 3 0 3.78 21.33 22.84 3.78 20.05 27TOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 81.71 3 0 63.32 69.55 81.71 63.32 25.35 150TOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-3 72.92 3 0 27.56 81.65 72.92 27.56 42.05 95TOTAL NITROGEN 6444 SP-5+SP-4 47.03 3 0 5.88 44.10 47.03 5.88 43.20 53TOTAL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 202.17 3 0 119.74 271.30 202.17 119.74 63.90 271TOTAL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 205.62 5 0 45.16 221.00 205.62 45.16 128.50 240TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-5+SP-4 17.48 3 0 8.80 13.25 17.48 8.80 11.60 27TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-2 72.20 3 0 21.04 69.40 72.20 21.04 52.70 94TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-3 37.53 3 0 9.31 34.80 37.53 9.31 29.90 47TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6444 SP-5+SP-4 17.73 3 0 27.43 2.29 17.73 27.43 1.51 49TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6444 SP-3 312.77 3 0 429.05 77.20 312.77 429.05 53.10 808TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6448 SP-2 37.54 5 0 8.28 35.90 37.54 8.28 31.10 51TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-5+SP-4 0.81 3 0 0.19 0.79 0.81 0.19 0.64 1TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-2 7.03 3 0 5.10 9.30 7.03 5.10 1.18 10TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-3 0.20 3 2 0.01 0.20 0.21 . 0.21 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6444 SP-5+SP-4 0.25 3 1 0.05 0.24 0.27 0.04 0.24 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6444 SP-3 0.70 3 1 0.47 0.78 0.95 0.24 0.78 1TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6448 SP-2 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-5+SP-4 137.50 3 0 22.75 138.00 137.50 22.75 114.50 160TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-2 1656.67 3 0 330.05 1650.00 1656.67 330.05 1330.00 1990TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-3 1523.33 3 0 213.62 1610.00 1523.33 213.62 1280.00 1680TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6444 SP-5+SP-4 55.50 3 0 4.27 56.00 55.50 4.27 51.00 59TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6444 SP-3 53390.00 3 0 81949.04 7620.00 53390.00 81949.04 4550.00 148000TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6448 SP-2 3248.00 5 0 2279.19 2260.00 3248.00 2279.19 1860.00 7260--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------- Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 15.12 5 0 10.85 10.80 15.12 10.85 6.81 34
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6440 SP-5+SP-4 0.13 3 0 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.08 0AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6440 SP-3 0.15 3 0 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.10 0AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6441 SP-6+SP-5 1.00 3 2 0.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6441 SP-1+SP-3 154.16 3 0 13.96 155.78 154.16 13.96 139.46 167AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6442 SP-5+SP-4 0.79 5 0 0.30 0.79 0.79 0.30 0.44 1AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6442 SP-1 42.78 5 0 6.65 40.30 42.78 6.65 38.60 54AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-5+SP-4 0.51 3 0 0.14 0.48 0.51 0.14 0.39 0AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 101.13 3 0 18.47 94.50 101.13 18.47 86.90 122AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-3 51.73 3 0 43.46 57.20 51.73 43.46 5.79 92BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 1492.00 5 0 227.31 1410.00 1492.00 227.31 1220.00 1820BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-5+SP-4 7.00 3 1 1.00 7.00 7.50 0.71 7.00 8BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-3 1583.33 3 1 853.37 2020.00 2075.00 77.78 2020.00 2130BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-6+SP-5 6.30 3 0 4.69 5.02 6.30 4.69 2.39 11BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-1+SP-3 5966.42 3 0 6381.69 2945.15 5966.42 6381.69 1656.41 13297BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-5+SP-4 6.80 5 1 1.10 6.00 7.00 1.15 6.00 8BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-1 6404.00 5 0 1522.41 6320.00 6404.00 1522.41 4340.00 8400BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-5+SP-4 4.67 3 1 1.15 4.00 5.00 1.41 4.00 6BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 3870.00 3 0 1461.13 3350.00 3870.00 1461.13 2740.00 5520BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-3 3673.33 3 0 844.18 3530.00 3673.33 844.18 2910.00 4580CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 2630.00 5 0 49.50 2630.00 2630.00 49.50 2570.00 2700CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-5+SP-4 33.00 3 0 1.73 34.00 33.00 1.73 31.00 34CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-3 3790.00 3 0 2072.61 3670.00 3790.00 2072.61 1780.00 5920CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-6+SP-5 22.33 3 1 2.74 21.65 23.50 2.62 21.65 25CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-1+SP-3 3459.70 3 0 861.62 3291.87 3459.70 861.62 2694.34 4392CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-5+SP-4 117.10 5 0 10.47 112.00 117.10 10.47 109.00 135CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-1 21880.00 5 0 14876.73 18200.00 21880.00 14876.73 10100.00 47200CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-5+SP-4 47.17 3 0 7.15 45.50 47.17 7.15 41.00 55CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 5940.00 3 0 1098.23 5550.00 5940.00 1098.23 5090.00 7180CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-3 7840.00 3 0 980.00 8260.00 7840.00 980.00 6720.00 8540FECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-2 820000.00 5 0 712039.32 300000.00 820000.00 712039.32 300000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6440 SP-5+SP-4 21.50 3 1 17.54 26.50 31.25 6.72 26.50 36FECAL COLIFORM 6440 SP-3 1600000.00 3 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6441 SP-6+SP-5 768.00 3 2 1326.75 2.00 2300.00 . 2300.00 2300FECAL COLIFORM 6441 SP-1+SP-3 1062737.80 3 0 604928.39 1180694.79 1062737.80 604928.39 407518.61 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6442 SP-5+SP-4 493.30 5 0 1010.54 70.00 493.30 1010.54 3.00 2300FECAL COLIFORM 6442 SP-1 1600000.00 5 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC FECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-5+SP-4 32.67 3 1 32.08 30.00 48.00 25.46 30.00 66FECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-1 1233333.33 3 0 635085.30 1600000.00 1233333.33 635085.30 500000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-3 1600000.00 3 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-2 162.77 5 0 53.24 178.50 162.77 53.24 96.33 230HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6440 SP-5+SP-4 5.92 3 3 0.08 5.92 . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6440 SP-3 164.83 3 0 59.86 160.67 164.83 59.86 107.17 226HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6441 SP-6+SP-5 5.79 3 3 0.06 5.78 . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6441 SP-1+SP-3 113.39 3 0 64.21 99.38 113.39 64.21 57.34 183HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6442 SP-5+SP-4 6.07 5 4 0.25 6.00 6.50 . 6.50 6HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6442 SP-1 2997.60 5 0 1078.08 3159.50 2997.60 1078.08 1926.83 4556HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-5+SP-4 11.89 3 0 11.21 5.50 11.89 11.21 5.33 24HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-1 361.28 3 0 269.23 312.67 361.28 269.23 119.67 651HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-3 618.94 3 0 219.29 534.00 618.94 219.29 454.83 868NITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-2 2.13 5 0 0.15 2.16 2.13 0.15 1.89 2NITRATE/NITRITE 6440 SP-5+SP-4 73.67 3 0 2.83 73.75 73.67 2.83 70.80 76NITRATE/NITRITE 6440 SP-3 0.16 3 0 0.05 0.19 0.16 0.05 0.10 0NITRATE/NITRITE 6441 SP-6+SP-5 162.00 3 0 14.81 160.50 162.00 14.81 148.00 177NITRATE/NITRITE 6441 SP-1+SP-3 0.92 3 2 1.07 0.30 2.15 . 2.15 2NITRATE/NITRITE 6442 SP-5+SP-4 164.00 5 0 6.52 165.00 164.00 6.52 156.00 172NITRATE/NITRITE 6442 SP-1 0.02 5 2 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0NITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-5+SP-4 289.50 3 0 21.27 282.00 289.50 21.27 273.00 313NITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-1 0.48 3 1 0.42 0.60 0.71 0.16 0.60 0NITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-3 0.19 3 2 0.31 0.01 0.55 . 0.55 0TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 23.75 2 0 17.32 23.75 23.75 17.32 11.50 36TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6440 SP-5+SP-4 1.82 3 0 0.17 1.84 1.82 0.17 1.65 1TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6440 SP-3 110.47 3 0 82.48 153.00 110.47 82.48 15.40 163TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6441 SP-6+SP-5 1.61 3 1 0.72 1.43 1.92 0.69 1.43 2TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6441 SP-1+SP-3 440.63 3 0 53.52 420.92 440.63 53.52 399.76 501TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6442 SP-5+SP-4 5.62 5 0 3.19 4.68 5.62 3.19 2.66 11TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6442 SP-1 77.58 5 0 54.76 49.50 77.58 54.76 42.50 173TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-5+SP-4 3.03 3 0 1.98 2.20 3.03 1.98 1.61 5TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.47 3 0 72.42 103.00 141.47 72.42 96.40 225TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-3 66.67 3 0 25.87 56.90 66.67 25.87 47.10 96TOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 25.98 2 0 17.42 25.98 25.98 17.42 13.66 38TOTAL NITROGEN 6440 SP-5+SP-4 75.49 3 0 2.74 75.74 75.49 2.74 72.64 78TOTAL NITROGEN 6440 SP-3 110.63 3 0 82.46 153.10 110.63 82.46 15.59 163
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC TOTAL NITROGEN 6441 SP-6+SP-5 163.61 3 0 14.98 162.90 163.61 14.98 149.00 178TOTAL NITROGEN 6441 SP-1+SP-3 441.55 3 0 53.19 423.08 441.55 53.19 400.06 501TOTAL NITROGEN 6442 SP-5+SP-4 169.62 5 0 8.70 167.66 169.62 8.70 160.68 183TOTAL NITROGEN 6442 SP-1 77.60 5 0 54.77 49.52 77.60 54.77 42.51 173TOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-5+SP-4 292.53 3 0 20.46 287.29 292.53 20.46 275.20 315TOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.94 3 0 72.54 103.82 141.94 72.54 96.41 225TOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-3 66.86 3 0 25.77 57.45 66.86 25.77 47.11 96TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-2 81.68 5 0 4.83 78.90 81.68 4.83 77.60 88TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6440 SP-5+SP-4 11.65 3 0 0.87 11.85 11.65 0.87 10.70 12TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6440 SP-3 56.70 3 0 32.99 47.20 56.70 32.99 29.50 93TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6441 SP-6+SP-5 11.49 3 0 0.50 11.47 11.49 0.50 11.00 12TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6441 SP-1+SP-3 59.58 3 0 54.47 28.16 59.58 54.47 28.11 122TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6442 SP-5+SP-4 31.34 5 0 1.15 31.50 31.34 1.15 29.60 32TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6442 SP-1 30.26 5 0 4.68 32.80 30.26 4.68 23.30 34TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-5+SP-4 14.73 3 0 1.92 14.25 14.73 1.92 13.10 16TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-1 32.17 3 0 3.88 34.10 32.17 3.88 27.70 34TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-3 34.73 3 0 7.65 34.70 34.73 7.65 27.10 42TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-2 0.25 5 1 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.16 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6440 SP-5+SP-4 0.20 3 3 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6440 SP-3 0.20 3 3 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6441 SP-6+SP-5 0.23 3 1 0.05 0.21 0.25 0.06 0.21 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6441 SP-1+SP-3 0.22 3 2 0.04 0.20 0.27 . 0.27 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6442 SP-5+SP-4 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6442 SP-1 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . . TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-5+SP-4 0.62 3 0 0.29 0.61 0.62 0.29 0.33 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-1 0.40 3 3 0.00 0.40 . . . TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-3 1.00 3 3 0.00 1.00 . . . TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-2 362.60 5 0 87.80 360.00 362.60 87.80 233.00 463TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6440 SP-5+SP-4 12.33 3 0 4.25 12.50 12.33 4.25 8.00 16TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6440 SP-3 2273.33 3 0 1244.56 2900.00 2273.33 1244.56 840.00 3080TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6441 SP-6+SP-5 28.00 3 0 17.77 18.50 28.00 17.77 17.00 48TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6441 SP-1+SP-3 1133.81 3 0 274.82 1213.91 1133.81 274.82 827.83 1359TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6442 SP-5+SP-4 22.20 5 0 3.11 22.00 22.20 3.11 19.00 27TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6442 SP-1 3332.00 5 0 465.10 3340.00 3332.00 465.10 2580.00 3820TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-5+SP-4 19.17 3 0 2.84 20.00 19.17 2.84 16.00 21TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-1 836.67 3 0 190.35 850.00 836.67 190.35 640.00 1020
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-3 1510.00 3 0 227.16 1410.00 1510.00 227.16 1350.00 1770--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ----------------------------------- Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-6 1.87 4 0 1.30 2.08 1.87 1.30 0.33 2AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 15.12 5 0 10.85 10.80 15.12 10.85 6.81 34AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.80 5 0 123.99 251.00 272.80 123.99 140.00 464AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 101.13 3 0 18.47 94.50 101.13 18.47 86.90 122BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-6 4.60 5 1 1.82 4.00 5.00 1.83 3.00 7BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 1492.00 5 0 227.31 1410.00 1492.00 227.31 1220.00 1820BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 2208.00 5 0 518.33 2070.00 2208.00 518.33 1740.00 3100BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 3870.00 3 0 1461.13 3350.00 3870.00 1461.13 2740.00 5520CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-6 26.40 5 0 3.44 25.00 26.40 3.44 23.00 31CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 2630.00 5 0 49.50 2630.00 2630.00 49.50 2570.00 2700CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 3994.00 5 0 1199.76 4310.00 3994.00 1199.76 2000.00 4930CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 5940.00 3 0 1098.23 5550.00 5940.00 1098.23 5090.00 7180FECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-6 21.50 4 3 39.00 2.00 80.00 . 80.00 80FECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-2 820000.00 5 0 712039.32 300000.00 820000.00 712039.32 300000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-3 1380000.00 5 0 491934.96 1600000.00 1380000.00 491934.96 500000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-1 1233333.33 3 0 635085.30 1600000.00 1233333.33 635085.30 500000.00 1600000HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-6 5.90 5 4 0.22 6.00 6.17 . 6.17 6HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-2 162.77 5 0 53.24 178.50 162.77 53.24 96.33 230HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-3 345.30 5 0 134.63 271.50 345.30 134.63 266.50 580HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-1 361.28 3 0 269.23 312.67 361.28 269.23 119.67 651NITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-6 6.02 5 0 1.03 5.84 6.02 1.03 4.71 7NITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-2 2.13 5 0 0.15 2.16 2.13 0.15 1.89 2NITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-3 8.46 5 1 18.75 0.08 10.57 20.96 0.08 42NITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-1 0.48 3 1 0.42 0.60 0.71 0.16 0.60 0TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-6 2.00 3 0 1.09 1.42 2.00 1.09 1.33 3TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 23.75 2 0 17.32 23.75 23.75 17.32 11.50 36TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 261.50 4 0 20.42 262.00 261.50 20.42 237.00 285
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ----------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.47 3 0 72.42 103.00 141.47 72.42 96.40 225TOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-6 7.34 3 0 1.30 7.17 7.34 1.30 6.13 8TOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 25.98 2 0 17.42 25.98 25.98 17.42 13.66 38TOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.05 4 0 32.67 270.10 272.05 32.67 237.01 311TOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.94 3 0 72.54 103.82 141.94 72.54 96.41 225TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-6 6.79 5 0 2.21 7.70 6.79 2.21 3.26 8TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-2 81.68 5 0 4.83 78.90 81.68 4.83 77.60 88TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-3 67.40 5 0 10.63 66.30 67.40 10.63 53.60 83TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-1 32.17 3 0 3.88 34.10 32.17 3.88 27.70 34TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-6 13.23 5 0 6.96 13.40 13.23 6.96 2.15 19TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-2 0.25 5 1 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.16 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-3 0.84 5 2 0.67 1.00 0.74 0.92 0.10 1TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-1 0.40 3 3 0.00 0.40 . . . TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-6 4.20 5 2 0.45 4.00 4.33 0.58 4.00 5TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-2 362.60 5 0 87.80 360.00 362.60 87.80 233.00 463TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-3 1670.00 5 0 294.28 1720.00 1670.00 294.28 1250.00 2000TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-1 836.67 3 0 190.35 850.00 836.67 190.35 640.00 1020--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------- Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-4 267.00 5 0 119.16 246.00 267.00 119.16 134.00 441AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 15.12 5 0 10.85 10.80 15.12 10.85 6.81 34AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.80 5 0 123.99 251.00 272.80 123.99 140.00 464AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 101.13 3 0 18.47 94.50 101.13 18.47 86.90 122BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-4 1264.80 5 0 370.71 1150.00 1264.80 370.71 945.00 1830BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 1492.00 5 0 227.31 1410.00 1492.00 227.31 1220.00 1820BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 2208.00 5 0 518.33 2070.00 2208.00 518.33 1740.00 3100BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 3870.00 3 0 1461.13 3350.00 3870.00 1461.13 2740.00 5520CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-4 1768.00 5 0 117.13 1820.00 1768.00 117.13 1590.00 1870CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 2630.00 5 0 49.50 2630.00 2630.00 49.50 2570.00 2700CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 3994.00 5 0 1199.76 4310.00 3994.00 1199.76 2000.00 4930
 Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories 

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------- (continued) Total Obs Obs Mean Std Min  Episode Number Num Std Median Value Dev Value VaAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 5940.00 3 0 1098.23 5550.00 5940.00 1098.23 5090.00 7180FECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-4 1142600.00 5 0 700445.43 1600000.00 1142600.00 700445.43 13000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-2 820000.00 5 0 712039.32 300000.00 820000.00 712039.32 300000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-3 1380000.00 5 0 491934.96 1600000.00 1380000.00 491934.96 500000.00 1600000FECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-1 1233333.33 3 0 635085.30 1600000.00 1233333.33 635085.30 500000.00 1600000HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-4 16.29 5 0 3.29 15.83 16.29 3.29 13.00 21HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-2 162.77 5 0 53.24 178.50 162.77 53.24 96.33 230HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-3 345.30 5 0 134.63 271.50 345.30 134.63 266.50 580HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-1 361.28 3 0 269.23 312.67 361.28 269.23 119.67 651NITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-4 0.09 5 0 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.07 0NITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-2 2.13 5 0 0.15 2.16 2.13 0.15 1.89 2NITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-3 8.46 5 1 18.75 0.08 10.57 20.96 0.08 42NITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-1 0.48 3 1 0.42 0.60 0.71 0.16 0.60 0TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-4 148.00 2 0 14.14 148.00 148.00 14.14 138.00 158TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 23.75 2 0 17.32 23.75 23.75 17.32 11.50 36TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 261.50 4 0 20.42 262.00 261.50 20.42 237.00 285TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.47 3 0 72.42 103.00 141.47 72.42 96.40 225TOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-4 148.08 2 0 14.15 148.08 148.08 14.15 138.07 158TOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 25.98 2 0 17.42 25.98 25.98 17.42 13.66 38TOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.05 4 0 32.67 270.10 272.05 32.67 237.01 311TOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.94 3 0 72.54 103.82 141.94 72.54 96.41 225TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-4 31.88 5 0 9.24 32.50 31.88 9.24 23.50 46TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-2 81.68 5 0 4.83 78.90 81.68 4.83 77.60 88TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-3 67.40 5 0 10.63 66.30 67.40 10.63 53.60 83TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-1 32.17 3 0 3.88 34.10 32.17 3.88 27.70 34TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-4 0.10 5 4 0.00 0.10 0.11 . 0.11 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-2 0.25 5 1 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.16 0TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-3 0.84 5 2 0.67 1.00 0.74 0.92 0.10 1TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-1 0.40 3 3 0.00 0.40 . . . TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-4 275.20 5 0 34.35 263.00 275.20 34.35 253.00 335TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-2 362.60 5 0 87.80 360.00 362.60 87.80 233.00 463TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-3 1670.00 5 0 294.28 1720.00 1670.00 294.28 1250.00 2000TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-1 836.67 3 0 190.35 850.00 836.67 190.35 640.00 1020
 Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 

----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First ------------------------------ Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6445 350.2 0.250 2.051 1.126  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6445 405.1 2.000 . .  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6445 410.2 28.024 2.271 1.147  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6445 9221E 4.625 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6445 1664 23.583 . .  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6445 330.5 0.220 . .  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6445 160.2 8.143 2.426 1.161 ---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further ----------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6443 350.2 0.295 . .  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6444 350.2 1.407 . .  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6443 405.1 3.573 . .  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6444 405.1 10.931 . .  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6443 410.4 35.305 . .  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6444 410.4 107.354 . .  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6443 9221E 4.625 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6443 1664 45.503 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6444 1664 29.004 . .  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6443 160.2 17.494 . .  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6444 160.2 1057.618 . . --------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering ---------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6448 350.2 4.122 . .  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6448 405.1 2.164 . .  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6448 410.1 168.925 . .  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6448 9221E 5.601 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6448 1664 334.962 . . 
 Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 

--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering ---------------------------- (continued) Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6448 160.2 34.383 . . ----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First ----------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6443 1664 5.000 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6444 1664 21.391 4.337 1.321 ---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ---------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6443 1664 23.512 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6444 1664 12.057 4.337 1.321 --------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering --------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6448 1664 183.742 . . ----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First ----------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6440 350.2 0.130 2.261 1.146  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6441 350.2 1.000 . . 
 Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 

----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First ----------------------------- (continued) Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6442 350.2 0.888 2.307 1.150  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 0.516 1.788 1.099  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6440 405.1 8.267 1.310 1.048  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6441 405.1 9.480 4.568 1.340  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6442 405.1 7.601 1.474 1.061  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6447 405.1 5.188 1.927 1.103  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6440 410.2 33.016 1.130 1.020  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6441 410.4 22.382 1.333 1.045  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6442 410.1 136.354 1.216 1.032  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6447 410.2 52.041 1.398 1.055  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6440 9221E 21.747 2.273 1.255  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6441 9221E 1503.957 . .  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6442 9221E 1524.496 14.796 8.924  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6447 9221E 35.319 4.224 1.362  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6440 1664 5.917 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6441 1664 5.792 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6442 1664 6.067 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6447 1664 18.802 5.254 1.397  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6440 330.5 0.200 . .  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6441 330.5 0.232 1.726 1.084  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6442 330.5 0.200 . .  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6447 330.5 0.811 2.878 1.201  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6440 160.2 13.365 2.188 1.139  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6441 160.2 40.282 3.272 1.234  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6442 160.2 24.104 1.361 1.050  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6447 160.2 22.976 1.414 1.057 ---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further ---------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 0.516 . .  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6335 405.1 4.736 . .  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6335 410.1 47.337 . . 
 Attachment 13-2. Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 

---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further ---------------------------- (continued) Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6335 9221E 298.696 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 13.245 . .  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6335 HACH 8167 0.645 . .  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6335 160.2 19.246 . . --------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering --------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6440 350.2 1.286 2.261 1.146  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6441 350.2 1.286 . .  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6442 350.2 1.286 2.307 1.150  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 1.286 1.788 1.099  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6440 405.1 7.011 1.310 1.048  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6441 405.1 7.035 4.568 1.340  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6442 405.1 6.820 1.474 1.061  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6447 405.1 5.333 1.927 1.103  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6440 410.1 37.525 1.130 1.020  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6441 410.1 37.094 1.333 1.045  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6442 410.1 117.176 1.216 1.032  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6447 410.1 47.337 1.398 1.055  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6440 9221E 455.435 2.273 1.255  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6441 9221E 768.000 . .  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6442 9221E 1194.777 14.796 8.924  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6447 9221E 455.435 4.224 1.362  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6440 1664 11.565 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6441 1664 11.546 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6442 1664 11.589 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6447 1664 14.997 5.254 1.397  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6440 330.5 0.400 . .  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6441 330.5 0.400 1.726 1.084  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6442 330.5 0.400 . .  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6447 330.5 0.645 2.878 1.201  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6440 160.2 12.632 2.188 1.139 
 Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 

--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering --------------------------- (continued) Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6441 160.2 29.384 3.272 1.234  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6442 160.2 22.238 1.361 1.050  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6447 160.2 19.246 1.414 1.057 ----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First ----------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 3.754 6.485 1.508  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6335 405.1 6.851 2.400 1.158  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6335 9221E 92.604 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 5.900 . .  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 MG/L 6335 353.1 7.893 1.475 1.064  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 2.077 2.823 1.196  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 7.378 1.485 1.065  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 MG/L 6335 365.2 7.864 2.350 1.154  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6335 160.2 4.925 1.347 1.041 ---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further ---------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 2.343 6.485 1.508  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6335 405.1 4.683 2.400 1.158  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6335 9221E 22.385 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 5.900 . .  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 MG/L 6335 353.1 6.043 1.475 1.064  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 2.077 2.823 1.196  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 7.378 1.485 1.065  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 MG/L 6335 365.2 8.422 2.350 1.154  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6335 160.2 4.207 1.347 1.041 
 Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 

--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering --------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 2.343 . .  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6447 405.1 8.346 . .  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6447 9221E 22.978 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6447 1664 7.772 . .  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 MG/L 6447 353.1 6.043 . .  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 MG/L 6447 351.3 2.077 . .  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 MG/L 6447 351.3 7.378 . .  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 MG/L 6447 365.2 6.965 . .  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6447 160.2 4.207 . . ---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First ----------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 1092.514 2.614 .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 37.409 1.525 . --------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ---------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 15.086 2.614 .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 7.816 1.525 . -------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering --------------------------- Est. 1-Day 20-Day  Analyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 99.697 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6447 1664 19.573 . . 
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations

--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Independent -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering ----------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 3.2325 2.0850 1.1287 1.1051 6.7397 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 6.5146 2.3199 1.1380 1.1127 15.1132 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5.0 MG/L MG/L 36.0354 1.7700 1.0922 1.0753 63.7842 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 316.6088 7.0979 3.8472 3.3247 2,247.2448 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 15.5386 5.2542 1.3973 1.3244 81.6432 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.2 MG/L MG/L 0.4000 2.3018 1.1423 1.1162 0.9207 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 27.5626 2.2423 1.1405 1.1147 61.8038 ------------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.5079 1.4147 15.1866 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.1580 1.1290 11.2402 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 23.5833 5.2542 1.3973 1.3244 123.9116 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.2 MG/L MG/L 15.9610 . . . . TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 8.1429 2.4260 1.1610 1.1314 19.7548 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.5079 1.4147 15.1866 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 7.2518 2.4003 1.1580 1.1290 17.4068 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 37.2537 5.2542 1.3973 1.3244 195.7382 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 9.7600 2.4260 1.1610 1.1314 23.6780 ----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 4.1224 6.4850 1.5079 1.4147 26.7388 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.1580 1.1290 11.2402 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5.0 MG/L MG/L 29.6394 2.2705 1.1467 1.1198 67.2972 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 19.5000 5.2542 1.3973 1.3244 102.4569 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 34.3830 2.4260 1.1610 1.1314 83.4139 ------------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.5079 1.4147 15.1918 

Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations

------------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- (continued) Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.1580 1.1290 11.2402 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 23.2225 5.2542 1.3973 1.3244 122.0159 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 1.0644 1.0525 8.9158 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 1.1959 1.1600 5.8623 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 1.1959 1.1600 20.8279 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 1.1540 1.1258 16.3664 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.20 MG/L MG/L 15.9610 5.4976 1.4182 1.3415 87.7476 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 1.0408 1.0333 5.6680 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily 
Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit 

AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.5079 1.4147 15.1918 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 7.1697 2.4003 1.1580 1.1290 17.2098 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 16.5952 5.2542 1.3973 1.3244 87.1946 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 1.0644 1.0525 8.9158 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 4.9440 2.8230 1.1959 1.1600 13.9567 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 1.1959 1.1600 20.8279 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 1.1540 1.1258 16.3664 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.20 MG/L MG/L 15.9610 5.4976 1.4182 1.3415 87.7476 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 1.0408 1.0333 5.6680 ----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.5079 1.4147 15.1918 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.1580 1.1290 11.2402 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 13.0906 5.2542 1.3973 1.3244 68.7808 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 1.0644 1.0525 8.9158 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 4.0956 2.8230 1.1959 1.1600 11.5619 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 1.1959 1.1600 20.8279 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 1.1540 1.1258 16.3664 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.20 MG/L MG/L 15.9610 5.4976 1.4182 1.3415 87.7476 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 6.9734 1.3473 1.0408 1.0333 9.3954 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5 MG/L MG/L 13.1953 4.3370 1.3209 1.2620 57.2276 
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations

----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5 MG/L MG/L 17.7848 4.3370 1.3209 1.2620 77.1322 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5 MG/L MG/L 183.7416 4.3370 1.3209 1.2620 796.8813 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 3.7540 6.4850 . 1.4147 24.3446 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 6.8507 2.4003 . 1.1290 16.4439 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 92.6042 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 5.9000 5.2542 . 1.3244 30.9998 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 7.8935 1.4754 . 1.0525 11.6458 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 . 1.1600 5.8623 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 . 1.1600 20.8279 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 7.8639 2.3499 . 1.1258 18.4795 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.9254 1.3473 . 1.0333 6.6361 ----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 . 1.4147 15.1918 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 . 1.1290 11.2402 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 22.3854 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 5.9000 5.2542 . 1.3244 30.9998 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 . 1.0525 8.9158 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 . 1.1600 5.8623 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 . 1.1600 20.8279 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 8.4222 2.3499 . 1.1258 19.7916 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 . 1.0333 5.6680 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 . 1.4147 15.1918 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 8.3465 2.4003 . 1.1290 20.0345 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 22.9777 . . . . HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 7.7720 5.2542 . 1.3244 40.8356 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 . 1.0525 8.9158 
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations

---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- (continued) Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 . 1.1600 5.8623 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 . 1.1600 20.8279 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 . 1.1258 16.3664 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 . 1.0333 5.6680 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5 MG/L MG/L 42.5286 1.2696 . 1.0309 53.9924 ----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5 MG/L MG/L 47.3372 1.2696 . 1.0309 60.0973 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 2.1189 . 1.1075 4.9637 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 8.3465 2.3199 . 1.1127 19.3629 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5.0 MG/L MG/L 42.4314 1.2696 . 1.0309 53.8690 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 611.7175 7.0979 . 3.3247 4,341.8856 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 11.5773 5.2542 . 1.3244 60.8294 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.2 MG/L MG/L 0.4000 2.3018 . 1.1162 0.9207 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 20.7423 2.0586 . 1.0980 42.6997 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First -------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 1,092.5140 2.6138 . 1.1451 2,855.5686 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 37.4089 1.5253 . 1.0573 57.0581 ----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------- Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 15.0862 2.6138 . 1.1451 39.4316 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 7.8163 1.5253 . 1.0573 11.9218 
Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations

---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------ Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day 30-Day Daily Analyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F. V.F. Limit AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 99.6971 2.6138 . 1.1451 260.5842 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 19.5734 1.5253 . 1.0573 29.8544 
1Live Weight Killed

2Finished Product3Raw Material

Attachment 13-4. Production Values

Meat First Processing 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK1

Further Processing 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP2Meat Cutting 130.4 gal/1000 lb FPRendering 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM3

Poultry First Processing 1,289 gal/1000 lb LWK

Further Processing 315.7 gal/1000 lb FPRendering 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM

Independent Rendering 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations

--------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Independent -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering ----------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Producti General Production normalized normalized normalized normali Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day L AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00933 0.0194 0.0105 0.0103  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0188 0.0436 0.0214 0.0209  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.104 0.184 0.113 0.111  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.914 6.48 3.51 3.03  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0448 0.235 0.0626 0.0594  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00115 0.00265 0.00131 0.0012 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0795 0.178 0.0907 0.0887 ------------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Prod normalized normalized normalized nor Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-d AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0252 0.163 0.0380 0 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0503 0.120 0.0583 0 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.231 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.253 1.33 0.354 0 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.171 . .  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0875 0.212 0.101 0------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Pro Production normalized normalized normalized no Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30- AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00617 0.0400 0.00931 0 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0191 0.0458 0.0221 0 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0566 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0981 0.515 0.137 0 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0257 0.0623 0.0298 0----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Producti General Production normalized normalized normalized normali Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day L AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0119 0.0772 0.0179 0.016 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0135 0.0324 0.0156 0.015 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0855 0.194 0.0981 0.095 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0620 . . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0563 0.295 0.0786 0.074 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0992 0.240 0.115 0.112 
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations

------------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Prod normalized normalized normalized nor Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-d AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0252 0.163 0.0379 0 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0503 0.120 0.0583 0 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.231 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.249 1.31 0.349 0 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0650 0.0959 0.0691 0 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0223 0.0630 0.0267 0 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0793 0.224 0.0949 0 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0749 0.176 0.0864 0 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.171 0.943 0.243 0 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0452 0.0609 0.0471 0------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Pro Production normalized normalized normalized no Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30- AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00617 0.0400 0.00930 0 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0188 0.0453 0.0218 0 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0566 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0437 0.229 0.0610 0 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0159 0.0234 0.0169 0 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0130 0.0367 0.0155 0 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0194 0.0548 0.0232 0 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0183 0.0431 0.0211 0 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0420 0.231 0.0596 0 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0110 0.0149 0.0115 0----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Producti General Production normalized normalized normalized normali Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day L AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00676 0.0438 0.0102 0.0095 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0135 0.0324 0.0156 0.0152  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0620 . . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0377 0.198 0.0528 0.0500  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0174 0.0257 0.0185 0.0183  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0118 0.0333 0.0141 0.0137  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0213 0.0601 0.0254 0.0247  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0201 0.0472 0.0232 0.0226  TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0460 0.253 0.0653 0.0618  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0201 0.0271 0.0209 0.0208 
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations

------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Prod normalized normalized normalized nor Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-d HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.141 0.615 0.187 0----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Pro Production normalized normalized normalized no Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30- HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0468 0.203 0.0618 ---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Producti General Production normalized normalized normalized normali Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day L HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.530 2.30 0.700 0.669 ------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Prod normalized normalized normalized nor Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-d AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0101 0.0655 . 0. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0184 0.0442 . 0. FECAL COLIFORM C2106 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.249 . . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0158 0.0835 . 0. NITRATE/NITRITE C005 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0212 0.0313 . 0. TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.00559 0.0157 . 0. TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0198 0.0561 . 0. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0211 0.0497 . 0. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0132 0.0178 . 0.----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Pro Production normalized normalized normalized no Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30- AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0108 0.0704 .  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0217 0.0520 .  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.103 . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0273 0.143 .  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0280 0.0413 .  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00962 0.0271 .  TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0341 0.0965 .  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0390 0.0917 . 
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations

----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- (continued) Production- Production- Production- Pro Production normalized normalized normalized no Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30- TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0194 0.0262 . ---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Producti General Production normalized normalized normalized normali Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day L AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00676 0.0438 . 0.0095 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0241 0.0578 . 0.0272  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0663 . . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0224 0.117 . 0.0297  NITRATE/NITRITE C005 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0174 0.0257 . 0.0183  TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00599 0.0169 . 0.0069 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0213 0.0601 . 0.0247  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0201 0.0472 . 0.0226  TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0121 0.0163 . 0.0125 --------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Meat Cutters ----------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Produc General Production normalized normalized normalized norma Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00254 0.0165 . 0.00 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00509 0.0122 . 0.00 FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0243 . . .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00642 0.0337 . 0.00 NITRATE/NITRITE C005 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00657 0.00970 . 0.00 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00225 0.00637 . 0.00 TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00802 0.0226 . 0.00 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00916 0.0215 . 0.01 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00457 0.00616 . 0.00------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=First --------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Prod normalized normalized normalized nor Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-d CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.114 0.145 . 0

Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations

----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Further -------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Pro Production normalized normalized normalized no Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30- CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.219 0.278 . ---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Producti General Production normalized normalized normalized normali Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day L AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00676 0.0143 . 0.0074 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0241 0.0559 . 0.0268  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.122 0.155 . 0.126  FECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 1.76 12.5 . 5.87 
 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0334 0.175 . 0.0442 

 TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00115 0.00265 . 0.0012 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0598 0.123 . 0.0657 --------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Meat Cutters ----------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Produc General Production normalized normalized normalized norma Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day  CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0515 0.0654 . 0.0------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First -------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Prod normalized normalized normalized nor Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-d AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 2.94 7.69 . 3 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.100 0.153 . 0----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Pro Production normalized normalized normalized no Analyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30- AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0699 0.182 .  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0362 0.0552 . 
Attachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations

---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ------------------------------ Production- Production- Production- Producti General Production normalized normalized normalized normali Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day L AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.287 0.752 . 0.329  HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0565 0.0862 . 0.059-------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Meat Cutters ----------------------------- Production- Production- Production- Produc General Production normalized normalized normalized norma Analyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day  AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0164 0.0429 . 0.01 HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00850 0.0129 . 0.00
I-1

APPENDIX I

40 CFR PART 432
1

PART 432—MEAT PRODUCTS POINT

SOURCE CATEGORY

Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouse

Subcategory

Sec.

432.10 Applicability; description of the simple slaughterhouse subcategory.

432.11 Specialized definitions.

432.12 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.13 [Reserved]

432.14 Pretreatment standards for existing sources.

432.15 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.17 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouse

Subcategory

432.20 Applicability; description of the complex slaughterhouse subcategory.

432.21 Specialized definitions.

432.22 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.23 [Reserved]

432.24 Pretreatment standards for existing sources.

432.25 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.27 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart C—Low–Processing Packinghouse

Subcategory

432.30 Applicability; description of the low–processing

packinghouse subcategory.

432.31 Specialized definitions.

432.32 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.33 [Reserved]

432.34 Pretreatment standards for existing sources.

432.35 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.37 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart D—High–Processing Packinghouse

Subcategory

432.40 Applicability; description of the high–processing

packinghouse subcategory.

432.41 Specialized definitions.

432.42 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.43 [Reserved]

432.44 Pretreatment standards for existing sources.

432.45 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.46 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.47 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart E—Small Processor Subcategory

432.50 Applicability; description of the small processor

subcategory.

432.51 Specialized definitions.

432.52 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.53—432.54 [Reserved]

432.55 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.56 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.57 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart F—Meat Cutter Subcategory

432.60 Applicability; description of the meat cutter subcategory.

432.61 Specialized definitions.

432.62 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.63 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically

achievable.

432.64 [Reserved]

432.65 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.66 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.67 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon Meats

Processor Subcategory

432.70 Applicability; description of the sausage and

luncheon meat processor subcategory.

432.71 Specialized definitions.

432.72 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.73 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically

achievable.

432.74 [Reserved]
2

§ 432.10

432.75 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.76 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.77 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart H—Ham Processor Subcategory

432.80 Applicability; description of the ham processor

subcategory.

432.81 Specialized definitions.

432.82 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.83 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically

achievable.

432.84 [Reserved]

432.85 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.86 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.87 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart I—Canned Meats Processor

Subcategory

432.90 Applicability; description of the canned meats

processor subcategory.

432.91 Specialized definitions.

432.92 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.93 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically

achievable.

432.94 [Reserved]

432.95 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.96 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.97 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart J—Renderer Subcategory

432.100 Applicability; description of the renderer subcategory.

432.101 Specialized definitions.

432.102 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

432.103 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically

achievable.

432.104 [Reserved]

432.105 Standards of performance for new sources.

432.106 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

432.107 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollution control

technology.

AUTHORITY: Secs. 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306 (b) and

(c), and 307(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c),

1316 (b) and (c), 1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L.

92–500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95–217.

SOURCE: 39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, unless otherwise

noted.

Subpart A—Simple

Slaughterhouse Subcategory

§ 432.10 Applicability; description of

the simple slaughterhouse subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the production of red

meat carcasses, in whole or part, by simple

slaughterhouses.

§ 432.11 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘slaughterhouse’’ shall mean a

plant that slaughters animals and has as its main

product fresh meat as whole, half or quarter carcasses or smaller meat cuts.

(c) The term ‘‘simple slaughterhouse’’ shall

mean a slaughterhouse which accomplishes very

limited by-product processing, if any, usually no

more than two of such operations as rendering,

paunch and viscera handling, blood processing,

hide processing, or hair processing.

(d) The term ‘‘LWK’’ (live weight killed) shall

mean the total weight of the total number of animals slaughtered during the time to which the effluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or

any period of thirty consecutive days.

(e) The term ‘‘ELWK’’ (equivalent live weight

killed) shall mean the total weight of the total

number of animals slaughtered at locations other

than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which

animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable

materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in

addition to those derived from animals slaughtered

on site.

(f) The term ‘‘oil and grease’’ shall mean those

components of process waste water amenable to

measurement by the method described in ‘‘Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,’’

1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,

page 217.
3

§ 432.12

§ 432.12 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

(a) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to onsite slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or

by-product processing of carcasses of animals

slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a

point source subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practicable control technology currently available:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.24 0.12

TSS ...................................... 0.40 0.20

Oil and grease ...................... 0.12 0.06

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.24 0.12

TSS ...................................... 0.40 0.20

Oil and grease ...................... 0.12 0.06

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of

hides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by § 432.12(a):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse,

which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition

to the discharge allowed by § 432.12(a):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

wet or low temperature rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other

than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged

by a point source subject to the provisions of this

subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by

§ 432.12(a):
4

§ 432.14

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

(e) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

dry rendering of material derived from animals

slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a point source

subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by § 432.12(a):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, as amended at 60 FR 33964,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.13 [Reserved]

§ 432.14 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources.

Any existing source subject to this subpart that

introduces process wastewater pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must comply with

40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a point

source subject to the provisions of this subpart.

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

pH ................................................... No limitation.

BOD5 .............................................. Do.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 6446, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33964,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.15 Standards of performance for

new sources.

(a) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,

meat product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site which may

be discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart: the limitations shall be as

specified in § 432.12(a), with the exception that in

addition to the pollutants or pollutant properties

controlled by that subsection, discharges of ammonia shall not exceed the limitations set forth

below:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.34 0.17

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.34 0.17

(b) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the processing of blood derived from

animals slaughtered at locations other than the

slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a

new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by

§§ 432.15(a) and 432.12(c):
5

§ 432.21

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.06 0.03

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.06 0.03

(c) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the wet or low temperature rendering

of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than slaughterhouse, which may be

discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by §§ 432.15(a) and 432.12(d):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

(d) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the dry rendering of material derived

from animals slaughtered at locations other than

the slaughterhouse which may be discharged by a

new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by

§§ 432.15(a) and 432.12(e):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]

§ 432.16 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403.

[60 FR 33964, June 29, 1995]

§ 432.17 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.12 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart B—Complex

Slaughterhouse Subcategory

§ 432.20 Applicability; description of

the complex slaughterhouse subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the production of red

meat carcasses, in whole or part, by complex

slaughterhouses.

§ 432.21 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set
6

§ 432.22

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘slaughterhouse’’ shall mean a

plant that slaughters animals and has as its main

product fresh meat as whole, half or quarter carcasses or smaller meat cuts.

(c) The term ‘‘complex slaughterhouse’’ shall

mean a slaughterhouse that accomplishes extensive

by-product processing, usually at least three of

such operations as rendering, paunch and viscera

handling, blood processing, hide processing, or

hair processing.

(d) The term ‘‘LWK’’ (live weight killed) shall

mean the total weight of the total number of animals slaughtered during the time to which the effluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or

any period of thirty consecutive days.

(e) The term ‘‘ELWK’’ (equivalent live weight

killed) shall mean the total weight of the total

number of animals slaughtered at locations other

than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which

animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable

materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in

addition to those derived from animals slaughtered

on site.

(f) The term ‘‘oil and grease’’ shall mean those

components of process waste water amenable to

measurement by the method described in ‘‘Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,’’

1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,

page 217.

§ 432.22 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

(a) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to onsite slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or

by-product processing of carcasses of animals

slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a

point source subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practical control

technology currently available:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.42 0.21

TSS ...................................... 0.50 0.25

Oil and grease ...................... 0.16 0.08

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.42 0.21

TSS ...................................... 0.50 0.25

Oil and grease ...................... 0.16 0.08

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of

hides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by paragraph (a) of this section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse,

which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition
7

§ 432.25

to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this

section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

wet or low temperature rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other

than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged

by a point source subject to the provisions of this

subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by

paragraph (a) of this section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

(e) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

dry rendering of material derived from animals

slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a point source

subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974,

as amended at 45 FR 82254, Dec. 15, 1980; 60 FR

33964, June 29, 1995]

§ 432.23 [Reserved]

§ 432.24 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources.

Any existing source subject to this subpart that

introduces process wastewater pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must comply with

40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a point

source subject to the provisions of this subpart.

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

pH ................................................... No limitation.

BOD5 .............................................. Do.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 6446, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.25 Standards of performance for

new sources.

(a) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,

meat product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site which may

be discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart: The limitations shall be as

specified in § 432.22(a), with the exception that in

addition to the pollutants or pollutant properties

controlled by that subsection, discharges of ammonia shall not exceed the limitations set forth

below:
8

§ 432.26

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.48 0.24

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.48 0.24

(b) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the processing of blood derived from

animals slaughtered at locations other than the

slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a

new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and § 432.22(c):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.06 0.03

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.06 0.03

(c) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the wet or low temperature rendering

of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may

be discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and

§ 432.22(d):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

(d) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the dry rendering of material derived

from animals slaughtered at locations other than

the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a

new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and § 432.22(e):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]

§ 432.26 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403.

[60 FR 33965, June 29, 1995]

§ 432.27 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
9

§ 432.32

tions shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.22 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart C—Low-Processing

Packinghouse Subcategory

§ 432.30 Applicability; description of the low-processing packinghouse

subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the production of red

meat carcasses in whole or part, by low-processing

packinghouses.

§ 432.31 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘packinghouse’’ shall mean a

plant that both slaughters animals and subsequently processes carcasses into cured, smoked,

canned or other prepared meat products.

(c) The term ‘‘low processing packinghouse’’

shall mean a packinghouse that processes no more

than the total animals killed at that plant, normally

processing less than the total kill.

(d) The term ‘‘LWK’’ (live weight killed) shall

mean the total weight of the total number of animals slaughtered during the time to which the effluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or

any period of thirty consecutive days.

(e) The term ‘‘ELWK’’ (equivalent live weight

killed) shall mean the total weight of the total

number of animals slaughtered at locations other

than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which

animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable

materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in

addition to those derived from animals slaughtered

on-site.

(f) The term ‘‘oil and grease’’ shall mean those

components of process waste water amenable to

measurement by the method described in ‘‘Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,’’

1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,

page 217.

§ 432.32 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

(a) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to onsite slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or

byproduct, processing of carcasses of animals

slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a

point source subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practicable control technology currently available:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.34 0.17

TSS ...................................... 0.48 0.24

Oil and grease ...................... 0.16 0.08

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.34 0.17

TSS ...................................... 0.48 0.24

Oil and grease ...................... 0.16 0.08

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of

hides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by paragraph (a) of this section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the
10

§ 432.34

processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse,

which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition

to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this

section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

wet or low temperature rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other

than the packinghouse, which may be discharged

by a point source subject to the provisions of this

subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by

paragraph (a) of this section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

(e) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

dry rendering of material derived from animals

slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a point source

subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of

this section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.33 [Reserved]

§ 432.34 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources.

Any existing source subject to this subpart that

introduces process wastewater pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must comply with

40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a point

source subject to the provisions of this subpart.

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

pH ................................................... No limitation.

BOD5 .............................................. Do.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 6447, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.35 Standards of performance for

new sources.

(a) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,

meat product or by product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site which may

be discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart: The limitations shall be as

specified in § 432.32(a), with the exception that in

addition to the pollutants or pollutant properties

controlled by that subsection, discharges of ammonia shall not exceed the limitations set forth

below:
11

§ 432.37

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.48 0.24

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.48 0.24

(b) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the processing of blood derived from

animals slaughtered at locations other than the

packinghouse, which may be discharged by a new

source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in

addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a)

of this section and § 432.32(c):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.06 0.03

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 10.06 0.03

(c) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the wet or low temperature rendering

of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be

discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and

§ 432.32(a).

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

(d) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the dry rendering of material derived

from animals slaughtered at locations other than

the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a

new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and § 432.32(e):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]

§ 432.36 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403.

[60 FR 33965, June 29, 1995]

§ 432.37 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limita-
12

§ 432.40

tions shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.32 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart D—High-Processing

Packinghouse Subcategory

§ 432.40 Applicability; description of the high-processing packinghouse

subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the production of red

meat carcasses, in whole or part, by high-processing packinghouses.

§ 432.41 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘packinghouse’’ shall mean a

plant that both slaughters animals and subsequently processes carcasses into cured, smoked,

canned or other prepared meat products.

(c) The term ‘‘high-processing packinghouse’’

shall mean a packinghouse which processes both

animals slaughtered at the site and additional carcasses from outside sources.

(d) The term ‘‘LWK’’ (live weight killed) shall

mean the total weight of the total number of animals slaughtered during the time to which the effluent limitations apply; i.e., during any one day or

any period of thirty consecutive days.

(e) The term ‘‘ELWK’’ (equipment live weight

killed) shall mean the total weight of the total

number of animals slaughtered at locations other

than the slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which

animals provide hides, blood, viscera or renderable

materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, in

addition to those derived from animals slaughtered

on-site.

(f) The term ‘‘oil and grease’’ shall mean those

components of process waste water amenable to

measurement by the method described in ‘‘Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,’’

1971, EPA, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,

page 217.

§ 432.42 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

(a) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to onsite slaughter or subsequent meat, meat product or

byproduct processing of carcasses of animals

slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by a

point source subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practicable control technology currently available:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

BOD5+ ................................. 0.48 0.24

TSS+ .................................... 0.62 0.31

Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.13

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

BOD5+ ................................. 0.48 0.24

TSS+ .................................... 0.62 0.31

Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.13

Fecal coliform ....................... (1) (1)

pH ......................................... (2) (2)

1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

+The values for BOD5 and suspended solids are for

average plants, i.e., plants with a ratio of average weight

of processed meat products to average LWK of 0.55. Adjustments can be made for high-processing packinghouses at other ratios according to the following equations:

kg BOD5/1000 kg LWK=0.21+0.23

(v—0.4)

kg SS/1000 kg LWK=0.28+0.30

(v—0.4)

where

v-kg processed meat products/kg LWK.

(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of

hides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by paragraph (a) of this section:
13

§ 432.44

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse,

which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition

to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this

section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.04 0.02

TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04

(d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

wet or low temperature rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other

than the packinghouse, which may be discharged

by a point source subject to the provisions of this

subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by

paragraph (a) of this section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.06 0.03

TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06

(e) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section and attributable to the

dry rendering of material derived from animals

slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a point source

subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of

this section:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD5 .................................... 0.02 0.01

TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.43 [Reserved]

§ 432.44 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources.

Any existing source subject to this subpart that

introduces process wastewater pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must comply with

40 CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a point

source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
14

§ 432.45

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

pH ................................................... No limitation.

BOD5 .............................................. Do.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 6447, Feb. 11, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.45 Standards of performance for

new sources.

(a) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to on-site slaughter or subsequent meat,

meat product or byproduct processing or carcasses

of animals slaughtered onsite which may be discharged by a new source subject to the provisions

of this subpart: The limitations shall be as specified in § 432.42(a), with the exception that in addition to the pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by that subsection, discharges of ammonia

shall not exceed the limitations set forth below:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.80 0.40

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb LWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.80 0.40

(b) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the processing of blood derived from

animals slaughtered at locations other than the

packinghouse, which may be discharged by a new

source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in

addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a)

of this section and § 432.42(c):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.06 0.03

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.06 0.03

(c) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the wet or low temperature rendering

of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be

discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge

allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and

§ 423.42(d):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.10 0.05

(d) The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section and attributable to the dry rendering of material derived

from animals slaughtered at locations other than

the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a

new source subject to the provisions of this subpart, in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (a) of this section and § 432.42(e):
15

§ 432.55

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb ELWK)

Ammonia .............................. 0.04 0.02

[39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974; 39 FR 26423, July 19, 1974]

§ 432.46 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403.

[60 FR 33965, June 29, 1995]

§ 432.47 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.42 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart E—Small Processor

Subcategory

SOURCE: 40 FR 905, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise

noted.

§ 432.50 Applicability; description of

the small processor subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the production of finished meat products such as fresh meat cuts,

smoked products, canned products, hams, sausages, luncheon meats, or similar products by a

small processor.

§ 432.51 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘small processor’’ shall mean an

operation that produces up to 2730 kg (6000 lb)

per day of any type or combination of finished

products.

(c) The term ‘‘finished product’’ shall mean the

final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts,

hams, bacon or other smoked meats, sausage,

luncheon meats, stew, canned meats or related

products.

§ 432.52 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 2.0 1.0

TSS ...................................... 2.4 1.2

Oil and grease ...................... 1.0 0.5

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 2.0 1.0

TSS ...................................... 2.4 1.2

Oil and grease ...................... 1.0 0.5

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 No limitation.

[40 FR 905, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§§ 432.53—432.54 [Reserved]

§ 432.55 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which
16

§ 432.56

may be discharged by a new source subject to the

provisions of this subpart:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 1.0 0.5

TSS ...................................... 1.2 0.6

Oil and grease ...................... 0.5 0.25

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 1.0 0.5

TSS ...................................... 1.2 0.6

Oil and grease ...................... 0.5 0.25

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 No limitation.

§ 432.56 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a new source

subject to the provisions of this subpart:

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

BOD5 .............................................. No limitation.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

pH ................................................... Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 905, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.57 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

the following limitations establish the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which may be discharged

by a point source subject to the provisions of this

subpart after application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days shall

not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 ......................................... 1.0 0.5

TSS ............................................ 1.2 0.6

Oil and grease ........................... 0.5 0.25

pH .............................................. (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms .......................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb

of finished product)

BOD5 ......................................... 1.0 0.5

TSS ............................................ 1.2 0.6

Oil and grease ........................... 0.5 0.25

pH .............................................. (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms .......................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 No limitation.

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart F—Meat Cutter

Subcategory

SOURCE: 40 FR 906, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise

noted.

§ 432.60 Applicability; description of

the meat cutter subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the fabrication or manufacture of fresh meat cuts such as steaks, roasts,

chops, etc. by a meat cutter.

§ 432.61 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘meat cutter’’ shall mean an operation which fabricates, cuts, or otherwise produces

fresh meat cuts and related finished products from

livestock carcasses, at rates greater than 2730 kg

(6000 lb) per day.

(c) The term ‘‘finished product’’ shall mean the

final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts including, but not limited to, steaks, roasts, chops, or

boneless meats.
17

§ 432.66

§ 432.62 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.036 0.018

TSS ...................................... 0.044 0.022

Oil and grease ...................... 0.012 0.000

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.036 0.018

TSS ...................................... 10.044 0.022

Oil and grease ...................... 0.012 0.006

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

[40 FR 906, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.63 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable.

The following limitations establish the quantity

or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions

of this subpart after application of the best available technology economically achievable:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Milligrams per liter—effluent

Ammonia .............................. 8.0 mg/l 4.0

[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]

§ 432.64 [Reserved]

§ 432.65 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which

may be discharged by a new source subject to the

provisions of this subpart:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.036 0.018

TSS ...................................... 0.044 0.022

Oil and grease ...................... 0.012 0.006

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.030 0.015

TSS ...................................... 0.036 0.018

Oil and grease ...................... 0.012 0.006

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

§ 432.66 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a new source

subject to the provisions of this subpart:

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

BOD5 .............................................. No limitation.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

pH ................................................... Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 906, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33965,

June 29, 1995]
18

§ 432.67

§ 432.67 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.62 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor Subcategory

SOURCE: 40 FR 907, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise

noted.

§ 432.70 Applicability; description of

the sausage and luncheon meat

processor subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the manufacture of fresh

meat cuts, sausage, bologna, and other luncheon

meats by a sausage and luncheon meat processor.

§ 432.71 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘sausage and luncheon meat processor’’ shall mean an operation which cuts fresh

meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, smokes or otherwise

produces finished products such as sausage, bologna and luncheon meats at rates greater than 2730

kg (6000 lb) per day.

(c) The term ‘‘finished product’’ shall mean the

final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts including steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,

bacon or other smoked meats (except hams) such

as sausage, bologna or other luncheon meats, or

related products (except canned meats).

§ 432.72 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.56 0.28

TSS ...................................... 0.68 0.34

Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.56 0.28

TSS ...................................... 0.68 0.34

Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

[40 FR 907, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.73 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable.

The following limitations establish the quantity

or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions

of this subpart after application of the best available technology economically achievable:

[Milligrams per liter—effluent]

Effluent characteristics

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Ammonia .............................. 80 mg/l 4.0

[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]

§ 432.74 [Reserved]

§ 432.75 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which
19

§ 432.82

may be discharged by a new sources subject to the

provisions of this subpart:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.56 0.28

TSS ...................................... 0.68 0.34

Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.48 0.24

TSS ...................................... 0.58 0.29

Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

§ 432.76 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a new source

subject to the provisions of this subpart:

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

BOD5 .............................................. No limitation.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

pH ................................................... Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 907, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.77 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.72 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart H—Ham Processor

Subcategory

SOURCE: 40 FR 908, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise

noted.

§ 432.80 Applicability; description of

the ham processor subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the manufacture of hams

alone or in combination with other finished products by a ham processor.

§ 432.81 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘ham processor’’ shall mean an

operation which manufactures hams alone or in

combination with other finished products at rates

greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per day.

(c) The term ‘‘finished products’’ shall mean

the final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts

including steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,

smoked or cured hams, bacon or other smoked

meats, sausage, bologna or other luncheon meats

(except canned meats).

§ 432.82 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):
20

§ 432.83

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.62 0.31

TSS ...................................... 0.74 0.37

Oil and grease ...................... 0.22 0.11

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.62 0.31

TSS ...................................... 0.74 0.37

Oil and grease ...................... 0.22 0.11

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

[40 FR 908, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.83 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable.

The following limitations establish the quantity

or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions

of this subpart after application of the best available technology economically achievable:

[Milligrams per liter—effluent]

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Ammonia .............................. 8.0 mg/l 4.0

[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]

§ 432.84 [Reserved]

§ 432.85 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which

may be discharged by a new source subject to the

provisions of this subpart:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.62 0.31

TSS ...................................... 0.74 0.37

Oil and grease ...................... 0.22 0.11

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.62 0.31

TSS ...................................... 0.74 0.37

Oil and grease ...................... 0.22 0.11

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

§ 432.86 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a new source

subject to the provisions of this subpart:

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

BOD5 .............................................. No limitation.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

pH ................................................... Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 908, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.87 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.82 of this subpart for the best
21

§ 432.95

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart I—Canned Meats

Processor Subcategory

SOURCE: 40 FR 909, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise

noted.

§ 432.90 Applicability; description of

the canned meats processor subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the manufacture of

canned meats alone or in combination with any

other finished products, by a canned meats processor.

§ 432.91 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘canned meat processor’’ shall

mean an operation which prepares and cans meats

(such as stew, sandwich spreads, or similar products) alone or in combination with other finished

products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb.)

per day.

(c) The term ‘‘finished products’’ shall mean

the final manufactured product as fresh meat cuts

including steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,

hams, bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, bologna or other luncheon meats, stews, sandwich

spreads or other canned meats.

§ 432.92 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control

technology currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available (BPT):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.74 0.37

TSS ...................................... 0.90 0.45

Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.12

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.74 0.37

TSS ...................................... 0.90 0.45

Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.13

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

[40 FR 909, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.93 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable.

The following limitations establish the quantity

or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions

of this subpart after application of the best available technology economically achievable:

[Milligrams per liter—effluent]

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Ammonia .............................. 8.0 mg/l 4.0

[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]

§ 432.94 [Reserved]

§ 432.95 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which

may be discharged by a new source subject to the

provisions of this subpart:
22

§ 432.96

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.74 0.37

TSS ...................................... 0.90 0.45

Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.13

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

finished product)

BOD5 .................................... 0.74 0.37

TSS ...................................... 0.90 0.45

Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.13

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

§ 432.96 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a new source

subject to the provisions of this subpart:

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

BOD5 .............................................. No limitation.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

pH ................................................... Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 909, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.97 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through 125.32,

any existing point source subject to this subpart

shall achieve the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in

§ 401.16) in § 432.92 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently available

(BPT).

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]

Subpart J—Renderer Subcategory

SOURCE: 40 FR 910, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise

noted.

§ 432.100 Applicability; description of

the renderer subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to

discharges resulting from the manufacture of meat

meal, dried animal by-product residues (tankage),

animal oils, grease and tallow, perhaps including

hide curing, by a renderer.

§ 432.101 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set

forth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘renderer’’ shall mean an independent or off-site rendering operation, conducted

separate from a slaughterhouse, packinghouse or

poultry dressing or processing plant, which manufactures at rates greater than 75,000 pounds of raw

material per day of meat meal, tankage, animal

fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may cure cattle

hides, but excluding marine oils, fish meal, and

fish oils.

(c) The term ‘‘tankage’’ shall mean dried animal by-product residues used in feedstuffs.

(d) The term ‘‘tallow’’ shall mean a product

made from beef cattle or sheep fat that has a melting point of 40°C or greater.

(e) The term ‘‘raw material’’ or as abbreviated

herein, ‘‘RM’’, shall mean the basic input materials to a renderer composed of animal and poultry

trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals,

feathers and related usable by-products.

§ 432.102 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available.

(a) Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through

125.32, and subject to the provisions of paragraph

(b) of this section, any existing point source subject to this subpart shall achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the

best practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
23

§ 432.105

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of raw

material)

BOD5 .................................... 0.34 0.17

TSS ...................................... 0.42 0.21

Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

raw material)

BOD5 .................................... 0.34 0.17

TSS ...................................... 0.42 0.21

Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliform ....................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

(b) The limitations given in paragraph (a) of

this section for BOD5 and TSS are derived for a

renderer which does no cattle hide curing as part

of the plant activities. If a renderer does conduct

hide curing, the following empirical formulas

should be used to derive an additive adjustment to

the effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS.

BOD5 Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=[8.0×

(number of hides)/kg of raw material]

(lb/1,000 lb RM)=[17.6×(number of hides)/lbs of raw

material]

TSS Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=[11.0×

(number of hides)/kg of raw material]

(lb/1,000 lb RM)=[24.2×(number of hides)/lbs of raw

material]

[40 FR 910, Jan. 3, 1975; 40 FR 11874, Mar. 14, 1975,

as amended at 60 FR 33966, June 29, 1995]

§ 432.103 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable.

The following limitations establish the quantity

or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties,

controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions

of this subpart after application of the best available technology economically achievable:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of raw

material)

Ammonia .............................. 0.14 0.07

English units (lb/1,000 lb of

raw material)

Ammonia .............................. 0.14 0.07

[44 FR 50748, Aug. 29, 1979]

§ 432.104 [Reserved]

§ 432.105 Standards of performance for

new sources.

(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of

this section, the following standards of performance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants

or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,

which may be discharged by a new source subject

to the provisions of this subpart:

Effluent characteristics

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days shall not ex- ceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg of raw material)

BOD5 .................................... 0.18 0.09

TSS ...................................... .22 .11

Oil and grease ...................... .10 .05

Ammonia .............................. .14 .07

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

English units (pounds per

1,000 lb of raw material)

BOD5 .................................... 0.18 0.09

TSS ...................................... .22 .11

Oil and grease ...................... .10 .05

Ammonia .............................. .14 .07

pH ......................................... (1) (1)

Fecal coliforms ..................... (2) (2)

1Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

2 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml.

(b) The standards given in paragraph (a) of this

section for BOD5 and TSS are derived for a renderer which does no cattle hide curing as part of

the plant activities. If a renderer does conduct hide

curing, the following empirical formulas should be

used to derive an additive adjustment to the standards for BOD5 and TSS.
24

§ 432.106

BOD5 adjustment (kilograms per 1,000 kg of raw

material)=

8.0×(number of hides)/kilograms of raw material

(pounds per 1,000 lb of raw material)=

17.6×(number of hides)/pounds of raw material

TSS adjustment (kilograms per 1,000 kg of raw

material)=

11.0×(number of hides)/kilograms of raw material

(pounds per 1,000 lb of raw material)=

24.2×(number of hides)/pounds of raw material

[42 FR 54419, Oct. 6, 1977]

§ 432.106 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403. In addition, the following

pretreatment standard establishes the quantity or

quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this section which may be discharged to

a publicly owned treatment works by a new source

subject to the provisions of this subpart:

Pollutant or pollutant property Pretreatment standard

BOD5 .............................................. No limitation.

TSS ................................................. Do.

Oil and grease ................................ Do.

pH ................................................... Do.

Fecal coliform ................................. Do.

[40 FR 910, Jan. 3, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 33966,

June 29, 1995]

§ 432.107 Effluent limitations guide- lines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollution control technology.

(a) Except as provided in §§ 125.30 through

125.32, and subject to the provisions of paragraph

(b) of this section, the following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which

may be discharged by a point source subject to the

provisions of this subpart after application of the

best conventional pollutant control technology:

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days shall

not exceed—

Metric units (kg/kkg of

raw material)

BOD5 ......................................... 0.18 0.09

TSS ............................................ 0.22 0.11

Oil and grease ........................... 0.10 0.05

Fecal coliforms .......................... (1) (1)

pH .............................................. (2) (2)

English units (lb/1,000 lb.

of raw material)

BOD5 ......................................... 0.18 0.09

TSS ............................................ 0.22 0.11

Oil and grease ........................... 0.10 0.05

Fecal coliforms .......................... (1) (1)

pH .............................................. (2) (2)

1 Maximum at any time: 400 mpn/100 ml.

2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The limitations given in paragraph (a) of

this section for BOD5 and TSS are derived for a

renderer which does no cattle hide curing as part

of the plant activities. If a renderer does conduct

hide curing, the following empirical formulas

should be used to derive an additive adjustment to

the effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS.

BOD5 Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=3.6×(number of hides)/

kg of raw material

(lb/1,000 lb RM)=7.9×(number of hides)/lbs of raw

material

TSS Adjustment (kg/kkg RM)=6.2×(number of hides)/kg

of raw material

(lb/1,000 lb RM)=13.6×(number of hides)/lbs of raw

material

[51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986]
J-1

APPENDIX J

EXAMPLES OF CALCULATING MPP LIMITATIONS AND

STANDARDS
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-2

Example 1: Determine the maximum monthly BPT BOD5 limit for a complex slaughterhouse

that operates 280 days per year and slaughters on average 700 cattle (1,000

lb/head) and 1,000 hogs (225 lb/head) on-site per day.

Solution 1: First calculate the amount of live weight killed (LWK) on-site.

On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 lb/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 lb/head)

= 925,000 lb-LWK/day

= (925,000 lb-LWK/day) x (280 days/year) = 259 million lb-LWK/year

This facility is a complex slaughterhouse (Subpart B) and is subject to 432.22(b)(1) (i.e.,

facility slaughters on-site more than 50 million lb-LWK per year) which is set equivalent to

432.22(a)(1) for BOD5, TSS, O&G, and fecal coliform bacteria.

The facility does not taken any material from an outside source so there is no adjustments

to the maximum monthly BPT BOD5 limit [0.21 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD5/1,000 lbLWK)]. This monthly BPT BOD5 limit is taken from 432.22(b)(1), which is equivalent to

432.22(a)(1) for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform bacteria.
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-3

Example 2: Determine the maximum monthly BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a sausage

processor that operates 280 days per year and produces 200,000 pounds of

finished product (on average per day).

Solution 2: First calculate the annual amount of finished product (FP).

Annual FP = (200,000 lb-FP/day) x (280 days/year) = 56 million lb-FP/year

This facility is a sausage processor (Subpart G) and is subject to 432.73(b) (i.e., the

facility generates more than 50 million lb-FP per year). The maximum monthly average limit for

ammonia (as N) is 0.0153 kg-ammonia-N/kkg-FP (or lb-ammonia-N/1,000 lb-FP). [Note: The

units for 432.63(b) and 432.73(b) were incorrectly given as “mg/L (ppm)”. These units should

read “Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.”]
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-4

Example 3: What are the maximum monthly average BOD5 and TSS BPT mass-based limits

for a High-Processing Packinghouse which slaughters 100 million LWK pounds

per year and that has an average processed meat products (lb) to average LWK

(lb) ratio (v) of 0.65.

Solution 3: This facility is a high-processing packinghouse (Subpart D) and is subject to

432.42(b)(1) (i.e., facility slaughters more than 50 million lb-LWK per year)

which is set equivalent to 432.42(a)(1) for BOD5, TSS, O&G, and fecal coliform.

Therefore, use the 432.42(a)(1) adjustment equation as follows:

v = 0.65

lb-BOD5 / 1,000 lb-LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v - 0.4) = 0.21 + 0.23 (0.65 - 0.4) = 0.2675 

~ 0.27 lb-BOD5 / 1,000 lb-LWK

lb-TSS/ 1,000 lb-LWK = 0.28 + 0.30 (v - 0.4) = 0.28 + 0.30 (0.65 - 0.4) = 0.355

~ 0.36 lb-TSS/ 1,000 lb-LWK

Note: The maximum daily BOD5 and TSS BPT limits are twice the maximum monthly

average BOD5 and TSS BPT limits.
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-5

Example 4: What are the maximum monthly average BOD5 and TSS BPT limits for an

independent rendering facility which handles 206,000 lb of raw material (RM) per

day, operates 280 days per year, and also cures 100 hides.

Solution 4: This facility is a independent renderer (Subpart J) and is subject to 432.102 (i.e.,

facility uses raw material at rates greater than 10 million pounds per year, see

432.101(b)). As this facility also cures hides, use the incremental adjustment

equations provided in 432.102(2) as follows:

Adjusted BPT Max. Monthly Limits = 432.102(a) BPT Max. Monthly Limits + 432.102(2)

Incremental Hide Curing BPT Adjustments

432.102(a) BPT BOD5 Max. Monthly Limit = 0.17 1b-BOD5/1,000 lb-RM

432.102(a) BPT TSS Max. Monthly Limit = 0.21 1b-TSS/1,000 lb-RM

BOD5 Incremental Hide Curing Adjustment = [17.6 x (No. of Hides)]/lb-RM

= [17.6 x 100]/206,000 

= 0.0085 1b-BOD5./1,000 lb-RM

TSS Incremental Hide Curing Adjustment = [24.2 x (No. of Hides)]/lb-RM

= [24.2 x 100]/206,000 

= 0.012 1b-TSS/1,000 lb-RM

Adjusted BOD5 BPT Max. Monthly Limit = (0.17 1b-BOD5/1,000 lb-RM) + (0.0085 1bBOD5/1,000 lb-RM)

= 0.1785 1b-BOD5/1,000 lb-RM

Adjusted TSS BPT Max. Monthly Limit = (0.21 1b-TSS/1,000 lb-RM) + (0.012 1b-TSS/1,000

lb-RM)

= 0.222 1b-TSS/1,000 lb-RM

Note: The maximum daily BOD5 and TSS BPT limits are twice the maximum monthly

average BOD5 and TSS BPT limits.
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-6

Example 5: Determine the maximum monthly average BPT BOD5 limit for a complex

slaughterhouse that also performs hide, blood, and dry rendering. The complex

slaughterhouse operates 280 days per year, slaughters on-site (on average per day)

700 cattle (1,000 lb/head) and 1,000 hogs (225 lb/head) and also processes (on

average per day) 300 hides, 10,000 gallons of blood, and 200,000 lb of raw byproducts (offal and bone) for dry rendering from an off-site source.

Solution 5: This facility is a complex slaughterhouse (Subpart B) and is subject to

432.22(b)(1) (i.e., the facility slaughters on-site more than 50 million lb-LWK per

year) which is set equivalent to 432.22(a)(1) for BOD5, TSS, O&G, and fecal

coliform bacteria.

Because this facility also cures hides and dry renders blood and offal and bone, use the

incremental adjustments provided in 432.22(b), which are set to be equivalent to the incremental

adjustments provided in 432.12(a). The incremental BPT BOD5 and TSS adjustments for

Subparts A, B, C, and D are calculated using the following table.

Table EX-5. MPP BOD5 and TSS Adjustment Factors for BPT Limits

Processing

Daily Max BPT, 

kg/kkg-ELWKb

Monthly Max BPT, 

kg/kkg-ELWKb

BOD5 TSS BOD5 TSS Notes

Hide 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.04 a

Blood 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.04 a

Wet Rendering 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.06 a

Dry Rendering 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 a

Source: 432.12(a)

a These BOD5 and TSS BPT adjustment factors are for Subparts A, B, C, and D. They are used according to the

following relationships:

Adjusted Effluent Limit = On-site Kill Effluent Limit + Incremental Adjustment to On-site Kill Limit

where:

Incremental Adjustment to = (Adjustment Factor x (Total weight of source animals as kkg-ELWK)

On-site Kill Limit from Table EX-5) (On-site kkg-LWK)

b If the weight of the off-site source animals (i.e., equivalent live weight killed (ELWK)) which generated the

materials for blood processing, rendering, or hide processing is not known, estimate the ELWK by the use of the
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-7

following relationships (Source: U.S. EPA, Red Meat Development Document, EPA-440/1-74-012-a, February,

1974, page 140):

For Blood:

Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (liters of blood) x (0.028) or (gal of blood) x

 (0.108)

Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (kg of blood) x (0.029) or (lb of blood) x (0.013)

For Rendering Material:

Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (kg of rendering materials) x (0.0067) or

 (lb of rendering materials) x (0.003)

For Cattle Hides:

Equivalent live weight killed (ELWK) in kkg = (No. of hides) x (0.45)

Use the given values and the adjustment factors and relationships to calculate the required

BPT limits.

On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 lb/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 lb/head)

= 925,000 lb-LWK/day

= 419,573 kg-LWK/day = 419.6 kkg-LWK/day

ELWKblood = (10,000 gal) x (0.108) = 1,080 kkg-ELWK

ELWKrendering = (200,000 lb) x (0.003) = 600 kkg-ELWK

ELWKhides = (300 hides) x (0.45) = 135 kkg-ELWK

BOD5 Incremental Adjustment = (0.02 kg-BOD5/kkg-ELWK) x (1,080 kkg-ELWK/419.6

kkg-LWK)

for Blood Processing (BOD5 IAblood)

= 0.051 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK

BOD5 IAhides = (0.02 kg-BOD5/kkg-ELWK) x (135 kkg-ELWK/419.6 kkg-LWK)

= 0.006 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-8

BOD5 IArendering = (0.01 kg-BOD5/kkg-ELWK) x (600 kkg-ELWK/419.6 kkg-LWK)

= 0.014 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK

BOD5 IA = BOD5 IAblood + BOD5 IAhides + BOD5 IArendering

= 0.051 + 0.006 + 0.014

= 0.071 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD5/1,000 lb-LWK)

On-site Kill Effluent Limit for BOD5 = 0.21 [Taken from 432.22(b)(1) which is equivalent

to 432.22(a)(1) for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal

coliform bateria.]

Adjusted BOD5 Effluent Limit = 0.21 + 0.071

= 0.281 kg-BOD5/kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD5/1,000 lb-LWK)
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-9

Example 6: Determine the maximum monthly average BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a

high-processing packinghouse that operates 280 days per year, slaughters on-site

(on average per day) 700 cattle (1,000 lb/head) and 1,000 hogs (225 lb/head),

produces (on average per day) 200,000 pounds of final fresh products resulting

from the further processing of meat carcasses, and renders (on average per day)

370,000 pounds of raw material.

Solution 6: First calculate the amount of live weight killed (LWK) on-site.

On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 lb/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 lb/head)

= 925,000 lb-LWK/day

= (925,000 lb-LWK/day) x (280 days/year) = 259 million LWK pounds/year

This facility is a high-processing packinghouse (Subpart D) and is subject to 432.43 (i.e.,

the facility slaughters on-site more than 50 million lb-LWK per year). The 432.43 BAT limits are

set to be equivalent to the 432.13 BAT limits. The incremental BAT adjustments for Subparts A,

B, C, and D are calculated using the following table.

Table EX-6. MPP Adjustment Factors for BAT Limits

Regulated

Parameter

Daily Max BAT Monthly Max BAT

Notes

Further Processing

kg/kkg-FP

Rendering

kg/kkg-RM

Further Processing

kg/kkg-FP

Rendering

kg/kkg-RM

Ammonia (as N) 0.0704 0.0438 0.0153 0.0096 a

Total Nitrogen 0.0965 0.0601 0.0396 0.0247 a

Total Phosphorus 0.0917 0.0472 0.0439 0.0226 a

Source: 432.13

a

These BAT adjustment factors are for Subparts A, B, C, and D are used according to the following relationships:

Adjusted Effluent Limit = On-site Kill Effluent Limit + Incremental Adjustment to On-site Kill Limit

where:

Incremental Adjustment to = (Adjustment Factor x (Further Proc. Products or Rendering RM in kkg)

On-site Kill Limit from Table EX-6) (On-site kkg-LWK)

On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 lb/head) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 lb/head)

= 925,000 lb-LWK/day

= 419,573 kg-LWK/day = 419.6 kkg-LWK/day
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-10

Further Processing Products = 200,000 lb-FP/day

= 90.7 kkg-FP/day

Rendering Raw Material = 370,000 lb-RM/day

= 167.8 kkg-RM/day

Ammonia-N Incremental

Adjustment for Further = (0.0153 kg-NH3-N/kkg-FP) x (90.7 kkg-FP/419.6 kkg-LWK)

Processing (NH3-N IAFP)

= 0.003 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK

NH3-N IARM = (0.0096 kg-NH3-N/kkg-RM) x (167.8 kkg-RM/419.6 kkg-LWK)

= 0.004 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK

NH3-N IA = NH3-N IAFP + NH3-N IARM

= 0.003 + 0.004

= 0.007 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 lb-LWK)

On-site Kill Effluent Limit = 0.0143 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK 

[Taken from 432.43, which is equivalent to 432.13.]

Adjusted NH3-N Effluent Limit = 0.0143 + 0.007

= 0.0213 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 lb-LWK)
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-11

Example 7: Determine the maximum monthly average BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a

poultry first processor that operates 280 days per year, slaughters on-site (on

average per day) 100,000 chickens (5.5 lb/head), produces (on average per day)

300,000 pounds of final fresh products resulting from the further processing of

poultry carcasses, and renders (on average per day) 220,000 pounds of raw

material.

Solution 7: First calculate the amount of Live Weight Killed (LWK) on-site.

On-site LWK = (100,000 chicken/day) x (5.5 lb/head) = 550,000 lb-LWK/day

= (550,000 lb-LWK/day) x (280 days/year) = 154 million LWK pounds/year

This facility is a poultry first processor (Subpart K) and is subject to 432.113. The

432.113 BAT limits are set equivalent to the 432.112 BPT limits. The applicable BAT limits for

this facility are found in 432.112(b), because this facility slaughters on-site more than 10 million

lb-LWK per year. The incremental BAT adjustments are calculated using the following table.

Table EX-7: MPP Adjustment Factors for BAT Limits

Regulated

Parameter

Daily Max BAT Monthly Max BAT

Notes

Further Processing

kg/kkg-FP

Rendering

kg/kkg-RM

Further Processing

kg/kkg-FP

Rendering

kg/kkg-RM

Ammonia (as N) 0.0400 0.0771 0.0087 0.0168 a

Total Nitrogen 0.0548 0.0601 0.0226 0.0247 a

Total Phosphorus 0.0431 0.0472 0.0206 0.0226 a

Source: 432.112

a

 These BAT adjustment factors are used according to the following relationships:

Adjusted Effluent Limit = On-site Kill Effluent Limit + Incremental Adjustment to On-site Kill Limit

where:

Incremental Adjustment to = (Adjustment Factor x (Further Proc. Products or Rendering RM in kkg)

On-site Kill Limit from Table EX-7) (On-site kkg-LWK)

On-site LWK = 550,000 lb-LWK/day

= 249,476 kg-LWK/day = 249.5 kkg-LWK/day
Appendix J. Examples of Calculating MPP Limitations and Standards

J-12

Further Processing Products = 300,000 lb-FP/day

= 136.1 kkg-FP/day

Rendering Raw Material = 220,000 lb-RM/day

= 99.8 kkg-RM/day

Ammonia-N Incremental 

Adjustment for Further = (0.0087 kg-NH3-N/kkg-FP) x (136.1 kkg-FP/249.5 kkg-LWK)

Processing (NH3-N IAFP)

= 0.005 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK

NH3-N IARM = (0.0168 kg-NH3-N/kkg-RM) x (99.8 kkg-RM/249.5 kkg-LWK)

= 0.007 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK

NH3-N IA = NH3-N IAFP + NH3-N IARM

= 0.005 + 0.007

= 0.012 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 lb-LWK)

On-site Kill Effluent Limit = 0.0356 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK

[Taken from 432.113 which is equivalent to 432.112(b)(1) as

this facility slaughters on-site more than 10 million lb-LWK

per year]

Adjusted NH3-N Effluent Limit = 0.0356 + 0.012

= 0.0476 kg-NH3-N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH3-N/1000 lb-LWK)