**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 Pr oposed 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 20460ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of Marvin Rubin, Janet Goodwin, Samantha Lewis, Ca rey A. Johnston, William Wheeler, Jade Lee-Freeman, and Beverly Randolph for the development of th is technical document. In addition, EPA acknowledges the contribution of TetraTech Inc ., Eastern Research Gr oup, Westat, and Science Applications Intern ational Corporation.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other employ ees makes any warranty, expre ssed 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, pr oduct, or process discussed in this re port, or represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privat ely owned rights. Refe rences to proprietary technologies are not intended to be an endorsement by the Agency.
Questions or comments regarding th is 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.govi 

## C ONTENTS

S ECTION 1. P URPOSE AND S UMMARY OF THE R EGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 E ffluent Limitations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

S ECTION 2. L EGAL A UTHORITY AND B ACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 T echnology Currently Available (BPT)—Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.2.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant C ontrol Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of the CWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.2.1.3 Best Available Technolog y 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 Fa irness 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 Fu rther Processing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13 2.3.1.2 Independent Re ndering Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 2.3.2 Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15Contents

ii S ECTION 3. D ATA C OLLECTION A CTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

S ECTION 4. M EAT AND P OULTRY P RODUCTS I NDUSTRY O VERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15Contents

iii 4.3.2.2 Carcass/Meat Hand ling and Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

S ECTION 5. S UBCATEGORIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 Subcategorization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 Proposed Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5.2.1 Meat Slaughterhouses and Pack inghouses—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

S ECTION 6. W ASTEWATER C HARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 Meat Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1.2 Description of Waste Cons tituents 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 Cons tituents 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 Cons tituents and Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 6.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

S ECTION 7. S ELECTION OF P OLLUTANTS AND P OLLUTANT P ARAMETERS 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-conventi onal 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 Regula ted Pollutants for Existing and New Direct Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-21 7.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-24Contents

iv S ECTION 8. W ASTEWATER T REATMENT T ECHNOLOGIES AND P OLLUTION P REVENTION P RACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Tr eatment 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 Suspende d 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 Suspende d 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 Minimizati on and Waste Load Reduc tion Practices at MPP Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47 8.8.2 General Water Conser vation and Waste Load Reduction Techniques . . . . . . 8-48Contents

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

S ECTION 9. P OLLUTANT L OADINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Concen trations from Analytical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3 9.1.3 Establishment of Base line 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 Pollu tant Concentrations for each Model Facility Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-33 9.2.4 Development of Post-Compliance Po llutant Loadings for each Technology Option and each Model Facility Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-35 9.3 Pollutant Removals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-36

S ECTION 10. N ON

- WATER Q UALITY E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

S ECTION 11. I NCREMENTAL C APITAL AND O PERATING AND M AINTENANCE C OSTS FOR THE P ROPOSED R EGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-14Contents

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—S uspended 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 M odeling Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-29 11.8.1 Number of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31 11.8.2 Frequency of Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31 11.8.3 Number of Treatme nt 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 C onsideration 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 Predic ted Cost with Actual Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-41 11.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-51Contents

vii S ECTION 12. S ELECTED T ECHNOLOGY O PTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1 12.1 Best Practicable Control Tec hnology Currently Available (BPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1 12.1.1 BPT Requirements for the Meat Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-2 12.1.1.1 BPT for Subcategories A th rough 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 throug h I (Meat Further Processing Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-4 12.1.2 BPT Requirements for th e 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 Pro cessing Facilities (Subcategory L) . . . . 12-7 12.1.3 BPT Requirements for I ndependent Rendering Fac ilities (Subcategory J) . . . 12-8 12.2 Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-9 12.3 Best Available Technology Ec onomically Achievable (BAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-10 12.3.1 BAT Requirements for th e Meat Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-11 12.3.1.1 BAT for Subcategories A th rough D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-11 12.3.1.2 BAT for Subcategories F throug h I (Meat Further Processing Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12 12.3.2 BAT Requirements for th e 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 Processi ng Facilities (Subcategory L) . . . 12-15 12.3.3 BAT Requirements for I ndependent Rendering Fac ilities (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 fo r Existing Sources (PSES) a nd 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-30Contents

viii S ECTION 13. L IMITATIONS AND S TANDARDS : D ATA S ELECTION AND C ALCULATION . . . . . . . 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 N itrogen Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-5 13.4 Derivation of Efflue nt Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-6 13.4.1 Calculation of Daily Effluent Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-6 13.4.2 Censoring Type of Calculat ed 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 Concentr ation-based Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-17 13.8 Estimation of Long-term Average Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-18 13.8.1 Episode-specific Long-Ter m 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 Pou ltry BAT-3 Option-Level Long-Term Averages . . . . . . . 13-21 13.8.5 Calculation of Indepe ndent 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 Opti on Variability Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-23 13.9.1 Transfers of Option Variability Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-24 13.10 Summary of Steps Used to Deri ve Concentrati on-based Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-25 13.11 Conversion to Producti on-normalized Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-26 13.11.1 Calculation of Production Normalized Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-26 13.11.2 Significant Digits for Pr oduction-Normalized Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-28

S ECTION 14. R EGULATORY I MPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1 14.1 Implementation of Part 432 Through th e NPDES Permit Progra m 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 Pretrea tment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-3Contents

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 Calcul ation of Permit Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-7 14.4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-7 14.4.2 Mass-Based Limitati ons and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-8 14.5 Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-10

S ECTION 15. G LOSSARY , A CRONYMS , AND A BBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1

A PPENDIX A. A NALYTICAL M ETHODS AND B ASELINE V ALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

A PPENDIX B. S URVEY D ESIGN AND C ALCULATION OF N ATIONAL E STIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

A PPENDIX C. T ABLES TO S ECTION 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

A PPENDIX D. I NPUT V ALUES TO E STIMATE E NERGY U SAGE AND S LUDGE G ENERATION . . . . D-1

A PPENDIX E. A TTACHMENTS FOR C OST E STIMATION (C HAPTER 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

A PPENDIX F. A GGREGATED D AILY D ATA FOR P ROPOSED P OLLUTANTS AND S UBCATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

A PPENDIX G. M ODIFIED D ELTA

- LOGNORMAL D ISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

A PPENDIX H. A TTACHMENTS TO S ECTION 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

A PPENDIX I. 40 CFR P ART 432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

A PPENDIX J. E XAMPLES OF C ALCULATING MPP L IMITATIONS AND S TANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . J-1Contents

x Tables
Table 1-1. Profile and Subcategorization of MPP Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 Table 1-2. Summary of Technologies fo r 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 Poultr y 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 pe r Unit of Production . . . . . . 6-3 Table 6-3. Typical Characteristics of Hog and Cattle Processing Wastewaters . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6 Table 6-4. Typical Pollutant Ge neration 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 P oultry Facilities per Unit of Production . . . 6-8 Table 6-7. Typical Characteristics of Broiler Fi rst and Further Processing and Turkey First Processing Wastewaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11 Table 6-8. Pollutant Generati on 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 “T ypical” National Renderi ng 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 Met hods 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 Fac ilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size . . 9-11 Table 9-4. Number of Indirect Discharger F acilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size . 9-12 Table 9-5. Baseline Loadings for Direct Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-13Contents

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 Load ing for Direct Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-37 Table 9-16. Technology Option Load ing 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 Concentr ations Used as Model Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-27 Table 11-5. Target Effluent Con centrations 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 Percen t 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 Cap ital, Retrofit, a nd Annual Costs of Non-small Direct Discharging Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-42 Table 11-12. Incremental Capita l, Retrofit, and Annual Co sts 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 Cap ital and Annual Costs of Sm all Indirect Discharging Facilities for the Various TechnologyOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-44Contents

xii Table 11-15. Comparison of CAPDET Model Pred iction of Capital (a nd Construction) and Annual Costs with Actual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-45 Table 11-16. Retrofit Cap ital Costs of Nitrification/Denitr ification by Category for the Proposed Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-47 Table 11-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants Evaluated for Biolog ical Nitrogen Removal . . 11-48 Table 11-18. Retrofit Ca pital Costs Of Nitrificati on/Denitrification/Phosphorous Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-50 Table 11-19. Wastewater Treatment Plants Eval uated 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 Co st-Effectiveness Summary Table for PSES Option 1, Non-Small Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-30 Table 13-1. Method for Aggreg ation 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 Da ily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, Further Pro cessing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Di rect Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-2 Technology Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-8 Table 13-4. Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Da ily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, Further Pro cessing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Di rect Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-3 Technology Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-8 Table 13-5. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concen trations for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering Oper ations Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Poultry Facilitie s (BAT-2 Technology Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-9 Table 13-6. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concen trations for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering Opera tions Treated Wastewaters for Indirect Discharging Meat Facilities (PSES-1 Technology Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-9 Table 13-7. Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concen trations for First Processing, Further Processing, and Rendering Opera tions Treated Wastewaters for Indirect Discharging Poultry Facilitie s (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1Contents

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 Proce ss 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 P oultry First Processing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40 Figure 4-11. General Process for Pou ltry Further Processing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49 Figure 4-12. Location of Small Rendering Facilitie s in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59 Figure 4-13. Location of Non Small Re ndering Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59 Figure 4-14. General Pro cess for Edible Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61 Figure 4-15. General Process for Inedible Batch Cooking Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-64 Figure 4-16. General Process fo r 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 T echnology 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 Un it Schematic for Indir ect Technology Option 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5 Figure 11-7. Treatment Un it Schematic for Indir ect Technology Option 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6 Figure 11-8. Treatment Un it Schematic for Indir ect Technology Option 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6 Figure 11-9. Treatment Un it Schematic for Indir ect Technology Option 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-71 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 

## S ECTION 

## 1

P URPOSE AND 

## S UMMARY OF THE 

## R EGULATION

This section describes the purpose of the regulation and summarizes proposed requirements. Section 1.1 descri bes the purpose of the rulemaking. Section 1.2 presents an
overview of the Meat and P oultry 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), EP A is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Meat and Poultr y Products Point Source Category (40 CFR 432). These proposed ELGs apply to existing and ne w meat and poultry produc ts (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 ba sis for these proposed limitations and standards.



### 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MPP POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
The meat and poultry products industry include s facilities that slaughter livestock and/or poultry or that process meat a nd/or poultry into products for fu rther processing or sale to

consumers 1 . The industry is often divided into thr ee categories: (1) meat slaughtering and processing; (2) poultry slaughtering and processing; and (3) rendering. Facilities may perform slaughtering operations, processi ng operations from carcasses slaugh tered 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 enco mpasses primarily f our North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes which are deve loped by the Department ofSection 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); P oultry Processing (NAICS 311615); and Rendering and Meat By product Processing (NAICS 311613).

The MPP industry includes almost 6,770 facilitie s, 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 approxima tely 1,113 facilities eith er discharge no process wastewater or
use contract haulers. See Section 5 for a desc ription of how EPA subcategorized MPP facilities.

EPA estimated engineering compliance costs fo r 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 load ings 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. (S ee “Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the M eat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category” [EPA-821-B-01-006].) De tails on the cost-effectiveness analysis can be found in the
same document. EPA also es timated the water quality impacts and potential benefits for each technology option. (See “Environmental Asse ssment of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and P oultry Products Industry Point Source Category" [EPA-821-B-01-008].)

Table 1-1. Profile and Subcategorization of MPP Facilities

40 CFR 432

Cate g or y Descri p tion Facilit y 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 t echnology 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 sl aughterhouse, complex slaughterhouse, low processing packinghouse, high processing p ackinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and luncheon meats processor, ham processor, canned meats processor, and renderer. The Agency is also proposing two new MPP subcategories with e ffluent guidelines and source performance standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., sl aughtering) and further processing categories. EPA is not proposing any new or re vised effluent limitations guidelines or pret reatment 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 t oday for the meat and poultry products industry. For descriptions and discussion of the subcateg ories, 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 Pr oposed Options for MPP Facilities

Subcate g or y Re g ulator y Level Technolo gy O p tion Technical Com p onents
Sub p art A: Simple Slaughterhouse; Sub p art B: Complex Slaughterhouse; Sub p art C: Low-Processing Packinghouse; and Sub p art 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.

Sub p art 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.
Sub p art F: Meat Cutter; Sub p art G: Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor; Sub p art H: Ham Processor; and Sub p art 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.
Sub p art J: Renderer BPT; BCT 2 Equalization, dissolv ed 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.
Sub p art K: Poultry First Processing (facilities which slaughter up to 10 million pounds per year) ; and, Sub p art L: Poultry Further Processing (facilities which produce up to 7,000 pounds per year of finished product) BPT; BCT 1 Equalization, dissolv ed 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, dissolv ed 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 

## S ECTION 

## 2

L EGAL 

## A UTHORITY AND 

## B ACKGROUND

This section presents background informa tion supporting the development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the M eat and Poultry Products (MPP) Point Source Category. Section 2.1 presents the legal author ity 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 Busine ss Regulatory Enforcement Fa irness Act of 1996), and prior regulation of the MPP industry. Section 2.3 di scusses the scope and a pplicability 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 discharg e 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 establis hing restrictions on the types and amounts of pollutants discharg ed from various industrial, co mmercial, and public sources of

wastewater.
Direct dischargers (i.e., those that discharge effluent direc tly 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 owne d treatment works must comply with pretreatment standards. TheseSection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2 Conventional pollutants are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ), 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 estab lished by regulation for categor ies of industria l dischargers based on the degree of control that can be achie ved using various levels of pollution control technology. The limitations and st andards are summarized below.

2.2.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Curren tly Available (BPT)—Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
EPA defines BPT limitations for discharges of conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants 2 from existing sources. In specifying BP T, EPA considers the cost of achieving
effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction be nefits, the age of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, process changes required, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality e nvironmental 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, gr ouped to reflect various ages, si zes, processes or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may establish BPT limitations based on high er levels of control than curre ntly 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 T echnology (BCT)—Sec tion 304(b)(4) of the CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA established BC T as an additional le vel of control for discharges of conventiona l pollutants from existing industrial poi nt 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-reasonablene ss" 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 conventi onal pollutants: biochemical oxygen demanding pollutants (measured as BOD 5 ), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH and any additional pollutant s defined by the Administrat or 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 indus trial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilitie s involved, the processes employe d, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential process chan ges, 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 statut ory factor considered in settin g 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 s ubcategory 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 limitati ons may be based upon t echnology 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 th e opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the greatest degree of e ffluent reduction attainable thr ough the application of the bestSection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-4 available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i .e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In esta blishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving th e effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts a nd energy requirements.
2.2.1.5 Pretreatment Standards For Existing So urces (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 ope ration of POTW. The CWA authorizes EPA to establish pretreatment standa rds for pollutants that pass t hough POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal methods. The pretr eatment standards are to be technology-based and analogous to th e BAT effluent limitations guidelines.

The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing categorical pretreatment standa rds, are found in 40 CFR Part 403. These regulations provide a definition of pass-through that a ddresses local rather than nationa l instances of pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-dom estic dischargers (52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987).

2.2.1.6 Pretreatment Standards For New Sour ces (PSNS)—Section 307(b) of the CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of polluta nts 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 ava ilable 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 guide lines for certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for the purpose of controlling “plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, andSection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-5 drainage from raw material st orage.” Section 402(a)(1) a nd NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.44(k)) also provide for best management practices to cont rol 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 d eems 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

T yp e of Site Re g ulated BPT BAT BCT NSPS PSES PSNS Existing Direct Dischargers New Direct Dischargers Existing Indirect Dischargers New Indirect Dischargers X XX X X X
T yp e of Pollutant Re g ulated 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; revi ewing and revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards; promulgates new effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Section 304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standa rds for indirect dischargers, which EPA promulgates pursuant to Sections 307(b) and 307(c) of the Clean Water Act.

On October 30, 1989, Natural Res ources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action against EPA in which they alle ged, 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 acti on in a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent decree, which has been modified several times, establishe d a schedule by which EPA is to propose and take final action for elev en point source categories identified by name inSection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-6 the decree and for eight other point source categ ories identified only as new or revised rules, numbered five through 12. EPA sel ected the meat and poultry products industry as the subject for New or Revised Rule #11. Under the decree, as m odified, the Administrator was required to sign a proposed rule for the meat and poultry produc ts industry no later than January 30, 2002, and must take final action on that pr oposal 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 re store the health of the polluted body of water by indicating the amount of pollutants that may be present in the water a nd still meet water quality standards. More than 20,000 bodies of water acro ss 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 comp leted, and that nece ssary point and nonpoint source controls are implemented to meet TMDLs.

On October 18, 2001 (66 FR 53044), EPA estab lished April 30, 2003 as the new effective date of the July 2000 TMDL rule revisions. EPA be lieves 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 stake holders, reconcile concerns a bout the scope, complexity, and cost of the TMDL program, and structure a flex ible yet effective TMDL program, including a revised TMDL rule, to meet Clean Water Act go als of restoring the na tion'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 qualitySection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-7 standards. The Agency plans to propose a ne w, 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 water body 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 discha rgers (a wasteload allocation( s)) and nonpoint sources (a load allocation(s)). Thus, the TMDL is actually a “pollution budget” or wate r-quality based approach that will allow the waterbody to achieve water quality standards. Wasteload allocations are reflected in the NPDES permits written for poi nt sources discharging into the waterbody.

Effluent guidelines are technology-based c ontrols 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 environm ental 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 efflue nt limitations guide lines 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 im pact of the waste on the body of water in question. Legislative History at 1425 (Senate Report). The Conferen ce Report states that the Act ‘specifically bans pollution dilution as an altern ative to treatment.'" Id. at 284."). The purpose of such technology-based limits is to "result in r easonable 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 actSection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-8 identifies an environmental ma nagement 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 when ever feasible; pollution that ca nnot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environm entally safe manner whenever feas ible; 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, wa stes, contaminants, or residuals at the source, usually within a process. The term sour ce reduction "includes e quipment or technology modifications, process or pro cedure modifications, reformulation or re design of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. The term source reduction does not include any prac tice which alters the physical, chemical, or biologi cal characteristics or the volum e 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 eff ect, source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a wast e stream or that is othe rwise released into the environment prior to out-of-process recycling, tr eatment, 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 thei r effect on source reduction" (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C. 13103). This proposed regulation for the MPP i ndustry 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 Ad ministrative 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 fu ll time employees (FTEs ) or annual revenues established by SBA; (2) a small governmental juri sdiction that is a govern ment 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 th e meat products industries are in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. These size sta ndards were updated e ffective 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 "sma ll business" as one with 500 or fewer employees.

EPA estimates that small busin esses own 71 out of 246 facilitie s 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 unlik ely that any small business owns more than one facility. EPA has fully evaluate d the economic impact of the propos ed 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 co mpanies has a cost/sales ratio greater than 0.52 percent. More detail on these estimates is provi ded in the MPP Economic Analys is (EPA-821-B-01-006). After considering the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, in cluding consideration of alternative regulatory appr oaches being proposed, EPA is cer tifying that this action will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No small governments are regula ted 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 noneth eless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on them. EPA is not proposing any new requirements on 5,411 facilities (the vast ma jority of facilities). Most of these are owned by small businesses, a nd many of the smallest could likely experience serious economic impacts if requi rements were imposed. EPA considered regulating the 731 largest indirect discharging f acilities in this group of 5,411 fac ilities (462 of which are owned by small businesses). If the costs of Option 1 fo r PSES standards were imposed on these indirect discharging facilities, EPA estima tes that 235 of the 462 facilitie s 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 ra tio 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 imp act on a substantial num ber of small entities.

EPA has held several te leconferences with representatives of the American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP) which ha s 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 guide lines for meat slaughterhouses and packinghouse facilities (40 CFR 432 Subcategorie s 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 fac ilities (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 sta ndards for the meat products industry were developed and promulgate d in the 1970's. As described above , there are existing regulations for the meat slaughtering and processing subcat egories and for independe nt rendering. TheseSection 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 exis ting 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 defi nition in the revised regulations. The current regulations for meat cover all aspects of pr oducing meat products from the slaughter of the animal to the production of fina l consumer products (e.g., cooke d, 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 Febr uary 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 Sl aughterhouse, Complex Slaughterhouse, Low Processing Packinghouse, and High Processi ng Packinghouse (40 CFR 432, Subcategories A through D).

The Agency promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS limitations and standards for existing and new meat further processing s ubcategories 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 se parate effluent limita tions and standards for existing and new sources for various types of meat further processors and indepe ndent renderers: Small Processor, Meat Cutter, Sausage and Luncheon Meats Proce ssor, Ham Processor, Canned Meats Processor, and Independent Rendere r (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 Institu te v. EPA, 526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975). The Seventh Circuit Court of App eals reviewed the effluent lim itations and remanded selected portions of those regulations. The BPT and BAT regulations remande d by the court wereSection 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 inde pendent rendering subcategor y were also the subject of litigation in National Rende rers 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 reevalua ted 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 applie d to further processing. These regulations were never finalize d, 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 toxi c metals and organics.



### 2.3 SCOPE/APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSED REGULATION
EPA is proposing new or revise d 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 revi sed effluent limitationsSection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-13 guidelines or pretreatment sta ndards for the small processor categ ory. EPA is also proposing two new MPP subcategories with effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slau ghtering) and further processing subcategories.

Section 1, table 1-2 summarizes the proposed t echnology options which serve as the basis for the effluent limitations guidelines and sta ndards being proposed for the meat and poultry products industry. For descripti ons and discussion of the subcateg ories, 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 Fu rther Processing Facilities
In 1974, EPA established regulations that apply to the meat slaughterhouses and packinghouses (40 CFR 432, Subcategories A thr ough D). EPA established regulations in 1975 which apply to meat further pr ocessing facilities (40 CFR 432, Sub categories E through I). The current regulations for meat c over all aspects of producing meat products from slaughtering the animal to producing final consum er products (e.g., cooked, seasone d 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 regula tions applies to meat further processors that produce up to 6,000 pounds of finished product per day.

EPA is not proposing to change the existin g production rate thres holds in Subparts E through I in this proposed rule for existing limita tions 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 threshol ds do not affect Subpart E (S mall Processors) meat facilities, as these proposed new production ra te 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 defi nes small facilities ba sed on their annual production. EPA defines the fo llowing facilities which are cu rrently 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 ar e excluded from the scope of today's proposal for a number of reasons: (1) small MPP facilities as a group disc harge less than 3 percen t of the conventional pollutants (or 35 million pounds/year), 1 percen t of the toxic pollutants (or 1.3 million pounds/year), 4 percent of the nutrients (o r 7.5 million pounds/per year), and less than 1.5 percent of the pathogens (or 47 x 10 9 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 ve ry small portion of the total i ndustry 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 sma ll poultry direct discharging f acilities (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 thres holds 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 Re ndering Facilities
In 1975, EPA established regulations (40 CFR 432, Subcategory J) that apply to independent renderers, de fined as independent or off-site ope rations that manuf acture meat meal, dried animal by-product re sidues (tankage), animal fats or oils, grease, and tallow, perhaps including hide curing, by a renderer. The exis ting regulations establish a size threshold of 75,000 pounds of raw material per day pr ocessed. Facilities that proce ss less than this amount are not subject to the existing regulations.

EPA is proposing to lower this production thre shold in these revisions to include all
facilities that render more than 10 million pounds per year of ra w material (or approximately 27,000 pounds per day for a facility th at operates 365 days per yea r). EPA is lowering this production threshold based on data collected for this rulemaki ng. 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 (i ncluding 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 applie s 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 gene rated is regulated under the limitations for the appropriate meat slaughtering or packinghouse subcategor y (i.e., under Subparts A, B, C, or D).


### 2.3.2 Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limita tions guidelines and new source performance standards for the poultry first processing (i.e., slau ghtering) and further processing subcategories. Poultry includes broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, matu re 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 reanal yzed this segment of the meat and poultrySection 2. Legal Authority and Background

2-16 products industry and is propos ing 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 subcategorie s 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 th e 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 fac ilities." The second new poultry subcategory is the "poultry further processing" subcategory wh ich includes additional pr eparation 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 propos ed 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 th e “Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the m eat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category” (EPA-821-B-01-006) for a descrip tion of EPA's reasons for setting production thresholds. The treatment options proposed for la rger poultry slaughtering and further processing facilities are economically unachie vable for small poultry slaughte ring and further processing facilities. Rendering performed in conjunction with a poultry firs t processing facility would be subject to the appropriate regulations under the poultry slaughtering (Subpart K).3-1 

## S ECTION 

## 3

D ATA 

## C OLLECTION 

## A CTIVITIES

EPA conducted a number of da ta collection activities in support of these proposed regulations. Section 3.1 describe s EPA’s site visit and sampling program. Section 3.2 describes EPA’s industry surveys. Section 3.3 describes ot her information collection activities, including: literature searches, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and NPDES discharge monitoring report (DMR) re ports. Section 3.4 descri bes 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 vis its at 15 meat and poultry products (MPP) processing facilities. Six of thes e 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 pro cessing 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 pr ocessing 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 te rms of production), wastewater trea tment processes em ployed, and best management practices/pollution preventi on techniques used. EPA also solicited recommendations for good-perfor ming facilities (e.g., facilities with advanced wastewater treatment technologies) from EP A Regional offices and State ag encies. The site-specificSection 3. Data Collection Activities

3-2 selection criteria are discussed in site visit repor ts prepared for each site visited by EPA (and can
be found in Section 6.1.4.2 of the Administr ative Record for the proposed rule).

During each site visit, EPA collected in formation on the facility and its operations, including: (1) general production data and information; (2) th e types of meat and poultry processing wastewaters generate d 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 efflue nt); 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). Selecti on 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 poultr y 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 consider ing 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 f acilities and five poultr y facilities. EPA performed multi-day sampling at two facilities, and nine facilities performed the multi-daySection 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 collecti on, including the pollutants to be sampled, location of sampling points, and sample collecti on, preservation, and shipment techniques. EPA assisted the nine facilities as necessary (e.g ., provided sample bottle labels, provided assistance in shipping, and in one inst ance, provided on-site c ontractor support during the sampling event).
3.1.1.2 Description of Sampling Episodes
During each multi-day sampling episode, EPA sampled facility infl uent and effluent
wastestreams. EPA did not collect source wate r information but will collect additional source water data after proposal. EPA will use the post-proposal source wa ter data to better characterize
wastewater characteristics for each of the facilitie s sampled. At some facilities, the Agency also collected samples at intermedia te points throughout the wastewat er treatment system to assess the performance of individual treatment units. Some of the facilities chosen for sampling perform rendering and/or furthe r processing operations in a ddition to meat and/or poultry processing. For facilities that also performed rendering operations or further processing, EPA sampled wastewater from the rende ring and/or further processi ng 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 com posite and grab sample s, depending upon the pollutant parameter to be anal yzed. Depending on the type of wastewater processed and the treatment technology being ev aluated, EPA analyzed wastew ater for up to 53 parameters including conventional (BOD 5 , TSS, oil and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH), toxic (selected metals and pesticides), and nonconventional (e.g., nutrients, mic robiologicals) pollutants. When possible for a given parameter, EPA collected 24-hour composite sa mples in order to capture the variability in the waste streams generated thr oughout the day (e.g., produc tion wastewater versus clean-up wastewater).

Data collected from the influent samples cont ributed to characterization of the industry, development of the list of polluta nts of concern and of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA usedSection 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 pou ltry 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 th e public record all information collected for which the facility has not asserted a claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI) or which would indirectly rev eal 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 sa mpling. 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 corres ponding to each sample.

• Design and operating parame ters for source reduction, recycling, and treatment technologies characterized during sampling.

• Information about site operations that had changed sin ce 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 de scriptions of the wastewater treatment proce sses, samplingSection 3. Data Collection Activities

3-5 procedures, and analytical resu lts. 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 de tailed information on sa mpling and preservation procedures, analytical methods, and quality assurance/ quality control procedures, see the various sampling episode reports in the rulemaking reco rd (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 Indus trial Effluents for Priority Po llutants” and in the MPP Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

EPA collected composite samples for most pa rameters, 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 microbi ologicals. 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, a nd microbiologicals were collected once a day.

Table 3-1 lists the parameters sampled at th e 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 we ll as the sample volume requi rements, detection limits, and holding times, were consistent with the individual laboratory's quality assurance and quality control plan. Laboratories cont racted 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 reasonablen ess. EPA reviewed all reports from the laboratory to verify that the
data were consistent w ith requirements, reported in the proper units, and that the data were in compliance with the applicable protocol. Appendi x A provides brief descriptions of each of the analytical methods.

Table 3-1. MPP Sampled Parameters

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD 5 ) Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand (DBOD 5 ) 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 met hods and in the MPP QAPP. EPA re viewed 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-sp ecific technical and economic information required for the development of technologically achievable regulatory options for the meat and poultry productsSection 3. Data Collection Activities

3-7 industry. Therefore, EPA used two survey ques tionnaires to collect site -specific t echnical and
economic information.

EPA published a notice in the Federa l Register on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25325) announcing the Agency's intent to submit th e meat and poultry products industry survey Information Collection Request (ICR) to the O ffice of Management and Budget (OMB). The May 1, 2000 notice requested comment on the draf t ICR and the survey questionnaires. EPA
received five sets of comment s during the 60 day public comme nt period. Commentors on the
ICR included: National Chicke n Council, National Renderers Association, American Meat Institute, BCR Foods, and the U.S. Poultry a nd Egg Association. EPA made minor clarifying revisions to the survey methodology and ques tionnaires 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 a nd information currently ava ilable 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 tr ade associations represen ting the meat and poultry products industry (American Meat Institute, Na tional Chicken Council, and National Renderers Association). EPA obtained a pproval from OMB for the use and distribution of two survey questionnaires: a short screener su rvey and a more detailed survey.


### 3.2.2 Description of the Survey Instruments
In February 2001, EPA mailed a short scr eener survey entitled “2001 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey” to 1,650 meat and pou ltry products facilities. The screener survey consisted of seven ques tions that elicited site-specific information such as type of animal processed and processing opera tion, wastewater disposal me thod, 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, wa stewater generation rates, and wastewater dis posal 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 Ad ministration regulations at 13 CFR Part 121.Section 3. Data Collection Activities

3-8 EPA designed the second survey to collect de tailed site-specific t echnical 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 s ite 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), a nd confirm that it was engaged in meat and/or poultry processing operations. Respondents also i ndicated whether they use tr isodium phosphate (TSP) as a biocide. Substituting other non-phos phorus based biocides with T SP has the potential to lower overall phosphorus concentrations in the raw wastewater and treat ed 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 produc tion data; and (3) operating hours for selected manufacturing operations. Survey respondents were require d to provide existing sampling data and information. The Agency us ed the analytical data to estimate baseline pollutant loadings and pollutant removals from facilities with trea tment-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 regard ing wastewater and treatment were designed to gather: (1) information on the wastewater treatme nt systems (including diagrams) and discharge flow rates; (2) analytical mon itoring 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 fo r this proposal. The Agency also used data received in response to these questions to identif y treatment technologies in place, to determine the feasibility of regulatory options and potential revision of the subcategorization scheme of theSection 3. Data Collection Activities

3-9 meat and poultry products industry, and to estim ate compliance costs, the pollutant reductions associated with the likely technology-base d options, and potential environmental impacts associated with the regulatory opti ons EPA considered for this proposal.

The fifth part of the detaile d survey elicited site-specifi c financial and economic data.
EPA used this information to characterize the economic status of the industry and to estimate potential economic impacts of wastewater regulati ons. The financial a nd economic information collected in the survey was necessary to comple te the economic analysis of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat and poultry products i ndustry. EPA requested
financial and economic inform ation 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 facilitie s included in the USDA Food Safety a nd Inspection Service (FSIS) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) da tabase, and a list of re nderers provided by the
National Renderers Associ ation (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 th e 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 Director y 2000 identified producti on information (i.e., whether a facility was a slaughterer or further pr ocessor) for at least 242 of the 292 large facilities (82 percent) and 1,236 of the 2,381 small facilities (52 pe rcent). No such information was available for the remaining larg e and small facilities or for any of the 5,308 very small facilities.


### 3.2.4 Sample Selection
EPA grouped the facilities into se ven strata by the size and the type of meat and poultry processing operation that takes place in each f acility, so that each stratum would encompassSection 3. Data Collection Activities

3-10 facilities with similar opera tions. 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 ba sed on employment and other information from USDA’s HACCP program, the Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000, and the National Re nders Association.

Various meat and poultry processors were ra ndomly selected within each grouping. EPA weighted each survey response to account for f acilities not surveyed a nd to develop national estimates from the survey responses. EPA delib erately 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 re gional environm ental personnel.

Table 3-2. Meat and Poultry Pr oducts Industry Strata

Stratum (No. of Em p lo y ees) Number of Facilities in Stratum Screener Surve y Sam p le Size Detailed Surve y Sam p le 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 fewe r than 3 percent of the conven tional 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 M PP industry. Moreover, most of these small facilities are discharging small volumes of wastewater into large urban publicly owned treatmentSection 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 ve ry small facilities were not eligible for the survey, as they were no longer in operation. Appendix B provides additional informati on 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 indus try facilities genera ting wastewater, 2,000
facilities were maile d 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 survey s which were received before April 24, 2001 for screener survey and May 29, 2001 for detailed survey, for the development of various regulatory options. EP A used the cut-off dates in order to process, synthesize, and analyze the collected data and to develop regulatory opti ons 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 othe r data collection efforts to supplement information gathered through the survey process, facility sa mpling activities, site visits, and meetings with industry experts and the general public. The main purpose of thes e other data collection efforts
was to obtain information on documented envir onmental impacts of meat and poultry processing industry facilities, add itional data on animal pr ocessing waste characteristics, pollution prevention practices, wastewat er treatment technology innova tion, 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 generati on and facility management, a nd pollution prevention. EPA performed extensive internet and library searches for applicable information. The Agency used
the resources of its own environmental libra ry and of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Research Librar y to obtain technical ar ticles on environmental issues relating to the animal pro cessing industry. Researchers also consulted several university libraries and industry experts durin g the literature search. As a re sult, EPA was able to compile a list environmental impacts associated with the m eat 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 summa ry of the case studies in the Administrative Record associated with the MPP proposal. Th e primary sources for the case studies include newspaper and technical journal ar ticles, government re ports, 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 discharger s with NPDES permits. This initial extraction was performed by search ing the PCS using reporte d 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 pr oduct facilities with NP DES permits in the PCS database. The PCS estimate of MPP direct dischargers is approximately equivalent to theSection 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 informati on from both the PCS data base and the screener

survey.
EPA selected a sample from this universe of di rect dischargers in th e PCS database. The Agency then reviewed NPDES permits and permit applications to obtain information on treatment technologies and wa stewater 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 sc ope of the information collection requests and to supplement other info rmation collected on meat and poultry processing waste management practices.


### 3.3.3 Discharge Monitoring Reports
In addition, the Agency collected long-term e ffluent data from facility DMRs via the PCS database in an effort to perform a “real wo rld” 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 annua lly depending on the require ments of the NPDES permit.

EPA extracted discharge data and permit limits from these DMRs (via the PCS database) to help identify pollutants of c oncern (i.e., which pollutants are cu rrently being regulated) and to identify better performin g facilities. Specifically, EPA id entified the amount of discharged
ammonia in relation to the re spective permit limits. EPA conducte d 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 informati on on a total of 176 f acilities from four MPP sectors: 77 meat packing facilities; 17 facilitie s producing sausages and other prepared meatSection 3. Data Collection Activities

3-14 products; 65 poultry slaughtering a nd processing facilities; and 17 animal and marine fat and oils facilities. EPA collected 31,311 data point s on 83 separate pollu tant parameters.
Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with their control authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per year as required unde r the General Pretreatme nt 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 wastewate r); and (2) this information is less centralized and harder to
collect.

Because DMR and indirect discharger co mpliance monitoring reports do not provide information about processes a nd 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 in formation 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 desc ribed above, EPA conclude s 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 participa tion of all interest ed parties throughout the development of the MPP proposal. EPA conducted outreach to the fo llowing trade associations (which represent the vast majority of the facilities that will be aff ected by this guideline): American Meat Institute (AMI), American Association of Meat Proce ssors (AAMP), National Renderers Association (NRA), U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, a nd the National Chicken Council. EPA met onSection 3. Data Collection Activities

3-15 several occasions with various industry representatives to disc uss aspects of the regulation development. EPA also particip ated in industry meetings and ga ve 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 a nd several of their member s 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 Inspec tion 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 EP A should approach these facilitie s in regulation. Summaries of these meetings are in the Administrative Record. Additionally, EPA Regional and State pretreatment coordinators were contacted to identify MPP indi rect 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 re sults of the findings in the forthcoming NODA.4-1 

## S ECTION 

## 4

M EAT AND 

## P OULTRY 

## P RODUCTS 

## I NDUSTRY 

## O VERVIEW

This section provides an overview of the meat and poultry products (MPP) industry. Section 4.2 provides a general ove rview of the MPP industry. Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 provide more detailed information related meat, pou ltry, and rendering ope rations, respectively.



### 4.1 INTRODUCTION
The meat and poultry products industry include s facilities that slaughter livestock (e.g., cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, and lambs) and/or poultry or pro cess 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 describe d in terms of three categories: (1) meat slaughtering and processing; (2) poultry slaughtering and proce ssing; and (3) rendering. A facility may perform slaughtering operations, processing operations from carcasses slaughtered at the facility or other facilitie s, or both. Companies that ow n meat or poultr y 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 c overed by the meat and poultry products industry effluent limitations guidelines.

Since the 1970s when EPA issued the existin g 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 pro cessing 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 enco mpasses four North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes developed by the Depar tment of Commerce. TheseSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-2 NAICS codes include Animal Slaughtering (E xcept Poultry), NAICS 311611; Meat Processed from Carcasses, NAICS 311612; Poultry Proce ssing, 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 consum ption. Slaughtering (first proce ssing) is the first step in the processing of meat animals into consumer products. Slaughter house operations typically encompass the following steps: (1) receiving and holding of live animals for slaughter; (2) stunning prior to slaughter; (3) slaughter (b leeding); and (4) initial processing of animals. Slaughterhouse facilities are design ed to accommodate this multistep process of first processing. In most slaughterhouses, the major step s are carried out in separate rooms.

In addition, many first proce ssing facilities further proce ss carcasses on-site to produce products such as hams, sausag es, and canned meat. Otherwis e, 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 a nd products for industrial use.

Based on the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturer s, the animal first processing industry sector includes 1,300 companies, which operate approximately 1,400 fac ilities. The industry sector employs 142,000 people and generates a tota l 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 firs t processing of any state. Nebraska accounts for almost 17 percent of the valu e added and 16 percent of total shipments in this industry sector. Industry activity is most heavily concentrat ed in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas.Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-3 The Animal First Processing sector comprise s 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 sma ller percentage of va lue added and value of shipments to this sector. Thirty-nine f acilities 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 percen t of the value of shipments.

Revised production rate thre sholds exclude most sma ller meat product processing facilities from the January 31, 2002, proposed revi sions to 40 CFR Part 432. Based on the current screener survey data, EP A is defining small meat fac ilities as those that produce fewer than 50 million pounds live weight kill (LWK) pe r year. See Figures 4-1 and 4-2 for the
distribution of small and non- small (facilities produc ing more than 50 million pounds (LWK) per year) meat first and further pro cessing facilities, also, categoriz ed by discharge type, throughout
the United States.



### 4.2.2 Meat Processed from Carcasses

Meat Processed from Car casses (NAICS 311612) incl udes facilities engaged in processing or preserving meat and meat by -products (but not poultr y 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 facilitie s. This sector employs about 88,000 people, and the value of shipments is more than $25 billion, of whic h $9 billion is value added by manufacture.

California, Illinois, New York, and Texas have the highest c oncentration of meat further processing facilities, each with more than 90 m eat further processing facilities. The highest levels of employment, however, are found in Illinois, Pennsylvani a, Texas, and Wisconsin, which together generate one-third of the meat further processing empl oyment. 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, mo re 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 fu rther processing sector is that while the value of shipments in the animal first processing industry sector is h eavily 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 f acilities throughout the United Stat es 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 industr y 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 equi ne 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 spong iform encephalopathy in
cattle.

The processing of animal species other th an cattle and hogs accounts for only a small fraction of total production. The live weight of cattle a nd 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 ther e is little difference in the processing of cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, and horse s, only the processing of cattle is described inSection 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 classi fied as slaughter (first pro cessing) or further processing operations or an integrated combination of bot h. First processing operations include those operations which receive live m eat animals and produce a raw or dressed meat product, either whole or in parts. In this classification sy stem, 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 produc tion, curing, pickling, smoking, cooking, or canning. Demand for whole or split carcasses gra dually has declined since the mid-1970s with a concurrent increase in demand for a greater de gree 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 cu ts of meat. Most first processing operations today perform some cutting, deboning, and grindi ng operations. Furthe r processing operations such as sausage production, curing, pickling, sm oking, 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 pro cessing 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. Thereduction 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 operati ons 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, wh ich involves stunning befo re 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 ma y occur at the same location.

Most meat facilities for which site visits we re conducted slaughtere d animals 5 days per week, Monday through Friday. Slaughtering ma y 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 fac ilities generally have two slaughter shifts per day, one starting at a pproximately 6 a.m. and the other starting at approximately 3 p.m.

Generally, larger meat first pr ocessing 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 operati ons may process several types of meat animals in a single building. Figu re 4-3 shows the general sequence of steps in the process of transforming live meat animals into car casses. 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 recei pt of live animals for slaughter from producers not only to provide a continuous supply of animals for pro cessing but also to minimize holding time to no more than 1 day. This practice eliminates th e need for feeding and reduces manure accumulation in holding pens. However, processors provide water to minimize weight loss. With theSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-8Section 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 sh ipping-related stress, may be covered or totally enclosed, especially in cold climates, to provide some protection from extreme weather conditions but primarily to redu ce contaminated runoff from preci pitation events. Holding pens are, however, sources of wastewater resulting from pen washing and drinking water spillage. Water pollutant concentrations depend on whether pens are scrape d (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 connectin g alleys. These alleys also are sources of wastewater generated during pr ecipitation events (if uncovere d) as well as from cleaning.

4.3.1.2 Methods Used to Stun Animals
Humane slaughter legislati on 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 ty pically are stunned by mechan ical means using a captive bolt pistol, percussion stunner, or free bullet to inflict brain tr auma and the immediate loss of
consciousness. Electric shock is most commonl y 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 a nd 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 achie ve unconsciousness (Warriss, 2000).

4.3.1.3 Killing and Bleeding
Immediately after stunning, shack les are attached to the animal’s rear legs for suspension from an overhead rail conveyor used to move the carcass through the processing plant. AfterSection 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 ra pid blood loss (exsanguination). This process is generally known as “sticking,” and somewhat different techni ques are used for cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses.

Troughs or gutters collect blood lost followi ng sticking for recovery in the form of various by-products. If blood is collected for s ubsequent human consumption in products such as blood sausage, a hollow knife connected to a sp ecial tank under partial v acuum 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 cu t that severs the major vessels in the throat (Warriss, 2000). The Jewish slaughter practice, called Shechita, re quires a single cut wit hout 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 be lieved to have been de trimental to the animal while alive. Next, the rem oval of blood vessels and sinews, called por ging, 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 proce ss 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 th e primary goals of electric stimulation is to prevent cold shortening, which makes the meat less tender. Plants us e 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 sh eep, and hair from hog carcasses to reduce the potential for contaminati on 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 re moval 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 re verse direction, which is less common.

On-site hide processing can consist of salting for preservation before shipment to leather tanning operations, or it can invol ve washing, defleshing, and sa lting 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 rema ining 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 renderi ng before any subseque nt on-site or off-site wastewater treatment. Hog hair also may be recovered, washe d, 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 reta rd microbial growth and spoilage. This step isSection 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). The n, an incision is made through the diaphragm to allow removal of the remaining organs (trach ea, lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, and spleen).

After evisceration, carcasses are federally or state-inspected for indicators of disease and suitability for human consumption. Condemned car casses are segregated with salvage of usable parts when possible. Following evisceration a nd 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 orga ns may be separated for sale as variety meats or pet food ingredients prior to the removal of viscera fro m the processing plant; otherwise, viscera are generally disposed of through rendering. Li ver 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 harves ted 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 sma ll and large intestine. The former is sold as chitterlings while the latter is so ld 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 s econd washing takes place to remove blood released during evisceration, bone dust from car cass 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 mic robial populations and the poten tial for growth and spoilage. Acetic and lactic acids in very dilute concentrati ons (2 to 3 percent) are the organic acids used as bactericides. Large operations often use automated carcass washing equipment to maintainSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-13 appropriate pressure to maximize efficiency of wate r use (USEPA, 1997). The time from stunning to the second and final carcass wash varies to some de gree, but it is less than 1 hour.

Before refrigeration or freezing, all variet y 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 subs tantial amounts of water to comp letely removal fecal material.

4.3.1.7 Chilling
The next step in the meat slaughtering pr ocess 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 temper atures 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. Smalle r 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 packag ing 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 sa fety 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 main tain sanitary conditions. Theref ore, the daily schedule for meat processing facilities cons ists of one or two 8- hour production shifts follo wed by a 6- to 8-hour cleanup shift. During cleanup, first all equipmen t, walls, and floors are rinsed to remove easily detachable particulate matter. Then they ar e scrubbed and rinsed again to remove detached particulate matter, detergents, and sanitizing agents used durin g the scrubbing phase of cleanup activities. In states where phosphorus-based de tergents 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 ar e 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 pro cessing operations when they do not occur in conjunction with first processi ng 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 canni ng, also are considered further processing operations.

In the meat industry, further processing ac tivities 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 th e same site, usually some frac tion of the carcasses produced is
marketed as fresh meat and th e remainder is transformed into processed produc ts. Stand-alone further processing operations may receive carcasse s, 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 contai ning warm water for the time required to thaw the par ticular pieces of meat. The devi ces 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 wate r 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 fo r a time sufficient to thaw the meat (USEPA, 1974).
Dry thawing involves placing the frozen m eat pieces in a refri gerated room at a temperature above freezing and allo wing sufficient time for the par ticular pieces of meat to fully thaw (USEPA, 1974).

Chipping involves size-reduction equipment desi gned 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 th awing 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 fini shed 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 a nd fat. The water used in thawing is dumpedSection 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 pro cess 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 di fferent operations that may be involved in handling and preparing meat materials for subs equent processing, de pending on the processing plant. Each of the seven operations is describe d separately. All se ven operations are us ually 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 processo rs as carcass halves or quarters. Breaking involves the cutting of these half and quarter car casses into more manag eable 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 fo r disposal are collected and stored in drums, which are picked up by renderers. The waste lo ad generated in trimming might be greater than that generated by the breaking operation. Tr imming requires a greater number of cuts on a specific piece of meat to obtain the required quality or par ticular cut desired from the rawSection 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 gene rated by this operation results from the use of water by the personnel involved in the operation during the ope rating 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 furt her processing in the production of processed meat products. The so lid waste materials generated in cutting are similar to those produced in trimming, plus the bone dust from sawi ng the bones. The large pieces are useful in sausages or canned meats or can be rendered for edible fats a nd 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 cons umer by the removal of internal bones prior to manufacturing particul ar products such as hams and Cana dian bacon. Deboning might also be performed at the same location as trimming, prio r to the production of various meat cuts. The bones removed in this operation are disposed of through rendering cha nnels. Meat and fat particles produced from this opera tion are normally washed into th e 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 i ndustry is to use machines for the skinning process. The skins removed are disposed of through rendering channe ls. 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 particle s 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 dir ect 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 pa tties. There are three general methods of comminution: mincing, bowl chopping, and flaking. Each method affects the size and shape of meat differently, influencing ot her meat properties. The gene ral 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 perfora tion varies, depending on th e desired meat particle size. The meat is then broken into very sm all pieces through bowl chopping. Meat is bowl chopped by being placed into a rotating bowl a nd carried by conveyor belt through a set of vertically rotating knives. Comminuted (flaked) m eat 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 co llagen 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 proce ssed 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. Grinde rs 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 di fferent types of animals or lean and fatty meat products. The particle size of the meat ingredients in a produc t is critical. Larger particle size isSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-20 Figure 4-5 . General Process for Commi nuted Meat Products (Sausage, Wieners, Luncheon Meat s, etc.) USEPA, 1974).

required for hamburger or fresh pork sausage pr oducts. A slightly sma ller particle size is required for manufacturing dry or semi-dry sausages. Various sa usages, including wieners and some luncheon meats, are prepared by a substa ntial size reduction or comminution of the meat raw materials. These products involve a stable sausage emul sion whereby the fat droplets orSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-21 globules are uniformly dispersed throughout th e 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. On e 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 use d, 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 ma jor contributors to the waste load in a meat processing plant as a result of equipmen t cleanup. Because the pr ocessing step involves size reduction of lean and fatty ma terials and the preparation of st able mixtures of meat and other ingredients, these materials tend to coat equipmen t surfaces and collect in crevices, recesses, and dead spaces in equipment. All of these materi als 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 fa irly 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 in jected with salt solutions or acids. Meats have been traditionally marinated in vinegar or wine because their acidic properties break down the muscle structure. Also, th e myofibrils swell a nd hold water, improving tenderness and juiciness. More recently, soluti ons, especially calcium chloride solutions, have been injected into the meat to ach ieve the same resu lts (Warriss, 2000).

The processing of some meat products can be enhanced by adjusting the temperature or moisture content prior to a specifi c processing step. This is par ticularly true in the production of bacon from pork bellies. If the pork bellies are to be skinned, te mpering in a water-filled vat is frequently used to improve skin removal. Ha ms and bacon are frequently tempered following cooking and smoking by being kept in refri gerated 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 fi nd it advantageous to a llow 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 hol ding of essentially fini shed 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 m eat and develop a characteristic appearance and flavor. There are two methods of curing m eats—dry curing, which entails rubbing solid salts into the meat surface, and immersion, a much mo re common method wherei n meat is submersed into a liquid solution of salts. Injecting brine in to 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 ch loride) in the brine solution. The curing brine typically contains additional s ubstances, 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 pol yphosphates to improve th e 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 beSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-24 applied by holding the meat product in a curing br ine 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 vascul ar system, if it is relatively in tact. The product may be injected through numerous needles that penetrate the ha m 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 produc t 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 fro m 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 wa stewater and waste load from a m eat processing plant. Many of the ingredients of pickle solutions represent pollu tional material in high concentrations and add significantly to the raw waste load from the pick le operation. Cleanup of th e tubs or vats holding the product in brine solutions and cleanup of the pi ckle injection machines is required at least once per day, or after each use in the case of the vats. This necessity ge nerates add itional 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 fla vor 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 ma nufacturing procedure. Notable exceptions are fresh pork sausage, brat wurst, and bockwurst. Processed meat products may be cooked with moist or dry heat. Cooking sausages coag ulates 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. TheseSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-25 smokehouses are equipped with te mperature controls, humidity c ontrols, water showers, and facilities to provide smoke for smoking products (USEPA, 1974).

The smoking of meat products gives the fi nished meat product a characteristic and desirable flavor, some protecti on against oxidation, and an inhi biting effect on bacterial growth in the finished product. Smoke is most co mmonly generated from hard wood sawdust or smallsize wood chips. Smoke is ge nerated outside the oven and is carried into the oven through
ductwork. A small stream of water quenches the burned hardw ood sawdust before dumping the sawdust to waste. Water overflow from this que nching section is commonly wasted into the sewer. One plant slurried the char from the sm oke 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 genera tes 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 sewe r 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 pr imarily of grease (USEPA, 1974).

Cleanup of the cooking ovens is not done ever y 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 sm oking 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 creoso te-type deposits and fatty acids from the smoke. The other waste load ge nerated 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 wast ewater 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 ofcaustic, 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 ove n 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 (Figur e 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 ci rculation to achieve rapid c ool-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 dr ippings into the sewer (USEPA, 1974).

Canned meat products a nd products prepared in stainle ss 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 counter current to the movement of the cans or molds. Depending on the type of insta llation and product, it wa s found that the water used in cooling need not be dumped and in fact can be conti nually recirculated with only a nominal amount of
blow-down to remove accumulated so lids, just as would be done in operating a boiler. In other situations, usually where smalle r quantities of water are involve d and luncheon meat molds are being cooled, the water is dum ped 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 woul d generate a waste load is cleanup of the
floors in the cold rooms where hams and bacon ar e 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 thr ough a perforated stainless steel drum to separate meat and bone particles. High-p ressure 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 packag ing meat for convenient consumption. After meat is seal ed in a container, it is heated using steam under pressure at a temperatures of at least 116 

###  C (240 

###  F) to achieve adequate st erilization. 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 agen ts. Containers used for meat canning usually are steel, which may be coated with tin or a temp erature-resistant plastic polymer (Warriss, 2000). See Figure 4-7 for the general proce sses used for canning meat products.

The containers used to hold th e 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-sp eed 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 a ppreciable 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 st eam use also generates a quantity of condensate,
which drains off the cans a nd 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 moreSection 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 r oughly 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 diffe rent products during the day, it is usually cleaned between product runs. Meat produc ts are frequently canned with gr avy-type sauces, or the meatSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-29 product itself has been comminuted to a small pa rticle size and mixed to produce a flowable mixture. This type of canned pr oduct results in a greater contamin ation 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 equipmen t. 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 pa rticles from the equipm ent. The tendency of operating personnel is to use great er quantities of water than nece ssary 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 m eat product to the can filling equipment also must be cleaned after it has been used on a specifi c product, and it is always cleaned at the end of the processing day. This equipment is usua lly broken down, and the pr oduct characteristics that contribute to large waste loads, as described above, al so 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 e quipment because the pieces are ra ndomly 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 wast e 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 th at are pressed onto the meat surface. Finally, cryogenic freezing freez es 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. Th e 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 p ackage, the Cry-O-Vac (plastic film sealed under vacuum) type of package, and the bubble enclosur e package used for sli ced 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 th e 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 pro cessed product or directed to a rendering channel (USEPA, 1974).

The only time water is generated by the p ackaging operation is during cleanup of the equipment. Small quantities of wa ter are adequate for cleanup of this equipment, and only small quantities of wastewater ar e 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, shel f-life, and other characteristics important to the industry. These chemicals include salt, sugar, s odium nitrate, sodium n itrite, sodium erythrobate, ascorbic acid, and spices like pepper, mustard, and paprika. Other co mmon 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 andSection 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 ope ration. Very little wa ste 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 particular ly. Sauces are wet mixtures of seasonings, spices, and other add itives described above, as well as meat extracts and juices, and are used to prepare a gravy-type of product. Si gnificant quantities of wast e 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 ca nned meat product (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.12 Weighing and Batching
The meat processing industry uses batch-ty pe manufacturing operati ons in all but a few instances. The type and quantity of materials that go into each unit of producti on, or batch, are controlled according to specifications established by the individual meat processing companies in accordance with government standards for the fini shed product. The lean and raw materials that go into each batch are weighed and placed in por table 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 ar ea 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 batc hing area. Particles also drop o ff in the handling process. The
tubs used to hold the raw materials and the batche s of raw material contai n 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 th e production period and at least once a day (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.13 Extrusion, Stuffing, and Molding
Following the preparation of a stable emulsi on or mixture of ingredients for a processed meat product such as wieners or sausage, the mixture is again transported by pump or in aSection 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 ar e the intestines from some types of animals, or synthetic casings, which are used only in the fo rmation of the products and then peeled and disposed of before the product goes to the c onsumer, 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 opera tion a product mixture is placed in a piece of equipment from which the product mix ture is either forced by ai r 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 a nd 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 opera tion 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 ope ration. Spillage occurs during transport of the material from grinding and emulsifying to th e extrusion operation, and particularly in the extrusion or stuffing of the c ontainer and overflows (USEPA, 1974).

4.3.2.14 Linking
This manufacturing operation is simply the form ation 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, m echanically or manually. A sma ll stream of water is used toSection 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, ca lled a “tree,” in preparation for the next manufacturing operation (usually c ooking and smoking) (USEPA, 1974).

Unless a casing splits or breaks, no signif icant 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 a nd 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 us e 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 industr y. 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, thes e 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 ever y 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 re quire holding or aging as pa rt of the production process. Hams, dry sausage, and some bacon, for exampl e, require intermediate or finished holding periods before the product is shi pped out of the meat processing plant. The holding operation requires space and some means of st oring the particular meat produc t 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 ar eas 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 e quipment is designed to handle a slab with a fairly rectangular shape. This de sign facilitates the producti on 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 su ccessful, and the method act ually 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 recept acle 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 drySection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-35 cleaning the floors before washdown. The equipmen t is cleaned at the end of every processing day. There are some particles, as well as a fairly complete covering of gr ease, 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 clea nup and the waste load from this cleanup is again relatively small in co mparison to other sources (USEPA, 1974).
4.3.2.18 Receiving, Storage, and Shipping
The meat-type raw materials a nd 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 ma terials are brought into meat processing plants as carcasses, quarters, primal cuts, and specific cu ts 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 spi ce formulation area (USEPA, 1974).

The meat processing plants of companie s with nationwide sales and plants located throughout the country also use the storage facilitie s of meat processing plants as distribution centers for products not manufactur ed at each plant (USEPA, 1974).

The cleaning of freezers is always a dry process and only on rare occasions does it generate a wastewater loa d. 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 th e 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 car casses, quarters, and large cuts of meat from the trucks to the storage area within th e 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 ra w materials and finished products essentially gene rate 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) a nd exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches) and the processing and preparing of these products and their by-products. Sl aughtering is the first step in processing poultry into consumer products. Poultry slaughteri ng (first processing) operations typically encompass the following steps:

• Receiving and holding of live animals • Stunning prior to slaughter • Slaughter • Initial processing

Poultry first processing fac ilities are designed to accommodate this multistep process. In most facilities, the major steps are carried out in separate rooms.

In addition, many first pro cessing facilities further pro cess carcasses, producing products that may be breaded, marinated, or partially or fu lly cooked. Also, many first processing facilities include rendering operations that produce edible pr oducts such as fat and inedible products, primarily ingredients for animal feeds, including pet foods.

The 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers re ported 260 companies engaged in poultry slaughtering. These companies own or ope rate 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 a nd 74 percent of total shipments are produced by facilities that employ more than 500 workers. Yet these facilities compos e 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 industr y's shipments; processed poultry accounts for about 30 percent of the shipme nts; 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 f ourth 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 10 th in terms of employment and value of shipments and 8 th in number of facilities.

EPA is using revised production rate thresholds to exclude most smaller poultry product processing facilities from the pr oposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 432 because the technologies on which the options were based are not cost-eff ective 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 Figu res 4-8 and 4-9 for the distribution of small and non-small (fac ilities producing more than 50 million pounds (LWK) per year) poultry first and further processing f acilities, also categorized by discharg e 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. Th e operations of these pl ants differ significantly from their meat counterparts in several respect s. For example, poultry slaughtering (first processing) operations typically i nvolve 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, freezin g, and packaging (Sams, 2001). Each of these operations occurs in a separate s ection of the processing plant and involves the use of different types of equipmen t. Because broiler chickens constitute most of the poultry industry’s annual production, and the same sequence of operations is used in the processing ofSection 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 pro cessing 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 w ith a variety of additional activities. Poultry processing operations are also cl assified as first or further processing operations or as an integrated combination. First processing opera tions 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 m eat 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 pro cessing operations is a series of operations necessary to transform live birds into dressed carcasses. Figu re 4-10 illustrates this series of operations, and the following sections de scribe these operations.

4.5.1.1 Receiving Areas
Birds are transported to processing plants w ith delivery scheduled so that all birds are processed on the day they are received. Live bi rd 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 plan ts in cage modules stacked on flatbed trailers. These cage m odules can hold about 20 average-si ze broiler chickens. The cage modules are removed from the transport trailer a nd 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 move s 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 killin g line, that moves the birds into the killing area. The killing-line moves at a constant sp eed, and up to 8,000 birds per hour (133 birds per minute) can be shackled in a modern plant, a lthough 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 tran sport ducks, geese, and fowl.Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-41 Turkeys are generally transported in cages pe rmanently 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 unl oading 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 religi ous meat processing (e.g., koshe r, 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 (S ams, 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 ma nual 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 re duce wastewater biochemical ox ygen demand and total nitrogen
concentrations. The blood tunnel is a walled area designed to confine and capture blood splattered by muscle cont ractions 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 feed s 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 a nd 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 rem oval 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 broile rs, 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 differen ce between these two types of s calding 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 dama ge. 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 re duce the potential for microbial contamination (Sams, 2001).

Because scalding and mechanical defeatheri ng 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 feathe rs (Stadelman et al., 1988).

The next stage is automated defeathering, wh ich is done by machines with multiple rows of flexible, ribbed, rubber fingers on cylinders that rotate rapidly across the birds. The abrasionSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-43 caused by this contact removes the feathers and o ccasionally the heads of the birds. At the same time, a continuous spray of warm wa ter is used to lubricate the bi rd 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 def eathering machines may be used for different ty pes of birds (USEPA, 1975).

Following defeathering, pinfeathers may be removed manually because they are still
encased within the feather shaft and thus are re sistant to mechanical ab rasion. 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 ar e 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-pr oduct meal (Sams, 2001). Chicken feet also may be collected for sale primarily in export markets.

After removal of the feet, the carcasses ar e rehung on shackles attached to an overhead conveyer, known as an evisceration line, and wa shed 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 th e 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 harves ted. The inedible viscera, known as offal, are collected and combined with heads and feet for subsequent rendering. Entrails are sometimesSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-44 left attached for religious meat processing (e.g., Buddhist, Conf ucius). 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 approxima tely 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 manua lly, 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 ar ea, 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 re tracts the neck falls downward a nd 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 circ ular blade around the anus for ex traction of the viscera. Great care must be taken not to penetr ate 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 abdo minal 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 eviscer ation 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 wo rker for evidence of disease or contamination before being pack aged and sold. The inspector checks the carcass, viscera, andSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-45 body cavity to determine wholesomeness with th ree 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 renderi ng (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 hear t and liver are stripped of connectiv e 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 ra te required by USDA is 1 gallon of water for every 20 birds processed (25 CFR 61.144). Meanwhile, the in edible viscera, including intestines, proventriculus, lower esophagus, spleen, and re productive 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, a nd the lungs are removed by vacuum. A final inspection is required to ensure the carcass is not heavily bruised or cont aminated, and then the carcass is cleaned (USEPA, 1975). Bruised birds ar e 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 cont aminants on both carcass and conveyo r 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 ar e 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). Industr y has stated that most koshe r 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 pou ltry 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 pe rforated 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 forwar d 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 chille r 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 cont amination. 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 effl uent from the first chiller usually is used for fluming offal to the offal screening area (USEPA, 1975).

USDA requires pre-chiller water te mperature to be less than 18.3 

###  C (65 

###  F) (9 CFR 381.66), and temperature values ty pically 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. Mo st 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 th e carcass skin during this time pe riod (Sams, 2001). Water weight gained in the pre-chiller is stri ctly regulated and monitored accord ing 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 p ack 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 l eave the chill tank at about 2 to 4 

###  C (36 to 39 

###  F). Air
bubbles are added to the main chill tanks to e nhance 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 neck s, 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 form s. 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 marinate d, partially or fully cooked product. Therefore, further processing may involve receiving, storage, thawing, cutting, deboning, dicing, grinding, chopping, canning, and final produc t 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 eviscer ated broiler carcasses into a wide variety of consumer products. Depending on the type of product bein g produced, plant production linesSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-48 may overlap, especially for pr oducing 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 loca tion separate from first processing, carcasses, cut-up parts, and deboned meat ar e usually transported by truck. The vast majority of first processing products received for further proce ssing are whole carcasses. Further processing operations separate from first pr ocessing or killing operations ma y receive poultry that already has been further processed to some degree, typically cut-up or debone d. 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, a nd chemicals are usually received in dry form and stored in dry areas conve niently located near sauce, spice, butter, and breading formulation areas (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.2 Thawing
Frozen poultry carcasses and components thereo f 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 contaminati on. In immersion, poultry is subm erged in tanks or vats of lukewarm potable water for th e time required to thaw the poultry throughout. To prevent spoilage, the USDA does not permit the conti nuous 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 noSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-49 Figure 4-11 . General Process Flowsheet for P oultry Further Processing Operations (USEPA, 1975)Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-50 freshwater added (no overflow) or where the th awing 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 ade quately thawed for re inspection, the product is
removed from the water and draine d. Some plants prefer to place frozen poultry directly into cooking kettles prior to thawing. This practice is permitted onl y 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 enab le 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 requi red; however, the whole carcasses or parts may be held in tanks of crushed ice with open drains, pending fu rther 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 a nd sawing of poultry into various parts. The specifics of these parts becam e 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 (whi ch can be separated from the dr umsticks, if de sired). Manual
cuts can be made or a machine can be used to ma ke 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 carcasse s 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 pa rts may be deboned (separation of meat from bone). Both raw and cooked poultr y can be deboned. Frequently tu rkeys, because of their size, are deboned raw, while chickens and similarly sized poultry can be deboned either raw or cooked (USEPA, 1995). Chicken c ooked before deboning w ill retain its character istic chicken flavor,
while chicken cooked afte r deboning tastes like meat; theref ore, 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 (Mea d, 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 th ese 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 m eats 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, choppi ng 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 fo rcing 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-sha ped 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 produc t or in preparing whole birds for subsequent deboning, the latter applying par ticularly to processing chicke ns. Partially and fully cooked poultry products are frequently prepar ed in further processing opera tions, especially for the hotel, restaurant, institutional and fast-food markets (USEPA, 1975).

Most poultry products are cooke d 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 th ese cookers to collect edible chicken or turkey fat during the actual cooking operation. At the e nd of the processing day, the contents of cooking vats are dumped into th e wastewater collection system (USEPA, 1975).

Gas-fired ovens require essen tially 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 operatin g 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 ma y be battered and breaded to produce a desired finished product. The batte r 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 pumpe d through the application equipment, and the excess flows back to the small holding tank. So me of the batter clings to the application equipment; this is cleaned off during the day (USEPA, 1975).

The breading is a mixture of solids depos ited on the poultry produc t after the batter is applied. There is no liquid used in breading th e 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 ar e conveyed through a deep-fat fryer that is heated directly by gas flame or is heated by the circ ulation 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 shif t), it is shipped to a renderer (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.8 Mixing and Blending
Some of the further processe d products require mixing of se veral 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 tr ansported to the mixing equipment for the preparation of ba tches of the produc t mix (USEPA, 1975).
4.5.2.9 Stuffing and Injecting
Following the preparation of a mixture of in gredients for a processed poultry product, the mixture is pumped or transpor ted 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 pr imarily 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 fa ts and oils, such as butter, margarine, corn oil, and cottonseed oil, to enhance their palata bility. 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 l ongitudinally 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 af ter preparation, but it must be di scarded 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 pr oducts 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 pro cessing 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 us ed, 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. Ho wever, canning of whole birds or disjointed parts necessitates hand filling (USEPA, 1975).

Can filling by machine is a high-speed ope ration. It requires moving the poultry food products to the canning equipmen t, and it provides the automated delivery of those products intoSection 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 ar e filled and conveyed to the closure equipment. At the can closure station, a small amount of steam is introduced under the c over 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 wastew ater 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 pr eserved by heating to destroy any bacteria present. This is accomplished by cooking or by retortin g (the pressurized cooki ng of canned products). Steam is used as the heating medium in retor ting, and it is common practice to bleed or vent
steam from the retort vessels to maintain a constant cooking pre ssure. Cooking without pressure
is used for cured boneless canne d poultry products; the products ar e considered perishable and must be kept refrigerated. Virt ually no wastewater or solid wast e 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 plan t are ready to serve after heating and are prepared for the hotel, restaurant, and ins titutional 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 prepar ed 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 sa uce or gravy to the meat in the container, as required forSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-56 specific products. As the final operation, this equipment closes th e individual containers (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.12 Freezing
The first step in the freezing of furt her processed poultry products is usually accomplished by blast freezing, in which the produc t 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 poultr y and improves product pr esentation (Mead, 1995). A variety of packaging techni ques are used for further pro cessed poultry products. These techniques include the use of plastic film s ealed under vacuum (Cry -O-Vac packaging), the bubble enclosure packages used for sliced luncheon meats, a nd the boxing of smaller containers or pieces of finished product for shipment (USEPA, 1975).

In some techniques of packaging, a substa ntial amount of product handling is involved, which may result in some wasted finished product. However, pi eces of wasted finished product are usually returned for subsequent use in anot her processed product or directed to a renderer (USEPA, 1975).

4.5.2.14 Shipping
Shipping involves the transportation of fini shed products and material collected for rendering. Truck transportation is the primary mode of shippi ng, and products are distributed according to market orders (USEPA, 1975).

Trucks must be pre-chilled pr ior to loading to maintain the shelf-life of fresh poultry products. Fresh poultry must be ma intained at temperatures near freezing with 90 to 100 percentSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-57 humidity during transport to maintain a shelf-lif e 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 high er 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 rende red products. This section is divi ded into three subsections: industry characterization, process descrip tion, and emerging technologies.


### 4.6.1 Industry Characterization
The Rendering and Meat Bypr oduct Processing (NAICS 311613) sector includes facilities engaged in the rendering of inedible (i.e., not suitable for human cons umption) stearin, grease,
and tallow from animal fat bones and meat scraps, and the ma nufacturing 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 Classi fication (SIC) Code 2011. Many facilities not classified as rendering facilities pe rform rendering operations but are not classified as such because they are also engaged in slaughte ring (first processing). These facilities are often on-site (or “integrated”) renderi ng 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 of ten handle several type s of raw material that require either multiple rendering systems or significant modifi cations in the operating conditions for a single system.
The rendering sector consists of 137 compan ies that own or opera te 240 facilities. The sector employs 8,800 workers and generates $2.6 b illion in shipments. Texas and CaliforniaSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-58 have the largest number of renderi ng facilities. Unlike the meat or poultry industry sectors, the rendering industry sector includes few large f acilities; 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 ma terial to reach the rendering facility. Many rendering facilities have limited overlap of collection areas with other rendering facilities. The 132 rendering f acilities that employ between 20 and 99 workers account for the largest share of the industr y shipments (66 percent).

As with the meat and mixed meat animal fi rst and further processing sectors, EPA is using revised production rate thre sholds to exclude most sma ller 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 f acilities further categorized by disc harge type throughout the United
States.


### 4.6.2 Rendering (Meat and Poultry By-product Processing) Description
Rendering processes are proce sses used to convert the by-p roducts of meat and poultry processing into marketable products, including edible and inedible fats and proteins for agricultural and industrial use. Materials rendered include viscer a, meat scraps including fat, bone, blood, feathers, hatchery by -products (infertile eggs, dead embryos, etc.), and dead animals. Lard and foodgrade tallow are exampl es of edible rendering products. Inedible rendering products include indus trial 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 inde pendent rendering plants . Independent plantsSection 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 vari ety of sources, including butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants, fast -food chains, poultry processors, sl aughterhouses, farms, ranches, feedlots, and animal sh elters (USEPA, 1995).

Edible rendering plants separate fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The edible rendering plants are nor mally operated in conj unction with meat packing plants. The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for re gulating and inspecting meat and poultry first and further processing facilities and facilities engaged in edible rendering (i.e., suitable for human consumption) to en sure food safety. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) covers inedible rendering operations. Inedible rendering plants are operated by independent re nderers 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 s hown in Figure 4-14. Fat trimmings, usually consisting of 14 to 16 percent fat, 60 to 64 per cent moisture, and 22 to 24 percent protein, are ground and then belt conveyed to a melt tank. The melt tank heat s 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 h eated with steam to about 93 

###  C (200 

###  F) by a shell and tube heat exchanger. A second-stage centrifuge then sepa rates the edible fat fro m the water, which also contains any remaining protein fine s. 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 di rectly emitted (USEPA, 1995).

Edible lard and tallow are th e main foodstuffs produced fro m continuous edible rendering of animal fatty tissue. Either the low temperat ure option or the high temperature option edible rendering processes may be us ed to render edible fat. The low temperature option uses temperatures below 49 

###  C (120 

###  F) and the high temperature op tion uses temperatures betweenSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-61 Figure 4-14. General Process for Edib le 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 achieve d with the high temperature option; however, the protein obtained from the low temperature option is of acceptable quality, wheras the protein obtained from th e 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 mois ture contents for se veral 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 separa te the fat. Dry rendering is a batc h 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 evaporat ed. Following dehydration, as much fat as possible is removed by draining, and the residue is passed through a screw press to remove someSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

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

Source Tallow/ g rease Wt % Protein Solids Wt % Moisture Wt % Packing house offal a 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 re sidue is granulated or ground into a meal. At present, only dry rendering is used in the Unite d States. The wet rendering process is no longer used because of the high cost of energy a nd because of its advers e 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 in edible rendering called glomerate rendering. Glom erate rendering is the oldest rende ring process, dating back to the beginnings of slaughterhouses when all anima l by-products were re ndered and fed back to animals as a feed. The glomerate process i nvolves combining meat and feathers and cooking them together to produce feed for poultry. Becau se 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, genera lly resulting in increased proteinSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-63 concentrations toward the end of the day. Glom erate rendering is not widely used today because of the highly variable protein concentrati ons of the final produc ts (Christensen, 1996).

Feed grade rendering has the largest ma rket 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 feathe rs 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 a nd poultry feed manufactur ers (Christensen, 1996).

Pet food grade rendering is the most profita ble 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 cont ent, and quality of the final product. Blood and
feathers or hair cannot be incl uded in pet food (C hristensen, 1996).

The following sections describe the two ty pical inedible renderi ng 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 prev iously, the grade of th e rendered products depends on the types of raw material s included and excluded. Since the 1960s continuous rendering systems have been installed to replace batch syst ems at most plants. Currently, only a few batch cooker plants remain in operati on in North America (Lehmann, 2001).

4.6.2.2.1 Batch Rendering Process
Figure 4-15 shows the basic inedible renderi ng process using multip le batch cookers. In the batch process, the raw material from the recei ving bin is screw conveyed to a crusher, where it is reduced to 2.5 to 5 centimeters (1 to 2 in ches) in size to improve cooking efficiency. Cooking normally requires 1.5 to 2.5 hours, but adju stments 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 mate rial 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 toSection 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview

4-64 Figure 4-15. General Process for Inedible Batc h Cooking Rendering (USEPA, 1995).

the percolator drain pan. Va por emissions from the cooker pa ss through a condenser, which condenses the water vapor a nd emits the noncondensibles as volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (USEPA, 1995).

The percolator drain pan contai ns a screen that separates the liquid fat from the protein solids. From the percolator drain pan, the prot ein solids, which still cont ain about 25 percent fat, are conveyed to a screw press. The screw pre ss completes the separati on of fat from solids and yields protein solids that have a residual fat c ontent of about 10 percent. These solids, called cracklings, are then ground and screened to produ ce protein meal. The fat from both the screw press and the percolator drain pa n is pumped to the crude animal fat tank, centrifug ed or filtered to remove any remaining protei n solids, and stored in the an imal fat storage tank (USEPA, 1995).

4.6.2.2.2 Continuous Rendering Process
A typical continuous rendering process is show n in Figure 4-16. The system is similar to a batch system, except that a single, continuous c ooker is used rather than several pa rallel batch cookers. A typical continuous cooker is a horiz ontal, steam-jacketed cyli ndrical vessel equipped with a mechanism that continuously moves th e 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 mate rial 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 batc h process operations (USEPA, 1995).

In the 1980s newer continuous rendering sy stems were develope d to precook the raw
material and to remove moistu re from the liquid fat prior to the cooker/drier stage. These systems use an evaporator operated under v acuum and heated by the vapors from the cooker/drier. One system, term ed 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/drie r to a temperature of 70 to 90 

###  C (160 to 200 

###  F). In the evaporator, the moisture evaporates from the li quid 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 (U SEPA, 1995). Several inedible continuousSection 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 Wa ste Heat Dewatering System.

Duke Continuous Rendering Sy stem (Inedible Rendering)

The process of the Duke system is similar to that of the batch c ooker described earlier.
The main difference is that it operates on a continuous basis. The cooker portion of the system, called the Equacooker, is a horiz ontal steam-jacket ed cylindrical vessel e quipped 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 ha s steam-heated coils to provide increased heat transfer. The Equacooker is divided into thr ee 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 tw in-screw feeder controls the f eed rate to the Equacooker, while the discharge rate is controlle d 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 c onveyor that contains a section of perforated troughs, which allow the free melted fat to drain through as the so lids are conveyed to the Pressor or screw press for additi onal 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 Equacooke r portion of the Duke system (Prokop, 1985).

Anderson C-G (Carver-Greenfield ) System (Inedible Rendering)

The Anderson C-G system differs from most othe r systems in several aspects. Instead of using screw conveyors, recycled fat carries the ra w material as a pumpable slurry. An additional grinding step is included to fu rther reduce the size of the par ticles. Also, the conventionalSection 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 feed er that feeds the par tially ground raw material continuously, and at a controlled ra te, 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 re duce the particle size. The final par ticle size ranges from 0.25 to 1 inch. The slurry is next pumped to an evaporator, wh ich can be either a single or a double-stage unit,
and is held under vacuum. Because the vacuum facilitates moisture rem oval, 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. Wate r 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 v acuum 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 tw o-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 centrifug e that separates the solids from the liquid. A portion of the fat is recycled back to the fluidi zing tank, while the remai nder is removed from the system. Discharged solids from the centrifuge ar e screw-conveyed to expe llers (screw presses), which reduce the fat content of solids from 26 pe rcent 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 incl udes level indicators a nd 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 measurem ents. The panel also has equipment speed settings, motor current readings, a nd 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 th e 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 ot her 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 c ondition the animal fibrous tissue properly for the subsequent pressing ope ration. 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 ty pe 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 a nd a liquid phase. The press cons ists of intermeshing, counterrotating screws that move inside a press cage a ssembly. A perforated sc reen, through which the liquid is pressed, is secured by vertical support plates. The sh ape 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 lowe r diameter shaft and deeper flights at the feed end, providing a larger volume of space. As th e screws rotate, the vol ume 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 wa ter, 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 exchange r that is mounted vertically and is integral with the vapor chamber. Vapors from the existing cooker or drie r 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 chambe r maintained under a vacuum of 24 to 26 inches of mercury. A
shell and tube condenser with circulating coolin g water condenses the va por. Because the systemSection 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 pr ocess 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 an imal 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 c ookers originally used in the industry because of the improved energy efficiency and product quality provide d by continuous cookers. In the continuous process, whole blood is introduced into a steam-i njected, inclined tubular vessel in which the blood solids coagulate. The coagulated blood solid s and liquid (serum wate r) 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 batc h 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 pr ocess converts keratin, the princi pal component of feathers and hog hair, into amino acids. The moist meal produc t, 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 drie d product is separated fro m the exhaust by cyclone
collectors. In the steam-heated t ube system, fresh air is passed c ountercurrent 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 di scharge 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.mtgpl ace.com/articles/p699.asp. (DCN 00120)

Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). 2001. “Gui delines for specified cuts of poultry.” 26 Feb 1986: 2 pp. On-line. Internet. Available WWW: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/rdad/fsis directives/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/Februar y 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 processi ng animal by-product materials

. Papers from the Symposium on Animal Fats presented at the 74 th 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 processi ng animal by-product materials . Papers From the Symposium on Animal Fats Presented at the 74 th 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. Persona l 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.am s.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 perfor mance standards for the poultry segment of the meat product and rendering pr ocess, 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 perform ance 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. 6 th 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 

## S ECTION 

## 5

S UBCATEGORIZATION

This section presents the proposed subcat egorization for the meat and poultry products (MPP) effluent limitations guidelines and pretrea tment standards. Sec tion 5.1 presents EPA’s subcategorization criteria. Section 5.2 pres ents each proposed subcategory in detail and
discusses the differences between the ex isting 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 EP A to take into account other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate. In add ition, it requires BAT model technology chosen by EPA to be economically achievable, which generally involves considering both compliance costs and the
overall financial cond ition of the industry.

EPA took these factors into account in cons idering whether differe nt effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment sta ndards were appropriate for sub categories within the industry. For this industry, EPA broke down the industry in to subcategories with similar characteristics. This breakdown recognized the major differences among companies within the industr, whichSection 5. Subcategorization

5-2 might reflect, for example, different processes, ec onomies of scale, or othe r factors. Subdividing an industry into subcategories results in more tailored regulatory standa rds, 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 genera tion or wastewater characteristic s; therefore, age and location
were not used as a basis for s ubcategorization. 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 subcategorizati on. See Section 10 of this document for more information on non-water qua lity environmental impacts.
Even though size (e.g., acreage, number of em ployees, production rates) of a facility does not influence production-normalized wastewater flow rates or pollu tant loadings, size was used as a basis for subcategorization because more stringent limitations would not be cost- effective for smaller meat, poultry, and re ndering facilities. In addition, smaller facilities discharge a very small portion of the total industr y discharge. Therefore, this proposal does not revise the existing limitations and standard for smaller facilities in Subcat egories 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 “sma ll” and “non-small” facilities for each subcategory. See the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limita tions Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Po int 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., slau ghtering, further processing, rendering) as a determinative factor for subcategorization b ecause 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 weig ht killed, the PNF for further processing isSection 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 am ounts of water for initial processing (kill through carcass shipping or cut-up). Slaughte ring or first processi ng operations generally involve taking the live animal a nd producing whole or cut-up meat carcasses (which then may be further processed). Wastewaters from first pro cessing operations are ge nerated 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 car cass parts. As a result of these operations, wastewaters that contain varying levels of blood, animal parts, vi scera, fats, bones, and the like are generated. In addition, fede ral food safety concerns require frequent and extensive cleanup of slaughtering operations, which also contri butes to wastewater ge neration. These cleanup wastewaters contain not only slau ghtering residues and particulate matter but also products used for cleaning and disinfection (e.g., detergents and sanitizing agents).
Alternatively, most further processing operations generate wa stewaters from sources different from slaughtering operations. These sources, and the resulting wastewater characteristics, are highly dependent on the type of finished product de sired. 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 am ounts of water, except for cleanup. Wastewaters generated from further processing operations contain some soft a nd hard tissue (e.g., muscle, fat, and bone), blood, and other substances used in fi nal product preparation (e .g., breading, spices), as well as products used for cleaning and di sinfection (detergents and sanitizing agents).
Rendering operations pr imarily process slaughtering by -products (e.g., animal fat, bone, blood, hair, feathers, dead animals). The am ount of water used and the characteristics of wastewater generated by rende ring operations are highly de pendent on a number of factors,Section 5. Subcategorization

5-4 including the type of product produced (e.g., edib le vs. inedible), the rendering process used (batch vs. continuous, wet process vs. dry proce ss), and the source and ty pe of raw materials used (e.g., poultry processors, slaughterhouses, but cher shops, supermarkets , restaurants, fastfood chains, farms, ranches, feed lots, animal shelters). In gene ral, rendering operations involve cooking the raw materials to rec over fats, oil, and grease; rema ining residue is dried and then granulated or ground into a meal using a continuous dry rendering process. A significant portion of wastewater pollutant loadin gs generated from rendering opera tions is condensed steam from cooking operations. Unlike slaughtering and fu rther processing opera tions, rendering cleanup operations are generally less ri gorous, generating a smaller pr oportion of the total expected
wastewater flow.



### 5.2 PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIES
EPA proposes to keep the curre nt subcategorization scheme for small facilities, but for larger facilities the Agency is proposing new limitations and collapsing the existing subcategories. Specifically, EP A proposes new limitations and sta ndards that are the same for larger facilities in the following MPP subcateg ories: Simple Slaugh terhouses (Subpart A), Complex Slaughterhouses (Subpart B), Low-Pro cessing Packinghouses (Subpart C), and HighProcessing Packinghouses (Subpart D). Als o, EPA proposes new limitati ons and standards that are the same for facilities in the following M PP 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 (S ubpart J) subcategory and proposing new
limitations and standards fo r facilities in this subcategory. This proposal does not revise the existing limitations and standards for smaller facilities in Subpart s 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: Pou ltry First Processing (S ubpart K) and Poultry Further Processing (Subpart L). These two ne w subcategories will cove r both small and large poultry processing facilities, a lthough the smaller facilities in each of the subcategories are required to meet less stringent requirements than the larger poultry facilities. EPA chose lessSection 5. Subcategorization

5-5 stringent limitations for smaller poultry processing facilities becau se more stringent limits would
not be cost-effective for such facilities.

EPA believes that the s imilarities among Simple Sl aughterhouses, 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 ne w limitations and standards that are the same for all four subcategories. This approach allows the us e 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 th e degree of further processing and rendering.
The proposal for new limitations and standard s that are the same for meat cutters, sausage and luncheon meat pro cessors, ham processors, and ca nned meat processors is also based on the similarities among these four subcat egories. 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 polluta nt 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 subcateg ories. 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 m eat facilities (which EPA believes should be maintained) are different for each of the subcateg ories, 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 pr oduction-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 sl aughtering and initial processing, EPA is proposing to establish allowances to acc ount 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 proce sses: 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 mate rial 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 genera te more than 50 million pounds per year of meat finished produc ts without performing slaughtering to be regulated by the same production-based efflue nt limitations guidelines. Subpart E (Small Processor) facilities are excluded from these ne w proposed requirements by definition. The limitations guidelines allow discha rges based on the amount of fini shed product that is further processed on-site. The wastewater characteristics and treatability for three of the four subcategories are sufficiently similar to group th em 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 produc t 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 belie ves that this subcategorization scheme will simplify implementation for the pe rmit 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 independe nt rendering facilities, which are facilities that only render raw materials and process hi des 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 mate rial to be regulated by th e same production- based effluent limitations guidelines. This scheme is a change from the current guidelines, which apply only to independent renderers that re nder more than approximately 27.4 million pounds raw material per year (or 75,000 pounds raw material per day for a f acility that operates 365 da ys per year). The
limitations and standards allow disc harges based on the amount of raw material re ndered 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 milli on pounds of poultry per year. EPA is proposing that the technology-based efflue nt limitations guidelines for sma ll poultry first processors (both new and existing) be based on th e less efficient nitrification t echnology 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 fo r a discussion of the technology options, and see
Section 12 of this document fo r more details on how EPA deve loped 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 proce ssed on-site, and (3) the
amount of raw material th at 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 fini shed product per year or less; non-small poultry further processo rs generate more than 7 milli on pounds of finished product perSection 5. Subcategorization

5-8 year. EPA is proposing that the technology-ba sed effluent limitations guidelines for small poultry further processors (both new and existin g) be based on a less efficient nitrification technology option (Option 1). EPA is proposing that the technology-ba sed effluent limitations guidelines for non-small poultry further processors (both new and existing) be based on the
nitrification/denitrifica tion technology option (Option 3). S ee Section 11 of this document for a discussion of the technology options, and see S ection 12 of this documen t for more details on how EPA developed the two segments and specifi c requirements for each segment. The effluent limitations guidelines allow discha rges based on the amount of fi nished product that is produced
on-site.



### 5.3 REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document fo r effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standard s—red meat processing segments of the meat products point source cat egory. EPA-440/1-74-012a. Effl uent 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 perform ance standards for the poultry processing point source category. EPA-440/1-75-031b. E ffluent Guidelines Division, Office of
Water and Hazardous Material s, Washington, DC. (DCN 00140)6-1 

## S ECTION 

## 6

W ASTEWATER 

## C HARACTERIZATION

This section describes the characteristics of wastewater generated by meat and poultry product (MPP) operations. Section 6.1 describes wastewater ch aracteristics of meat processing wastes, Section 6.2 describes wa stewater characteristics of pou ltry processing wastes, and
Section 6.3 describes wastewater ch aracteristics of rendering wastes.



### 6.1 MEAT PROCESSING WASTES

6.1.1 Volume of Wastewater Generated
In meat processing, water is used primarily for carcass wa shing after hide removal from cattle, calves, and sheep or hair removal from hogs and again afte r 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 followe d by one 6- to 8-hour cleanup shift every day. During processing, wate r use and wastewater generation are relatively constant and low compared to the cleanup pe riod that follows. Water use and wastewater generation essentially cease afte r the cleanup period until processi ng 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 producti on basis, such as live weight killed (LWK) or finished product produced also can vary substantially among pro cessing plants. Some of this variation is a reflection of different levels of effort among plants to minimize water use to reduce the cost ofSection 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 pr oducing fresh meat ranging from whole carcasses to smaller cuts of meat with two or fewer by-p roduct 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 LW K (USEPA, 1974). About one-half of these operations slaughtered beef cattle, with the remainder evenly divided between hogs and mixed
kill. Two facilities were sma ll 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 slaughter houses (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 propos ed rule, EPA collected data related to the volumes of wastewater flow generated at meat processing facilities. Table 6-1 presents typical wastewater volumes generated pe r unit of production from meat i ndustries as reported during site visits by EPA. Table 6-2 presents median wa stewater volumes genera ted per unit of production as reported in the MPP detailed surveys.

Table 6-1 . Wastewater Generate d in Meat Processing

Meat T yp e First Processin g and Renderin g a Further Processin g b
Avera g e Ran g e n Avera g e Ran g e n Hogs 462 243-613 3 681 NA 1 Cattle (first processing and rendering) 390 NA 1

NA Cattle (first processing, 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 M eat Facilities per Unit of Production

Process Wastewater Generated ( g allons p er 1,000 lbs of p roduction unit)
First Processin g a Further Processin g b
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, evis cerating, carcass washing, trimm ing, and cleanup operations. When present, further processing, renderi ng, and hide processing operations 1 also are significant sources of wastes. Meat proce ssing wastes include blood not co llected, viscera, soft tissue removed during trimming and cuttin g, bone, urine and feces, so il from hides and hooves, and various cleaning and sanitizing compounds. Furthe r processing, rendering , and hide processing produce additional sources of fat a nd other soft tissues, as well as substances including brines, cooking oils, and tanning solutions. Wastewater characteristics of re ndering operations are
discussed in Section 6.3.

The principal constituents of meat processing wastewaters are a variety of readily biodegradable organic compounds, pr imarily fats and proteins, pr esent in both particulate and dissolved forms. Screening of meat processi ng wastewaters is usually performed in most facilities to reduce concentrations of partic ulate matter before effecting pre-treatment.

Meat processing wastewaters remain high strength wastes, even after screening, in comparison to domestic wastewaters, based on c oncentrations of bioc hemical oxygen demandSection 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-4 (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), tota l suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen, and phosphorus.

Blood not collected, solubilized fat, urine, and feces are the primary sources of BOD in meat processing wastewater s. For example, blood from beef cattle has a reported BOD 5 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 collecti on 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
BOD 5 of approximately 27,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis, and the BOD 5 of swine manure is approximately 37,000 mg/kg of ma nure (American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1999).

The efficiency of fat separati on and removal from the waste st ream 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, especi ally under aerobic conditions. The significance of fat as a component of BOD in meat proce ssing 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 deter mined. Instead, groups of compounds with similar physical characteristics are determined quantitatively based on their common solubility in an organic extracting solvent. Ov er time, petroleum ether has been replaced by trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon) and most recen tly by n-hexane as the preferred extracting solvent. Thus, oil and grease concentrations in meat processing wastew aters may be reported as
Freon or n-hexane extr actable material (HEM).

Blood and manure are also are significant s ources of nitrogen in meat processing wastewaters. The principal form of nitrogen in these wastewaters before treatment is organic nitrogen with some ammonia nitrogen. During co llection of wastewater samples, some ammoniaSection 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-5 nitrogen is produced by the microbially mediated mineralization of organi c 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 cu ring of bacon and ham. The phosphorus in meat processing wastewaters is pr imarily from blood, manure, and cl eaning and sanitizing compounds, which can contain trisodium phospha te (sodium phosphate, tribasic).

Due to the presence of manure in meat processing wastewaters, densities of total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus groups of bacter ia generally are on the order of several million colony forming units (cfu) pe r 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 gastrointe stinal 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 pro cessing meat. In addition, water supply systems and mechanical equipment may be significant s ources of metals, including copper, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and vanadium. Manure, especially hog manure, may be significant sources of copper, arsenic, and zinc, because thes e constituents are commonly added to hog feed. Although pesticides such as Di chcorvos, malathion, and Carbaryl are commonly used in the production of meat animals to contro l external parasites, la bel-specified withdrawal periods before slaughter typica lly should limit concentrations to non-detectable or trace levels. Failure to observe specified withdr awal periods is an unlawful act ( 7 U.S.C 136 Et. Seq ).
Tables 6-3 and 6-4, respectivel y, present typical wastewater characteristics and pollutants generated per unit of production from hog and ca ttle processing facilitie s, as reported during sampling visits by EPA. Averag e effluent concentrations for a ll pollutants of concern evaluated by EPA for potential regulati on are provided in Section 9.Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

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

Parameter Ho g Cattle
First Processin g and Renderin g Further Processin g b First Processin g and Renderin g Further Processin g b
Avera g e Avera g e Avera g e Avera g e Flow (MGD) 1.95 0.30 1.87 1.46 Live weight killed (1, 000 lb/day) 3,639 435 3,942 4,044
BOD 5 (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) 1.6x10 6 1.4x10 6 7.3x10 5 1.4x10 6 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 a nd Cattle Processing a

Parameter Ho g Cattle
First Processin g and Renderin g Further Processin g First Processin g and Renderin g Further Processin g Avera g e Avera g e b Avera g e Avera g e b
BOD 5 (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) 2.6x10 10 3.6x10 10 1.1x10 10 1.8x10 10

LWK = Live weight killed; CFU = Colony forming units.

a Data generated during EPA sampling of MPP facilities. b Per 1,000 lb of finished productSection 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, chillin g, 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 a nd 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. Ag ain, 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 proce ssing 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 distributi on of individual values could not be determined. Using the reported mean live we ight 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 pro cessing. 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 deviati on 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 substantia lly 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 wastewat er generation for poultry processi ng 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 af ter evisceration. As disc ussed elsewhere, meat carcasses are chilled using mechanical refrigeration.

As part of the data collection for the propos ed rule, EPA collected data related to the volumes of wastewater flow generated at poultr y processing facilities. Table 6-5 shows typicalSection 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 wa stewater volumes genera ted per unit of production from poultry facilities as reported in the MPP detailed surveys.

Table 6-5. Wastewater Generation in Pou ltry First and Further Processing a

Parameter First Processin g b Further Processin g c
Avera g e Avera g e 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 P oultry Facilities per Unit of Production

Process Wastewater Generated (gallons per 1,000 lbs of production unit) First Processing a Further Processing b
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 pr ocessing are live bird holding and receiving, killing, defeathering, eviscerating, carcass wa shing, chilling, cut-up, and cleanup operations. Further processing and rendering operations are also major s ources of wastes. These wastes include blood not collected, feat hers, viscera, soft tissue re moved during trimming and cutting, bone, soil from feathers, and various cleaning a nd sanitizing compounds. Further processing and rendering can produce additional sour ces 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 pro cessing wastewaters are a variety of readily biodegradable organic compounds, pr imarily fats and proteins, pr esent in both particulate and
dissolved forms. To reduce wastewater treatment requirements, poultry pr ocessing wastewaters
also are screened to reduce concentrations of particulate matter befo re treatment. An added benefit of screening is increas ed collection of materials and subsequent increased production of rendered by-products. Because feat hers 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 wastewater s based on concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS, nitrogen, and phosphorus after sc reening. Blood not collected, solubilized fat, and feces are principal sources of BOD in poultry processi ng wastewaters. As with meat processing wastewaters, the efficacy of blood collection is a significan t 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. Ch icken 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 fa rm. Thus, manure probably is a more significant source of wastewater BOD for turkey proce ssing operations than for broiler processing operations.

Primarily because of immersi on chilling, fat is a more significant source of BOD in poultry processing wastewaters than in meat pro cessing wastewaters. Additional sources of BOD in poultry processing wastewaters are feather and skin oils desorbed during scalding for featherSection 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-10 removal. Thus, the oil and grease content of pou ltry 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 princi pal form of nitrogen in these wastewaters before treatment is as organic nitrogen with some ammonia nitr ogen produced by the microbially
mediated mineralization of or ganic nitrogen during collecti on. Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen generally are present only in trace concentrati ons, less than 1 mg/L. The phosphorus in poultry processing wastewaters is pr imarily from blood, manure, and cleaning and sanitizing compounds such as trisodium phosphate (trisodium phos phate tribasic), and trisodium phosphate in detergents.

Due to the presence of manure in poultry processing wastewaters and commingling of processing and sanitary wastewaters after screen ing, and dissolved air flotation of the former,
densities of the total and fecal co liform and fecal streptococcus gr oups of bacteria generally are
on the order of several million cf u/100 mL. As discussed earlier, members of these groups of microorganisms generally are not pathogenic. They do, however, indicate the po ssible presence of pathogens of enteric origin, such as Salmonella sp . and Campylobacter jejuni , gastrointestinal parasites, and pathogen ic enteric viruses. Giardia lamblia , and Cryptosporidium parvum are not of concern in poultry pr ocessing wastewaters.

Poultry processing wastewaters also contain a variety of mineral elements, some of which are present in the potable water used for pro cessing poultry. Again, water supply systems and mechanical equipment may be significant s ources 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 car baryl, also are commonly used in the production of poultry to control external pa rasites, label-specified withdr awal periods before slaughter typically should limit concentrati ons to non-detectable or tr ace levels. Failure to observe specified withdrawal periods is an unlawful act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).

Tables 6-7 and 6-8, respectivel y, 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 polluta nts 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 Wastewaters a

Parameter Broiler Turke y First Processin g Further Processin g First Processin g Avera g e Avera g e b Avera g e Flow (MGD) 0.89 1.10 0.58 Live weight kill (1,000 lb/day) 880 573 909
BOD 5 (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) 9.8x10 5 8.6x10 5 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 Un it of Production in Broiler Fi rst and Further Processing a

Parameter Broiler Turke y First Processin g Further Processin g First Processin g Avera g e Avera g e b Avera g e BOD 5 (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) 3.4x10 10 6.3x10 10 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 productSection 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 collect ed 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 ma terials are cooked in thei r 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, especi ally if metal salts are used for fl occulation/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 incl ude the hydrolysis of hair or feathers for the production of livestock and poultry feed ingred ients. 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 othe r meat or poultry processing operations or at a separate location, usually by an indepe ndent entity. When rendering is performed in conjunction with other meat or pou ltry 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 renderi ng process, including for raw material cooking and sterilization, condensing c ooking vapors, plant cleanup, tr uck and barrel washing when materials from off-site locations are being pr ocessed, odor control, and steam generation (USEPA, 1975). Most of these activities also gene rate wastewater. According to the National Rendering Association (2000), rendering plants produce appr oximately one-half ton (120Section 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 a ttributable to the type of c ondensers used for condensing the cooking vapors and, to a lesser ex tent, to the initial moisture content of the raw material.

Based on a survey of National Rendering A ssociation (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 (Nati onal 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 rende ring plants are produced from raw material receiving operations (especially when material s from off-site locations are being processed), condensing cooking vapors, drying, plant clea nup, and truck and barrel washing (USEPA, 1975). Condensates formed during raw ma terial sterilization and drying are the largest contributors to
the total wastewater in terms of volume and pollutant load (Met zner and Temper, 1990). At those rendering plants where hide cu ring is also performed as an ancillary operation, additional volumes of raw waste are genera ted, although those operations are not covered by this proposal. (USEPA, 1975). Note, however, that hide processing wastewaters ma y be commingled with other wastewaters prior to treatment.

Condensates recovered from cooki ng and drying processes cont ain high concentrations of volatile organic acids, amines, mercaptans, and other odorous co mpounds. Thus, rendering plant condensers can be sources of sign ificant emissions of noxious odor s to the atmosphere if water scrubbing is not used for emissions control. Th ere is little increase in fi nal effluent volume when water scrubbing is used, because recycled fi nal 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 am ounts 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 draina ge may account for approxima tely 20 percent of the original raw material weight.Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-14 The other important source of wastewater from rendering ope rations 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 a nd 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 opera tions usually accounts for about 30 percent of total rendering plant wast ewater 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, sp eed 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 incl ude plant and truck was hdown activities, and the cleanup of spills.

As part of the data collection for the propos ed rule, EPA collected data related to the
volumes of wastewater flow generated at rendering operati ons. Table 6-9 presents typical wastewater volumes generated pe r unit of production from broiler rendering facilitie s as reported during site visits by EPA. Table 6-10 presents median wastewater volum es generated per unit of production as reported in the MPP detailed survey.

Table 6-9. Wastewater Generati on in Broiler Rendering a

Parameter Avera g e 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 Renderi ng Operations per Unit of Production

Process Wastewater Generated ( g allons p er 1,000 lbs of raw material)
Renderin g a
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 th ere 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 BOD 5 wastewater values for plants processing more than 50 percent poultry by-pr oducts could not be di fferentiated from those plants processing less than 50 percent poultr y by-products (USEPA, 1975). Additionally, the study found that plant size does not affect the le vels of pollutants in th e waste stream. However, management and operatin g 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 significan ce of various sources of wastewater from rendering operations relative to typical analyt e 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). Sa mples from blood, cooker c ondensate, and washup water were analyzed. The cooker condensate wa s mostly composed of condensed volatile fats and oils with some ammonia. The wash-up wa ter consisted of plant cleanup water mixed withSection 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-16 drainage from the raw product storage hopper. (T he relative proportions were not measured.) Although the blood accounted for only a small percen tage 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 char acteristics generated from broiler rendering facilities as reported during site visits by EPA. Average effluent concentrations for all pollutants of concern evaluated by EPA for potentia l 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 character istics, and do not cover specific sources of generated wastewater. The fina l effluent data indicat e pollutant loads after treatment has been applied. The NR A did not report data on metals in generate d 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 durin g site visits by EPA.Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

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

Parameter Raw Blood a (m g /L) Condensate Batch 1 a,b (m g /L) Condensate Batch 2 a,b (m g /L) Wash-u p water c (m g /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 (SO 4 -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 summe r; however, only condensate collected during the summer

was used in these studies. Cold ambient temperatures ar ound 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, 1992Section 6. Wastewater Characterization

6-18 Table 6-12. Typical Characteristics of Broiler Rendering Wastewaters a

Parameter Avera g e Flow (MGD) 0.29 Raw product rendered (1,000 lb/day) 1,442 a BOD 5 (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 1.2x10 6 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 (m g /L) Dischar g ed Wastewater Concentration (m g /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 2.5x10 8 cfu/mL 4.5x10 4 cfu/mL CFU = colony forming units; NA = not available. Source: NRA, 2000

Table 6-14. Typical Wastewater and Pollutant Gene ration per Unit of Pr oduction in Broiler Rendering

Parameter Avera g e a BOD 5 (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) 9.1x10 9 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 Engin eers. 1999. Manure producti on and characteristics.
Standard ASAE D384.1 Dec 99. American Societ y of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. (DCN 00160)

Franson, M.A.H., Ed. 1995. Standard methods for the examination of wa ter and wastewater.
American Public Health Association , Washington, DC (DCN 00196)

Grady, C.P.L., Jr. and H.C. Lim. 1980. Biol ogical Wastewater Treatment Theory and Applications. Marcel Dekke r, Inc. New York. (DCN 00248)

Hansen, C.L., and G.T. West. 1992. Anaerobic di gestion of rendering waste in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket digestor. Bioresource Technology 41:181-185. (DCN 00126)

Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments in wastewater tr eatment 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 an imal 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 standar ds 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 Associati on. 2000. Communication with Engineering and Analysis Division of USEPA, July 2000. (DCN 00122)7-1 

## S ECTION 

## 7

S ELECTION OF 

## P OLLUTANTS AND 

## P OLLUTANT 

## P ARAMETERS FOR 

## R EGULATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA conducted a study of meat and poultry products wastewater to determine the presence of priority, conventi onal, and nonconventional polluta nt 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 Tabl e 7-1 were not further considered for regulation, because EPA’s techni cal evaluation of the industry did not identify them as significant contributors to MPP wastew aters. Section 304(a)(4) of the CWA defines which conventional pollutant pa rameters include biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform bact eria. These pollutant parameters are subject to regulation, as specified in Sec tions 304(a)(4), 304(b)(1)(a), 301(b)(2)(e), and 306 of the CWA. Nonconventional pollutant parameters are those that are ne ither priority nor conventional pollutant parameters. This group includes nonconventional me tal 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 nonconven tional 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 a nd 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 consid ered 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 meta ls, and six pesticides) were c onsidered. For poultry processing wastewaters, the Agency considered 51 pollutant s (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 consid ered as pollutants for possible regulation based on the following rationale.

Table 7-1. Priority Pollutant List a
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 ot her animal drugs in the produc tion of livestock and poultry for human consumption is regulated under the au thority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (9 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) by the Food and Dr ug Administration (FDA) , U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. In addition, routine monitoring to en sure that residues or specific metabolites, when appropria te, in meat and poultry do not exceed established tolerances is part ofSection 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-4 the U.S. Department of Agricu lture's Food Safety Inspection Se rvice's (FSIS) meat and poultry inspection process. Any meat or poultry found to have drug or pes ticide residues exceeding
established tolerance limits is c onsidered to be adulterated a nd condemned as not fit for human consumption. Because c ondemnation 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 Inspec tion Act, as amended by the Wholesome Meat Act (21U.S.C.601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspecti on Act, as amended by the Wholesome Poultry Products Act (21 U.S.C 451 et seq.).

In the FDA drug approval pro cess, all new drugs marketed for veterinary use must be approved. There are two types of approval for veterinary drugs, in cluding those routinely used in animal feeds (21 CFR 558.3). Catego ry I drugs require no withdraw al 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 drug s 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 w ithdrawal period or a ma ximum 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 zi nc has no required wit hdrawal 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, a nd 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 slau ghtered at federally inspected facilities is inspected by the FSIS under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act as amended and theSection 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-5 Poultry Products Inspection Act as amended. Condemnation, as unf it for human use, of all meat and poultry found to be adultera ted is required. In the Fede ral Meat Inspection Act, the
definition of the term adulterate d includes the presence of any poi sonous or delete rious 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 carca sses, organs, or other parts of carcasses be c ondemned, 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 treatme nt or exposure of the live poultry to a pesticide, organic compound, metallic or inorganic com pound, hormone, hormone-like substance, growth promoter, antibiotic, anthelmintic, tranquilizer, or other agent th at 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 con centrations in the treated effluent of livestock or poultry processing plants. Obviously, the possib ility of the slaughter of livestock or poultry containing drug or pesticide re sidues above tolerance limits exists. However, the financial selfinterest of livestock and poultr y producers suggests that such occurrences would be infrequent and highly random. Thus, the probability of de tection would be low especially when pretreatment processes, such as an aerobic lagoons with relatively l ong hydraulic detention time, are used. Therefore, EPA has concl uded that establishing effluent standards for antibiotics and other animal drugs and pesticid es and requiring routine monitori ng 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 th e family Vibrionaceae, which al so 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 a quatic habitants. Its presence in meat and poultry processing wastewaters probably is the resu lt 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 conditi ons. When meat and poultry processing wastewaters are discharged to su rface waters, the microorganisms present in the naturally occurring microbial ecosystem decom pose 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 concentr ations can adversely aff ect water bodies through decreases in biodiversity, as mani fested by the loss of some sp ecies 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 BOD 5 . If the bacteria responsible for nitr ification are present in the sample, BOD 5 is a combined estimate of the oxygen required for organic matter oxidation and the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate nitrogen (nitrification). Thus, BOD 5 includes both carbonaceous oxygen demand (CBOD 5 ) and nitrogenous oxygen de mand (NOD). However, CBOD 5 can be determined separately by adding an agent that i nhibits nitrification prior to incubation.Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-7 BOD 5 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 BOD 5 of the filtrate, dissolved BOD 5 , can separate these
estimates. The difference between BOD 5 and dissolved BOD 5 is an estimate of the contribution of particulate matter to total BOD.

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is an estimat or of the total organic matter content of
both wastewaters and natura l 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 dur ing the duration of the BOD test. For many types of wastewaters, the ratio between BOD a nd 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 treatme nt plant operation, because it can be determined in three hours as opposed to BOD, which requires a minimum of fi ve 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 wastew aters 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 eco system 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 wa ters for potable water supplies due to taste, if sodium is the predominant ca tion 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 para site 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 sel f-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 Ma terials (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 et her commonly is used, and oil a nd grease may be alternatively
described as hexane extractab le materials (American Pub lic Health Association, 1995).

Oil and grease in discharges of meat and pou ltry 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 add ition, a film of oil and grease on the surface of receiving waters can be unsightly and reduce natu ral re-aeration processes. Furt hermore, solubl e and emulsifiedSection 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-9 oil and grease can inhibit oxygen and other ga s 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, th ese 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 severa l 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 Enterobact eriaceae limited to the en teric tract of warm-blooded animals with the species Escherichia coli typically being the principal co mponent 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 f ecal streptococcus group of bacteria also is an indicator of fecal
contamination of natural waters.

Because of the presence of manure and th e 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 indi cators of inadequate disinfec tion and the possible presence of pathogens in discharged efflue nts. In addition to potential human health impacts through use of receiving surface waters as source waters fo r public and private wa ter 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 (NH 4 -N) and nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (NO 2 + NO 3 -N). Because protein is the pr incipal 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 f eed proteins and products of protein degradation.

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is an estima te of the sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen and provides an estimate of organic nitrogen by difference when ammonia nitrogen is concurrently de termined. Under both anaerobic a nd aerobic conditions, the readily biodegradable fraction of organic nitrogen is min eralized readily by microbial activity with the nitrogen not used for cell synthesis accumula ting as ammonia nitrogen. The water quality impacts associated with organic nitrogen are relate d 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. Ho wever, cleaning and sanitizing agents also are possible sources. Ammoni a 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 nega tive environmental impacts. Both ammonia and ammonium nitrogen can be directly toxic to fi sh and other aquatic or ganisms, with ammonia nitrogen being more toxic. In addition, disc harges of ammonia nitr ogen can reduce ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations in receiving surface waters because of the microbially mediated oxidation of ammonia nitrogen to nitrite a nd 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 nutri ent limiting primary produc tivity. While phosphorusSection 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 mo re saline segments of estuaries. Eutrophic conditions, an excess of primary productivity, are characterized by algae blooms, which cause shifts in ambient dissolved oxygen concentra tions 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 al so exerts a demand on ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations. W ith the depression of ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations, populations of fish and other aquatic organisms ar e adversely affected, with the possible change in ecosystem composition and loss of biodiversity.

Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen is rarely presen t in meat and poultry processing wastewaters before aerobic biological treatment , due to the lack of oxygen n ecessary for microbially mediated nitrification. However, nitrite and nitrate salts used in fu rther processing are potential sources. Thus, the principal source of nitr ite and nitrate nitrogen followi ng treatment is nitrification during aerobic biological treatment, which often is required, at leas t 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 th ese 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 imp acts of such conditions on fish populations, biodiversity, recreation, and potab le water supply treatment cost s were discussed above. An additional concern is their potential for incr easing ambient surface water nitrate nitrogen
concentrations above the nationa l maximum contaminant level (M CL) 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 tota l orthophosphate phosphorus: phosphorus is a pollutant considered for regulation in meat and poultry pr ocessing wastewaters, because of the role of phosphorus as the nutrient typically limiting primary productivity in freshwater ecosystems. In such aquatic ecosystems, an increase in ambi ent phosphorus concentration due to wastewater discharges above naturally occurri ng levels results in the excessi ve growth of algae and other phytoplankton, with the development of eutrophic conditions as the consequence. In turn, eutrophic conditions can cause fish kills, disrupti on of natural aquatic eco system structure, and loss of biodiversity. Additional impacts of eutr ophication in fresh waters include impairment of
recreational use and additi onal 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, detergen ts and sanitizers, and boiler water additives to control corrosion. Both organic and inorganic fo rms of phosphorus are present, with inorganic forms present as both ortho- and polyphospha te phosphorus. Total orthophosphate phosphorus, also known as total reactive phosphorus, can be directly used by phytoplankton and higher adequate plants and are immedi ately available sources of phosphorus. Although polyphosphate forms of phosphorus undergo hydrolysis in aqueous solutions, hydrolysis usually is quite slow, as is mineralization of orga nically bound phosphorus. Thus, orthophosphate phosphorus is a potential pollutant of concer n because of its immediate bi ological availability, whereas polyphosphates and organically bound phosphorus, which comprise th e difference between total phosphorus and orthophosphate phosphor us, are pollutants of concern as sources of slowly released orthophosphate phosphorus.

Dissolved total phosphorus simply is the sum of ortho-and-pol yphosphate 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 speci es of Salmonella, including Salmonella enteritidis , are common inhabitants of the enteric tracts of livesto ck 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 fo rms 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 tr eatment contain both suspended and dissolved solids, which also ar e known as non-filterable and filterable residue. Suspended and dissolved solids concentrations ar e 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 dissociat e and are poor conductors of electricity.

The principal constituents of suspended so lids in treated meat and poultry processing wastewaters are soft and hard tissue partic les not removed during treatment and biomass synthesized during treatment. Thus, suspended so lids have both organic (volatile) and inorganic
fractions. Dissolved solids c onsist primarily of dissolved inorganic compounds (primarily calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, sulfur co mpounds) but also may contain colloidal organic material. The principal sources of dissolved so lids in meat and poultry processing wastewaters are potable water supplies used for process-ing, salts used in proce ssing such as sodium chloride, and cleaning and sanitizing agents. Generally, the organic, and therefore potentially biodegradable, fraction of suspe nded solids is substantially high er than the inorganic fraction, with the reverse typically characteristic of dissolved solids. Total solids are the sum ofSection 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 or ganisms. 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 se vere situations can result in an in crease in susceptibility to infection. In addition, suspended solids increase turbidity in receiving waters a nd 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 polluta nts for possible regulation, primarily because of their potential impact on the subsequent use of receiving waters as source waters for public and industrial water supp lies. Reduction of dissolved solids concentrations in source waters to acceptable levels for public and i ndustrial 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 immed iate 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 vol atile residue (total volatile solids) in meat and poultry processing wastewaters was consid ered, because this parameter al so 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 (Cl 2 ), calcium hypochlorite [Ca(OCl) 2 ], sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), or chlorine dioxide (ClO 2 ), is commonly used for the disinfection of meat and poultry processing wastewaters before dir ect discharge to surface waters. Because free chlorine is directly toxic to aquatic organism s and can react with naturally occurring organic compounds in natural waters to form toxic co mpounds such as trihalom ethane, total residual chlorine in meat and poultry processing wastewat er 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 wa stewater. Some of these com pounds can be oxidized further by biological or chemical processes and are captu red in BOD or COD dete rminations. However, these tests also may not oxidize some orga nic carbon compounds. Thus, TOC may provide the
most accurate estimate of or ganic matter content; it provide s 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 compos ition, once correlations between TOC and BOD and COD are established. Like COD, TOC can be dete rmined 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. Thes e possible sources include water supplies andSection 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 e quipment. In addition, metals including arsenic, copper, and zinc commonly are added to livestock and poultr y feeds as trace mineral supplements or growth stimulants, and may be present in manures.

The following metals were considered as po llutants for possible regulation in meat and poultry processing wastewaters: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, me rcury, molybdenum, nick el, 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 pr esence downstream in effl uent receiving waters used as source waters for potable water supplies. Although removal of metals from wastewaters during conventional physicochemi cal 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 e ffluent discharge.

Pesticides

Pesticides, with the exception of rodenticides in enclosed bait stations, are not used in meat and poultry processing fac ilities to prevent the risk of pr oduct contamination. They are, however, commonly topically applied to livestock and poultry in animal feeding operations for the control of ectoparasites. A lthough withdrawal periods are requi red before slaughter, residues may remain on feathers, hair, a nd skin at slaughter. Thus, the following pesticides were considered as pollutants for possible regulation in meat processing wastewaters: carbaryl, cispermethrin, dichlorvos, Malath ion, and tetrachlorvinphos. Tr anspermithrin and carbaryl were considered as a pollutant for possible re gulation in poultry processing wastewaters.

These pesticides were considered as polluta nts 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 e ffluent receiving waters used as source watersSection 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-17 for potable water supplies. Although rem oval of pesticides fro m wastewaters during conventional physicochemical and biological tr eatment processes occurs through adsorption to biosolids removed by settling and filtration before discharge, these processes are not intentionally engineered to remove metals befo re effluent discharge. For so me 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 establis h 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 esta blishing which paramete rs were detected at treatable levels in at least 10 percent of all the influent wastewater sample s. Tables 7-2 and 7-3 detail the list of meat and poultr y 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 pollutant s of concern from Tables 7-1 and 7-2 for independent rendering facilities. EPA is pla nning 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 Grou p Pollutant CAS Number

Classicals or biolo g icals Aeromonas C2101 Ammonia as nitrogen 7664417 Biochemical oxygen demand C003 BOD 5-day (carbonaceous) C002 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) C004 Chloride 16887006 Cryptosporid ium 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-permethr in 61949777Section 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

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

Pollutant Grou p Pollutant CAS Number

Classicals or Biolo g icals 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 ba sed 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 select ed a subset of pollutants fo r which to establish numerical
effluent limitations from the list of POCs for each regulated subcategory. Generally, a chemicalSection 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 monito r for one pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of
several others.

Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which the EPA would establis h 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 th e selected technology option.

• Chemical is not considered a nonconventional bulk parameter.

• Chemical is not considered a volatile compound.

• Chemical is effectively treated by th e 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 thr ough treatment processes woul d lead to control of a wide range of pollutants with similar properties; these chemicals are generally good indicators of overall wastew ater treatment performance.

Based on the methodology descri bed 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 require s facilities to maintain the pH between 6.0 and 9.0 at all
times. EPA intends to retain this limitation and proposes to codi fy identical pH limitations for previously unregulated subcategories. The pH sh all 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 pr ocessing wastewaters ge nerated in the industry, and are key indicators of the performance of treatme nt 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 incl ude 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 wastewater s generated from killing, evisceration, further processing, and rendering proce sses. EPA is proposing to regu late BOD and COD, which will be used as indicators of the perfo rmance of biological treatment systems to remove all oxygendemanding pollutants and impact of treated effl uent 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 dema nd (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 surfaceSection 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-22 waters. EPA proposes to regula te TSS as an indicator of pe rformance of biological treatment systems to remove solids. EPA considered re gulation of TDS, however, because as organic matter is broken down in a biological wastewater treatment system, leve ls 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 tissu e, fecal material, and cleaning and sanitizing agents. In addition, those fac ilities employing advanced biological treatment systems to remove ammonia by biological nitrif ication, convert ammonia n itrogen to nitrite and nitrate nitrogen through microbi ally mediated oxidation. Due to the potential degrading impacts to surface waters associated with the discharg e of nitrogen and phosphor us (e.g., eutrophication), EPA proposes to regulate total nitrogen and total phosphorus. In regulating total nitrogen and total phosphorus, EPA will ensure that biologi cal treatment systems used by facilities are effectively removing all forms of these nutrients, including total Kkjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, ammonia nitr ogen, orthophosphate, and dissolv ed 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 greas e 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 fu rther processing and for cleaning and sanitizing purposes. The presence of chloride in disc harges to surface waters may impact aquatic organisms, because of their sensitivity to concen trations of salt. Alt hough 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 chlo rides. In fact, EPASection 7. Selection of Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters for Regulation

7-23 observed in some instances an increase in chloride s 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 proposin g to regulate fecal coliforms as an indicator of the efficacy of treatment processes to control pathogens.

In many instances, EPA found meat processi ng 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 disc harged 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 containe d in sanitation products or they may result from deterioration of meat processing machinery and equipment. Many metals are toxic to algae, aquatic invertebrates, a nd/or fish. Although metals may serv e 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 biolog ical treatment systems used within the meat processing industry provide subs tantial 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 propos ing 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 areSection 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 biolog ical treatment systems used within the meat processing industry provide ade quate reductions of pe sticides, 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 regu late pesticides.



### 7.5 REFERENCES

American Public Health Associ ation (APHA). 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19 th edition, American Public Health Association, Washington,
DC.

S.E. Aiello, ed., 1998. The Merck veterinary manual, 8th editi on, Merck and Company, Inc., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.8-1 

## S ECTION 

## 8

W ASTEWATER 

## T REATMENT 

## T ECHNOLOGIES AND 

## P OLLUTION 

## P REVENTION 

## P RACTICES

8.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes unit proce sses that are currently in use or may be used to treat meat and poultry products (MPP) wastewat ers. A variety of unit processe s are used to provide primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewat er treatment; however, because of the similarities in the physical and chemical characteristics of meat and pou ltry products wastewater s, EPA identified no practical difference in the ty pes of treatment t echnologies between m eat and poultry products facilities (e.g., primary treatment for removal of solids, biological treatment for removal of organic and nutrient pollutants). In addition, the un it processes that are us ed 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 indus tries 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 se ttleable solids); (2) secondary treatme nt (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 treatme nt; however, some facilities may also provide secondary treatment, as demonstrated in the data provided in the M PP detailed survey. MPP facilities that discharge directly to navigable waters under the authority of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) typica lly both primary and s econdary treatment to generated wastewaters. As also described in the MPP detailed surveys, many direct dischargers also apply tertiary tr eatment to wastewater discharged under the NPDES permit system. Table 8-1 identifies the types of wastewater treatment commonl y found in the MPP industry.Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-2 Table 8–1. Distribution of Wastewater Tr eatment Units In MPP Industry

Treatment Cate g or y Treatment Unit Percent of Direct/Indirect Dischar g in g Facilities Havin g The Treatment Unit In Place
Direct Dischar g er Indirect Dischar g er 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 th e 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 treatme nt involves removal of floa ting and settleable solids. In MPP wastewaters, the typical unit processes used for primary treatment are screening, catch basin, dissolved air flotation (DAF), and fl ow equalization. Chemi cals 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 i ndustry: (1) reduction of suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load s to subsequent unit pr ocesses; and (2) the recovery of materials that can be converted into marketab le products through rendering.


### 8.2.1 Screening
Screening is typically the first and most inex pensive form of primary treatment. Screening removes large solid particles from the waste stream that could otherwise damage or interfere with downstream equipment and treatme nt processes, including pum ps, pump inlets, and pipelines (Nielsen, 1996). There are several types of screens used in wa stewater treatment including: (1) static or stationary, (2) rota ry drum, (3) brushed, and (4) vibra ting. Static, vibr ating, or rotary drum screens are most commonly used as primary treatment (U SEPA, 1974, 1975). TheseSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-3 screens use stainless steel wedge wire as the screen material and re move medium and coarse particles between 0.01 to 0.06 inches in diameter . Generally, all wastewat er generated in MPP facilities is screened before discharge to subsequent treatment processes. Use of screens aids in recovery of valuable by-produc ts that are sometimes used as a raw material for the rendering industry and subsequent industr ies (Banks and Adebowale, 1991; USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). The use of secondary screens is becoming more pr evalent 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 sta tic screen is to remove la rge solid particles (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). For example, the physical nature of slaughter house raw wastewater can include coarse, suspended matter (larger th an 1 mm mesh) which is insoluble, slowly biodegradable, and 40 to 50 percent of the raw wastewater C OD (Johns, 1995). Screening can be accomplished in several ways, and in olde r versions, only gravity drainage is involved. A concavely curved screen design using high-velocity pressu re feeding originally develope d 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 alt hough harder, wear-resistant stainle ss 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 e ffluent sewer before discharge to the municipal sewer, have successfully prevented escape of feat hers 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. TheSection 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 f acilities as primary treatment (USE PA, 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 th e 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 us ually 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, a nd solids are removed in a trough that is mounted lengthwise with a screw conve yor. 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, perfo rated lift paddles are mounted lengthwise on the inside surface of the screen. Externally spra ying the screen helps reduce blinding, and teflon coated screens reduce clogging by grease. Solid removals up to 82 percent have been reporte d (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

Figure 8-2 shows a general schema tic of a rotating drum screen.Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-5 Figure 8-2. General schema tic 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 scree n, 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 pre ssed 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 moti on. 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 particul ar 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 ai d of gravity (Nielsen, 1996).

Of prime importance in the sel ection of a proper vibrating scr een 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 st rength of wire and percent of open area. If the waste solids to be handled ar e heavy and abrasive, wire of greater thickness should be used to assure long lif e. 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 pe rcent of open area (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-6 Poultry products f acilities may employ two ty pes of vibrating screen s. For offal recovery, vibratory screens usually have 20-mesh screening; for feathe r removal, as well as for in-plant primary treatment of combined wastewater, a 36- by 40-mesh sc reen cloth is used. On most applications a double-crimped, squa re-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 w ith circular motion are frequen tly used for in-plant primary treatment (USEPA, 1975).



### 8.2.2 Catch Basins
Catch basins separate grease and finely suspended solids fro m wastewater by the process of gravity separation. The basic setup employ s 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 concentra tion, 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 sh ape and relatively sha llow (1.8 meters or 6 feet is the preferred length). Th e 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 deten tion. An equalization tank before the catch basin reduces size requirements significantly (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Depending on the influent characteristics, treatment costs range fro m 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, orSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-7 even relocation. All-steel tanks have the advantage of being se mi-portable, more easily fielderected, and more easily modified than concre te tanks. The all-steel tanks, however, require
additional maintenance as a re sult 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 suppor ting 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 exte nsively 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 partic les have been to the surface, they are removed by skimming (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

In DAF, either the entire influent, some fracti on 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 pro cess 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 intr oduction through a pressure control
valve into the influent feed line. From 15 to 120 percent of the infl uent flow may be recycled in larger units (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Under atmos pheric pressure in the flotation tank, the air
desorbs from solution and forms a cloud of fine bubbles, which transport fi ne particulate matter to the surface of the liquid in the tank. A skimme r mechanism continually removes the floating solids, and a bottom sludge collector removes an y solids that settle. Although unit shape is not important, a more even distribu tion of air bubbles allows for a shallower flotation tank. Optimum depth settings are between 4 and 9 feet ( 1.2 to 2.7 meters) (Mar tin and Martin, 1991).Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-8 Chemicals (e.g., polymers and flocculants) ar e 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 a ddition and between 80 to 93 per cent with chemical addition. Likewise, oil and grease removals by DAF imp rove from 60 to 80 percent without chemical addition to 85 to 99 percent with chemical a ddition (Martin and Mar tin, 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 mechan ical drives (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

Although alternatives to DAF do exist, includi ng electro flotation, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange, these processes have not b een 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 slaugh terhouses in South Africa. They report that ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis treatment may be the method of choice for trea ting 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 f acility must be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized every 24 hours. Although wastewater flow is rela tively constant during processing, a significant difference in flow occurs between processi ng and cleanup periods, producing a substantial
diurnal variation in flow and organic load on days of processi ng. To avoid the necessity of sizing subsequent treatment units to ha ndle peak flows and loads, in- line flow equalization tanks are installed (Reynolds, 1982; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Flow equalizati on tanks may also be
installed to store the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant before discharge to a POTW orSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-9 other effluent disposal destina tions. The end-of-trea tment equalization ensu res reduced variation
in flow and waste load.

Equalization facilities consist of a holding tank and pumping equipment designed to
reduce the fluctuations of wast e stream. They can be economica lly advantageous, whether the industry is treating its own wastes or discharging into a city se wer 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 cons tant 24-hour flow rate on processing days, but also may be sized to provide a constant daily flow ra te, including non-processing days. The major advantages of equaliza tion basins are that the subseque nt treatment units are smaller, since they can be designed for the 24-hour averag e 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 se ttling of solids and to control odors, aeration and mixing of flow e qualization basins are required. Methods of aer ation and mixing include diffused air, diffused air with mechanical mixing, and mech anical 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., pol ymers, coagulants, and flocculants such as aluminum or iron salts or synthe tic 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. Esse ntially 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 i ndependent rendering opera tions that sludges from
dissolved air floatation units which use chemi cal additions to promote solids separation are rendered; however, the chemical bond between th e organic matter and the polymers requires that the sludges be processed (rendered) at higher temperatures (260 o F) and longer retention times. Because the efficacy of aluminum and iron sa lts and organic polymers is pH dependent, pHSection 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 di rectly to navigable waters under the authority of a NPDES permit at a minimum apply both pr imary and secondary treatment to generated wastewaters (see Table 8-1). The objective of sec ondary treatment is the reduction of BOD through the removal of organic matter, primarily in the form of so luble organic compounds, remaining after primary treatment. Although secondary trea tment of wastewater can be pe rformed using a combination of physical and chemical unit processes, use of bi ological processes has remained the preferred approach (Peavy, 1986). Greater than 90 percent wastewater pollutant re moval efficiencies can be achieved with biological treatment (Kiepper, 2001). Accord ing to responses to the MPP detailed survey, common systems used for biol ogical treatment of MPP wastewater include lagoons, activated sludge systems, extended aera tion, oxidation ditches, and sequencing batch reactors. A sequence of anaerobic biological pr ocesses followed by aerobic biological processes is commonly employed by MPP facilities whic h have biological tr eatment. Kiepper (2001) suggests that approximately 25 percent of U.S. poultry facilities use biological treatment systems consisting of an anaerobic lagoon follo wed by an activated sludge system.



### 8.3.1 Anaerobic Treatment
Anaerobic wastewater treatment processes use the microbially-m ediated 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 essen tially insoluble in water, both desorb rapidly. This combination of gases, pr edominantly methane, is commonly referred to as biogas and may be released direc tly to the atmosphere, collected and flared, or used as a boiler fuel (Clanton, 1997). EPA (1997) provides estima tes of the emission factors (e.g., gramCH 4 /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 diox ide. Carbon dioxide is generated from the reduction of compounds containing oxygen. A wide variety of facultative and anaerobic microorganisms are responsible for these transf ormations 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 ob ligate 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 produ ced by the microbial activity typically contains between 30 and 40 percent carbon dioxide and be tween 60 and 70 percent methane with trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide and other gase s (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Nielsen, 1996; Peavy, 1986; Clanton 1997).

Due to negligible energy requirements, an aerobic 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 fo r subsequent aerobic treatment to produce dischargeable effluents (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Nielsen, 1996; Peavy, 1986; Clanton 1997).
Anaerobic treatment can also di gest organic solid fractions of animal by-products from slaughterhouse facilities (Banks , 1994; Banks and Wang, 1999).

According to the MPP detailed survey, an aerobic lagoons are the most commonly used anaerobic unit process for treatment of MPP wastewaters. In a ddition to secondary treatment, anaerobic lagoons provide flow equalization. As noted above, M PP operations normally occur on a 5-day per week schedule, and lagoons reduce va riation in daily flows to subsequent secondary and tertiary treatment processe s. However, high rate anaerobi c processes have continued toSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-12 attract attention as a lternatives to anaerobic lagoons. Incl uded are the anaerobic contact (AC), upflow anaerobic sludge blanket ( UASB), and anaerobic filter pro cesses (AF) (Johns, 1995). These alternatives are especially appealing in situations wher e 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 compri se of at least two lagoons in parallel or series; typical loading rates are between 15 to 20 pounds BOD 5 per 1,000 per cubic
feet. The influent wastewater fl ow is usually near the bottom of the lagoon and has a pH between 7.0 and 8.5. Anaerobic lagoons are not mixed, alt hough some gas mixing occurs. A scum usually develops at the surface, serving several purpos es: retarding heat loss, ensuring anaerobic conditions, and reducing emi ssions of odorous compounds (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). Depending on the operating conditions, the B OD reductions by anaerobic lagoons can vary widely. Reductions up to 97 percent in BOD 5 , up to 95 percent of susp ended solids, and up to 96 percent of COD from the influent have been reported (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975, John, 1995).

Wastewater organic carbon anaerobic degr adation 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 cap s 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 ineffec tive with the influx of storm water or otherSection 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 a nd 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 volum e 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 ma intains a long solids residence time (SRT) at a relatively short hydraulic rete ntion time (HRT). The complete ly 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 gr avitational settling. Because of th e low growth rates of anaerobic microorganisms, as much as 90 percent of the e ffluent solids may be recycled to maintain an adequate solids residence time. A degasifier that vents meth ane and carbon dioxide is usually included to minimize floating solids in the sepa ration step (Eckenfelder, 1989). BOD loadings and HRTs range from 2.4 to 3.2 kg/m 3 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 producedSection 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 floatin g sludge blanket. Partic les 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 r eactor or in a separate settling unit. Critical to this operation is the formation a nd maintenance of granules. Calc ium 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 an aerobic processes. For example in treating a slaughterhouse wastewater, it was difficult to gene rate the sludge granules, thereby significantly lowering the level of BOD rem oval. 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 reside nce 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 load s. 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). Mo st development work on the AF has involved high-strength industrial and food-processing wastewaters.

For the MPP industry, removals of COD ar e reported from 80 to 85 percent when COD loadings are 2 to 3 kg/m 3 /day. When loadings are higher, pe rformance 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/m 3 /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 unstabl e 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 prove n to be an effective alternative to DAF for pretrea tment of poultry processing wa stewater (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 eliminat e 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 BOD 5 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 re moval of hydrogen sulfide prior to use as a fuel (M orris 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 fo rm 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 toxi city of ammonia by c onverting it to ammonium (Ohio EPA, 1999). Advantages of using aerobic wastewater treatment processes include low odor production, fast biological growth rate, no el evated operation temperat ure 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 mic roorganisms involved in aerobic treatment process require free dissolved oxygen to reduce the biom ass in the wastewater (Clanton, 1997).

Aerobic wastewater treatment processes can be broadly divided into suspended and attached growth processes. Aerobic lagoons a nd various forms of activated sludge process likeSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-16 conventional, extended aer ation, oxidation ditche s, and sequencing batc h reactors (SBRs) are examples of suspended growth processes; tric kling 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 proce ss of obtaining energy for cell maintenance and growth (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Aerobic wastewater treatment processes ha ve the primary objective of transforming soluble and colloidal organic compounds into microbi al biomass, with subs equent 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 mainte nance 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 pha se 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 o ccurs. However, the rates of growth of the autotrophic bacter ia responsible for nitrification, Nitrosomas and Nitrobacter , are substantially slower than the growth ra tes of the microorganism s 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 treatme nt processes in the United States (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). According to the MPP detailed survey, various fo rms of activated sludge process used in theSection 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 conventi onal, complete mix, extended aeration, oxidation ditch, and sequencing batch reactor. Othe r forms of activated sludge in clude tapered aeration, step-feed aeration, modified aeration, contact stabilization, Kraus process, and high-purity oxygen. All of
these forms share the common char acteristics of short HRTs, usua lly no more than several hours, and SRTs on the order of 5 to 15 days. This differe ntial is maintained by continually recycling a fraction of the settleable solids separated after aera tion 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 populati on is comprised primarily of bacteria and protozoa, which aggregate to form flocs.

Floc formation is a critical factor in determining the e fficacy of settling after aeration, which is the primary mechanism of BOD a nd 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 perform ance. 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 filtrati on or centrifugation (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975).

The activated sludge process is capab le of 95 percent reductions in BOD 5 and suspended solids (USEPA, 1974; USEPA, 1975). In addition, re ductions in ammonia nitrogen in excess ofSection 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 main taining an adequate SRT and mixed liquor suspended solids with good settling characteristic s, which depends on fl oc 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 character istics. 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 oxid ation of organic matter occurs. Activatedsludge solids are separated in a seconda ry 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 reg ime of a continuous-flow s tirred tank reactor. Settled wastewater and recycled activated sludge are intr oduced typically at seve ral at several points in the aeration tank. The organic load on the aer ation 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 respirati on 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, extende d aeration has the ability to absorb shock loads. Other advantages include its genera tion of less excess solids from e ndogenous respiration and greaterSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-19 overall process stability (USEPA, 1974). However, poor settling char acteristics of aeration basin effluent is a frequently encountered problem with extended aerati on. Generally, extended aeration treatment facilities are prefabricated package unit operations used for treating relatively
low volume wastewater flows for sma ll communities (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Extended aeration can be designed to provi de high degree of nitrification.

Oxidation Ditches

An oxidation ditch system represents a m odification of the activated sludge process in
terms of its reactor conf iguration. The oxidation ditch consists of a ring- or oval-shaped channel and is equipped with mechanical aeration devices (Metcalf and E ddy, 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, mix ing and circulation in the oxidation ditch. Wastewater enters the ditch, is aerated, and circ ulates at about 0.8 to 1.2 ft/s. Oxidation ditches typically operate in an extende d aeration mode with HRT greater than 10 hours and SRT of 10 to 50 days (USEPA, 1993). Oxidation ditches provide high re moval of BOD and can be designed for nitrification and nitrogen and phosphorous removal (Sen et al., 1990).

Sequencing Batch Reactor

The sequencing batch reactor (S BR) 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 recei ving 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 Ma rtin, 1991). SBR systems provides high removal of BOD a nd suspended solids. In addition, SBR systems can be designed
for nitrification and to remove nitrogen and phosphorous. Lo a nd Liao (1990) report that SBR technology can be used successfully in the trea tment of poultry processi ng wastewaters for the
removal of BOD 5 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 pr ocesses, although they require larger land area. Lagoons can be anaerobic, aerobic, aerated, or facultative. An aerobic 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 combina tion with other microorganisms for wastewater treatment. Low-rate ponds, which are designed to maintain aer obic 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 re moval. In aerobic stabilization ponds, oxygen is supplied by a combination of natural surface aeration and photosynthesis. In the symbiotic relationship between the algae a nd other microorganisms present, the oxygen released by the algae during photosynthesis is used by the non photosynthetic microorga nisms present in the aerobic degradation of organic ma tter, 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 ar e in the range of 10 to 300 pounds of BOD per acre per day with an HRT of 3 to 10 days. Soluble BOD 5 reductions of up to 95 percent are possible with aerobic stabiliza tion 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 dur ing 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 bottomSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-21 of the pond (Reynolds, 1982). Thus, nitrogen remova l is achieved by the combined processes of
nitrification and denitrification.

The low cost of aerobic stabiliz ation ponds is offset, especia lly 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 aera tion. Thus, aerobic stabilization ponds in colder climates may become anaerobic lagoons in winter months with a concurrent deterior ation 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 efficien cy across all seasons for an aerobic-aerobic lagoon systems or anaerobic contact process followed by aerobic lagoons.

Aerated Lagoons

Aerated lagoons are earthen basins used in pl ace of concrete or steel tanks for suspended growth biological treatment of wastewater. Ae rated 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 photos ynthesis. Algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) are the microorganisms responsible most of the photosynthetic ac tivity in a naturallyaerated lagoon. Naturally aerated la goons are approximately 1 to 2 f eet deep, so that sunlight can penetrate the full lagoon dept h to maintain photosynthetic activity throughout the day. Mechanically aerated lagoons do not have a de pth requirement, because oxygen is supplied artificially instead of by al gal photosynthesis (Zhang, 2001).

Aerated lagoons can be operate d as activated sludge units with the recycle of settled solids with relatively short HRTs, or as comp lete mix systems without settled solids recycle. Systems operated as activated sl udge units have a conventional cl arifier for recovery of settledSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-22 solids for recycle. Aerated lag oons operated as complete mix sy stems without solids recycle may use a large, shallow earthen basin in place of a more conventional cl arifier for removal of suspended solids. Typically, these basins also are used for the storage and stabilization of the settled solids. Usually a de tention time of no less than 6 to 12 hours is required.

One of the principal advantages of aerat ed 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 aerobi c 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 co mbination of aerobic and anaerobic degradation reactions (Zhang, 2001).

8.3.2.3 Alternate Aerobic Tr eatment 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 collecti on of the treated wastewater a nd any microbial solids that have
become detached from the media. As the wastew ater percolates or tr ickles down through the media bed, the organic material present is absorbed onto the film or slime layer of attachedSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-23 microorganisms. Within 0.1 to 0.2 mm of the su rface 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 consum ed before penetration to the media surface occurs and anaerobic conditions develop near the media surface. In a ddition, 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 de velop 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 de pending on organic and hydraulic loading rates. Hydraulic loading rate usually is adjusted to maintain continual sloughing and a constant slime la yer thickness (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

The biological community in the trickling filter process includes aerobic, facultative, and anaerobic bacteria, fungi, and protozoans. Th e aerobic microbial popula tion 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 indi vidual filter and operatin g 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 BOD 5 loading rates, recirculation ratio, and depth (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Hydraulic loading rates range from 0.02 to 0.06 gallon per ft 2 -day for low-rate filters to 0.8 to 3.2 gallon per ft 2 -day for roughing filters. Organic loading rates range from 5 to 25 pounds BOD 5 per 10 3 ft 2 -day to 100 to 500 pounds
BOD 5 per 10 3 ft 2 -day. Both low-rate and two-stage trick ling 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 tr aditionally 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 c onstructed using either plastic or redwood me dia; two-stage filters may use plastic or rock me dia (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 en ergy requirements make trickling filters attractive alternatives to ac tivated sludge processes. However, mass-transfer limitations limit the ability of tricklin g filters to treat high streng th wastewaters. To successfully treat such wastewaters, a two- or three-stage syst em is necessary. When staging of filters is used, a clarifier usually follows each stage. The overall BOD 5 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 mount ed 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 at mosphere 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 fro m pilot plant or full-scale perfo rmance evaluations or using the theoretical or empirical appr oaches (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Typical hydraulic and organic loading rate design values for sec ondary treatment are 2 to 4 gallon/ft 2 -day and 2.0 to 3.5 pounds
total BOD 5 /10 3 ft 2 -day, respectively with effluent BOD 5 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/ft 2 -day and 1.5 to 3.0 pounds BOD 5 /10 3 ft 2 -day,Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-25 respectively producing effluent BOD 5 concentrations between 7 and 15 mg/L and NH 3 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 nitrifica tion, 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 effici encies, control odors, and minimize problems with temperature se nsitivities (USEPA, 1974). Early RB C units experienced operating problems, including shaft and bearing failures, disk breakage, and odors. Design modifications
have been made to address thes e problems, including increased submergence to reduce shaft and bearing loads (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Although RBCs are used in both the United St ates and Canada for secondary treatment of domestic wastewaters, use for s econdary treatment of high stre ngth 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 anaer obic pretreatment. A BOD 5 reduction of 98 per cent is achievable with a four-stage RBC (USEPA, 1974).



### 8.4 TERTIARY TREATMENT
Tertiary or advanced wastewat er treatment generally is considered to be any treatment beyond conventional secondary trea tment to remove suspended or dissolved substances. Tertiary
wastewater treatment can have one or several objectives. On e common objective is further reduction in suspended solids c oncentration after secondary clarification. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal also are common tertiary wastewaters treatment objectives. Existing wastewater treatment plants ma y be retrofit without the additi on 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 nutrien ts and suspended solids.Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-26 

### 8.4.1 Nutrient Removal
In primary and secondary wastew ater treatment processes, so me reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus occurs by the separa tion of particulate matter dur ing settling or cell synthesis. However, limited assimilativ e capacity of receiving waters ma y require additi onal reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus concentra tions before discharge. Both biological and physicochemical unit processes can be used to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous concentr ation in wastewater. Biological processes are generally more cost effective than physicochemical processes. Moreover, retrofit existing seconda ry treatment systems for biolog ical 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 biol ogically is a two-step process, beginning
with nitrification and followed by denitrification. N itrification, a microbia lly-mediated process, also is a two-step process, beginning with th e 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 nitr ite; bacteria of the genus Nitrobacter are responsible for the subsequent oxidation of nitrite to nitrate (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Following the nitrification process under an aerobic conditions, nitrite and nitrate are reduced microbially by de nitrification producing nitrogen gas as the principal end product. Small
amounts of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide also may be produced, depe nding on environmental conditions. Because nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and n itric oxide are essentially insoluble in water, desorption occurs immediately. Although nitrifi cation can occur in combination with secondary biological treatment, denitrifi cation generally is a separate unit proce ss following secondary
clarification. Because the facultative and anaerobic micr oorganisms responsible for
denitrification are hetero trophs, denitrification af ter secondary clarifica tion requires the addition of a source of organic carbon for cell maintenan ce and growth. Methanol probably is the most commonly added source of organic carbon for de nitrification, although raw wastewater (by-Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-27 passed to the denitrification trea tment tank), biosolids, and a vari ety of other substances also can be used (USEPA, 1993, Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

The chemical transformations that occur dur ing nitrification and denitrification are outlined below (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991):

Nitrification :

NH 4 + + 1.5 O 2 NO 2 - + 2H + + H 2 O ( Nitrosomonas )

NO 2 - + 0.5 O 2 2NO 3 - ( Nitrobacter )
Denitrification (using me thanol as carbon source):

NO 3 - + 1.08 CH 3 OH + H + 0.065 C 5 H 7 O 2 N + 0.47 N 2 + 0.76 CO 2 + 3 + 2.44 H 2 O

Nitrification unit processes can be classified based on the degree of separation of the
oxidation of carbonaceous and n itrogenous compounds respectively to carbon dioxide and nitrate (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Combined carbon oxidati on and nitrification can be achieved in all suspended growth secondary wa stewater treatment processes and with all attached growth processes except roughing filte rs. Carbon oxidation and nitrif ication processes may also be separated, with carbon oxidation occurring firs t, using both suspended and attached growth processes in a variety of combinations. Both su spended and attached gr owth processes are used for denitrification, following combin ed 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 or ganic 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-denitrif ication process using both organi c carbon in untreated wastewater and organic carbon released during endogenous resp iration for denitrifi cation. 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, A 2 /O, University of Capetown (UCT) (USEPA, 1993). The A 2 /O, and University of Ca petown (UCT) process was developed to remove both nitr ogen and phosphorous. Sequencing batch reactors (SBR) can also
be used to achieve nitrifica tion and denitrificati on (USEPA, 1993). Biological nitrogen and phosphorus removals can be enhanced in oxid ation ditch systems by controlling aeration to maintain reliable aerobic, anox ic, and anaerobic volumes. For ex ample, 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, aerati on, and chemical addition (Sen et al., 1990).

Nitrification is easily inhibited by a numbe r 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/nitr ate 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 mainta in a maximum rate of nitrification (Grady and L im, 1980). Based on the following theoretical stoichiometric relationships for the growth of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, the alkalinity (HCO 3 - ) utilized is 8.64 mg HCO 3 - per mg of ammonia nitrogen oxid ized to nitrate nitrogen. For Nitrosomonas , the equation is:

55 NH 4 + + 76 O 2 + 109 HCO 3 - → C 5 H 7 O 2 N + 54 NO 2 - + 57 H 2 O + 104 H 2 CO 3

For Nitrobacter , the equation is:

400 NO 2 - + NH 4 + + 4 H 2 CO 3 + HCO 3 - + 195 O 2 → C 5 H 7 O 2 N + 3 H 2 O + 400 NO 3 -

As noted above, one of the advantages of us ing wastewater organic matter as the source of organic carbon for denitrifica tion is the elimination of the cost of an organic carbon source such as methanol. A second advantage is elimin ation of the need to add a source of bicarbonate alkalinity in poorly buffered systems to compensa te for the utilization of alkalinity resulting fromSection 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.

NH 4 + + 2 O 2 → NO 3 - 2 H + H 2 O

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 NO 3 - + 5 CH 3 OH → 5 CO 2 + 3 N 2 + 7 H 2 O + 6 OH

In addition, hydrogen ions are required for ce ll synthesis during den itrification, as shown by the following relationship:

3 NO 3 - + 14 CH 3 OH + CO 2 + 3 H + → 3 C 5 H 7 O 2 N + H 2 O

Therefore, using wastewater organic ma tter as the source of organic carbon for
denitrification in a combined nitrification denitr ification system generally eliminates the need for adding a source of alkalinity to prevent pH i nhibition of nitrificati on. Very poorly buffered systems are the exception.

Using wastewater organic matter as the sour ce of organic carbon for denitrification also reduces aeration requirements fo r BOD removal in suspended gr owth systems. Based on half reactions for electron acceptors, 1/5 mole of NO 3 - is equivalent to 1/4 mole of O 2 . Therefore,
each unit mass of NO 3 - - N is equivalent to 2.86 units of O 2 in its ability to oxidize organic matter, if cell synthesis is ig nored. 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 suspe nded solids and an additional re duction 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 denitrif ication is marginally higher that 2.86 mass units of BOD per unit NO 3 - - N denitrified. The magn itude of this marginal increase depends on the SRT in the denitrification reactor with the magnitude decreasing as SRT increases. Assuming aSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-30 SRT of 7.5 days, a ratio of BOD 5 in wastewater used as an organic carbon source for
denitrification to NO 3 - - N of 3.5 should provide for essen tially complete denitrification.

An added positive consequence of using wastewater organic matter as the source of organic carbon for denitrification is that sl udge production per unit BOD removed is lower,
because denitrification is an anoxic process occurring under an aerobic conditions. Typical cell yield under anaerobic conditions is 0.05 mg vol atile suspended solid s (VSS) per mg BOD removed versus 0.6 mg VSS per mg BOD rem oved under aerobic conditions (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Both Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are autotrophic mesoph ilic microorganisms with relatively low growth rates in comparison to heterotrophs, even under optimal conditions. Thus, maintaining an actively nitr ifying microbial population ma y become harder and require excessively long SRTs in cold weat her (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 me thods. Biological treat ment is cheaper than physicochemical methods and is particularly suitable for facilities with high flows.

Biological Treatment

Microorganisms used in secondary wastew ater treatment require phosphorus for cell synthesis and energy transport. In the treatment of typical dom estic wastewater, between 10 and 30 percent of influent phosphorus is removed by microbial assimila tion, followed by clarification or filtration. However, phosphorus assimilation in excess of requi rements for ce ll 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 treatme nt. In response to volatile fa tty acids present under anaerobic conditions, stored phosphorus is released. Howeve r, luxury uptake and storage for subsequentSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-31 use of phosphorus occurs when anaerobic conditi ons are followed by aerobic conditions. Thus, removal of phosphorus by clarifi cation or filtration following s econdary treatment is increased, because biosolids are already wasted (U SEPA, 1987, Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy, 1998 ).

Currently, several pr oprietary processes use luxury uptake for removal of phosphorus from wastewater during suspended growth seconda ry treatment. Included ar e the A/O, PhoStrip, and Bardenpho processes. In a ddition, sequencing batch reactor s (SBRs) can be operated to remove phosphorus. In the PhoStrip process, phos phorus is stripped from the biosolids generated using anaerobic conditions to stimulate releas e. The soluble phosphorus generated then is precipitated using lime. Both the A/O and PhoStr ip processes are capab le of producing final effluent total phosphorus concentr ations of less than 2 mg/L. A modified version of the A/O process, the A 2 /O process, along with the Bardnepho pr ocess 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 problem s associated with its use and the large volume of sludge produced. Polymers often are us ed 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 biol ogical treatment pro cesses prior to seconda ry clarification, or (5) after secondary clarifica tion (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). In Option 1 (pre-precipitation), precipitated phosphorus is remove d with primary clarifier solid s, whereas removal is with secondary clarifier solids for Options 2 throug h 4 (co-precipitation). In Option 5, additional clarification or filtering facilities are required. In the treatment of MPP wastewaters, the additionSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-32 of chemicals for phosphorus removal prior to disso lved air flotation is a possible option (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

With alum addition, phosphorus is preci pitated as aluminum phosphate (AlPO 4 ), and aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH) 3 ). With the addition of ferric chloride, the chemical species produced are ferric phosphate (FePO 4 ) and ferric hydroxide (Fe[OH] 3 ). Lime addition produces calcium phosphate (Ca 5 [PO 4 ] 3 [OH]), magnesium hydroxide (Mg[OH] 2 ), and calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ). In the case of alum and iron, one mole theoretically will preci pitate one mole of phosphate. However, competing r eactions and the effects alka linity, pH, trace elements, and ligands found in wastewater make bench-scale or full-scale test s necessary to determine dosage rates. Due to coagulation and flocculation, rem oval 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 al kalinity forming CaCO 3 as a precipitate, an increase to a pH of 10 or higher is necessary for the formation of Ca 5 (PO 4 ) 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 be nefits are realized. Due to coagulation and floccula tion, effluent BOD and suspended solids concentrations also are reduced, especially when chemical addition o ccurs after secondary clarification (USEPA, 1987; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Reddy, 1998).


### 8.4.2 Residual Suspended Solids Removal
Simple clarification afte r secondary wastewater tr eatment 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 furtherSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-33 reductions in suspended solids c oncentrations. 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 mate rial as possible (Reynolds, 1982).

Granular Medium Filters

Metcalf and Eddy (1991) lists nine different types of co mmonly used granular-medium filters. They are classified as either semi-c ontinuous or continuous, depending on whether back washing is a batch or a semi c ontinuous or continuous operation. W ithin 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, c onventional, 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-med ium beds may be comprised of anthracite and sand, activated carbon and sand, resin beads and sa nd, or resin beads and anthrac ite. In multi-medium beds some combination of anthracites, sa nd, 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 medi um can be either accomplished by gravity alone under pressure with th e sometimes later descri bed as rapid filters.

Several mechanisms are responsible for the removal of suspended solids in granularmedium filters. Included are st raining, sedimentation, impac tion, 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, comm only called backwashing, invol ves 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 f iltration, filtration and backwashing occur sequentially, wh ile with continuous filtration, the filtra tion and backwashing phases occur simultaneously. Usually backwashin g 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 beSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-34 used in conjunction with the backwashing wate r 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 ty pe 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 locat ed 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 type s of granular-medium filter produce effluent with an average turbidity of two nephelome tric 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 f iltration include turbidity breakthrough with semi-continuous filters, even t hough terminal head loss has not been reached. Problems with
both semi-continuous and continuous filters include: buildup of emul sified 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 discu ssed in Section 8.4.1.1, various physicochemical processes are used for nitrogen removal. The pr incipal physical and chemical processes used for nitrogen removal are air strippi ng, breakpoint chlorination, and se lective ion exchange. However, all these technologies are reporte d to have limited use due to cost , inconsistent performance, and operating and maintenance problems (Metcalf a nd Eddy, 1991; Johns, 1995). Air stripping and breakpoint chlorination is discussed in this sec tion, while ion exchange is discussed in Section 8.4.3.3. Note that these three technologies remove n itrogen when the nitrogen is in the form of ammonia (air stripping, breakpoint chlorinati on, and ion exchange) or nitrate ions (ion exchange). Since, raw meat-processing wastewater contains nitrogen primarily in organic form, the technologies may require add itional upstream treatment to conve rt 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 wa stewater pH to at least 10.5 us ually by the addition of lime, is necessary. The removal efficiencies of ammonia nitrogen can be as high as 98 percent with
effluent ammonia concentrati ons 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 cal cium carbonate scale within st ripping tower and feed lines. Absorption of carbon dioxide from the air stream used for stripping l eads to calcium carbonate scale formation, which varies in nature from soft to very hard. Because the solubility of ammonia increases as temperature decreas es, the amount of air required for stripping ammonia increasesSection 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 re moval 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 soluti on results in the emission of ammonia to the atmosphere. This emission may lead to bad odor and air pollu tion. 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 vol atile 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 ammoni a removal process for ammonia concentrations up to 50 mg/L (Green et al., 1981). Before chlo rine reacts with ammonia, it first reacts with oxidizable substances present, such as Fe +2 , Mn +2 , H 2 S, and organic matter to produce chloride ions. After meeting the immedi ate 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 tric hloride, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen gas. The destruction of chloramines occurs until the breakpoint chlorina tion point is achieved. After this point, free
residual chlorine becomes ava ilable (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Th erefore, 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:

2NH 3 + 3HOCl N 2 + 3H 2 O + 3HCl

Stoichiometrically, the breakpoint reac tion requires a weight ratio of 7.6 CL 2 to 1 NH 4 +

- 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 help s assure quality and operational control (Reynolds, 1982). TheSection 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 ma y occur with poorly buffered wastewaters. This drop increases chlorine requirements and slows the rate of reaction.

One advantage of breakpoint ch lorination for ammonia remova l 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, in cluding trihalomethanes and other disinfection by-products, which can interfere w ith beneficial uses of receiving waters. Thus, dechlorination is necessary. Both sulfur dioxide and carbon adsorp tion 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 incr ease 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 suspe nded solids. This practice al so 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 us ed to remove a portion of the residual suspended solids from secondary effluents and from stabilizati on pond effluents. Microscreens are low speed, continually back washed, 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 a nd 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 pro cesses (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 handleSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-38 fluctuations in suspended solid s concentrations. Reducing drum rotational speed and decreasing frequency of backwashing can increase removal e fficiency, but screening capacity is thereby reduced. Typical hydraulic loading rates and drums speeds respectively are 75 to 150 gallon/ft 2 -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. Car bon 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 activ ated 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 afte r secondary biological treatment. With granulated activated carbon (GAC ), the adsorption process occurs in steps. Initially, organic matter moves from the bulk li quid 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 a nd 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 me sopores. 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 nece ssary. GAC is regenerated easily by oxidizing the adsorbed organic matter in a furnace. About 5 to 10 percent of GAC is destroyed in theSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-39 regeneration process and must be replaced (Metcalf and E ddy, 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 regenerati on 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 supporte d 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 a nd expanded bed columns also are used (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). With biological wastewater treatment, PAC usua lly 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 us ing activated carbon can remove up to 98 percent of colloidal and dissolved organics measured as BOD 5 and COD in a wastewater stream. Effluent BOD 5 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 wate r treatment to remove organic compounds from raw water supplies responsible for color, taste, and odor probl ems. In the treatment of MPP wastewaters, the use of carbon adsorption is ge nerally 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 cal cium and magnesium ions. It is also used in
industrial wastewater tr eatment for the recovery of valu able constituents, including precious
metals and radioactive ma terials. It may be operated in ba tch or continuous mode. In a batch process, the resin is stirred with the water to be treated in a th e 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 pl aced in a bed or a packed column, and the waterSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-40 to be treated is passed through it. When th e resin capacity is exhausted, the column is
backwashed to remove tra pped solids and then regenera ted (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). To maintain continuous operation, typica lly, 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 ava ilable. Synthetic resins consist of networks of hydrocarbon radicals with attached soluble ioni c 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 i on exchange resins: strongly acidic and weakly acidic cation exchange resins, and st rongly basic and weakly basic anion resins. Strongly acidic resins contain f unctional groups derived from strong acids such as sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4 )

, whereas functional groups of weakly acidic resins are derived from weak acids such as carbonic acid (H 2 CO 3 ). Similarly, strongly basic resins contain functional groups derived from quaternary ammonium compounds, wh ereas functional groups of week ly basic resins are derived from weak base amines. The exchangeable count er ion of an acidic cation resin may be the hydrogen ion or some other m onovalent cation, such as sodium . For a basic anion resin, the exchangeable counter ion may be the hydrox ide ion or some other monovalent anion. The regenerant will be the corresponding aci d, 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 am monium ions from wastew ater, nitrate ions from the nitrified wastewater, phosphorous , and/or to remove total di ssolved solids from wastewater. The functional group to be used depends on the target ions (NH 4 + , NO 3 - , or other ions) to be
removed.

To minimize head loss through ion exchange columns and possible resin fouling, ion exchange usually follows granular medium f iltration and possibly carbon adsorption. In addition, special provisions are necessary for regeneration waste. Another waste stream re quiring disposalSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-41 is exhausted resin. Regenerati on efficiency decreases with time and replacement becomes necessary to maintain process performance.



### 8.5 DISINFECTION
Disinfection destroys remainin g pathogenic microorganisms a nd is generally required for all MPP wastewaters being discharged to su rface waters. Chlorine injection is the most commonly used method for wastew ater disinfection; however, us e of ultraviolet light for disinfection is not uncommon (USEPA, 2001). Oz one 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 discu ssion of breakpoint chlorinati on for ammonia removal. For disinfection, the objective is to a dd chlorine at a rate that resu lts 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 mo st commonly used chlorine compounds used for wastewater disinfection are chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite, s odium hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Chlori ne dioxide is an unstable and explosive gas that requires special precautions.

As also was noted above in the discussi on of breakpoint chlorination for ammonia removal (Section 8.4.3.1), dechlorinati on 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, re sulting 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 d ecomposes to oxygen very rapidly after generation, and thus must be ge nerated on site. The most effici ent method of producing ozone is by electrical discharge. Ozone is generated either from air or pur e 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 bacteria l kill through ozonation occurs directly because of cell wall disintegration. Ozone is a more effective vi rucide 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. On e 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 lamp s producing ultraviolet (UV) light are another option for wastewater disinfection, es pecially for the inactiva tion 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 la mps are the principal means of generating UV energy used for disi nfection. 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 pe netrates 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 ke pt low for better results (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). UV irradiation, whethe r at low- or medium-pressure, performs similarly in achieving 4 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium (Stone and Brooks, 2001). UVSection 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 treat ed 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 a lternative method that can eliminate the need for tertiary treatment of wastewater (Johns, 1995; Uhlman, 2001).

Land application by sprinkler or flood irrigati on can be a feasible alternative to surface water discharge, if the appropriate land is available and other prerequis ites 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 o ccurs. In addition, the production of a marketable crop is a necessity to provide a mechanism fo r the removal of nitrog en, 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 micr obial degradation of organic compounds occurring in the soil profile. Both crop uptake and nitr ification-denitrification serve as mechanisms for nitrogen reduction. Crop uptake, chemical precipitation, a nd adsorption to soil particles are mechanisms of phosphorus reduction. Water bala nces are managed to match cr op water use and salt leaching needs with irrigation to mainta in water percolation to groundwat er within the system design (Uhlman, 2001). Nitrogen balances are also deve loped to match estimated nitrogen losses and crop uptake (removal) to minimiz e percolate nitrate losses to groundwater. Spray and flood irrigation systems for wastewater disposal (Fig ure 8-4) may be designed with the objective of either wastewater disposal or wastewater reus e. 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 leach ing of nitrate nitrogen to ground water. Phosphorus loading rate generally is not a limiting de sign parameter, due to the ability of soils toSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-44 immobilize phosphorus. However, the ability of so ils 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 irri gation, 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 aer obic conditions in the soil. In arid and semi-arid areas, land application, as a method for wastew ater disposal, is especially a ttractive, given the low rates of precipitation allowing higher hydraulic loading ra tes 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-ar id regions because of the l ack of precipitation, resulting in reduced leaching of these salts from the soil pr ofile. These salt accumulations are toxic to many plant species. Salt accumulations in the soil prof ile 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 wa ter contamination may result from using periodic hydraulic loadings. Reduction of total dissolved solids concentrationsSection 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 a ttractive option in arid and semi-arid climates.

Wastewater treatment systems using sprinkl er or flood irrigation as a method for MPP wastewater disposal should provide a minimum of secondary treatment befo re use of wastewater for irrigation. Secondary treatme nt of wastewater reduces B OD and suspended solids loading rates and consequently, it reduces the potential of these parameters to act as limiting design factors. Secondary treatment al so reduces the odor and vermin problems associated with flood irrigation or sprinkler applica tion 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 th e year. Thus, storage of wastewater for at least
six months in cold climates is desirable (Loehr et al., 1979). Fo r a more complete discussion of wastewater disposal by land application, Lo ehr et al. (1979) and Overcash and Pal (1979).

In the absence of proper system design and operation, land appli cation as a method of wastewater disposal can adve rsely affect surface and ground wa ter quality. Excessive organic loading rates can result in reduced soil permeab ility and the generation of noxious odors due to the development of anaerobic conditi ons. Excessive nitrogen applica tion rates can lead to nitrate leaching to ground water. Excessive phosphorus a pplication 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, esp ecially 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 10 1 for Shigella to as high as 10 8 organisms for enteropathogenic E. coli (Loehr et al ., 1979). However, using one or more of several recommended practices can reduce the transmissi on of pathogens in aerosols. Recommended practices include: (1) creating buffer zones with or without hedgerows (2) using low pressureSection 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 runo ff transporting pollutants to adjacent surface waters. See Loehr et al (1979) for a detailed discussion of storage re quirements for wastewater land application systems in various climates.



### 8.7 SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Typically, biosolids generated during the tr eatment of MPP wastewaters are aerobically digested before disposal by land applicati on. Biosolids may be de-watered prior to land application. Rendering is a common disposal method for wastewater solids recovered by dissolved air flotation (DAF) befo re 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. Alte rnatives to rendering for the disposal of DAF solids are land application a nd land filling. High qua lity by-products (e.g., blood) are often segregated from DAF solids a nd other MPP WWTP sludges as some rendering operations (e.g., pet food ma nufacturing) require high quality input by-products.

EPA noted during site visits to two indepe ndent rendering operations that sludges from
dissolved air floatation units which use chemi cal additions to promote solids separation are rendered; however, the chemical bond between th e 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 re ject 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 incorporat ed into normal business practices in order to reduce production costs and maximize profits. As with other co mpetitive industries, une ssential consumption of water and energy, and the additional costs of waste treatment can mean the difference between profitability and ope rational losses. While wa ter 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 effluen ce in general. For example, one independent renderer noted during an EPA site visit that his f acility fully converted from a wet cleaning method to a dry cleaning method in th e product shipment area in order to minimize water pollution.

Industry sources have estimated that the imp lementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and In spection 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 imple mentation of HACCP ha s necessarily required greater use of water. Furthermor e, USDA FSIS asserts that its regulatory performance standards provide for numerous water reus e 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 empha sis on reducing microbial contamination from fecal material. The Sanitation Requirements for Official Meat and PoultrySection 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, opportun ities remain for reducing potab le 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 lo ads 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 minimizin g waste and water use at poultry processing and hog processing facilities, respectively. Both conclude that facilities can save costs through readily availa ble process modificati ons 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 wa stewater load (Scaief, 1975). Numerous studies have demonstrated the water use in MPP can be reduced significan tly. For example, Carawan and Clemens (1994) reported a reduction in water us e of 75 gallons per pig proce ssed, a reduction of 33 percent, following implementation of a wa ter 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 implement ation of waste load reduction practices. Reductions in 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) in hog processing wastewater of 40 percent have been reported (Carawan and Clem ens, 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 potab le water is being obtained from private on-site wells, there obviously is a reduced economic incentive to conser ve 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 readilySection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-49 identifiable and surcharges for ex cessive pollutant concentrations can rapidly escalate wastewater treatment costs. Conversely, wast ewater treatment costs can be le ss visible for direct dischargers and less sensitive to pollutant concentrations.

The development of water cons ervation and waste load reduc tion programs in the MPP as well as in other industries begins with the de velopment of general pr ofiles of water use and wastewater pollutant concentrati ons over one or preferably seve ral 24 hour periods to determine the relative significance of processing and clea nup activities. Generally th is step is accompanied or followed by measuring water use in individua l phases of the processi ng process to identify opportunities for water use reduction. For example, measuring water flow to scalders and chillers in poultry processing to deter mine overflow rates can identify ove rflow 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 sanita tion of processing facilitie s and equipment contributes substantially to water use and wastewater pollu tant 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 screen ing before wastewater treatment provides for recovery of larger particles, fine particulate matte r and soluble proteins, fats, and carbohydrates
are not recovered and are manifested as an incr eased 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. Concurren tly, 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 cl eaning is a much moreSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-50 common practice at meat as compared to pou ltry processing facilities (47 percent for meat processing respondents versus 17 percen t for poultry processing respondents).

To be successful, water c onservation and waste load reduction plans must be implemented and performance monitored. Implemen tation requires employee training that should be continual and possibly the inst allation of new equipment such as hose nozzles and foot valves at hand wash stations that automatically shut o ff when not in use. Conversion to high pressure, low volume systems for carcass washing and general sanitation al so can reduce water consumption. However, continual m onitoring 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 wate r consumption and the discharge of treated wastewater. While it is obvious that acceptable multiple use and reuse strategies must avoi d 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 occu rs in poultry processing. Witherow et al. (1978) report that water conser vation 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 s calder 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 irra diation 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 deter mining how water can be reused. For ex ample, reuse of wastewater after tertiary treatment to remove suspended solids and double di sinfection, such as chlorination followed by ultraviolet light, is permissibl e for purposes where no contact with such asSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-51 evaporative condenser cooling a nd holding lot, parking lot, a nd 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 a nd disinfection, reuse of wastewater treatment plant sec ondary effluent expands the pot ential 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), cl eaning of receiving pens , and rendering facilities. Other possible uses of wastewater treated to meet drinking water st andards include use for equipment such as pump coolin g 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 reus e 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 la te 1970s that poultry processing wastewater treated to meet prima ry 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 relativel y rare. About 8 percent of the pou ltry processing respondents to the survey indicated reuse of water from the wast ewater treatment plant to defeathering or evisceration areas. Other water reuse practices su ch 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 T echnology Economically Achievable (BAT) inplant pollution control practices were listed in EPA’s “Dev elopment Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Pou ltry Segment of the M eat Product and Rendering
Process Point Source Ca tegory” (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 ta nks 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 condensin g all cooking vapors in onsite rendering operations.

• Consider dry offal handling as an alterna tive to fluming. A number of plants have demonstrated the feasibility of dry o ffal 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 re gular maintenance attention to byproduct screening and handling systems. A back-up screen ma y be required to prevent byproduct from entering municipal or priv ate 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 no zzles or steam-augmented systems for plant washdown.

• Minimize the amount of chemicals and de tergents 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 th e sewer. Spent raw materials should be routed to rendering.

• Treat separately all overfl ow of cooking broth for grease and solids recovery.

• Reduce the waste water from thawing operations.

• Make all employees aware of good wate r 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 ba sins, skimming tanks, air flotation, etc.—should provide for at least a 30-minut e 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 Efflue nt 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 wa ter use considerable below
that of Best Practicable Control Technol ogy 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 noncontaminat ed water whenever possible.

• Initiate and continually en force meticulous dry cleanup of floors before washing.

• Install properly designed catch basins a nd maintain them with frequent regular grease and solids removal.

It should be noted that the in-plant contro ls and modifications re quired to achieve the July 1, 1983, effluent limitations in cluded water control systems a nd procedures to reduce water use to about 50 percent of the wate r 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 ha s formed partnerships with industry and state agencies to develop guidance materials and imp lement 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 mate rials, and for chloride, nitrog en, 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, EP A is partnering with the Iowa Waste Reduction Center (IWRC) and the Iowa De partment of Natural Resources (IDNR) to pilot test the GuideSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-55 with five companies. IWRC and IDNR are provi ding technical assist ance and implementation consulting to the five companies. The pilot w ill be completed in July 2002, and then EPA will evaluate the pilot and incorporat e 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 market ed throughout the meat and poultry processing industry.



### 8.6 REFERENCES
Banks, C. J., Z. Wang. 1999. Development of a tw o phase anaerobic digester for the treatment of mixed abattoir wastes, Water Science a nd Technology , Vol. 40, No. 1. (DCN 10065)

Banks, C. J. 1994. Anaerobic digestion of solid and high nitrogen content fractions of slaughterhouse wastes, In: Environmenta lly 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 Stra tegies, Options for By-product Disposal, 26- 27th March, Birmingham, U.K., pp. 21-42. (DCN 00042)

Berthouex, Paul M., David L. Grothman, Dona ld O. Dencker, Lawrence J. P. Scully, 1977.
Characterization and In-Pla nt Reductions of Wastewater from Hog Slaughtering Operations, EPA-600/2- 77-097, May 1977. (DCN 10058)

Brooks, Daniel R., Gary Van Stone, 2001. UV Expe rience in Inactivating Cryptosporidium in Surface Water Plants, WaterWorld, Ma y 2001, PennWell Publishers. (DCN 10068)

Carawan, R.E. and J.S. Clemens. 1994. Using Renova ted Process Water at Ha tfield Packing. In: Proceedings 1994 National Poultry Waste Mana gement Symposium, P.H. Patterson and J.P. Blake (eds). National Poultry Wast e Management Symposium Committee, Auburn University, Alabama. Pp. 220-230. (DCN 00197)

Carawan, R.E. 1994. Overview of Water Recyclin g in Processing. In: Proceedings 1994 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, P.H. Patterson and J.P. Blake (eds). NationalSection 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-56 Poultry Waste Management Symposium Co mmittee, Auburn University, Alabama. Pp. 211-215. (DCN 00198)

Clanton, C.J. 1997. Alternative Waste Manageme nt Systems. Department of Agricultural Engineering. University of Minnesota. <http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/manure /landapp/wasteman.h tml>. (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 Phot on Enhanced Ozonation for Microbiological Safety in Poultry Processing Water, 1997 ASAE A nnual International M eeting, 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 e ffluent - a case study, Water Science and Technology , Vol. 40, No. 1. (DCN 00082)

FMCITT. 2002. Wastewater Reduction and R ecycling in Food Processing Operations. <http://fpc.unl.edu/fmc/7w astewa.htm> (DCN 00251)

Gelman, Stephen R., Sheila D. Scott, Hal Davis. 1989. Wa ste Minimization in the Poultry Processing Industry– Pro cess and Water Quality Asp ects, 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. Journa l of Environmental Science and Heal , Vol. A25, No. 4. (DCN 00079)

Grady, C.P.L., Jr. and H.C. Lim. 1980. Bi ological 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 Hist ory of Nitrification of a Rende ring-Meat Packin g Wastewater, IN: Bell, J.M. (Editor), 1981. Proceedings of the 35 th 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 an aerobic 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 Pr ocessing and Domestic Wastewaters, USEPA, Memorandum to File. (DCN 10038)

Kiepper, Brian. 2001. A Survey of Wastewater Pr actices 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. Treatme nt of poultry processing wast ewater using sequencing batch reactors. Department of Bi o-Resource Engineering, Univ ersity 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 Yo rk, New York. (DCN 00259)

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater En gineering—Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3 rd 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 P ublishing 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. Pr eliminary Assessment of the Rocco Farm Foods Wastewater Treatment Plant Edinburg, Virg inia 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, Di pankar Sen, Pramod Mitta , Ufuk Erdal. 1999.
Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plan ts 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 Che mical Systems for Nutrient Removal. A Special Publication by Water Environment Fede ration, Alexandria, Virginia. (DCN 00253)

Reynolds, T.D. 1982. Unit Operations And Pr ocesses In Environmental Engineering. PWSKent Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts. (DCN 00256)

Ross, C. C., and Valentine, G.E. 1992. Anaerobic Treatment of Poultry Pr ocessing Wastewaters. In Proceedings of 1992 National Poultry Wa ste Management Symposium. (DCN 00254)
Scaief, James F. 1975. Effluent Variability in the Meat-Packing and Poultry Processing Industries, Pacific Northw est Environmental Research Laboratory, PB-245-623, June 1975, Corvallis, Oregon. (DCN 10001)

Starkey, J.E., and Wright, T. 1997. Tertiary Screening in Poultry Wa stewater Treatment. 1997 Poultry and Environment Mana gement Seminar. (DCN 10074)Section 8. Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention Practices

8-59 Sen, Dinpankar, Clifford W. Randa ll, and Thomas J. Grizzard. 1990. Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal in Oxida tion 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., Ga briel, R. 1990. Operating Ex perience: Anaerobic Treatment At Packerland Packing. 44 th Purdue Industrial Conference Proceedings, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. (DCN 00262)

Uhlman, Kristine. 2001. Land Application for Na tural Wastewater Trea tment, Environmental Protection, August 2001, Vol. 12, No. 8. (DCN 10069)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Febr uary 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. Ap ril 1975. Development Document For Effluent Limitation Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Poultry Segment of the Meat Product And Rendering Proce ssing 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 Wastewat er 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 Proce sses for Water Quality Control. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. (DCN 00252)

Witherow, Jack L., Ahmed Hamza, Samia Saa d. 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 

## S ECTION 

## 9

P OLLUTANT 

## L OADINGS

This section presents annual pollutant load ing estimates for the meat and poultry products (MPP) industry. EPA estimated the pollutant lo adings for the MPP industry to evaluate the
effectiveness of the trea tment technologies, to es timate benefits gained from removing pollutants discharged from each of the industry model facility groupings, and to evaluate the costeffectiveness of the technology op tions 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 owne d treatment works (POTWs) to surface water.

• Technology option loadings - Estimated po llutant loadings in meat and poultry processing wastewater afte r implementation of technol ogy 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 equivale nt to the technology option for which they have been costed. Costing methodol ogy and estimates are discussed in detail
in Section 11.

• Pollutant removals - The difference be tween baseline loadings and technology option loadings.

EPA estimated baseline loadings, technology op tion 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 lo adings and removals, and presents the resultant estimated pollutant loadings and expected removals as follows:

• Sections 9.1.1 through 9.1.4 discusses the da ta 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 da ta 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 base line pollutant loadings for each model facility grouping based on wastewater discharges to surface waters or through publicly owned tr eatment 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 us ed 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 i ndustry 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 f acility detailed surveys. For the 151 direct and indirect discharge facilities, EP A used baseline concentrations reported for 1999, the base year ofSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-3 the MPP detailed survey. In addition to the an alytical 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 techni cal oversight provided by EPA.


### 9.1.2 Calculation of Average Concentrations from Analytical Data
For each facility and for each pollutant of con cern (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 in stead, EPA calculated an average value to use as the baseline concentrati on. In computing average baseline concentrations for use in the proposal, the Agency did not edit any analytical data pr ovided 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 detec tion 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 genera te baseline pollutant loads. These concentration estimates were then used to generate baseline pollutant c oncentrations for each of the 19 model facility groupings being analyzed by EPA.

EPA used the following hierarchy to calcula te baseline concentra tions 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 Sec tion 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 anySection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-4 baseline concentration data in the detailed survey, EPA transferred analytical data from the EPA sampling episodes for facilitie s in identical model facility groupings and with identical treatments-in-place. Fo r example, for a poultry first processor (P1) facility with BAT-4 treatment-in-place, EPA us ed sampling episode data from available poultry first processor (P 1) 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 f acilities in identical model fac ility groupings and with identical treatments-in-place. However, for th e 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 tr eatments-in-place to derive pollutant
concentrations.

4. When survey data from facilities in id entical 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 s ought. For example, to impute baseline concentrations for a meat first processor and renderer (R13) facility, EPA considered the following: meat first pr ocessor (R1), meat first and further processor (R12), meat firs t, further processor, a nd renderer (R123), and meat further processor, and renderer (R23) as similar model facility groupings. EPA’s
rationale for this definition is that th e above four meat m odel 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 potentia l model facility groupings to imputeSection 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 samp ling episode data we re 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 consider ed as an equivalent. At this stage of data imputation, except for microbiological s, EPA used both di rect 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) f acilities with BAT-2 treatment-in-place. Though these two treatment technologies ar e not identical, for the purposes of data imputation
EPA considered them as similar tec hnologies for the treatment of certain pollutants.

6. When data from facilities in identical model facility grouping s and with similar treatments-in-place were not available, an average c oncentration from facilities in similar model facility groupings, as define d 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 c oncentrations, either because analytical data were lacking in the detailed survey, or because the model facility grouping the facility belonged to did not have EPA sa mpling episode data, the Agency used facility data from treatment options from the next tier level, butSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-6 in identical model facility groupings. Fo r example, for poultry first processor (P1) model facility grouping with BAT-3 tr eatment 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) transf er data from P1 f acilities with BAT-4 treatment technology. In either of the above two cases, EPA used average concentrations from a group of facilities rather than a si ngle value reported by an individual facility.

8. At the next level of da ta imputation, EPA used a co mbination of items 6 and 7 above, using data from f acilities in similar model f acility groupings and with treatments-in-place from the next tier level to derive baseline pollutant
concentrations.

9. For all microbiologicals, EPA transferre d data within identical discharge types only. The Agency did not use microbiolog ical data from indirect dischargers to
derive concentrations for direct disc hargers or vice versa. Other than this exemption, EPA followed the logic desc ribed above for deriving baseline concentration for microbiologicals.

When the baseline concentration of a polluta nt derived by the a bove methods was lower than the corresponding concentration with the id entical treatment-in-place and in the identical model facility grouping from the proposed tr eatment option, EPA e quated the baseline
concentration to the concentrati on of the pollutant in the propos ed option. However, for facilities
with available data from the deta iled 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 fac ilities 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 concentr ations from the proposed options, even when the baseline
concentrations were lower than the concentr ations in the corresponding proposed options.

Table 9-1 illustrates the seque nce of the above 10 steps.Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-7 Table 9-1. Summary of Imputation Methods Used fo r Derivation of Baseline Concentrations

Ste p Descri p tion Model facilit y g rou p in g Treatment-in- p lace 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 facilitygroupings and with treatments-inplace from next tier levels Identical Next tier level of treatment-inplace Detailed 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-inplace Detailed 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 CSection 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 deter mined 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 s imilar determinati on for derived concentrations of pollutants such as BOD 5 and CBOD 5 , fecal coliform and total coliform, total phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus, etc.

The size of the facility (sma ll or non-small) was not considered when transferring data within model facility groupi ngs and treatments-in-place.

After pollutant concentration data were imput ed separately for each direct and indirect facility, EPA calculated average concentra tion for 19 model facility groupings using
concentration data from the individual facilities, separating small f acilities 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 gr ouping was not represented by any of the facilities in the detailed survey, EPA used ava ilable, 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 f acility grouping for direct discharging non-small facilities, only R1, R12 and R13 m odel facility groupings we re represented in direct discharging detailed survey. Similarly for direct discharging non-small pou ltry 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 gr ouping concentrations that best represented the model facility gr ouping without facilities in the de tailed survey. This calculation
used both small and non-small fac ilities. The model facility grouping averages that were derived using this method are identified with a footnot e 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 fac ility grouping and national flow (median) values derived from the screener surv ey for small and non-sma ll 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 Facilit y Grou p in g Flow for Facilities (MGD)
Small Medium Lar g e Ver y Lar g e Meat first processors (R1) 0.00046 0.028 N/A a 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 onlySection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-10 The following equation was used for conven tional 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 we re 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 en tire industry using th e national estimates of
the number of facilities in each meat model f acility grouping multiplied by the model facilitySection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-11 grouping loadings. Tables 9-3 and 9-4 presen t the number of facilitie s in each model facility grouping, as projected from the screener surv ey for direct and i ndirect dischargers.

Table 9-3. Number of Direct Discharger Fac ilities by Model Facility Grouping and Size

Model Facilit y Grou p in g Number of Facilities Small Medium Lar g e Ver y Lar g e Meat first processors (R1) 17 6 N/A a 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 groupingSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

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

Model Facilit y Grou p in g Number of Facilities Small Medium Lar g e Ver y Lar g e Meat first processors (R1) 265 N/A a 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 onlySection 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 Grou p s of Concern Small Facilit y Baseline Loadin g Non-Small Facilit y Baseline Loadin g 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 m illion cfu/yr Orthophosphate 62,845 4,435,234 lbs/yr Salmonella 17,007 6,738,113 m illion cfu/yr Total coliform 35,508,476 96,100,436,605 m illion 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 phosphorusSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

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

Pollutant Grou p s of Concern Small Facilit y Baseline Loadin g Non-Small Facilit y Baseline Loadin g 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 m illion 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 m illion cfu/yr Total coliform 71,410,481,190 3,326,332,420,450 m illion 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 phosphorusSection 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 cons idered for the MPP industry. EPA defined options loadings as the estimated pollutant loadings in MPP wastewater after implementation of the selected technology option, al so referred to as treated pollutant loadings. EPA estimated options loadings for all the M PP model facility groupings for each technology option being considered.

In order to estimate the technology opti on loadings, EPA first derived the treated pollutant concentrations for first processing, fu rther processing and re ndering wastewaters for each technology option. EPA th en 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 us ed by EPA to compute average concentrations for first processing, furt her processing and re ndering 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 fo r the MPP industry, EPA used wastewater sampling data from MPP facilities with unit pro cesses contained within each technology optionSection 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 samp ling episode 6446 will significan tly impact the technolo gy 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 describe d in detail in Section 3, multi- day sampling was conducted at 11 MPP facilities. EPA performed multi-day samp ling 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 pollu tant 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 th e 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 fac ility groupings identified from the MPP screener

surveys.
For each technology option, facilities were chos en from sampling episodes that had all the technical unit processes of that technology opti on. Data from these sampling episodes were then used to derive treated pollutant concentrations for first pro cessing, further processing, and rendering wastewaters after treatme nt by a particular technology op tion. If more than one facilitySection 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 fi rst 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 treat ed pollutant concentra tion 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 c oncentration by one of three methods, depending on available
data.

Method 1 : When appropriate influent 2 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 = (influen t concentration) x (1 - removal fraction)

where pollutant removal fraction for a facility was calculated as follows 3 :
(influent concentration - effluent con centration) / (influent concentration)

Method 2 : This method was based on estimating a facility pollutant mass balance between the final effluent and its components of firs t processing, further pr ocessing, and rendering wastewaters (as applicable). From this relations hip, an equation to calculate the treated pollutant concentrations for first processing wa stewater 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 + tr eated 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 concentrati on of further processing wastewater x further processing wastewater flow) + (treated con centration of rendering wastewater x rendering wastewater flow)

Treated concentration of first processing wa stewater = [(final effluent concentration x total flow) - (treated concentration of furthe r processing wastewater x further processing wastewater flow) - (treated concentration of re ndering wastewater x rende ring wastewater flow)] / (first processing wastewater flow).

Method 3 : When a specific technology option wa s not represented in the sampling episodes, then concentrations we re derived assuming that the re moval fractions between different technology option levels would be the same for meat and pou ltry facilities (i.e ., the removal
fraction between meat BAT-2 and meat BAT-3 tr eatment 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 wh ere this method was applied.

For the equations that follow, th e 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 xxxxSection 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 calculate d 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (DAF) (advanced oil/water se paration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), limited nitrification (ammonia (NH 3 ) removal), and disinfec tion (pathogen removal).

The BAT-1 and BAT-2 options consist of th e 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 (NH 3 as N), nitrate/nitrite and total Kjel dahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations.

The following methodology describes how EP A 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 concentra tions from meat facilities 0280, 0287, 0318, and 0336, as reported in the MPP detailed surveys. These facilities were c hosen, 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 tota l nitrogen concentration for the BA T-2 treatment option. EPA believes that only the concentrations of the different forms of nitrogen in a given wastestream wouldSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-20 change, but the total nitrogen concentration w ould 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 amm onia, 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 renderi ng were set equal to the ratios of meat first processing. With total nitrogen concentration va lues derived from BAT-2 treatme nt option numbers, the ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and TKN concentr ations could be calculated. Fo r 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 th e methods used to derive average concentrations for first processing, further pro cessing, and rendering e ffluent wastewaters from meat facilities using BAT- 1 treatment technology.

BAT-2 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The BAT-2 technology option consists of th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal), a nd disinfection (pathogen removal),

EPA selected datasets from samplin g episodes for facilities 6440, 6441, 6442, and 6447 to derive option concentrations, because these meat facilities all contai ned 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 fro m sampling episode 6447 to substitute missing rendering wastestream concentrations fo r sampling episodes 6440, 6441, and 6442. EPA also used influent further processing wastestr eam concentrations from sampling episode 6335 to substitute missing further processing wastes tream concentrations for sampling episode 6447.
Table 9-7 summarizes data substitutions.

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

Missin g 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 tr eated pollutant concentrations for the BAT-2 treatment technology, wastewat er concentrations were calcu lated 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 tr eated first processing, furt her 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 ma ss balance approach as pr eviously 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 proce ssing wastewater = [(final effluent concentration x total flow) - (treated c oncentration of rendering wastewater x rendering wastewater flow)] / (fi rst 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 re ndering waste stream concentration of facility 6447) where: (a) = (1 - aver age removal fracti on of facilities 6440, 6441, 6442 and 6447.)

Since the influent rendering waste st ream concentration of facility 6440 was unavailable, data fro m facility 6447 was used as a substitution.

Table C-31 of Appendix C contai ns the equations used to de rive average concentrations for first processing, further processing, and re ndering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities using BAT-2 treatment technology.Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

4 Facility 6335 is an indirect discharger, however, th is 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal) and denitrif ication (nitrogen rem oval), and disinfection (pathogen removal).

The dataset from sampling epis ode 6335 was chosen because th is meat facility contained the unit processes of the BAT-3 technology option 4 . Table 9-8 summarizes data substitutions.

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

Missin g 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 contai ns the equations used to de rive average concentrations for first processing, further processing, and re ndering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities using BAT-3 treatment technology.

BAT-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The BAT-4 technology option consists of th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal) , denitrification (nitrogen re moval), 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 concentra tions were derived by assuming that the removal frac tion between poultry BAT-3 and BA T-4 technology options would
be the same as the removal fr action between meat BAT-3 and BAT-4 technology options. ThisSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-24 removal fraction was then used to calculate aver age BAT-4 treated pollutant concentrations for
meat facilities.

Table C-33 of Appendix C contai ns the equations used to de rive average concentrations for first processing, further processing, and re ndering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities using BAT-4 treatment technology.

Technology Options for Direct Discharging Poultry Facilities

This subsection describes how EPA calculate d 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), limited nitrification (ammonia removal), and disinfection (pathogen removal).

EPA set the treated pollutant concentrati ons 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 con centration 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 ach ieve nitrification a nd therefore would be representative of a BAT-1 trea tment effluent. The methodolog y 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 th e methods used to derive average concentrations for first processing, further pro cessing, and rendering e ffluent wastewaters from poultry facilities using BAT- 1 treatment technology.

BAT-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The BAT-2 technology option comprises of th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal), a nd disinfection (pathogen removal).
The dataset from sampling episode 6445 wa s 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

Missin g 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 contai ns the equations used to de rive 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal), denitrificati on (nitrogen removal), a nd 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 th at contained the unit processes of BAT-3 technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentra tions were derived by assuming that the removal fraction between the poultry BAT-2 and BAT-3 technology options
would be the same as the re moval 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal) , denitrification (nitrogen re moval), phosphorus removal, and disinfection (pathogen removal).

The dataset from sampling episode 6304 wa s chosen because this poultry facility contained the unit processes of the BAT-4 technology option 5 . Since facility 6304 only conducted first processing opera tions, appropriate in fluent data from ot her sampled poultry
facilities was used. Table 9-10 summarizes data substitutions.

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

Missin g or Re p laced 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 6448Section 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 contai ns the equations used to de rive 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water sepa ration), lagoon (oil and grease, BOD 5 , and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia remova l), denitrification (nitrogen removal), phosphorus removal, polishing filter, and disinfection (pathogen removal).

The dataset from sampling episode 6304 wa s chosen because this poultry facility contained the unit processes of the BAT-5 technology option 6 . Since facility 6304 only conducted first processing opera tions, appropriate in fluent data from ot her sampled poultry
facilities was used. Table 9-11 summarizes data substitutions.

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

Missin g or Re p laced 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 contai ns the equations used to de rive 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 locat ed after DAF and equalization of the treatment train to represent the performance of the PSES-1 technology option.

9-28 Technology Options for Indir ect Discharging Meat Facilities

This subsection describes how EPA calculate d 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 epis ode 6335 was chosen because th is meat facility contained the unit processes of the PSES-1 technology option 7 . Table 9-12 summarizes data substitutions.

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

Missin g or Re p laced 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 th e 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 po llutant concentrations were derived from the calculated treated pollutant con centrations for meat BAT-2 and PSES-1 technology options forSection 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 pollu tants, 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 pollu tants. Also, since EPA believes that only a disinfection process would significantly chan ge the microbial concentrations in MPP wastewaters, microbial pollutant concentrati ons 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 contai ns the equations used to de rive average concentrations for first processing, further processing, and re ndering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities using PSES-2 treatment technology.

PSES-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities

The PSES-3 technology option consists of th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia re moval), and denitrifica tion (nitrogen removal).

Since complete data from a meat facility th at contained the unit processes of PSES-3 technology option was unavailable, the treated po llutant concentrations were derived from the calculated treated pollutant c oncentrations for the meat BAT-3 technology option for nonmicrobial pollutants. Because PSES-3 and BAT-3 technology op tions are similar in effective pollutant removals (except for microbial polluta nts 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. Da ta from sampling episode 6335 wa s used to derive microbial pollutant concentrations. 8

Table C-41 of Appendix C contai ns the equations used to de rive average concentrations for first processing, further processing, and re ndering 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal) , denitrification (nitrogen re moval) and phosphorus removal.

Since sampling data from a meat facility th at contained the unit processes of PSES-4 technology option was unavailable, the treated po llutant concentrations were derived from the calculated treated pollutant c oncentrations for the meat BAT-4 technology option for nonmicrobial pollutants. Because PSES-4 and BAT-4 technology op tions are similar in effective pollutant removals (except for microbial polluta nts 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. Da ta from sampling episode 6335 wa s used to derive microbial pollutant concentrations. 9

Table C-42 of Appendix C contai ns the equations used to de rive average concentrations for first processing, further processing, and re ndering effluent wastewaters from meat facilities using PSES-4 treatment technology.

Technology Options for Indirect Discharging Poultry Facilities

This subsection describes how EPA calculate d 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 th e 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 ep isodes 6443 and 6444, because these poultry
facilities all containe d the technical unit processes of th e PSES-1 technology option. Table 9-13
summarizes data substitutions.

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

Missin g or Re p laced 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 trea tment technology.

PSES-2 Technology Option for Poultry Facilities

The PSES-2 technology option consists of th e 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 th at contained the unit processes of PSES-2 technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentr ations were derived from the calculated treated pollutant c oncentrations 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-mic robial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were derived from samplin g episode 6304 data. 10

Table C-44 of Appendix C contai ns the equations used to de rive 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia re moval), and denitrifica tion (nitrogen removal).

Since appropriate data from a sampled poultry facility that contained the unit processes of PSES-3 technology option were una vailable, EPA derived the treat ed pollutant concentrations from the calculated treated pollutant concentra tions 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 th at the treated pollutant concentrations of both options would be similar for non-mic robial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were derived from samplin g 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 th e following unit processes: dissolved air flotation (advanced oil/water separation), equalization (oil and grease, and TSS removal), nitrification (ammonia removal) , denitrification (nitrogen re moval) and phosphorus removal.

Since sampling data from a poultry facility th at contained the unit processes of PSES-4 technology option were unavailable, the treated pollutant concentr ations were derived from the calculated treated pollutant c oncentrations 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 bothSection 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-mic robial pollutants. Microbial pollutant concentrations were derived from sampling episode 6443 data 12

. 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 trea tment technology.


### 9.2.3 Development of Average Treated Pollutant Concentrations for each Model Facility Group
This section describes the method by whic h 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 cons idered by EPA for meat and poultry first processing (R1 and P1), further processing (R2 a nd 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 pr ocesses 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 processi ng facilities that 74.08 percent of the total flow was attributable to first processing and that the balance of 25.92 percent was from furthe r processing operations.
Similar flow fractions were de rived for the remaining meat and poultry groupings and areSection 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 Sec tion 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 con centrations without actual flow rates.

Table 9-14. Flow Fractions Used to Derive Aver age Treated Pollutant Concentrations

Model Facilit y Grou p in g Flow Fraction First Processin g Further Processin g Renderin g 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 co ncentrations 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 av erage 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 g ood 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) wastewat er effluents. From Table 9-14, a P12 facility has a flow fraction of 0.7408 for first processing (P1) and 0.2592 for furt her 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 proce ssing (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 consid ered. 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-complia nce 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 1.08 14 (for non-small facilities)

where:

Load = post-compliance pollutant loading, in lbs/day, million cfu/day, or million cysts/daySection 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 con centration for the model facility grouping model facility grouping (as presente d in Tables C-47 through C-75 in Appendix C), in mg/L, cfu/100 mL, or cysts/liter

CF = conversion factor, wh ich is dependant on the c oncentration 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 t echnology options being considered by EPA.



### 9.3 POLLUTANT REMOVALS
From baseline and technology option lo adings, EPA estimated national pollutant removals after impleme ntation of each technology option c onsidered. This estimation was done by taking the difference between the baseline loadings and each technology option loadings.Section 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-37Table 9-15.Technology Option Loading for Direct DischargersPollutant Groups ofConcernOptions LoadingsUnitsBAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 BAT-5dSmall Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Non-SmallConventional pollutantsa336,706 28,405,563 336,706 28,405,563 239,196 19,723,690 74,162 14,848,506 6,628,913 lbs/yrToxic pollutantsb198,828 41,264,641 46,071 34,173,358 25,292 5,732,508 9,779 2,318,189 379,239 lbs/yrNutrientsc203,639 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 ConcernAeromonas8,325,096 3,532,187,013 8,325,096 3,532,187,013 3,857 10,661,121 425,842 445,526,130 3,180,251millioncfu/yrCarbonaceousbiochemical oxygendemand (CBOD) 7,138 1,758,927 7,138 1,758,92714,621 3,154,816 24,794 4,748,895 942,344 lbs/yrChemical oxygen demand(COD) 180,692 21,468,569 180,692 21,468,569 182,07118,002,535 234,596 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/yrCryptosporidiumN/AeN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ADissolved biochemicaloxygen demand 22,182 2,656,730 22,182 2,656,73012,093 1,498,647 35,425 2,987,222 1,131,145 lbs/yrDissolved phosphorus 13,462 4,606,196 13,462 4,606,196 4,299 927,519 4,171 908,830 73,253 lbs/yrE. coli817,084 233,031,975 817,084 233,031,975 8,3803,132,204 62,579 6,283,460 62,928,965millioncfu/yrFecal coliform bacteria 1,218,819 335,728,729 1,218,819 335,728,729 102,117 37,120,219 148,585 39,859,694 59,464,254millioncfu/yrFecal streptococci 378,95978,819,775 378,959 78,819,775 80,593 2,409,632 348,410 17,376,440 9,059,549millioncfu/yrOrthophosphate 12,125 3,620,792 12,125 3,620,7923,952 1,811,671 3,087 760,102 3,836 lbs/yrSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-38Table 9.15.Technology Option Loading for Direct Dischargers (continued)Pollutant Groups ofConcernOptions LoadingsUnitsBAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 BAT-5dSmall Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Non-SmallSalmonella13,419 2,123,747 13,419 2,123,747 16,658 1,982,678 59 1,702,837 1,702,577millioncfu/yrTotal coliform 4,569,483 1,026,186,733 4,569,4831,026,186,733 308,197 68,403,189109,808 11,656,001 115,656,674millioncfu/yrTotal 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/yrTotal organic carbon(TOC) 69,409 8,260,014 69,409 8,260,014 44,5755,355,750 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 80,907,268742,666 109,422,341 70,578,145 lbs/yraConventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM), and total suspended solids (TSS)bToxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium,cis-permethrin, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium,transpermethrin, vanadium, and zinccNutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorusdBAT-5 treatment option was considered only for poultry model facility groupings. Nodirect discharging small BAT-5 poultry facilities exist.enot availableSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-39Table 9-16.Technology Option Loading for Indirect DischargersPollutant Groups ofConcernOptions LoadingsUnitsPSES-1 PSES-2PSES-3 PSES-4Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-SmallConventional pollutantsa14,507,645 820,258,114 1,323,00259,607,632 834,069 32,688,688 489,800 37,247,151 lbs/yrToxic pollutantsb1,241,072 97,035,039 174,89816,290,095 86,554 3,753,66938,035 1,908,384 lbs/yrNutrientsc1,387,651 84,759,188 923,307 51,850,941 157,728 8,363,155 102,660 6,726,428 lbs/yrOther Pollutants of ConcernAeromonas14,820,687,512 1,301,380,789,662 14,073,166,893 1,090,092,557,403 5,048,245,175437,538,582,222 5,048,245,175 437,538,582,222millioncfu/yrCarbonaceousbiochemical 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 18,103,735474,910,062 18,968,954 797,397,121 lbs/yrCryptosporidiumN/AdN/A 2,279,487,921 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Amillioncysts/yrDissolved 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 7,366,753 115,8365,190,198 35,757 1,326,12034,719 1,300,034 lbs/yrE. coli31,400,159,074 3,206,691,095,489 27,596,967,456 1,472,017,006,101 15,417,053,170 1,591,395,207,841 15,417,053,1701,591,395,207,841millioncfu/yrFecal coliform bacteria 34,245,841,873 3,388,008,109,88130,550,007,399 1,667,024,622,884 15,443,958,242 1,592,499,542,417 15,443,958,242 1,592,499,542,417millioncfu/yrFecal streptococci 31,046,712,271 672,189,574,092 31,041,166,490667,503,725,714 69,631,6377,225,374,930 69,631,637 7,225,374,930millioncfu/yrOrthophosphate 81,615 5,630,590 66,160 3,054,251 24,324 1,408,501 16,136 671,805 lbs/yrSalmonella1,356,677 21,790,576 2,143,566 220,245,327 65,621 4,294,742 65,621 4,294,742millioncfu/yrTotal 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 1,592,499,542,417millioncfu/yrTotal dissolved solids(TDS) 32,505,098 904,001,014 31,102,5461,512,457,571 32,596,519 726,386,727 35,151,094 1,555,476,996 lbs/yrTotal residual chlorine 2,715 144,060 3,608 171,512 48,946 4,638,10548,946 4,638,105 lbs/yrSection 9. Pollutant Loadings

9-40Table 9-16.Technology Option Loading for Indirect Dischargers (continued)Pollutant Groups ofConcernOptions LoadingsUnitsPSES-1 PSES-2PSES-3 PSES-4Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-Small Small Non-SmallVolatile 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/yraConventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), hexane extractable material (HEM), and total suspended solids (TSS)bToxic pollutants: ammonia as nitrogen, carbaryl, nitrate-nitrite, barium, copper, chromium,cis-permethrin, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium,transpermethrin, vanadium, and zinccNutrients: total nitrogen and total phosphorusdnot available10-1 

## S ECTION 

## 10

N ON 

## - WATER 

## Q UALITY 

## E NVIRONMENTAL 

## I MPACTS

Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the Clean Wa ter 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 poultr y products (MPP) rule on energy consumption, air emissions, and solid waste generation. A di scussion of the proposed technology options is given in Section 9 of this Development Docume nt. 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 w ith compliance with the proposed limitations and
standards. Section 10.1 discusses the ener gy 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 fac ilities that are direct discharg ers, and no change in energy consumption at all MPP facilities that are indirect discharg ers (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 not ed 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 indir ect dischargers, respectively. For the selected proposal technology options which apply to non-small di rect discharging fac ilities only, EPA estimates
that there will be a reduction in total annual energy use (a ne t 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 discharg ing facilities (2,929 million KWH/yr). There are no incremental energy impacts for direct discha rgers that are small poultry slau ghterers (Subpart K) or smallSection 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-2 Table 10-1. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischargers a

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s b Total Ener gy Purchased p er Non-Small MPP Facilit y million KWH/fac.- y r Incremental MPP WWTP Ener gy Use p er Non-Small MPP Facilit y in units of million KWH/fac.- y r and Total Ener gy Usa g e Percent Increase p er Non-Small MPP Facilit y [% 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 Dischargers a

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s b Total Ener gy Purchased p er Non-Small MPP Facilit y million KWH/fac.- y r Incremental MPP WWTP Ener gy Use p er Non-Small MPP Facilit y in units of million KWH/fac.- y r and Total Ener gy Usa g e Percent Increase p er Non-Small MPP Facilit y [% 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 sta ndards (See Section 6.3.1 of Administrative
Record - EPA 2001 Screener Su rvey). EPA is proposing no PSES and PSNS for all indirect dischargers in all MPP subcategories. EPA di d, 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 subse quent to anaerobic treatment. It has been demonstrated that the electrical energy required for complete nitrification can be reduced by approximately 20 percent thr ough anoxic wastewater B OD 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 th e 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 surv ey to develop the energy use es timates presented in Tables 10-1
and 10-2. EPA also used data from the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufactur ers to estimate energy
demand for MPP facilities. See A ppendix D for a listing of input values used to estimate energy

usage.



### 10.2 AIR EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The Agency believes that wastewater trea tment 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 probl em associated with the treatment of MPP wastewaters and generally are associated with anaerobic conditions. Thus, flow equalizationSection 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-4 basins, dissolved air flotation (DAF) units, and anaerobic lagoons are potential sources of malodors. However, odor problem s usually are significant only wh en 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 technolog y options should not increase emissions of odorous compounds from well-manage d MPP wastewater treatment facilities. EPA visited
several MPP facilitie s that EPA considered to be opera ting the selected proposal technology options. None of these BAT f acilities had odor c ontrol problems.

The requirement of nitrification for BA T-2 through BAT-5 should reduce ammonia emissions by reducing air stripping of amm onia during aerobic treatment. However, the requirement of anaerobic treatment for initial BOD reduction before aerobic treatment will
increase methane and VOC emissi ons, but increases should be negligible given the current extensive use of lagoons and other anaerobic processes in MPP wast ewater treatment. In addition, covering anaerobic lagoons and flaring the biogas captu red 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 a nnual net energy reduction of 144 million KWH for the selected proposal tec hnology options which applies to non-small direct discharging facilities only. This a nnual 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 Unite d 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 imp act (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-ha zardous, have value as raw materials for byproduct production by rendering, a nd 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 rem ove 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 produc ts or disposal as a waste depends on the types of re ndered product being produced. EP A noted during site visits to two independent rendering operations that sludges from dissolv ed air floatation units which use chemical additions to promote solids separa tion are rendered; however, the chemical bond between the organic matter and the polymers require s that the sludges be processed (rendered) at higher temperatures (260 oF) and longer re tention times (see Secti on 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 wast ewater 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 tr eatment 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 am endment via subsurface injection for crops raised on the facility's property. Other options for the ultimate disposal ofSection 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-6 MPP wastewater sludge are land filling and incine ration, 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 th e 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 to tal 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-sm all direct facilitie s (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, a nd 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 sludg e generation. There are no incremental sludge generation impacts for direct discha rgers that are small poultry slau ghterers (Subpart K) or small poultry further processors (Subpart L), because all of these small facilities are currently implementing the proposed limitations and st andards (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 di schargers 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 fo r denitrification. The use of organic carbon in anaerobic lagoon effluent for de nitrification will reduce BOD and the sludge production during subsequent aerobic treatment to satisfy BOD reduction requireme nts for direct discharge. Although microbial mass is synthe sized during denitrification, wh ich requires anox ic conditions,Section 10. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts

10-7 Table 10-3. Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischargers a

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s b Baseline Total Slud g e Generated at Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischar g ers (tons/ y ear) Incremental Slud g e Generated - tons/ y r and Percent Increase [% Increa se] For Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischar g ers

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 Dischargers a

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s b Baseline Total Slud g e Generated at Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect Dischar g ers (tons/ y ear) Incremental Slud g e Generated - tons/ y r and Percent Increase [% Increa se] For Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect Dischar g ers

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 synt hesis is lower than that under aerobic conditions. This reduction in sludge production with BAT-3 due to th e reduction of BOD under anoxic conditions more than offsets the increased sludge production associated with co mplete nitrification (B AT-2), because of the very low growth rate of the microorganisms re sponsible for nitrification. Full-scale domestic wastewater treatment plants have shown a five to 15 per cent reduction in waste sludge production after the inclusion of the nitrification/den itrification process (R andall, et. al, 1999). Implementation of BAT-4 and BAT-5 w ould further decrease sludge generation.

EPA also expects that more emphasis on pollu tion prevention by increased segregation of
waste materials that have valu e as raw materials for the pr oduction of rendered products from
wastewater flows could further reduce sludge generation. Examples of such pollution prevention practices include using alternatives of flumin g 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 al so 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 Us ing 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 Renderi ng Processing Point Source Category. February 1974. (DCN 00162)11-1 

## S ECTION 

## 11

I NCREMENTAL 

## C APITAL AND 

## O PERATING AND 

## M AINTENANCE 

## C OSTS FOR THE 

## P ROPOSED 

## R EGULATION

This section describes EPA’ s methodology for estimating engineering compliance costs associated with implementing the technology op tions proposed for the meat and poultry products (MPP) industry. EPA evaluated costs for each class of meat and pou ltry facilities, including meat, poultry, and combined meat-poultry (mixed) facilities. This section provides description of industry-wide compliance costs to ach ieve 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 facilitie s (19 groupings × 4 size classes) to represent the br oad range of potential MPP fac ilities 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 cap ital 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 limita tions guidelines and standa rds based on a combination of processes and treatment technologies but is not requiring th eir use. Rather, the processes and technologies used to treat MPP wastewaters are le ft to the discretion of individual MPP facilities.Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 pr ocesses or technologies. The proposed technology options evaluated for existin g 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 treatme nt units for the proposed technology options is shown in Table 11-1 and in Figures 11-1 th rough11-9. Note that Technology Option 5 is applicable to poultry facilities only.

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

Treatment Units Technolo gy O p tions
Direct Dischar g er Indirect Dischar g er 1 2 3 45 a 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 X b 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 Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-3 Figure 11-1. Treatment Unit Sche matic for Direct Technology Option 1 (assuming incomplete nitrification).

Figure 11-2. Treatment Unit Sche matic for Direct Technology Option 2.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-4 Figure 11-4. Treatment Unit Sche matic for Direct Technology Option 4. Figure 11-3. Treatment Unit Sche matic for Direct Technology Option 3.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-5 Figure 11-5. Treatment Unit Sche matic for Direct Technology Option 5 (Poultry Only).

Figure 11-6. Treatment Unit Sche matic for Indirect Technology Option 1.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

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

Figure 11-8. Treatment Unit Sche matic for Indirect Technology Option 3.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-7 Figure 11-9. Treatment Unit Sche matic 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 tec hnology, 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 a nd 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 cl assified all MPP operati ons as first processing (e.g., slaughtering, carcass prep aration, and quartering), furthe r 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 Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-8Table 11-2.Definition of 19 MPP Facility GroupingsNumberProductTypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeProcess(es) PerformedProduction Values Used to Define Size Classifications(in 1,000 lbs)FirstProcessingFurtherProcessing Rendering Small Medium Large Very Large1 Meat R1 X < 50,000 < 500,000 < 1,000,000 >1,000,0002 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 >300,0008 Poultry P2 X < 7,000 < 125,000 < 250,000 >250,0009 Poultry P12 X X < 8,000 < 137,000 < 275,000 >275,00010 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 MixedaM1 X < 30,000 < 300,000 < 650,000 >650,00014 MixedaM2 X < 30,000 < 1,500,000 < 3,000,000 >3,000,00015 MixedaM12 X X < 30,000 < 1,000,000 < 2,000,000 >2,000,00016 MixedaM13 X X < 40,000 < 400,000 < 850,000 >850,00017 MixedaM23 X X < 40,000 < 1,600,000 < 3,200,000 >3,200,00018 MixedaM123 X X X < 40,000 < 1,100,000 < 2,200,000 >2,200,00019Meatand/orPoultryRender X< 10,000 < 100,000 < 200,000 >200,000aMeat and Poultry.Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 larg e) based on total a nnual production data fro m the MPP screener survey to develop 76 model f acilities (19 groupings × 4 size cl asses). 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 accurate ly estimate costs, loadings, non-water quality environm ental impacts, and economic impact s of the proposed limitations and standards on the MPP industry.

11.4 SELECTION OF A COST MODEL
EPA investigated various sour ces to collect cost informa tion 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 cu rves 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., den itrification). CAPDET was selected for estimating the compliance costs for the proposed MPP regu lation because it is us er-friendly and has a
database that contains the latest costs (year 2000) of all th e 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 or iginally develope d based on the need for a method of accurate and rapid preliminary de sign 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 responsib le for wastewater trea tment planning in the
evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives , based primarily on life cycle costs and degree ofSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 de faults have been used for each unit process to increase the acceptability of the calculated design s 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 pla nning-level cost estima ting. 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 de signs for various flows and fo rmulation 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 conc rete in a clarifier are quantifie d). To this number an input cost value for reinforced concrete in place is a pplied to determine construction costs. CAPDET combines both parametric and unit costing techniques for estimating total project costs.

Costs associated with construction of a wastew ater treatment facility are divided into two categories: (1) unit process costs and (2) other di rect 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 th ese battery limits. Other direct and indirect costs include those cost items required to create a functional treatment facility. These costs are derived parametrically from EP A-developed cost curv es based on bid data.



### 11.5 DESCRIPTION OF COST COMPONENTS
Cost estimation has two components: (1) capita l costs and (2) opera tion and maintenance costs. The capital cost is the initial investment a facility makes to build a treatment unit (or series of treatment units). The operati on and maintenance costs are a nnual costs incurred to maintain and run that treatment unit (or series of treatment units).Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 cons truction. These costs, once identifie d, can be categorized into two categories: (1) unit process constr uction costs and (2) other direct and indirect costs. The sum of the two costs provides the total capital costs. Ofte n other direct and indir ect 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 tr eatment 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 el ectric 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 pr ocess 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 cost s of reinforced concrete, earthwork, structures, and piping. The constructi on of earthen basins (such as anaerobic lagoons) is usually accomplished with equa l cut-and-fill quantities. In othe r 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 c onditions are ideal, which the CAPDET model assumes to simplify costing procedures. The unit co st 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 signifi cant difference in costs between the two types ofSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 descri ption outlines a procedure that produces an accurate estimate within these limitations. The installed equipment co st 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 st andard 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 th e cost-versus-size relati onship 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 purch ase cost of equipment can be escalated to account for inflation. The first op tion 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 auto matically escalated by the cost versus size relationships described above. The second option is to escalat e 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 purch ase prices of the sta ndard size equipment
are stored in the CAPDET model a nd are updated automatically if the cost index is input into the program. The latter of the two methods requires fewer input valu es. If the model user inputs a cost for equipment, the index is not used to update the new costs.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-13 Man-hour requirements for insta llation are dependent on the ty pe and size of equipment. The relationships between man- hour requirements for installati on 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 ma n-hour requirements by the input labor rates. In many cases, data concerning manpower require ments for equipment installati on 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 factor s, 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 component s, insulation, painting, insurance, taxes, and so forth. These items are estimated as a percentage of the purchas e costs. The percentage values will vary with the type and size of equipment. These percen tage values were esta blished based on design experience, engineering judgme nt, 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 envi ronment. The building requirement s 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. Es timating process piping costs presents the greatest challenge for the cost engineer. Estima ting costs from detailed drawings is an arduous, time-consuming task much bey ond the scope of CAPDET. Eval uation 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 che mical industries is employed. The costs of material are estimated by the use of the Dickson “N” method, a nd the field erection costSection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-14 is estimated by the cost of “joints” method. Th e R.A. Dickson “N” method uses a technique to estimate purchase price of piping material s imilar to the one proposed to estimate equipment costs. Relationships are develope d between the cost ratios, design ated as N factors, and sizes of pipe material (Hydromantis, 2001).

With these factors stored in CAPDET for cas t iron pipe, steel pipe, fittings, and valves, the user inputs only a limited number of unit cost s of the reference co mponents. The field erection costs for the piping system can be es timated by use of the cost-per-joint method. The unit of work measurement is the joint (two for c ouplings and valves, three for tees, etc.). Because joints require the bulk of piping labor for erec tion, 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 pe rcentage 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 wast ewater treatment f acilities involves not only the cost of the construction of unit pro cesses but also other direct and i ndirect 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 centraliz ed waste treatment i ndustry (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 constr uction cost are provided in Table 11-3. (See Attachment 11-1 in Appendix D for deta ils.) The capital cost for a treatment unit isSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 T yp e 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 categ ories: energy, operati on labor, maintenance la bor, chemical costs, operation and maintenance material and supply costs, and sludg e disposal costs. The techniques and methods used in CAPDET for estimating ope ration 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 pr ocess 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 pr esented 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 tabulat ed as a material cost. For costing these fuels EPA use techniques similar to those used to calculate electric power costs.Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 calculati ons 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 multiply ing the power consumpti on (in kilowatt-hours per year) by the unit price input fo r electric power costs (in dollars per kilowatt hour). Electric power rates vary according to location, peak dema nd, 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 establishe d 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 th en calculated using the labor rate and the manhours. EPA used the CAPD ET default labor rates.
Operation labor and main tenance 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 pr ocess. The total man-hour s requirement is the sum of the requirement for each unit process in the treatment facility. Ho wever, administrative and general labor, as well as laboratory labor, is computed for the treatment facility as a whole. The man-hours required for admin istrative and genera l labor and for la boratory labor are determined from equations that involve average flow to the treatment plant.
11.5.2.3 Operation and Maintenan ce Material and Supply Costs Operation and maintenan ce 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 en tire treatment facility are the sum of the costs for each unit process used in the treatment facility.Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 chemi cal required by the tr eatment processes are calculated in the quantities calculations. These quantities are based on CAPDET’s calculations to achieve desired removals or effl uent concentrations from input (influent) concentrations. The cost of a chemical is determined by multiply ing 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 dewate red 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 maintena nce 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 CAPD ET are selected based on the treatment units required for the technology options shown previous ly in Table 11-1. This section describes the treatment units selected for the model runs. De scriptions of the trea tment units, based on the technical document in CAPDET, are presented below (Hydromantis, 2001). 

### 11.6.1 Preliminary Treatment Preliminary treatment comprise s two processes: screenin g and grit removal. Because most of the available cost information combines these processes and the costs of these treatmentSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 sm all error in the total facility cost.
Screening devices are used to remove larg e objects that otherwise might damage pumps and other equipment, obstruct pi pelines, 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 mechan ically. 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 design ed 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 sel ected, 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 proce ss. Separation is induced by introducing fine gas bubbles (usually air) into the system. The ga s-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 fl oated to the surface, they can be collected by a skimming operation. In wastewater treatment, flotation is used as a clar ifying process to remove suspended solids and as a thickening process to concentr ate various types of sludges. Ho wever, the process generally is used for clarifying of certain industrial wastes and for con centrating waste-activated sludge.Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 re leased 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 de vice, 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 loadin gs. CAPDET sizes a circular DAF system with a concrete structure. Specific info rmation on design specifications for DAF units was not available in the MPP detailed surveys. Therefore, the de fault 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 pr ocesses opera te better if extreme fluctuations in hydraulic and organic loadings are eliminated. Equalization basins are usually aerated to prevent the settling of so lids and to prevent anaerobic conditions from developing.
The equalization basin volume is based on the magnitude a nd frequency of the variations in hydraulic and organic load. The basin volum e required for equalizing dry weather diurnal flows is calculated based on tw o-hour flows for 24 consecutive hour s. However, if the two-hour flow data are not available, th e desired volume of the basin is based on the median flow (see Table 11-6). The program can be used for equaliz ation 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 curre nt cost indices. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop costs including the assump tion that the basin is aerated. A 15-year life expectancy was selected. 

### 11.6.4 Lagoon Lagoons have been extensively used for m unicipal and industrial wastewater treatment, where sufficient land area is available. Accordin g to the MPP detailed surveys reviewed for the proposed rulemaking, almost 30 pe rcent of MPP facilities use a lag oon 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 lowSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 th eir depth, except for a very shallow upper layer. These lagoons are constructed deep to en sure anaerobic conditions and to conserve heat. Typically they are from 8 to 20 feet deep. Reduc tions of more than 65 percent of the influent BOD 5 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 da y. A 12-foot lagoon depth and 15-year life expectancy were selected. Othe r parameters used to develop costs of an anaerobic lagoon were left at the default va lues 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 tr eatment system). The wastewater at this point is relatively clean and free from large solids, so that more e fficient pumps can be us ed for these processes than for raw waste pumping. Default design valu es 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 seve ral forms including organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitroge n, and nitrate nitrogen. The prevalent forms in untreated MPP wastewater are organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen. Or ganic nitrogen exists in both soluble and particulate forms.
Nitrification is the process that converts organic and a mmonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen. Nitrification ma y be coupled with denitr ification, 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 nitrifica tion and provide mixing that keeps the solids in suspension. The mixed liquor is then clarified to remove suspended solid s and concentrate theSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 ra te of the nitrifiers co mpared to heterotrophic bacteria. The plug flow suspended growth syst em is considered in CAPDET. Default design values in CAPDET were used to develop cost s of a nitrification system. A 15-year life expectancy was selected. As de scribed further in Section 11.9.2, th ere are situations where new unit processes may not be requi red to achieve full nitrifica tion. To account for the ability of facilities to upgrade existing nitrification-susp ended growth systems, EPA estimated retrofit
costs. 

### 11.6.7 Biological Nitrogen Removal Biological nitrogen removal encompasse s both nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification is the process th at converts organic and ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen. Nitrification may be coupled w ith 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 proce ss design. For denitrifi cation, 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 pro cess. Nitrate is convert ed to nitrite, which in turn is reduced to nitrogen gas. This two-step process is termed “di ssimilation.” A broad range of bacteria, including pseudomonas , micrococcus , achromobacter and bacillus , can accomplish denitrification. These bacteria can use either n itrate 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 ox ygen (anoxic condition) to ensu re that nitrate, rather than oxygen, is used in the oxidation of the organi c material. For denitrification to occur, a carbon source must be available for oxidation. Carbonace ous material in the raw wastewater is often used as a carbon source. However, if the car bonaceous material in the wastewater is not available, an external carbon source may have to be added to the denitrif ication system. Default design values in CAPDET were used for the desi gn parameters to develop costs for biological nitrogen removal. A 15-year life expectancy was selected.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-22 

### 11.6.8 Biological Nutrient Removal—3/5 Stage Biological nutrient remova l (BNR) encompasses both nitrogen removal and excess biological phosphorus removal. Ex cess biological phosphorus remova l is a biologically mediated process used within activated sludge systems to achieve phosphorus re moval from wastewater. The process involves cultivating certain microorganisms within the mixed community. These microorganisms, termed polyphos phate 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 (n itrate present, no oxygen) is included, and for phosphorus removal, an anaerobic stage (neither n itrate nor oxygen present) must be included in the reactor configuration. For a de scription of the nitrification a nd 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 configurati on (also termed a “modified Bardenpho”) is similar to the three-stage configuration in that the first th ree 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 den itrification, and the second is aer obic 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 limitati ons of the CAPDET model, EPA could not adjust
for the fact that treatment in an anaerobic la goon precedes the BNR process. This limitation most likely results in overestimating the cost for the BNR process.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-23 

### 11.6.9 Secondary Clarification
Secondary clarifiers are commonly used in conjunction with bi ological wastewater treatment systems to remove settleable solids. Th ey 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 biol ogical activity. The secondary clar ifiers are, therefore, designed to provide clarification, as well as thickening. The design of cl arifiers 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 th e 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 CAPD ET 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 re sults 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 treatme nt facilities have re sulted 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 re moval processes, and as a tertiary wastewater trea tment 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 powde red, activated carbon. Sand filters have been most commonly. However, mixed dual-media and multi-media filters are more effective and easier and less expensive tooperate 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 ensureSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 clean ing; 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 installa tions, 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. Defa ult design values in CAPDET were us ed to develop costs. A 15-year life expectancy was selected. 

### 11.6.11 Drying Beds Sludge drying beds are a common method for de watering digested sludge, especially in small plants. Drying beds are us ually constructed using 4 to 9 in ches of sand over 8 to 18 inches of graded gravel. The beds are usually divide d into at least three sections for operational purposes. An underdrain system, usua lly 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 re sidences, 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 micr oorganisms. Disinfection used in water and wastewater treatment has resulted in the control and re duction of waterborne diseases.
Disinfection may be accomplished through the use of chemical agents, physical agents, mechanical means, and radiati on. In wastewater treatment the most commonly used disinfectant is chlorine; however, other halogens, ozone, and ultraviolet radia tion have been used.Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 disinfecti on method. UV disinfection has th e 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 ot her 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 ma y also be a concern. EPA assumed that MPP
facilities would use UV disinfec tion. Although this assumption may overestimate disinfection costs (as compared, for example, to chlorinati on), EPA feels that UV di sinfection provides more
environmental benefits than ot her options. Default design va lues 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 consis t of the influent pollutant concentrations, target efflue nt pollutant concentrations, wastewater flow, and design specifications of the treatment units. This s ection presents a discussion of the influent concentrations, effluent concentr ations, and wastewater flow. Th e design specifications of the
treatment units are di scussed in Section 11.6.



### 11.7.1 Influent Concentrations

EPA obtained the influent con centrations 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 discarde d those data that were ques tionable, based on engineering judgment. For example, BOD values that were reported higher than C OD values were removed; total Kjedahl nitrogen values lower than a mmonia values were rem oved. If data were notSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 per cent volatile solids, cations, an ions, 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 w ould be exposed to the atmosphere (i.e., exposed to oxygen), it
was assumed that all nitr ite would be converted to nitrate. Th erefore, the nitrite concentration in
the influent wastewater was assu med 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 solid s (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 obtai ned from the 3-day a nd 5-day MPP sampling episodes performed by EPA and fro m MPP detailed survey responses

. EPA identified best performing meat, poultry, rendering, and mixe d facilities representing the technology options
based on effluent concentr ations and the TIP. If data were not available, EPA derived data fromsimilar 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 concentra tions for Technology Option 1 fo r indirect dischargers because performance is based solely on pe rcent removals of influent concentrations. The costs forSection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-27Table 11-4.Influent Concentrations Used as Model InputModelFacilityGroupingCodeBOD5Soluble BOD5CODSolubleCOD TSS TKNTotalPaNH3-N O&GbNO3-N pHmg/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 8.99R12 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 7.46R123 2,941 1,245 5,917 2,505 1,590 164 51 127 386 5.38 7.46P1 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 6.60P12 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 6.60P123 2,000 780 5,000 1,951 1,220 132 26 11 619 1.24 6.60M2 1,670 732 3,445 1,511 1,226 127 100 30 557 1.25 8.99M23 1,670 732 3,445 1,511 1,226 127 100 30 557 1.25 8.99Render 4,432 2,824 6,980 4,447 954 124 26 120 160 9.81 7.41Note: Model facility groupings for which EPA screener survey did not identify any facilities are not shown.aTotal phosphorus.bOil and grease (HEM).Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-28Table 11-5.Target Effluent Concentrations Used as Model InputMeat Type Discharge Type OptionSolubleBOD5 TSS Total PaTotal Coliform TKN NH3NbNH3N /TKNRatiomg/L mg/L mg/L cfu/100 mL mg/L mg/LPoultry Direct 2 NR 8.60 NR 125 NR 0.44 NR3 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 NRIndirect 2 NR 6.00 NR NR NR 0.60 NR3 2.96 6.00 NR NR 3.57 NR 0.174 4.80 5.60 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NRMeat Direct 2 NR 21.67 NR 125 NR 0.57 NR3 1.53 8.27 NR 125 2.80 NR 0.174 4.80 5.60 0.47 2 1.19 NR NRIndirect 2 NR 34.60 NR NR NR 3.32 NR3 5.20 34.60 NR NR 4.63 NR 0.724 4.80 5.60 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NRMixed Direct 2 NR 7.88 NR 125 NR 0.38 NR3 1.53 8.27 NR 125 2.80 NR 0.174 4.80 5.60 0.47 2 1.19 NR NRIndirect 2 NR 34.60 NR NR NR 3.32 NR3 5.20 34.60 NR NR 4.63 NR 0.724 4.8 5.60 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NRRender Direct 2 NR 21.67 NR 125 NR 0.57 NR3 1.53 8.27 NR 125 2.80 NR 0.174 4.8 5.6 0.47 2 1.19 NR NRIndirect 2 NR 34.60 NR NR NR 3.32 NR3 5.20 34.60 NR NR 4.63 NR 0.724 4.80 5.6 0.47 NR 1.19 NR NRNR: input not required to run that option.aTotal phosphorus.bConcentrations during summer; concentrations during winter are 2.5 (default value)times summer concentration.Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 dir ect 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 wast ewater 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 mode l. 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 (g allons/day) for Option 1 fo r indirect dischargers was calculated by dividing the flows (gallons/y ear) as reported in the screener surveys by 260 days/year. (Note: Option 1 for i ndirect discharges has equaliza tion 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 take n equal to 125 percent and 75 pe rcent of the average flow, respectively.



### 11.8 OTHER COST MODELING PARAMETERS
In addition the costs provided by CAPDET, ot her cost modeling para meters were used to obtain industry-wide compliance costs. A descri ption of other cost modeling parameters is provided below.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-30Table 11-6.Model Facility Median Flows for 76 Model Facility CategoriesModel FacilityGrouping CodeFlow (gallons/year)Small Medium Large Very LargeR1 120,000 7,164,858 N/A N/AR12 150,000 114,000,000 N/A N/AR13 366,300 163,800,000 242,207,998 745,000,000R123 300,000 547,500,000 888,329,000 N/AR2 100,000 23,580,000 4,507,584 2,588,000R23 18,900 150,992,000 N/A N/AP1 4,169,000 188,005,312230,124,007 501,764,107P12 90,000 90,040,000 234,375,494 418,113,000P13 N/A 110,463,705 413,250,000 442,000,000P123 N/A 122,845,544 730,000,000 722,693,232P2 199,100 22,321,000 112,887,720 8,000,000P23 910,000 12,696,150 221,000,000 N/ARender 36,500,000 8,925,000 23,400,000 46,081,200M2 150,000 65,000,000 N/A N/AM23 663,000 N/A N/A N/ANote: 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 Capita l 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 sel ect facilities because those facilitie s 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 M PP Facility Groupings by Size

Model Facilit y Grou p in g

Code Direct dischar g ers Indirect dischar g ers

Small Medium Lar g e Ver y Lar g e Small Medium Lar g e Ver y Lar g e 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 mode l facilities, as discussed in Section 11.3. EPA considered only
the direct and the indirect disc harging facilities because those ty pes of facilities will be affectedSection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-32 by the proposed regulation. Because the wastewat er in a direct discha rging facility generally undergoes more treatment be fore discharge than that of an i ndirect discharging facility, the model facility categories were further grouped by the type of discharg e. Because of the limited number of responses in the MPP detailed survey, the Ag ency 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 deta iled survey. To determine the wast ewater treatment upgrades necessary for the facilities to be in compliance with th e proposed regulation, the Agency compared the existing TIP of the facilities with those of th e technology options (Table 11-1). Based on the comparison, EPA determined the frequency of occurrence of trea tment 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 distribu tion across medium, large, and very large facilities for each of the two “non-sma ll” facility groups. That is, the same frequency
of occurrence distribution fo r each treatment unit was app lied to all non-small indirect dischargers and the same frequency of occurre nce 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 achie ve the performance of the proposed technology options.


### 11.8.3 Number of Treatment Units Required
Because frequency of occurrence represents the fraction of fac ilities that have the treatment unit in place, “[1- frequency of occurre nce]” 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 Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-33 where

FO = frequency of occurren ce 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 th at of the proposed technology option, costed for the additional treatment units needed to meet the t echnology 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 shoul d 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 operationa l 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, mix ing, monitoring, automation, and other costs that would improve the performance of the plant to achieve the desired e ffluent concentration.

Performance cost is also used to determin e the costs for Technology Option 1 from the costs of Technology Option 2. Although Technolog y Option 1 contains th e same treatment units as Technology Option 2 (see Table 11-1), the effl uent quality of Technology Option 1 is inferior to that of Technology Option 2 because of limited nitrification. Ho wever, 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 cost s 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 Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-34 11.9 DERIVATION OF COST ESTIMATES
EPA determined compliance costs for the pr oposed options using the results of the
CAPDET model runs and other co st modeling parameters (Sec tion 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 cost ed for the proposed regulation.

Table 11-8. Technology Options by Size and Disc harge Type Costed for the Proposed Regulation

Dischar g e T yp e Technolo gy O p tion 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 de termine the incremental costs for the proposed
rule. CAPDET was used for deve loping construction cost and annual operating a nd maintenance costs of treatment units for the model facility flow. The capital cost of a treatment unit was calculated using the construction cost obtaine d 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 theSection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-35 model facility category (see Section 11.8.3). As de scribed in Section 11.9.2, retrofit costs for the applicable technology options we re developed from the set of m odel 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 in cremental industry-wide cost is summarized
below:

• Use the MPP screener survey data to es tablish 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 nationa l 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 Capita l 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 m odel facilities to re present the broad range of MPP facilities in curre nt 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 opti ons (see Table 11-1) was devel oped in CAPDET. A preliminary
treatment module in CAPDET that c onsisted of screen and grit rem oval was selected to represent the screens. The biological treatment units co sted in CAPDET were n itrification module (under suspended growth) for Option 2, biological nitr ogen removal module (unde r biological nutrient removal) for Option 3, and biolog ical nutrient removal module w ith 3/5 stage (under biological nutrient removal) for Option 4 and Option 5. The bi ological treatment syst em 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 efflue nt concentrations of the pollu tants and the model facility flow
used for the model runs ar e explained in Section 11.7.

With a given set of concen trations and flow, CAPDET cal culates the construction cost and the annual operation costs of i ndividual treatment units, as well as the total annual cost of the
treatment scheme. The to tal annual cost of the treatment scheme is the sum of the annual operating costs of the treatment units and the la bor costs for administrative and laboratory work (see Section 11.5.2). Because labor costs for adminis trative and laboratory work are available for the entire treatment system, the costs were pr oportioned to individual tr eatment units, based on the individual operation costs gene rated by CAPDET. Therefore, the annual operation cost of a
treatment unit is the sum of the individua l annual costs generate d by CAPDET and the proportional costs of administra tive and laboratory labor. For DAF and biological treatment systems, an additional annual cost of sludge disposal was added. A sl udge disposal cost of $2.3/ton (Parker, 1998) was used as the cost for ha uling 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 cap ital cost of the treatme nt unit is obtained bySection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-37 multiplying the construction cost by 1.69. The m odel 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 associ ated with treatment units were determined, the incr emental 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 fac ilities 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 sma ll direct discharging facilities only. Since Technology Option 1 for dir ect 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 wit hout 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 rath er than construct an entirely new structure. The
method of cost calculation descri bed 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 ne w nitrification/denitr ification 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: uppe r bound costs and retrofit costs.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-38 In light of the ability to retrofit nitrif ication to accomplish both nitrification and denitrification or to upgrade nitrification/denitr ification to accomplish nitrification/denitrification with phosphorus removal, EPA solicited informa tion related to retrof it costs from several technical experts for use in estimating complia nce costs for the MPP industry. EPA contacted two experts in MPP wastewater treatment design and biologi cal nutrient removal wastewater treatment systems (Tetra Tech, 2001).

Based on the input from these two experts, Ta ble 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 estimate s, 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 accessori es (generally reflected by the upper end of the range) or as simple as operational changes, such as switchi ng 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 expe rts are very close, the arithmetic average of the midpoint of the range of the percenta ges they provided was used as the basis for incorporating retrofit costs into the MPP indus try 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 sy stem. 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 calcula ted 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 assu med to be performingSection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-39 biological treatment with n itrification, based on results from the MPP detailed survey.) Therefore, capital costs from the nitrificati on/denitrification tec hnology option (Technology Option 3) were used as a surrogate for the n itrification costs. Because in most cases the Technology Option 3 costs would be expected to be lower than nitrifi cation 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 j udgment, 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 nitrif ication/denitrification sy stem and to upgrade a nitrification system to a N+DN+DP system, a f acility 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 opti ons, 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 opti on (Technology Option 3) and the nitrification, denitrif ication, and phosphorus removal tec hnology option (Technology Option 4). For these two technology options, the retrofit av erage 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 theSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 fac ilities 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 fac ilities only, while costs for Technology Option 1 for direct dischargers were developed for sma ll direct discharging facilities only.
11.10.2 Regulatory Subcategory Costs
EPA developed a regulatory subcategory sc heme for the proposed rule, based on various combinations of the 76 model facility category co sts. 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 Subcate g or y Facilit y Size 1 Facilit y T yp e Model Facilit y Grou p in g Code a

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*M2 c
S b Meat further processors R2, R23, 0.59*M2 c , 0.5*M23 c

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*M2 c S Poultry further processors P2, P23, 0.41*M2 c , 0.5*M23 c

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 Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-41 The 76 model facility costs are combined accord ing to Table 11-10 to generate the costs by regulatory subcategory. For mixed (perfor ming 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 regula tory grouping (40 CFR Part 432, Subcategories F through I) and poultry further pr ocessors regulatory grouping (40 CFR Part 432, Subcategory L) based on total annual production. EPA allocated th e 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 sm all facilities.

11.11 COMPARISON OF MODEL PREDICTED COST WITH ACTUAL COST
Table 11-15 compares the costs (construction, capital, annual) provi ded by the facilities in the MPP detailed survey and the costs predic ted 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 ava ilable; 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 sy stem was used to estimate the model facility category costs, as
discussed in Section 11.9.

The percent difference in construc tion/capital cost varied between



###  34 percent and +44 percent, with the exception of one facility wher e 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 pe rcent 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 di sinfection but was costed for a UV disinfectionSection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-42Table 11-11.Incremental Capital,Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small DirectDischarging FacilitiesTech.Option Cost TypeMeat Poultry Rendering65 CertaintySelectFacilitiesTotal CostsA-D F-I K L J2Capital $8,246,826 $151,167 $1,484,907 $154,729 $0 $803,010 $10,840,639Annual $8,341,357 $358,916 $4,319,010 $263,420$512,217 $1,103,594 $14,898,5143Capital $274,636,709 $2,466,851 $221,276,114$12,148,868 $24,235,794 $42,781,147 $577,545,483Annual$26,093,418 $380,659 $21,409,816 $1,446,099 $2,813,796 $4,171,503 $56,315,291Retrofit $123,586,519 $1,110,083 $99,574,251$5,466,990 $10,906,107 $19,251,516 $259,895,4674Capital $567,299,659 $32,064,579 $292,840,006$19,180,890 $27,388,270 $75,101,872 $1,013,875,276Annual$49,288,019 $3,104,328 $25,768,368 $1,978,115 $2,949,043 $6,647,030 $89,734,903Retrofit $178,513,861 $1,603,453 $143,829,474$7,896,764 $15,753,266 $27,807,745 $375,404,5645Capital N/A N/A $327,080,644 $17,719,557 N/A $27,584,016 $372,384,217Annual N/A N/A$26,630,326 $1,695,960 N/A $2,266,103 $30,592,389N/A: Not applicable because Direct Option 5 applies to poultry facilities only.Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-43Table 11-12.Incremental Capital,Retrofit, and Annual Costs of Non-small IndirectDischarging FacilitiesTech.Option Cost TypeMeat Poultry Rendering65 CertaintySelectFacilitiesTotal CostsA-D F-I K L J1Capital $32,125,587 $61,732,331 $42,407,911$50,931,088 $3,497,420 $15,255,547 $205,949,884Annual $3,134,010 $10,888,392 $5,560,401 $8,752,574 $862,033 $2,335,793 $31,533,2032Capital $624,536,780 $388,978,549 $771,398,217$375,177,189 $82,708,839 $179,423,966 $2,422,223,540Annual$74,314,195 $53,466,015 $93,495,543 $57,932,593 $12,803,252 $23,360,928 $315,372,5263Capital $460,188,220 $460,188,220 $637,073,223$319,733,512 $121,046,542 $151,856,489 $2,050,062,606Annual$40,491,298 $40,491,298 $55,838,473 $35,269,247 $13,057,455 $14,727,639 $198,823,125Retrofit $374,210,631 $374,210,631 $575,708,468$316,967,007 $78,857,861 $136,174,413 $1,838,354,5754Capital $602,773,174 $602,773,174 $670,720,969$444,047,365 $130,924,926 $190,219,346 $2,567,961,174Annual$47,996,617 $47,996,617 $55,543,183 $40,216,343 $13,224,592 $16,246,718 $219,330,692Retrofit $473,484,033 $473,484,033 $625,628,025$442,131,680 $92,106,957 $172,749,802 $2,332,122,332Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-44Table 11-13.Incremental Capital, Retrofit, and Annual Costs of SmallDirect Discharging FacilitiesTechnologyOption Cost TypeMeat Poultry RenderingTotal CostsA-D E-I K L J1Capital $209,270 $137,394 $0 $22,523 $0 $369,187Annual $7,002 $4,547 $0$738 $0 $12,2872Capital $209,270 $137,394 $0 $22,523 $0 $369,187Annual$486,666 $273,721 $0 $26,343 $172,632 $959,3623Capital $14,646,645 $1,452,166$0 $682,701 $8,192,232 $24,973,744Annual $2,752,231 $421,892 $0 $134,053 $909,610 $4,217,786Retrofit $6,590,990 $653,475$0 $307,215 $3,686,504 $11,238,185Note: 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 theVarious TechnologyOptionsTechnologyOption Cost TypeMeat Poultry RenderingTotal CostsA-D E-I K L J1 Capital $119,827,472 $482,868,533 $4,546,294 $103,388,978 $2,796,848 $713,428,125Annual$17,343,753 $70,665,654 $936,533$16,386,885 $513,318 $105,846,1432 Capital $584,635,684 $1,559,329,895 $22,583,519 $376,667,269 $43,635,312 $2,586,851,679Annual$100,720,499 $271,961,694 $3,641,817$61,675,081 $6,030,492 $444,029,5833 Capital $592,231,249 $1,863,181,201 $26,520,704 $378,133,257 $36,320,992 $2,896,387,403Annual$90,024,749 $281,660,364 $3,821,424$54,803,074 $3,752,576 $434,062,1874 Capital $722,696,546 $2,207,175,158 $31,865,901 $446,101,763 $39,443,676 $3,447,283,044Annual$96,489,992 $296,249,096 $4,032,023$57,581,328 $3,717,570 $458,070,009Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-45 Table 11-15. Comparison of CAPDET M odel Prediction of Capita l (and Construction) and Annual Costs with Actual Costs

Facilit y

Code Treatment Units a CAPDET Cost Model Prediction Actual Cost Percent Difference c (%) Construction/ Ca p ital Cost Annual Cost Construction/ Ca p ital Cost Annual Cost Construction/ Ca p ital Annual ($ 1999) ($ 1999) ($ 1999) ($ 1999) 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 404,195 2 374,091 2 +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 151,549 b 53,665 128,118 b 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 334,069 b 276,915 b +21 E+N+DN 2,339,460 b 1,743,810 b +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-predicte d annual costs for four out of nine facilities is with in +/-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 concentra tions instead of the actual designSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 cost s 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 percen t 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 approxima tely 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 fac ilities are shown in Tabl e 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 th e retrofit costs per unit flow.

As shown in Table 11-16, the estimated retrof it 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/M GD. 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, depe nding on the type of upgrade required, retrofit costs might vary from 15 percent to 50 percent of the cost of the nitrificationSection 11. Incremental Capita l 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 Facilit y Grou p in g

Code Size Retrofit Ca p ital Costs a ($ 1999) N+DN Fre q uenc y

Factor b Number of Facilities c Flow d (MGD) Retrofit Ca p ital 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 Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

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

State Treatment Plant Estimated Retrofit Ca p ital Cost ( millio n $ 1999) Desi g n Flow (MGD) Estimated Retrofit Ca p ital 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 4.85 571,134Section 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

State Treatment Plant Estimated Retrofit Capital Cost ( millio n $ 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 de nitrification 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 cost s for upgrade from nitrification to N+DN+DP systems rang ed from $77,000/MGD to $21 million/MGD (based onSection 11. Incremental Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

11-50 Table 11-18 . Retrofit Capita l Costs Of Nitrification/Den itrification/Phos phorous Removal

Model Facilit y Grou p in g

Code Size Retrofit Ca p ital Costs a ($ 1999) N+DN+DP Fre q uenc y

Factor b Number of Facilities c Flow d (MGD) Retrofit Ca p ital 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 Capita l and Operating and Maintenance Costs for the Proposed Regulation

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

State Treatment Plant Desi g n Flow (MGD) Retrofit Ca p ital Cost from AS

to N+DN (1999 million $) Retrofit Ca p ital Cost from AS to N+DN+DP (1999 million $) Retrofit Ca p ital 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 repor ted 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, dependi ng on the type of upgrade re quired, 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 th e cost of a N+DN system) was used for retrofit cost estimation. This might have resulted in high er EPA cost estimates.

11.12 REFERENCES
Engineering News-Record, 2001. Constructi on Cost Index. www.enr.com. (DCN 00212)

Hydromantis, Inc. www.hydromantis.com. Com puter-assisted procedure for design and
evaluation of wastewater tr eatment 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—trea tment, disposal, and reuse . 3 rd 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, Cooperativ e Extension Service. (DCN 00214)Section 11. Incremental Capita l 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 pro cessing 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 

## S ECTION 

## 12

S ELECTED 

## T ECHNOLOGY 

## O PTIONS

As discussed in Section 2, EPA must promulgate six types of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each majo r industrial category, as appropriate:

• Best Practicable Control Technol ogy Currently Available (BPT) • Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT) • Best Available Technology Ec onomically 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 th e 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 repr esents the average of the best existing performances of plants of various processes, ages, sizes, or ot her common characteristics. Where existing performance is considered uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different subcategory or industry. Limitations ba sed on transfer of tec hnology must be supported by a conclusion that the technology is indeed tr ansferable and a reasonabl e prediction that it will be capable of meeting the prescribed effluent limits. (See Tanners’ Council of America v. Train , 540 F.2nd 1188 (4 th Cir. 1976).) BPT focuses on end-of-p ipe treatment rather than process changes or internal controls, except where the pr ocess changes or internal controls are common industry practice.Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-2 The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limite d balancing, committed to EPA’s discretion, which does not require the Agency to quantify the be nefits in monetary term s. 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 envir onmental effects of the pollutants, and the cost and economic impact of the required pollution controls. When setting BPT limitations, EPA is required under Secti on 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 (B OD, 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 particul ar, limitations and standa rds are listed as “O&G (HEM)” to indicate that the pa rameter should be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). In contrast, EPA has retained the pr evious 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 solv ents: 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 Determ ination 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.ep a.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 lim itation for COD for larg er meat first and further processing facilities to reflect the better design and operation of the existing BPTSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-3 treatment technology. EPA is retaining the existing BPT limita tions and proposing no new BPT
limitations for "small" facilities. EPA used production-based thres holds to subcategorize these small facilities (see related discussion in Section 5). EPA defines small MPP facilities as MPP facilities that produce less than th e production-based thresholds de fined in Section 5. See also Section 5 for a description of why and how EP A developed these produc tion-based thresholds.
12.1.1.1 BPT for Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations fo r COD. These pollutants are characteristic of meat slaughtering wastewat er. These proposed regulated pollu tants are key indicators of the performance of the secondary biolog ical treatment process, which is the key unit process of the model BPT treatment systems for these subcategories.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing effluent limitations guide lines based on BPT-2 for Subcategories A through D. The treatment technologies that se rve as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved ai r flotation, secondary biological treatment including some degree of nitr ification, and chlorination/dech lorination. 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 fac ilities 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 spen t on compliance if it was to imple ment this option. Also, the
estimates of the BPT cost to effluent reduc tions benefit is $0.81 ($1999/pound). Thus, thisSection 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 be ing proposed. However, EP A 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 ar e currently regulated unde r 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 fo r COD, a pollutant characteristic of meat further processing wastewater. EPA considers COD a key indicat or of the performance of the secondary biological treatment pr ocess, which is the key unit pr ocess of the model BPT treatment systems for these subcategories.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to establish effluent lim itations based on BPT-2 for Subcategories F through I. The treatment technol ogies that serve as the basis fo r the development of the proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flot ation, secondary biological treatment, and chlorination/dechlorination. As discussed prev iously, the proposed BPT-2 limits for COD reflect an average of the best performance of the ex isting technology in pl ace at meat processing facilities, which includes s econdary 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 considerati on. BPT-2 removes at least 0.25 million pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an annualiz ed 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 spen t on compliance if it was to imple ment this option. Also, the
estimates of the BPT cost to effluent re ductions benefit is $1.59 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option is considered cost-reasonable.

EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis fo r establishing BPT more stringent than the level of control being propose d. 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 conventiona l pollutants (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and oil and greas e) and nonconventional pollutants (ammonia as nitrogen, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) for poultry first pr ocessing and poultry further processing that have not previously been regulated under the current Part 432 regulations.
12.1.2.1 BPT for Poultry First Proce ssing Facilities (Subcategory K)
Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations fo r 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 propos es establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, a mmonia as N, total nitr ogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that slaughter more than 10 milli on pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of poultry slaughte ring wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of th e performance of the secondary a nd 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 lim itations based on BPT-1 for small facilities in Subcategory K. This option is based on the curre nt 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 scr eener and detailed survey responses the Agency reviewed for proposal, no small poultry first proce ssors exist; however, in the event that a small
number of facilities that were not captured through EPA’s surv ey efforts exist, EPA is proposing
to establish BPT limits.

The Agency is proposing to establish e ffluent 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 equa lization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment with nitr ification and denitrif ication and chlorination/dechlorination. As presented in the Economic Development Docume nt for the proposed rule, three BPT options
were under consideration. EPA ha s estimated the costs and polluta nt 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-ne t 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 inco me ratio of 2.73 percent, and the BPT cost to
effluent reduction bene fit 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 esta blishing BPT more stringent than the level of control being proposed. EPA es timates 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 notSection 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 re ductions 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, BP T-4 would remove an additi onal 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 additi onal 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 Pro cessing Facilities (Subcategory L)
Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations fo r BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and ammonia as N for facilities that fu rther process no more than 7 million pounds per year (small facilities). EPA propos es establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, a mmonia as N, total nitr ogen, and total phosphorus for facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per year (large facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of poultry further pr ocessing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of th e performance of the secondary a nd 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 sma ll facilities in Subcategory L. This is the same technology as described pr eviously for Subcategoy K. EPA estimates that four small facilities could be affected by these proposed requirements a nd these requirements could cost $2,600.

The Agency is proposing to establish BPT-3 for large facilities in Subcategory L. The treatment technologies that serv e as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flota tion, and secondary biological tr eatment with nitrification and
denitrification and chlorinati on/dechlorination. As presente d in the Economic DevelopmentSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-8 Document for the proposed rule, three BPT op tions were under consideration. For the 16 facilities that would be subject to these pr oposed 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 a nnualized 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 spen t on compliance if it was to imple ment this option. Also, the
estimate of the BPT cost to effluent reduc tions benefit is $3.28 ( $1999/pound). Option 3 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 4.23 percent, a nd the BPT cost to effl uent reducti on benefit is $7.11 ($1999/pound). Thus, both of these options ar e 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 esta blishing BPT more stringent than the level of control being proposed. EPA es timates that BPT-4 results in a cost-to-net income ratio of 6.04 percent and the BPT cost to effluent re duction 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 re ductions at less cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would remove at least 0.31 million pounds of pollutants pe r year at a total annualized cost of $2.2 million ($1999). In contrast, BP T-4 would remove at least 0.32 million pounds of pollutants at an additional cost of 36 percent. In view of th e 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 fo r COD, a pollutant characteristic of meat rendering wastewater. COD is a key indicator of the performan ce of the secondary biological treatment process, which is th e 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 limitati ons based on BPT-2 for Subcategory J. The treatment technologies that serv e as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flota tion, and secondary biological tr eatment with nitrification and
chlorination/dechlorination. Si nce secondary biological trea tment already accomplishes some nitrification, EPA believe s 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 imple ment this option. Also, estimates of the BPT
cost to effluent reductions be nefit is $0.03 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option is considered costreasonable.

EPA also evaluated Options 3 and 4 as basis fo r establishing BPT more stringent than the level of control being propose d. However, EPA believes that Option 2 represents BPT (or “average of the best”) treatment for this industr y 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 conventiona l 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 c onventional pollutant rem oved in upgrading POTWsSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-10 from secondary treatment. The upgra de 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 Ec onomic Development Document fo r the proposed rule provides
more details on the calculations of the BCT cost tests.

In developing BCT limits, EPA considered wh ether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of conventiona l pollutants than those proposed for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-reasonable according to the prescribed BC T tests. For subcategories A through D, E through I, K, and L, EPA iden tified no technologies that can achieve greater
removals of conventiona l pollutants than the BPT standards that also pass the BCT cost test. Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT effluent limitations equa l to the current BPT limitations for these subcategories. In the Re ndering subcategory (S ubcategory J), EPA found that Option 2 would achieve greater removal of conventional pollutants and was cost-reasonable
under the BCT cost tests and therefor e proposes this technology as BCT.



### 12.3 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT)
In general, BAT effluent limitations guid elines represent the best economically achievable performance of facilities in the i ndustrial subcategory or category. The CWA establishes BAT as a principal national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The f actors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities i nvolved, the process(es) employed, potential process changes, and non- water quality environm ental impacts including energy requirements, and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assignin g the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor cons idered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA
determines economic achie vability on the basis of total costs to the industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall indus try and subcategory financial conditions.Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-11 For purposes of the proposed rule, EPA ha s determined that each proposed model technology is technically available. EPA ha s 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 segmen ts for the purpose of evaluating the technology options. EPA is proposing to esta blish separate limits for facilities on the basis of
size. As discussed in more de tail in Section 5, EPA is not propos ing to establish more stringent limitations for small meat slaughterers, nor is th e Agency proposing to revise the limitations for the small meat processors subcat egory (Subpart E). EPA survey da ta indicate that approximately 107 small meat processing f acilities would have been subj ect to any new limitations. EPA estimates that the additional pollutant reductions achieved by establishing more stringent
limitations for these small fac ilities would be minimal. For example, under Option 3, the pollutant load reduction attribut able to small facilitie s 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 fo r ammonia-N, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. These pollutants are characteristic of meat slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performan ce 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 guide lines based on BAT-3 for Subcategories A through D. The treatment technologies that se rve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatmentSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-12 with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dech lorination. 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 evalua ting cost-effectiveness for nutrient pollutants. As presented in the Economic Development Docu ment for the proposed rule, three BAT options
were considered. Effluent limitations based on BAT-2 rem ove 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 cons idered economically achievable. However, because BAT-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost that is economically achievable, EPA has chosen to propos e effluent limitations based on BAT-3.

EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for esta blishing BAT more stringent than the level of control being proposed. As was the case for BA T-3, the cost-to-net inco me 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 equi valent 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 w ould 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 pe rcent and yet would prompt annualized costs to increase by 74 percent, EPA has determined th at BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the “best available” technology economically achievable fo r 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 fo r 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 performan ce of the tertiary biologicalSection 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 lim itations 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/dech lorination. 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 pr esented in the Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BAT options were c onsidered. EPA estimates that the 20 facilities in Subparts F through I would achieve a re moval of approxima tely 0.04 million pounds of phosphorus over current discharge at an annua lized compliance cost of $0.4 million ($1999) with
BAT-2. BAT-3 removes an a dditional 2.08 million pounds of n itrogen 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 BA T-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost that is economically achievable, EPA has chosen to propose e ffluent 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 propos ed. 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 becau se it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus for much le ss cost. EPA has determined that BAT-3 would remove 2.12 million pounds of nitrog en and phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $0.5 million ( $1999). In contrast, BAT-4 w ould 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 de termined that BAT-3,Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-14 not BAT-4, is the “best available” technology ec onomically 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 Proce ssing 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 (s mall facilities). EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitroge n, and total phosphorus for facilities that slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year (large fac ilities). These pollutants are characteristic of poultry slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biol ogical treatment process, which are the key components of the model BPT trea tment systems for the small a nd large facilities, respectively.

Technology Selected

EPA is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT fo r small facilities in Subcategory K. EPA
was unable to determine whether there is an economically achievable BA T 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 fo r large facilities in Subcategory K because it
has determined that there is no economica lly achievable BAT treatment technology more stringent than the proposed BPT treatments. Als o, 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 consid eration. BAT-2 rem oves approximately 810,000Section 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 co st of $29.7 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a
cost-to-net income ratio of le ss than 0.4 percent, so this op tion 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 esta blishing BAT more stringent than the level of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of mo re 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 BP T-3 would remove at least 8.37 million pounds of total nitrogen a nd 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 tota l annualized costs of $9.7 million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for th is subcategory. Thus, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the “best availabl e” technology economically achievable for large facilities in Subcategory K.

12.3.2.2 BAT for Poultry Further Pro cessing 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 y ear (small facilities). EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for B OD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia as N, total nitrogen, and total phos phorus for facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per y ear (large facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of poultry further processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are also key indicators of the pe rformance of the secondary and tertiary biological treatmentSection 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 fo r small facilities in Subcategory L because it
has determined that there is no economica lly 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 e ffluent 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 equa lization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment with nitrif ication and denitrification. EPA has determined that there is no economically achievable BAT tr eatment technology more stringent than the proposed BPT treatment. As presented in th e Economic Development Document for the proposed rule, three BAT options were considered. BAT-2 removes appr oximately zero pounds of phosphorus over current discharge at an annua lized 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 consid ered economically achievabl e. 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 esta blishing BAT more stringent than the level of control being proposed. The co st-to-net income ratio of more than 6 percent for BAT-4 shows that the option would cause significant econo mic impacts. Also, EPA is not proposing to
establish BAT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly equivalent pollutant re ductions at less cost. EPA has dete rmined 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 w ould remove only 0.318 pounds of total nitrogenSection 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 polluta nt removals and yet would pr ompt 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 a mmonia-N. This pollutant is characteristic of meat rendering wastewater. The proposed regulated pollutant is a key indicator of the performance of the secondary biol ogical treatment process, whic h 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 t echnologies that serve as the ba sis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment
with nitrification and chlorinati on/dechlorination. EPA has determined that this option is costeffective and economically achievable. As pr esented 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 rem ovals of approximately 87,000 pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over curre nt levels discharged at an annualized compliance cost of $0.6 million ($1999) under BA T-2. BAT-3 removes an additional 396,000 pounds of phosphorus over BAT-2 at an additi onal annualized compliance cost of $3.7 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a cost-to-net income ra tio 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 economi cally achievable. However, because EPA has
determined that the cost for nutrient removal for BAT-3 is not cost-effective and is more than theSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-18 cost for nutrient removal perfo rmed at a POTW, EPA has chos en to propose effluent limitations based on BAT-2 for Subcategory J.

EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for esta blishing BAT more stringent than the level of control being proposed. The cost-to-net income ratio of mo re 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 effl uent reductions that are achievable based
on the best available demonstrated control t echnology. New facilities have the opportunity to
install the best and most effi cient production processe s and wastewater trea tment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application
of the best available demonstr ated control technology for all pollutants (that is, conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In esta blishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving th e effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts a nd 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 requireme nts 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 acceptabl e. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS technology basis proposed constitu tes the best available demons trated 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 throug h D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)
Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as those for BAT (ammonia-N, total nitrogen, and tota l 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 th e 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 fo r NSPS because as with existing sources Option 4 is not expected to achieve significant increm ental 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 re presents the best dem onstrated 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 pr oducing 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 tota l 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 th at the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performan ce would be significantly less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retr ofit its existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for Sub categories 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 Pro cessing 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 nitroge n, and total phosphorus for facilities that slaughter more than 7 million pounds per year (large fac ilities). These pollutants are characteristic of poultry first processing wastewater. These pr oposed regulated pollutant s are key indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biol ogical treatment proce sses, 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 th e Agency does not expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 2 performance would be significan tly less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing syst em. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as theSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-21 technology basis for NSPS for small facilities in Subcategor y K because EPA believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue a dditional, 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 reduc tions. Further, EPA does not expect that the cost to construct the treatment system to ach ieve 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 Pro cessing 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 phos phorus for facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per y ear (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 c onstruct the treatment system to achieve Option 2 performance would be significan tly less for a new source than it would be for an existing source to retrofit its existing syst em. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as theSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-22 technology basis for NSPS for sm all facilities in Subcategory L because the Agency believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

The treatment technologies that serve as th e 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 fo r NSPS because, as with existing sources, Option 4 is not expected to achieve significant increm ental 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 technol ogy basis for NSPS for subcategory L because EPA believes it represents th e best demonstrated technol ogy for this subcategory.


### 12.4.3 NSPS Requirements for Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)
Regulated Pollutants

EPA proposes to revise the new source perfo rmance standards for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal coliform bacteria, and ammonia.

Technology Selected

The treatment technologies that serve as th e 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 standa rds consistent with either Op tion 3 or 4. Thus, EPA believes Options 3 and 4 could pose a barrier to entry for ne w sources in this subcat egory. 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 thos e pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers that might pass through, inte rfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with publicly owned treatment works (POTW) operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastew aters from direct and indirect i ndustrial dischargers are subject to
similar levels of treatme nt. In addition, many POTWs are required to deve lop and implement local discharge limits applicable to their industr ial 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 inte rference or pass through issues are not required to develop and implement local limits. Nationwide there ar e approximately 1500 PO TWs with approved Pretreatment Programs and 13,500 small POTWs that are not required to deve lop and implement approved Pretrea tment Programs.
National pretreatment standards have three principal objectives: (1) prevent the widescale introduction of pollutants into POTWs that will interfere with PO TW 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 ot herwise be incompatible with the treatment works; and (3) improve opportunities to recy cle and reclaim muni cipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.

Currently there are no categorical pretrea tment 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 inform ation regarding effluents from MPP indirect dischargers that may pass throug h, 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 sec tions discuss the information EPA was able to collect for this proposal and pl ans 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 nati onal pretreatment st andards 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 in terference regardless of whether categorical pretreatment standards or any na tional, state, or local pretr eatment requirements apply (see 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1)). POTWs are require d to develop and enforce Pretr eatment 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 lo cal Pretreatment Programs.

EPA typically does not establis h pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants (e.g.,
BOD 5 , TSS, oil and grease) because POTWs are designed to treat such pollutants, but EPA has exercised its authority to estab lish categorical pretreatment sta ndards for conventional pollutants. For example, EPA established categorical pret reatment standards for new and existing sources with a 1-day maximum concentra tion 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, Reco rd 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 st andard 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 performanceSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-25 of trickling filters a ppears to be particular ly sensitive (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00162; Record No.00140). High loadings of oil and greas e 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 sma ll POTWs) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00085). A concentration of 100 mg/L for oil and grease is often cited as a lo cal 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 N o. 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., BOD 5 , oil and grease, TSS, ammonia) and unequalized flows from MPP indirect discha rgers 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 s ite-specific and more appropriate ly 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 upgra des, and therefore the general pretreatment prohibitions and local limits did work. EPA does not know, however, howSection 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 c oordinators, POTWs, and MPP indirect dischargers after proposal (1) to understand whether the general pretreatment prohibition is sufficient to address POTW interference and pass through incide nts 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 fi nal 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 appr oximately 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 Pretrea tment 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 repor ted limit. Other Pretr eatment Programs use descriptive requirements to limit interference from high oil and grease concentrations.

While most POTWs are not significantly aff ected by MPP indirect discharges, EPA notes that some, primarily smaller POTWs, includi ng those not required to implement approved Pretreatment Programs, may have difficulty in properly trea ting 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 di schargers 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 discharg ers 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). Sm all POTW facilities are generally more susceptible to high and variable loadings fro m large MPP indirect di schargers. Small POTWs often use less sophisticated wastew ater treatment systems (e.g., tr ickling filters, simple anaerobic lagoons), which may not be able to operate properly dur ing periods of high flow or handle slugSection 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 amount s of BOD and oil and grease concentrations to pass throug h if MPP indirect discharger s 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 re presents approximately 10 percent of the largest POTWs in the United States (about 150 of the 1,500 POTWs with Pretreatment Progra ms) and some small POTWs; however, none of the appr oximately 20 cases of interferen ce incidents identified in the
record involve AMSA members. EPA would co llect 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 eff ect on their operations. (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10040). EPA w ill collect additional information on whether MPP indirect dischargers are causing interfere nce 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 To tal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programsSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-28 would sufficiently deal with MPP indirect discha rges that might cause POTW interference in lieu of national categorical pretreatment standards.


### 12.5.2 POTW Pass Through
As noted above, federal categori cal pretreatment standards ar e also designed to prevent the introduction into POTWs of pollutants that will pass through the tr eatment works or will otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works. Generally, to determine whether pollutants pass through POTWs, EPA compares the percenta ge of the pollutant re moved by well-operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the pe rcentage 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 dete rmine to pass through using EPA’s standard methodology (i.e., the indi rect 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 O p tion 1 Treatment Efficienc y POTW Treatment Efficienc y 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 P oultry Pollutants of Concern

MPP Pollutant of Concern CAS Number PSES Indirect O p tion 1 Treatment Efficienc y POTW Treatment Efficienc y 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-c hemical 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 affect s the level of other pollutants. EPA notes that many of these pollutants of concern that woul d normally be determined to ex hibit 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 trea tment efficiencies. At the final regulation EPA may issue pretreatment standard s 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 pe rformance has improved. EPA is considering different options on how to examin e current POTW performance. One option is to
evaluate removal efficiencies ba sed 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 cas es of significant pass through from MPP indirect dischargers where the local limits were not set or exceeded and evalua te whether EPA should promulgate pretreatment standards for certain parameters (e.g., nutrien ts, TDS) based on their potential passage through POTWs and into receiving waters.

Although some pollutants ma y pass through POTWs followi ng fairly limite d treatment, current information available to EPA suggests that the overall levels of these pollutants in MPP raw wastewater do not justify establishing numer ic categorical pretreatment standards. EPA is not proposing to establish pretreatment st andards based on the difference between MPP pretreatment options and POTW removal efficiencies because the Agency is uncertain that the difference accurately reflects th e 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 th rough 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 sta ndards 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 M PP indirect dischargers should be established. Additionally, EPA is considering whether it should exempt from categorical pretr eatment standards MPP indirect discharges that are be low 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 standa rds 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 Industr y Sector (40 CFR Part 432, Subcate g or y ) Cost/Net Income (%) Pre-Tax Annualized Cost ($1999 M) PSES O p tion 1 Toxic Cost-Effectiveness
Removals

(lb-e q ) $1981/lb-e q 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, ba sed on MPP detailed survey s 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. TheSection 12. Selected Technology Options

12-31 MPP detailed survey also identified the follo wing 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 (e qualization 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 r eceived 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 pretr eatment control authorities to collect additional data on a more systematic basis to determine whet her national categorical pretreatment standards are necessary. If the additional a nd existing data indicate that M PP indirect dischargers interfere with or pass through POTW opera tions, one or more of the follo wing options may be used to establish national categorical pr etreatment standards in the fi nal rule for non-small indirect dischargers.

• Establish numeric pretrea tment standards for oil a nd grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 (e qualization and DAF) to pr event POTW interference.

• Establish numeric pretreatme nt standards for oil and gr ease and/or ammonia based on equalization alone to reduce MPP indir ect discharge variable loads which can, in some cases, prevent POTW interference.

• Establish numeric pretreatme nt standards to prevent PO TW pass through (e.g., oil and grease, nutrients, and/or metals).

• Establish narrative pretrea tment standards for oil a nd grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 (e qualization and DAF) or equa lization alone to prevent
POTW interference.Section 12. Selected Technology Options

12-32 • Allow POTWs to waive national categori cal pretreatment standards for MPP indirect dischargers that do not interfere with POTW operation (e.g., MPP indirect discharger below 5 percent of dry weathe r hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant).

• Allow a POTW to waive national categori cal pretreatment st andards 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 alte rnatives (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 

## S ECTION 

## 13

L IMITATIONS AND 

## S TANDARDS 

## : D ATA 

## S ELECTION AND 

## C ALCULATION

This section describes the da ta sources, data selection, da ta conventions, and statistical methodology used by EPA in calculating the l ong-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 w ithin a particular treatment technology.
Section 13.1 briefly describes the data sources (a more detailed discu ssion 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 aggrega tion. Sections 13.3 through 13.5 de scribe the estimation of daily
effluent concentrations and ad justments performed when tec hnology option specific data were unavailable. Section 13.6 provi des an overview of the propos ed limitations. Procedures for estimation of long-term averages, variability factors, and concentration-based limitations in Sections 13.7 through 13.10. Section 13.11 describe s the conversion of these concentrationbased limitations into the proposed production-norma lized limitations.



### 13.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA AND EPISODE SELECTION
To estimate the long-term averages, vari ability 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). Selecti on of facilities for multi-day sampling was based on an analysis of information collected during the s ite 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 fi rst processing, further processing, and/or rendering operations representative of MPP facilities;
• The facility used in-proce ss treatment and/or end-of-p ipe treatment technologies that EPA was considering for t echnology 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 infl uent 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 processi ng, wastewater from the renderi ng and/or further processing operations was sampled se parately, when possible.
EPA used the data from sampling episodes to develop long-term average (LTA) effluent concentrations representative of perfo rmance of selected technology options. 1 As explained in Section 9, in the absence of sampling episode da ta for a particular ty pe of process, EPA
transferred data from other f acilities that employ similar produc tion and treatment processes to establish LTAs. EPA also used production and fl ow data contained in the MPP detailed surveys for use in deriving production normalized flow values.
From each selected facility data set, an episode-specific l ong-term average was calculated for each proposed regulated pollutant. Episode-specific long-ter m averages were then used to calculate option long-term averages, wh ich were then applied to develop the proposedSection 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-3 effluent limitations. For the final rule, EPA inte nds 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 dup licates 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 valu es to be detected. In statisti cal terms, the censoring type for such data was ‘non-censored’ (NC). Measuremen ts reported as being le ss than some samplespecific detection limit (e.g., <10 mg/L) were censo red and were consider ed to be non-detected (ND). Laboratories can also report numerical re sults 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 am ount and treated as non-censored data. In the tables and data listings in this doc ument 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 modele d as a mixture of two distributions. Thus, EPA
concluded that the distinctions between detected and non-detect ed measurements were important and should be an integral part of any data aggregation pro cedure. (See Appendix G for a
detailed discussion of the modifi ed 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 unaggregat ed 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 mix ture of detected and non-detected unaggregated values, EPA determined that the resulting aggreg ated value should be c onsidered 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 percen t of the number of samples coll ected were duplicated. Field duplicates are two samples collected for the same sampling point at approximately the same time, assigned different sa mple numbers, and flagged as duplicates for a single sample point at a facility.
Because the analytical data from each duplicate pair charact erize 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 t hose conditions was the arithmetic average of the duplicate pair.
Frequently, both samples in dup licate 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 ot her a non-detected type, EPA assigned the aggregated value as ‘non-censored’ because the po llutant had been present in one sample. (Even if the other duplicate had a zero value 2 , 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 fo r both influent and e ffluent measurements.Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

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

If the field du p licates are: Censorin g t yp e of avera g e is: Value of a gg re g ate is: Formulas for
a gg re g ate value of du p licates: Both non-censored NC arithmetic average of measured values (NC 1 + NC 2 )/2 Both non-detected ND arithmetic average of sample-specific detection limits (DL 1 + DL 2 )/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 ch emical analytical met hod 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 va lue 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 da ily concentrations were obtained as the sum of nitrate/nitrite (C005) and tota l 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 g rab or multi p le
sam p les are: Censorin g t yp e of Dail y Value is: Dail y value is: Formulas for Calculatin g Dail y 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 da ta, EPA calculated the proposed limitations for first processing, further proce ssing, 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 con centrations 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 concentr ations 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 c ould provide a removal fraction, the median of the rem oval fractions was used. The daily effluent concentrations were
calculated as follows:

Effluent concentration = (influent c oncentration) 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 c oncentration) / (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 e ffluent 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 con centrations for first processing wastewater could be derived from:
Daily effluent concentration of first processing wastewat er = [(Final daily effluent concentration x Total flow) - (Daily concen tration of further processing wastewater 3 x Further processing wastewater flow) - (Daily concentra tion of rendering wastewater 3 x Rendering wastewater flow)] / (Fir st 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

13-8Table 13-3.Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, FurtherProcessing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-2 Technology Option)FacilityFirst Processing Further Processing Rendering OperationsTotalFlow(MGD)D1=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF1=Flow(MGD)D2=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF2=Flow(MGD)D3=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF3= Flow(MGD)6440[(Daily effluent • Total Flow ) -(LTA of D3• F3)] / F10.83 N/A N/A (a) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.52 1.356441[(Daily effluent • Total Flow) -(LTA of D3• F3)] / F11.31 N/A N/A (a) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.48 1.796442[(Daily effluent • Total Flow) -(LTA of D3• F3)] / F11.53 N/A N/A (a) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.42 1.956447[(Daily effluent • Total Flow ) -(LTA of D2• F2)-( D3• F3)] / F10.51 (a) • (further processinginfluent@6335)0.07 (a) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.15 0.73(a) = (1- Removal fraction) where the Removal fraction is the median removal fraction of sampling episodes 6440, 6441, 6442 and6447.Table 13-4.Data and Equations to Derive Technology Option Daily Effluent Concentrations for First Processing, FurtherProcessing, and Rendering Operations Treated Wastewaters for Direct Discharging Meat Facilities (BAT-3 Technology Option)FacilityFirst Processing Further Processing Rendering OperationsTotalFlow(MGD)D1=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF1=Flow(MGD)D2=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF2=Flow(MGD)D3=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF3=Flow(MGD)6335[(reuse water daily effluent • TotalFlow) -(D2• F2) -(LTA of D3• F3)] / (F1)0.17 (b) • (further processingdaily influent)0.45 (b) • (rendering dailyinfluent@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

13-9Table 13-5.Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for FirstProcessing, Further Processing, and RenderingOperations Treated Wastewatersfor Direct Discharging PoultryFacilities (BAT-2 Technology Option)FacilityFirst Processing)Daily Effluent ConcentrationsFurther ProcessingDaily Effluent ConcentrationsRendering OperationsDaily Effluent Concentrations6443N/A (a) • further processing influent N/A6444N/A (a) • further processing inffluent N/A6448N/A N/A (a) • rendering influent6445Daily effluent N/A N/A(a) = 1 - Removal fraction @ 6445Table 13-6.Data and Equations to Derive Daily Effluent Concentrations for FirstProcessing, Further Processing, and RenderingOperations Treated Wastewatersfor Indirect Discharging MeatFacilities (PSES-1 Technology Option)FacilityFirst Processing Further Processing Rendering OperationsTotalFlow(MGD)D1=Daily Effluent ConcentrationsF1=Flow(MGD)D2=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF2=Flow(MGD)D3=Daily EffluentConcentrationsF3=Flow(MGD)6335[(Daily effluent • (Total Flow) -(D2• F2) - (LTA of D3• F3)] / F10.17 (b) • furtherprocessing influent0.45 (b) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.13 0.75(b) = 1 - Removal fraction @ 6335Section 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-10Table 13-7.Data and Equations to DeriveDaily Effluent Concentrations for FirstProcessing, Further Processing, and RenderingOperations Treated Wastewaters for Indirect Discharging PoultryFacilities (PSES-1 Technology Option)FacilityFirst Processing Further Processing Rendering OperationsTotalFlow(MGD)D1=Effluent ConcentrationsF1=Flow(MGD)D2=EffluentConcentrationsF2=Flow(MGD)D3=EffluentConcentrationsF3=Flow(MGD)6448N/A N/A N/A N/A (a) • RenderingDaily EffluentN/A N/A6443[(Daily effluent• Total Flow) -(D2 •F2)] / F10.91 (a) • (further processingdaily influent)0.84N/AN/A1.756444[(Daily effluent • Total Flow) -(D2 • F2)] / F10.53 (a) • (further procssingdaily 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 cal culated 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 nitrog en 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-sp ecific detection limit equal to the lowest potential value. For example, suppose the influent c oncentration is non-censored. If the lowest potential value is 10 mg/L and the calculated efflue nt 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 con centration of the sample point, the calculated effluent c oncentration was assigned the cen soring type of the influent sample. Table 13-8 provides an example of the fi nal censoring type using this method where the lowest potential value is 10 and th e removal fraction is 50 percent.

Table 13-8. Example of Final Data Ce nsoring Type Using Method 1

Influent Concentration Effluent Concentration

Amount Censorin g T yp e Influent Concentration *(1-Removal Fraction) Final Calculated Amount Censorin g T yp e 10 ND 5 10 ND
20 NC 10 10 NC
22 ND 11 11 ND

Method 2 : When the effluent concentration method was calculate d based on a facility pollutant mass balance between the final effluent and its unit pro cesses of first, further, and rendering wastewaters (as applicable), it had the censoring type associated with the initialSection 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 fr action is 50 percent.

Table 13-9. Example of Final Data Ce nsoring Type Using Method 2

Initial Effluent Concentration Further Processin g

Effluent Renderin g Effluent Calculated Effluent Concentration a Final Calculated Effluent Concentration

Amount Censorin g T yp e Amount Censorin g T yp e 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 c oncentrations, EPA adjusted several of the
concentration values when the calculation methodol ogy resulted in effluent concentrations that were generally lower than doc umented performance values for the technology or lower than
actual effluent concentrations. More specifically, the methodolog y used by EPA in the absence of effluent data for a particul ar 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 whethe r a derived effluent value was reasonable or realistic, EPA compared the data to expected ranges of effl uent 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 proce ssing, 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 sel ected 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 regula tions and in EPA’s c ontacts and correspondence with the industry.


### 13.6.1 Objective
In establishing daily maximum limitations, EPA’s objective is to restrict the dischargeson a daily basis at a level that is achievable for a facility that targets its treatment at the longterm average. EPA acknowledges that vari ability 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, EP A has established the da ily 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 averag e limitation requires continuous disc hargers to provide on-going control, on a monthly basis, that compleme nts controls imposed by the daily maximum limitation. In order to meet the monthly aver age limitation, a facility mu st counterbalance a value near the daily maximum limitation with one or more values well below the daily maximumSection 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 base d upon percentiles chosen with the intention, on one hand, to be high enough to accommodate reasonably an ticipated variability within control of the facility and, on the other hand, to be low enough to reflect a leve l of performance consistent with the Clean Water Act requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the “best” technologies. The daily max imum 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 “bes t 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 desi gned 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 th at 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 acc ount 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 theSection 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 propertie s 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 va lues 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. T hus, operators of sm all 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 variab ility of the discharges in order to maintain compliance with the limitati ons. Attachment 13-5 in Appendix H provides a list of both the proposed limitations and those de rived 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 fac ility 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 av ailable technology. Other facility data sets may demonstrate the same technology, but not the best demonstr ated design and operating conditions for that technology. For these facilities, EPA will evalua te the degree to which the facility can upgrade its design, operating, and mainte nance 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 main taining their processes and treatment technolog ies. However, the
issue of exceedances 5 or excursions is often raised by comments on proposed limitations (as has been the Agency’s experience with proposals for other industr ies). For example, commentsSection 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 Ch emical Manufacturers Associa tion 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-cont rol problems or upsets because there can be no other explanation for these isolated and extremely hi gh discharges. If these data points result from quality-control problems, the exceedances th ey represent are within the control of the plant. If, however, the data points re present exceedances beyond the control of the industry, the upset defense is available.

Id. at 230.

EPA’s allowance for reasonabl e anticipated variability in its effluent limitations, coupled with the availability of the upset defense r easonably accommodates accepta ble excursions. Any further excursion allowances would go bey ond the reasonable accommodation of variability and would jeopardize the effective c ontrol 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. N o. 92-414, 92nd Congress, 2nd Sess. 64, reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Polluti on 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 aver ages’. 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 “highestSection 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-17 allowable average of ‘daily discharges’ over a cal endar 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 ar e defined to be the “‘discharge of a pollutant’ measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour pe riod that reasonably re presents the calendar day for purposes of samplings.” EPA has proposed daily maximum and monthly average limitations expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharg e (pounds) per unit of production (Live-Weight Killed, Finished Pr oducts, 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 ma ximums, maximums for 20-day av erages (poultry facilities only), and maximum for monthly averages.
To derive the proposed pr oduction-normalizati on limitations, EPA used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to develop limitations base d upon the concentration data (“concentration-based limitations”). Sections 13.7 through13.10 de scribe the calculations for the
concentration-based limita tions. Section 13.11 describes the conversion of these limitations to “production-normalized limitations” using the m odel flow rates desc ribed 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 technolog ies (which reflect th e 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 op tion. 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 we ll-designed and operated model technologies have demonstrat ed that this can be done.
In the second step of developing a limitati on, EPA determines an allowance for the variation in pollutant concen trations when processed thr ough extensive and well designed treatment systems. This allowance for vari ance incorporates all components of variability including shipping, sampling, storage, and analytical variability. This allowance is incorporatedSection 13. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation

13-18 into the limitations through the use of the vari ability factors (the “option variability factor” discussed in Section 13.9) which are calculated from the data fro m the facilities using the model technologies. If a facility opera tes 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 excu rsions 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 capab le 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 t echnology option (“option LTA”) for each pollutant. The LTAs
discussed in this section were us ed to develop the proposed limitations.
For each technology option being considered, EPA calculated LTAs that represent the best performing facilities (from th e respective of types of tr eatment 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 pr ocesses 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 partic ular meat and poultry process at a facility, EPA
used the derived efflue nt 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 av erage (see Appendix G). In Appendix H, EPAhas 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 averag es for that pollutant from selected episodes with the technology basis for the option. The median is the midpoint of th e values ordered (i.e., ranked) from smallest to largest. If there is an odd number of values (w ith 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 observa tions 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/LSection 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 a nd implementing BAT-2 level trea tment 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 (m g /L) Subcate g or y O p tion Calculated O p tion LTA (m g /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 calculate d assuming that the removal fractions between different technology op tion levels would be the same for meat and poultry facilities (i.e., the removal fraction between meat BAT-2 a nd meat BAT-3 treatment options would be the
same as the removal fracti on between poultry BAT-2 and pou ltry 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 Poultr y BAT-2)*(1-Rem oval Fraction).
If the LTA was less than the option level LT A of the actual sample d 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 formul a 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 Processin g Further Processin g Renderin g O p erations
RF = Removal Fraction [(Option LTA of First Processing Meat BAT-2) - (Option LTA of FirstProcessing Meat BAT3)]/Option LTA of First Processing Meat BAT-2 [(Option LTA of Further Processing Meat BAT-2) -

(Option LTA of FurtherProcessing 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
O p tion 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 LT A. 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

Subcate g or y Process Pollutant Calculated O p tion BAT-2

LTA (m g /L) Calculated O p tion BAT-3

LTA(m g /L) Final O p tion BAT-2 LTA (m g /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 factor s used in calculating the proposed limitations, EPA first developed daily and monthly episode-s pecific variability factors using the modified delta-lognormal distribution. The variability fact ors were estimated from th e 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, asSection 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 th e 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 LT As 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 ep isodes 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 calcu lated 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 sec tion 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 Pou ltry 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 variab le of the two pollutants, EPA selected thoseSection 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 Technolo gy O p tion Source of Variabilit y 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 fo r each type of processing operation (first processing, further processing, and rendering), EPA performed th e following steps in calculating the proposed concentr ation-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 opera tion. (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 Appe ndix 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 pr oposed concentration-based daily maximum limitation for a pollutant using the product of the opti on long-term average and the option daily variability factor. (See Attachment 13-3 in Appendix H.)
Step 6: EPA calculated each pr oposed 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 th e conversion of the concentr ation-based limita tions 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 concen tration data. The proposed pollutant limitations are presented in terms of pounds of allowa ble pollutant discharge per 1,000 pounds of production units (lbs/1000 lbs). This section describes the conversion from
concentration-based limitations to the production-norma lized limitations in the proposed regulation. This section also provides EP A’s methodology for determining the number of significant digits to use for the proposed production-nor malized limitations.



### 13.11.1 Calculation of Production Normalized Limitations
In calculating the proposed production- normalized limitations, EPA used the
concentration-based limita tions, 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. Th e following paragraphs briefly describe the production flow rates and the c onversion factors used to cal culate 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 calcu lation 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 ra tes 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 c oncentration-ba sed limitations are expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). EPA used the pr oduction flows and the conversion factor to calculate each production-nor malized limitation using the following basic equation:

Production-normalized limitation = Concen tration-based limita tion × Productionnormalized flow rate × conversion factor
The following is an example of applying a conversion factor to th e concentration-based
limits:
For Meat First Processing technology op tion, 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 max imum 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 conversi ons described in the previ ous section, EPA rounded the proposed production-normalized limita tions to three significant digits. EPA used a rounding procedure where values of five and above ar e 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 pr oduction-normalized limitations listed in Attachment 13-5 of Appendix H ha ve three significant digits.14-1 

## S ECTION 

## 14

R EGULATORY 

## I MPLEMENTATION

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 CW A, EPA promulgate s national effluent limitations guidelines and standa rds of performance for major i ndustrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) conve ntional pollutants (i.e., total su spended solids, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform bacter ia, 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-te trachlorodibenzofuran).

As discussed in Section 2, EPA must consider six types of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each major industrial category, as appropriate. The type s of effluent limitation guidelines and standards ar e 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 standard s apply to industrial facilities with wastew ater 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 Nati onal Pollutant Discha rge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program is designed to limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the Un ited States through a combination of various requirements, including tec hnology-based and water quality -based effluent limitations. Technology-based effl uent limitations guide lines and standards applicable to the meat and poultry processing industry are used by permit wr iters to derive NPDES permit technology-based effluent limitations. Water quality-b ased effluent limitations (W QBELs) are based on receiving water characteristics and ambient water quality standards, including designated water uses. They are derived independently fro m technology-based effluent limitations. The CWA requires that NPDES permits contain the more stringent of th e 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 standard s, the Administrator, or her de signee, 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 a nd standards and other relevant scientific, technical, a nd 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 promulgati on of such limitations and in no case later than March 31, 1989. Because the revisions to 40 CFR Part 432 will be promul gated after March 31, 1989, NPDES permit efflue nt limitations based on the revise d effluent limitations guidelines must be included in the next NPDES permit issu ed 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 sour ce if construction of th e 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 fo r Part 432 in December 2003, and t hose regulations take effect in January 2004, any direct discharging new sour ce 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 appl y with respect to toxics and nonconventional pollutants. Limitations on conventional pollutants would be based on the current NSPS for conventional pollutants unless EPA promulgate s revisions to BPT/BCT for c onventional 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 nati onal pretreatment st andards which have three principal objectives. The first objective is to prevent th e introduction of pollutant s into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that will interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of municipal sludge. Second, nati onal pretreatment st andards 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 municipa l and industrial wast ewaters and sludges.Section 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-4 The national pretreatment and categorical standards compri se 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 contro l authorities are require d to implement the national pretreatment program, including applying the fede ral categorical pretreatment standards to any industrial users that are s ubject to such categori cal 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 standa rds 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 fe deral categorical pretreatme nt standards (PSES and PSNS) applicable to meat and poultry processing fac ilities regulated by 40 CFR Part 432. If EPA were to promulgate PSNS in the fina l 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 fi nal rule is not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule, the Agency considers an indirect discharg er a new source if its construction commences following promulgation of the final rule (s ee 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 criteri a and procedures to be used by a Control Authority to grant a cat egorical 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-ba sed permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning bypasses and upsets for directSection 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-5 dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for i ndirect 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 standard s of section 307 to all direct and i ndirect dischargers. However, the statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has estab lished administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of th e national effluent limita tions guidelines and pretreatment standards for cat egories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.


### 14.3.1 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standa rds different from the otherwise applicable requirements, if an individual discharging facility is fundamentally differe nt with respect to factors considered in establishing the limitation of standards applicable to the individual facility.
Such a modification is known as a "fundament ally different factors" (FDF) variance.

EPA provides for the FDF modifications from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic and nonconventional polluta nts, and BPT limitations for conventional pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EP A provides for modifications from pretreatment standards. FDF variances for toxi c pollutants were challe nged 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 s ection 301(n) to the
Act to authorize modifications of the othe rwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources if a f acility is fundamenta lly different with respect to the factors specified in section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in establishing the effluent limitati ons or pretreatment standard. Section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may es tablish alternative requireme nts. Under Section 301(n), anSection 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 ar e 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 a nd 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 fac ility 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 e ffluent guidelines. The regulation al so 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 a ddition, 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 w holly out of proportion to the
removal cost considered durin g development of the nationa l limitations, or a non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) fundament ally more adverse than the impact considered during development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an
FDF variance for indirect disc hargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditi ons for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatme nt standards and factors consider ed are the same as those for direct dischargers.

The legislative history of Section 301(n) unde rscores the necessity for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the vari ance. 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 differe nt from those factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable guidelines. The criteria for applying for and evaluatingSection 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 va riance from the otherwise applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconven tional 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). Sp ecific 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 va riance from BAT effluent guidelines for certain nonconventional po llutants due to localized environm ental 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 Genera l 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 a nd 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 we ight killed (ELWK), finished product (FP), and raw material (RM). The mass limitati on is derived by multiplying an effluent concentration (determined from the analysis of treatment system performance) by an appropriate norma lized wastewater volume (“production-nor malized flow”) determined for each MPP operation expressed in ga llons 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-ba sed mass-based limit for each pollutant proposed for regulation. Expressed as a unitless fr action in terms of mass (lb) of pollutant per mass ( 1,000 lb) of production.

CONC, mg/L = technology-based concentr ation 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-nor malized 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 pr oduction-normalized flows.

A facility subject to today’s proposed re gulation 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 e ffluent limitations guide lines and standards.

The NPDES permit regulations discuss the use of mass-based limitations and standards.
In order to convert the e ffluent limitations and standard s 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 un its of 1,000 pounds per day. The NPDES permit regulations (40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)) require that NP DES permit limits be ba sed on a “...reasonable measure of actual production.” The production rates used for NPDES permitting for the MPP industry have commonly been the highest annua l 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 limita tions to establish a maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharg ed each day and month. However, if the permit production rate is ba sed on the maximum month, then the permit could allow excessive discharges of pollutants during significant porti ons of the life of the permit. These excessive allowances may discourage facilities from ensuring optimal waste management, water conservation, and wastewater tr eatment practices during lower production periods. On the other hand, if the average permit producti on rate is based on an average derived from the highest year of production over the past five years, then fac ilities may have trouble ensuring that their waste management, water cons ervation, 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 pe riods of high production. ToSection 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-10 accomplish this, facilities would lik ely have to develop more e fficient treatment systems and
better water conservation a nd waste management practi ces 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 standa rds) or wastewater flows (for con centration-based st andards). NPDES permit writers refer to it as the “building block approach.”

The proposed limitations neither require th e installation of any specific control technology nor the attainment of any specific flow rate or effluent con centration. A facility can
use various treatment alternatives or water conservation practices to achieve a particular effluent
limitation or standard. A ppendix 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 author izes EPA to include BMPs in effluent limitations guidelines for certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for the purpose of controlling “pla nt site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste dispos al, and drainage from raw materi al storage.” Section 402(a)(1) and NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k) also provide for best mana gement practices to control or abate the discharge of pollutants, when numeric limitati ons 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 aSection 14. Regulatory Implementation

14-11 detailed discussion of pollution prevention and best management practices used in the MPP industry.15-1



## S ECTION 

## 15

G LOSSARY 

## , A CRONYMS 

## , AND 

## A BBREVIATIO NS



## 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 dis charge

AMI - American Meat

Institute

AMSA - Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

Average monthl

y discharge limit

ation - The highest al

lowable averag

e of "daily

discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discha rges" 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 discharg es 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 centrifug e) from the blood water and forwarded for further processing. The blood water or serum remaining after coa gulation may be evaporated for animal feed, or it may be sewered.Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-2 BOD 5 - Biochemical oxygen demand measured over a 5 da y period.

BPJ - Best professional judgment

BPT - The best practicable control technology curre ntly available, applicable to effluent limitations, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Sec tion 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 simila

r products) alone

or in combination wi

th
oth er fi nis hed pro duc ts a t ra tes grea ter tha n 27 30 k g (60 00 l b) p er da y.

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 slaughte

rhouse(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 proce ssing, or hair processing

Conventional pollutant

s - 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 peri od t hat reas ona bly r epre sen ts a cal end ar da y.
Deep-well injection - Long-term or permanent disposal of untreated, partially treated, or treated wastewaters by pumping the wastewater into underg round formations of suitable character through a bored

, drilled, or drive

n 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 gui

deline (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 ar e discharged from point

sources i nto navig able wate rs, the wa ters of th e contig uous zone,

or the oce

an (CWA Sections 301(b) and 304(b)).

ELWK - Equivalent live weight killed

Existing source - For this rule, any facility fr om 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 sam e per son or en tit y.

FDF - Fundamentally different factor

Finished product - The final manuf actured produc

t produced on site,

including produc

ts intended for consumption with no additional processing as well as products intended for further processing, when applicable.

First processi

ng - Operations which receive live meat animals or poultry and produce a raw, dressed meat or p

oultry produ

ct, either whole o

r in parts.Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-4 FSIS - Food Safety and Inspection Service

FTE - Full time equivalent employee

Further proce

ssing - Operations whic

h use whole carc

asses or cut-up me

at or poultry

products for the prod uction of f

resh or froz en products , and may inclu de the foll owing types of p rocessing: cutting and deboning, c ooking, sea soning, sm oking, cann ing, grindin g, 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 4

0 CFR 432, Subpart H)

- An operation tha

t manufactures h

ams 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 ha zardous 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 f rom the
wastewater with the hexane. See 40 CFR Part 136.

Hide processing

- Wet or dry hid e processin g. Includes dem anuring, was hing, and de fleshing,
followed b y curing.

High-processing pac

kinghouse

(Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart D) - A packinghouse that processes both a

nimals slaughter

ed at the site and a

dditional carca

sses from outside so

urces.


## I
In scope - Facilities and/o r wastewaters th

at EPA proposes to b

e subject to this g

uidelines.Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-5 Indirect discharger - A facility that discharge

s or may disc

harge wastew

aters into a public

ly
owned treatment w

orks.


## L
Live weight kill ed (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 gu

idelines, avera

ge pollutant leve

ls 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 packing house (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 al

lowable averag

e of "daily discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "da ily discharges" measured during the calendar month, divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the
month.

Meat - The term "mea

t" includes all an

imal products from

cattle, calves,

hogs, sheep and

lambs,

etc ., e xce pt t hos e def ine d as pou ltr y.

Meat cutter (Definition for 4 0 CFR 432, Subpart F

) - An operation f

abricates, cuts , or otherwise produces fresh meat cuts and related finished products from livestock carcasses, at rates g reater tha n 27 30 k g (60 00 l b) p er da y.
Meat product oper

ations - 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 sy stem gives recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.

MPP - Meat and poultry

products


## N

NAICS - North American Industry Classification Sy stem. NAICS was developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and

Mexico to provide ne

w comparability

in statistics about b

usiness activity
across North America.

National pollutant disc

harge eliminatio

n system (NPD

ES) permit

- A permit t o discharge
wastewater i nto waters o f the United States is sued under t he National Pollutan t Discharge Elimination sy

stem, authorized by

Section 402 of the CWA . See NPDES.

Nitrification capability - The capability of a POTW treatment system to oxidize ammonia or
ammonium salts initia

lly 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 a nalyses 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 a

ny raw mate

rial, intermedia

te product, by

-product, waste product (includin

g air emissions),

or finished produc

t.
Non-conventional pollutants - Pollutants that ar e neither conve

ntional pollutants no

r 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. Th is is also known in st atistical terms as lef t-censorin g.Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-7 Non-water quality environmental impact - Deleterious aspects of control and treatment technologies a

pplicable to point s

ource catego

ry wastes, including, but not

limited to air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.

NRA - National Renderers Association

NRDC - Natural Resour

ces Defense Cou

ncil

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 was

tewater direct

ly to United Sta

tes surface wa

ters.

NSPS - New Source Per

formance Standa

rds, applicable t

o industrial facil

ities whose construction is begun after the effective date of the final regulations (if those re gulations are promulgated after 120 days from pub lication of proposal i n the Federal Register). See 4 0 CFR
122.2.

NTTA - National Technology Transfer and Advanc ement Act

NWPCAM

- The National Wate

r Pollution Control Ass

essment Model (ve

rsion 1.1) is a computer model to model the instream dissolved oxygen concentration, as influenced by pollutant reductions of BOD 5 , total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform
bacteria.


## O

Off-site - Outside the bounda ries of a facilit

y

On-site - The same or geographically contig uous 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 goingalong the right-of-way. Noncon tig uou s pr ope rti es o wne d by t he s ame com pan y or l ocal ity b ut c onn ect ed b y a ri ght- of- way, which it controls, a

nd to which the publi

c does not have ac

cess, is also consi

dered on-site

pro pert y.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 g

uideline, or fac

ilities that do not en

gage in meat p

roducts operatio

ns.

Outfall - The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a facility effluent discharges into

receiving wat

ers.


## P
Packinghouse

- A plant that both sl

aughters anima

ls and subsequently

processes carc

asses into cured, smoked, c

anned, or other p

repared meat pr

oducts.

Pass through - The term "pass through" means a discharge that exits the POTW into waters of
the United States in q uantities or concentr ations whi ch, alone or in conjunc tion with a discharge or discharge s from othe r sources, i s a cause of a v iolation of any requireme nt of the PO TW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation).

Point source - Any discernable, confined, and discrete convey ance from which pollutants are or may be discharged. See CWA section 502(14).

Pollutants of conce

rn (POCs)

- Pollutants commonly found in meat and poultry processing
wastewaters. G

enerally, a chemical is con

sidered as a POC if

it is detected in unt

reated process
wastewater at f

ive times a baselin

e value in more tha

n 10 percent of th

e samples.

Poultry - Broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature c hickens, turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, and small g

ame such as quail,

pheasants, and r

abbits.

Poultry operat

ions - Includes pou ltry slaughter ing operati ons, by-produ ct operatio ns, renderi ng, and further processing.

Priority polluta

nt - 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 re

sults from the stora

ge, production,

or use of any

raw material, in

termediateSection 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-9 product, fi nished pro duct, by-produ ct, or waste product. W astewater fr om equipme nt cleanin g, direct-contact air pollution control devices, rinse water, storm water associated with industrial activity, a nd contaminated c

ooling water ar

e considered to b

e process waste

water. Process wastewater may also include wastewater that is contract ha uled for off-site disposal. Sanitary
wastewater, unc

ontaminated nonco

ntact cooling wa

ter, and storm wat

er not associate

d 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 (a s defined by section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act). This definition includes any devices and sy stems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewa ge or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes and other convey ances, 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, dea

d animals, feathe

rs and related us

able by-pr

oducts.

RCRA - The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), whic

h regulates the

generation, tr

eatment, storag

e, disposal, or re

cycling o f solid
and hazardous wa

stes.

Renderer (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart J) - An independent or off-site rendering operation, conducted separately from a slaughter house, packinghouse, or poultry dressing orSection 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-10 processing plant, that manufactures at rates greater than 75,000 pounds of raw ma terial 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 a ny given sample.

SAP - Sampling and analysis plan.

Sausage and luncheon meat processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart G) - An operation
that cuts fresh me

ats, grinds, mixes,

seasons, smokes, o

r otherwise prod

uces finished pro

ducts,

suc h as sau sage , bo logn a, an d lu nch eon mea ts a t ra tes grea ter tha n 27 30 k g (60 00 l b) p er da y.

SBREFA - Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

SCC - Sample control center

SER - Small entity representative

SIC - Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) - A numerical categ orization system used by the U.S. Department o

f Commerce to cat

alogue economi

c activity. SIC codes ref

er 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 ec onomic activities in which they are e ngaged. SI

C codes often deno

te 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 proc essing, if any, usually no more than two of such operations as re

ndering, paunc

h and viscera ha

ndling, blood proc

essing, hide pro

cessing, or hai

r processing.Section 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-11 Site - A site is generally one contiguous phy sical location at which manufacturing operations
related to t he meat prod ucts indus try occur. This includes, but is not limited t o, slaughte ring, processing, an

d rendering. I

n some instances, a

site may incl

ude properties lo

cated 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 qu

arter carcas ses, or smaller me at 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, an

d 311615) define a

“small business” a

s one with 500 or fe

wer employ

ees.
Small processor- (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart E

) An operation tha

t produces up to 2730 kg (6000 lb)

per day of

any ty pe or combination o

f finished produc

ts.

Stearin - An ester of gl

ycerol and

stearic acid fo

und in MPP wastewate

rs.

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 chang e the physical, chemical, or biological char

acter or composi

tion of any me

tal-bearing, o

ily, or org anic waste so as to neutralize such wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge, or to recover metal, oil, or organic conte

nt from the wastes

.

TSS - Total suspended solids


## V
Variability factor - Used in calcula ting a limitation (o

r standard) to al

low for reasona

ble variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through extensively and well designe dSection 15. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

15-12 treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a facility’s treatment are
accounted fo r in the lim itations . By accounting fo r these reaso nable excu rsions abo ve the longterm average, EPA’s use of variability factors r esults in limitations that are generally well above the actual long-

term average

s.
Viscera handling

(wet or dry viscera handling) - I ncludes removal of partially digested feed and washing of viscera.


## W

Wastewater - See Process Wastewater.

Wastewater tre

atment - The processing of wastewater by phy sical, chemical, biological, or other means to remove specific pollutants from the wastewater stream, or to alter the phy sical or chemical state of specific pollutants in the wastewater stream. Treatment is performed for discharge of treated wastewater, recy cle of treated wastewater to the same process which generated the

wastewater, or

for reuse of the

treated wastew

ater in another p

rocess.
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 wa ter or by indirect discharge to a POTW or PrOTW. Examples
include la nd applicat ion, deep we ll injecti on, and cont ract haulin g.A-1 

## A PPENDIX 

## A

A NALYTICAL 

## M ETHODS AND 

## B ASELINE 

## V ALUESAppendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-2 The analytical methods described in this appe ndix were used to dete rmine pollutant levels in wastewater samples collected by EPA and industry at a number of meat and poultry product facilities (sampling efforts are de scribed in Section 3.) In de veloping 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 n itrogen (TKN), total organic carbon (TOC), total orthophosphate, total phosphorus, to tal 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. Secti on A.3 describes the reporting conve ntions used by laboratories in expressing the results of the analyses. S ection A.4 describes each an alytical method and the corresponding baseline values that EPA used in determining the pollutant s of concern. Section A.5 defines total nitroge n. Table A-1 lists the analytical me thods 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 me thod. Protocols used for deter mination of nominal quantitation limits in a particular me thod depend on the definitions and conve ntions that EPA used at the time the method was developed. The nominal qua ntitation limits associated with the methods addressed in this section fall into five categories.

1) The first category pertains to EP A 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 pertai ns specifically to EPA Method 1620, and is explained
in detail in Section A.4.2.

3) The third category pertains to the rema inder of the chemical methods (classical wet chemistry and pesticides) in which a va riety of terms are used to describe the lowest level at which measurement results are quantitated. In some cases (especially with the classical wet chemis try analytes) the methods date to the 1970s and 1980s when different concepts of quantitation were employed by EPA. These methods typically list a measuremen t range or lower limit of measurement. The terms differ by method and, as discu ssed 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 calibrati on standard that they were capable of reliable quantitation at method-specified (o r lower) levels. In such cases these nominal quantitation limits ar e operationally equivalent to the ML (though not specifically identified as such in the methods). In the case of titrimetric or gravimetric methods, the la boratory adhered to the es tablished 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 S ection A.4.18); so when Cryptosporidium was not found in the sample, there was no number th at 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 “notdetected” 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 de termining the pollutants of concern, EPA compared the reported concentrations for each pollu tant to a multiple of the baseline value. As
described in Section A.3 and show n in Table A-1, for most polluta nts, the baseline value was set equal to the nominal quantitation limit for the anal ytical method. EPA made two general types of exceptions which are briefly de scribed below. Section A.4 provides additiona l details about these exceptions in the contex t of the analytical method.

The first type of exceptions were baseline va lues that were different than the nominal quantitation limits in the analytical methods. Wh en the baseline values had lower values, EPA made these exceptions because the laboratory ha d 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 no minal 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 baselin e values set at a common value for multiple analytical methods for the same pollutant. Fo r some analytes, EPA pe rmitted the laboratories to
choose between methods to accomm odate 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 quantitated 1 for a pollutant in a sample. If the result is expressed numerically, then the pollutant was quantitated 2 in the sample. All of the analytical chemistry data were reported as liquidAppendix 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 hypotheti cal 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 po llutant X, the resu lt 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 repor ted as non-quantitated in a particular wastewat er sample, this does not mean that the pollutant is not present in th e wastewater, merely that analytical techniques (whether because of instrument limitations, pollutant in teractions 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-quantita ted 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-quantitate d result. And in a few instan ces also described in Section A.4.1, when the quantitated value was below the ba seline value, EPA considered these values to be non-quantitated in the statistical analyses a nd 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 f acility wastewater sa mples using methods identified in Table A-1. (As explained in Sec tion 7, EPA is proposing to regulate only a subset of these analytes.) EPA generally used either EPA methods fro m “Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes’ (MCAWW) or the American Public Health Association’s
“Standard Methods for the Examination of Wa ter and Wastewater.” Table A-1 provides a summary of the analytical methods, the associ ated 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 b een 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 gene rated by methods a pproved in 40 CFR Part 136. As explained in Section A.4.10, EPA us ed nitrate/nitrite data from Method 300.0 to develop the proposed limitations a nd standards for total nitrogen and is proposing the use of Method 300.0 for compliance.

Each of the following sections state wh ether the method is approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 (even if the polluta nt was not proposed to be regulated), provides a short description of the me thod, identifies the nominal quan titation limit, and explains EPA’s
choice for the baseline value. The sections are or dered alphabetically by an alyte 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

Anal y te 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 BOD 5 405.1 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 BOD 5 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 BOD 5 405.1 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/LAppendix 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 co mpliance 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 comp liance 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) c oncept 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 poi nt 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, thr ough 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 s ubstituted 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 quantitated 4 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 (i nductively coupled plasma atomic emission (ICP) spectroscopy of trace elements) and Met hod 245.1 (mercury cold vapor atomic absorption technique). This method was deve loped specifically for the efflue nt guidelines program. EPA Method 1620 includes more metal analytes than ar e listed in the approve d methods and contains quality control requirements at least as stri ngent as the 40 CFR Pa rt 136-approved methods.

EPA Method 1620 employs the concept of an in strument detection limit (IDL). The IDL is defined as “the smallest sign al above background noise that an instrument can detect reliably.” 5 Data reporting practices for EPA Method 1620 an alyses follow conventi onal metals reporting practices used in other EPA programs, in which va lues are required to be reported at or above the IDL. In applying EPA Method 1620, IDLs are dete rmined on a quarterly basis by each analytical laboratory and are, therefore, laboratory-speci fic and time-specific. Although EPA Method 1620 contains MLs, these MLs pre-date EPA’s recent re finements of the ML concept described earlier.
The ML values associated with EPA Met hod 1620 are based on a consensus opinion reached
between EPA and laborator ies 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. C onsequently, the IDLs were used as the lowest values for reporting purposes, with the genera l understanding that reliable results can be produced at or above the IDL. Though the ba seline values were derived from the MLs (or adjusted MLs) in EPA Method 1620, EPA used th e laboratory-reported qua ntitated 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, th at 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 requi rement 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 laborat ories could not reliably ach ieve this low level. As a result, EPA only required labor atories 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 lis ted as approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 350.2 utilizes e ither colorimetric, titrimetric, or electrode pro cedures 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 measurem ent range limit of 1.0 mg/L for the titrimetric procedure. Rather than use di fferent baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the 0.20 mg/L because it represented a value at which a mmonia 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 (BOD 5 

### , Carbonaceous BOD 5 

### , and Dissolved BOD 5 

### )
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 ), Carbonaceous BOD 5 (cBOD 5 ), and Dissolved
BOD 5 were measured using Method 405.1 and Sta ndard Method (SM) 5210B, both of which are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. BOD 5 and cBOD 5 are essentially theAppendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-12 same method, except an organic compound is added to the cBOD 5 test to inhibit nitrogenous oxygen deemand. If the sample does not include any nitrogenous demand to inhibit, the results should be comparable for BOD 5 and cBOD 5 . BOD 5 and dissolved BOD 5 are the same method, except that the dissolved BOD 5 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 BOD 5 . 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 ar e 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 Sour ce Category (see Table 7 in 40 CFR Part 455).

In this method, samples are prepared by li quid-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 titrime tric procedures that follow identical analytical protocols, but differ only in the range of COD con centration that they are designed to measure. Reagent concentrations and sample volumes are adjusted to accommodate a wide range of sample concentrations, sin ce the dynamic range of the chemistry used to detect COD is
somewhat limited. Standard Met hod 5220B is a titrimetric method th at incorporates the different reagent concentrations and sa mple volumes listed in Met hods 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 dir ectly comparable. Met hod 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 quan titation limit of 50 mg/L. Method 410.2 is designed
to measure low-level concentrations of these parameters in the rang e 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 proce dures. EPA contracts required that laboratories measure down to the lowest quantitation limit possible for whatever method is used. Theref ore, 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 fo r 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 titrimetr ic procedures because most of the data used to determine the pollutants of concern had been obtained by the titrimetric proce dures (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 interfere nces 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 descrip tion 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 colo rimetric procedure because most of the data used in theAppendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

7 Table 7 lists tetrachlorvinphos as stirofos.

A-14 pollutants of concern analysis had been obtaine d by the colorimetric procedure (i.e., Method 325.3).


### A.4.8 EPA Method 1657 (Dichlorvos, Malathion, Tetrachlorvinphos)

Laboratories used Method 1657 to measure di chlorvos, malathion, and tetrachlorvinphos concentrations in the samples. There is one approved method for mala thion at 40 CFR Part 136: Standard Method 6630C; however, the other two pe sticides 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 monito ring of all three pesticides for the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category (see Table 7 7 in 40 CFR 455).

• EPA 1600-series methods were developed specifically fo r the effluent guidelines program; therefore, they have more stringent quality control requirements than Standard Methods; and

• It was more economical to use one met hod for the three pesticides, rather than analyzing malathion se parately by SM6630C.
In Method 1657, samples are prepared by liqui d-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 phosphor us 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 prepara tion of one of the reagents. Method 365.2 specifies the separation of the ammonium moly bdate and the antimony pot assium tartrate from the ascorbic acid reagent. Method 365.3 allows co mbining these reagents into a single solution. Because the chemistry is unaffected, the data are directly comparable.

These methods have the same nominal qua ntitation 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 Me thod 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 th e 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 s ource 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/n itrate that are currently approved at 40 CFR Part 136, including Methods 353.1 and 353.2, are base d on colorimetric t echniques (i.e., adding reagents to a sample that form a colored produc t 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 chromatogra phy 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 othe r materials and contaminants present in the sample. Each anion can be identified on the basis of its characteristic retention time (the time required to passAppendix 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 th e 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 sa me method, with variations in the technique used to reduce the nitrite (NO 2 ) present in the sample to nitrate (NO 3 ). 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 color imetric 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 th e measurement range. The nominal quantitation limit for Method 353.1 is 0.01 mg/L and the no minal quantitation limit for Method 353.2 is 0.05 mg/L. Rather than use differe nt baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the nominal quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L from Method 353.1 as th e baseline value for nitrate/nitrite. EPA
chose this value because Method 353.1 was used to obt ain 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 measur ed by Method 160.1, which is approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136 (s ee ‘residue – filterable ’). Method 160.1 is a gravimetric method with a lower limit measuremen t 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 meas ured 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 w ith a lower measurement range limit of 0.1 mg/L.
Method 351.3 is a manual colorimetr ic analysis that has a lower measurement range limit of 0.5 mg/L. Rather than use differe nt 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 measur e orthophosphate concen trations. Total orthophosphate is the inorganic phosphorus (PO 4 ) 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 samp les containing blood, animal tissue, and/or other particulates, are not a factor in the analysis.

Method 365.2 is a colorimetric method for determining orthophos phate 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 ort hophosphate data, EPA used the ba seline value of 0.01 mg/L, that is associated with the lower quantitation limit for the colorimetric procedure because theAppendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

A-18 laboratories used Method 365.2 to produce the majority of the da ta 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 Met hods 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 di amine (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 Met hod 160.2, which is approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Me thod 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, whic h is approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR Part 136. Method 160.4 is a gravimetric and igniti on 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 mon itoring. There are no 40 CFR Part 136-approvedAppendix 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 ab solute-porosity filter to capture any target organisms that may be present, elutes the filter, concentrates the eluate, purifies the concentrate using immunomagnetic separation, a nd applies the purifie d sample to a microscope slide. The purified sample is staine d with an antibody stain and a vital dye stain, and target organisms are
identified and counted based on immunofluorescence assay, differe ntial 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 modi fy the sample processing step s of the method, depending on the nature of the particulates in the sample. Fo r 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 colif orm (SM9221B), fecal coliform (SM9221E), and fecal streptococcus (SM9230B). There ar e 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 presum ptive medium (Lauryl tryptose broth) and incubated. Tubes positive for growth and gas production were transfe rred into confirmatory media: brilliant green bile brot h (for total coliforms), EC (for fecal coliforms), or EC-MUG (for
E. coli ). Tubes with acidic growth and gas producti on 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 fo r fecal streptococcus.

Aeromonas densities were de termined using SM9260L, follo wed 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 Ae romonas if they were oxidase positive and were able to ferment trehalose. In addition to the bioche mical confirmation, colony morphologies from ADA and nutrient agar were r ecorded 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 incubate d. 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 Me thods. The MPN of each target organism perAppendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values

8 Per Table IA of 40 CFR 136.3.

A-21 100 mL was calculated based on th e positive and negative results from the analysis of multiple replicates at multiple dilutions for each samp le (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 belo w 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 c ounts in samples that had been retained longer than the six hours specified in Table II. In its data review narratives (l ocated in Section 6.1.4.2 of
the administrative record for th e proposal), EPA has identified t hose samples that were retained longer than eight hours at the laboratory (incl udes the six hours holding time allotted for delivery to the laboratory plus an a dditional two hours at the laborat ory). Method 9221E, an approved
method 8 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 curre ntly 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 stre ptococci for both the meat produc ts and aquaculture industries effluents. Additionally, Salmone lla will be analyzed in meat products effluents. EPA is conducting this holding time study for two purposes: to evaluate the use of da ta 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 nitrog en (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 incl ude nitrogen in the trinegative oxidation state (the dominant oxidation state of nitrogen in organic compounds), ammonia-nitrogen, and nitrogen in nitrite (NO 2 - ) and nitrate (NO 3 - ). In developing the limitations (see Section 13), EPA used a baseline value of 0.1 mg/L which is the su m of the baseline values for nitrate/nitrite (0.05 mg/L) and TKN (0.05 mg/L).B-1 

## A PPENDIX 

## B

S URVEY 

## D ESIGN AND 

## C ALCULATION OF 

## N ATIONAL 

## E STIMATESAppendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-2 In 2001, EPA distributed two industry surv eys. The first survey, entitled 2001 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey (short survey), was mailed to 1,650 meat products industry facilities. The second survey, entitle d 2001 Meat Products Industry Survey (detailed survey), was mailed to 350 meat pr oducts industry facilities.

Section B.1 of this appendix describes the survey design (identification of facilities in the industry and sample design). S ection B.2 of this appendix descri bes the selection of the sample. Section B.3 of this appendix desc ribes response status of short su rvey facilities. Section B.4 of this appendix describes the calcu lation of sample weights. Section B.5 of this appendix describes the methodology for estima ting national totals and their variance estimates. Section B.6 of this appendix summarizes EPA’s plans fo r the analysis of the detailed survey.



### B.1 SURVEY DESIGN
This section describes the developmen t of the sampling plan, which includes identification of the meat products i ndustry and stratifi cation 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 sa mple frame is a lis t 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 fo r the development of a sampling plan to select a random sample. EPA used severa l data sources to c onstruct this sample frame. The March 2000 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HA CCP) database was the ma in source of data. It was supplemented with information from the Ur ner-Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 and an April 2000 list of 236 renderers provided by the National Rende rers Association (NRA). The sample frame for the meat produc t 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 fo r facilities with 500 employ ees or more, small forAppendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-3 facilities with 10 to 499 employees, and very small for f acilities 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 include d 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 s econd-phase sample of350 facilities was selected from the firstphase sample. All 350 second-phase sample f acilities were mailed the detailed questionnaire, while the remaining 1,650 first-pha se sample fac ilities 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 s econd-phase sample fac ilities for technical and
financial information. Because of time constraints, both survey s were sent out simultaneously. To improve the accuracy of estimates from th e 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 facilitie s 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 we re stratified samples. Stratification separate d the eligible population into non-ove rlapping strata that were as homogeneous as possible. Stratification assu red that the sample would contain the same proportions as found on the sample frame, for those va riables used to define the strata. The firstphase sample (selecting 1,935 non-cer tainties from 8,152) was stratified by facility type and size.
The stratification of the sec ond-phase sample was based only on facility type, since just 285
facilities were to be selected fro m the 1,935 first-phase non-certainties.Appendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation 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, re nderer, or missing), size, and cer tainty status. Most certainty facilities were large first processors. Only 5 certainty fac ilities were small a nd 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 numbe r of eligible fac ilities 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. Th is required assigning each facility on the frame to one of these strata; however, this inform ation was unknown for many fac ilities; thus, EPA imputed the missing stratification data.

Table B-1. Distribution of facilities in the sample frame by certainty, facility type, and size

Certaint y status Facilit y t yp e Size Total Lar g e Small Ver y small Unknown

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 th e reported size of each type.Appendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-5 Therefore, 9 (=50 x (34/(34+149))) of the 50 la rge facilities with missi ng 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 fac ilities with missing facility type were assigned the "further processor" type, and the remainin g 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 indus try were typically further processors.

All imputed values were used only for alloca ting 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 im putation 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 re presentation of the different an imal 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 stratif ication did not require th e specification of animal type for the renderers. All la rge facilities with missing animal type were randomly assigned to one of the 7 animal type categor ies described in Table B-2 propor tionally to the large facilities with animal types reporte d in the frame. On the other hand, small and very sm all 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 Calc ulation of National Estimates

2 DCN-55,001 J u l y 28, 2000 m e m o ra n d u m f rom D a v i d Mar k er t o H e l e n Jacobs a n d Jade L ee

- F ree m a n

.
B-6 Table B-2. Distribution of noncertainty and non-renderer facilities imputed for animal type

Facilit y size Animal t yp e Number of facilities
re p orted on frame Number of facilities im p uted 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 a ssumption 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 estima tes because some fac ilities would have much greater weights than other facilities. An examination of alternative oversampling schemes 2 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 Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-7 After sorting by animal type , the facilities were select ed from each stratum using systematic sampling scheme . Systematic sampling i nvolve selecting every k th facility where k is determined by the selection rate. The allocation of the sample is descri bed in Table B-3. The
allocation in Table B-3 was ba sed 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 allocati on 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 Sam p le frame size (N h ) First p hase sam p le size (n h ) 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-pha se sample to provide similar precision for each of seven analytic domains of in terest. These domains were: poultry, beef, and pork further processors; poultry, beef, and por k first processors; and renderers. The 285 noncertainty sample fac ilities were therefore allocated so th at approximately 41 (=285/7) were in
each of these seven domains. The entire s econd-phase sample, incl uding 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 th e first-phase sample in the previous table was distributed across the short and detailed surveys.Appendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation 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

Facilit y size and t yp e Sam p le size First p hase Short surve y Detailed Surve y 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 se t 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, 2001 3 . 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 nonres pondents. Therefore, it was necessary to estimate the number of ineligible facilities for sample weight adjustments. (See Section B.4.) The remaining 856 facilities were e ligible respondents. Th ese were f acilities that returned a complete form and indicated that they engaged in meat processing. Table B-5 shows the response status by stratum for the f acilities that were ma iled a short survey.Appendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-9 Table B-5. Response status for the short survey by first-phase stratum

Stratum Sam p le size Eli g ible Res p ondent ( S 1 ) Nonres p ondent ( S 4 ) Ineli g ible Out-of-Sco p e ( S 3 ) 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 selec tion, differential response ra tes, and ineligible fac ilities. The base weights and non-response adjustments reflect the proba bility of selection for each facility and adjustments for facility level non -responses, respectively. Weigh ting the data allows inferences
to be made about all e ligible facilities, not just those incl uded in the sample, but also those not included in the sample or those that did not re spond 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. TheAppendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-10 short survey base weight fo r 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 N h is the number of facilities in the sample frame that belong to first-phase stratum h , n h is the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample that belong to first-phase stratum h (N h and n h are shown in Table B-5), M l is the number of first-phase sample facilities that belonged to second-phase stratum l , and m l 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 pr obability was 0.7907. The second-pha se sample onl y stratified by facility type, so the second-phase inclusion probability for furthe r 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- p hase inclusion p robabilit y (n h /N h ) Second- p hase detailed surve y inclusion p robabilities (m 1 /M 1 ) Short surve y inclusion p robabilities

n N m M h

h l

l 1

−             Short surve y base wei g hts

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 4.5192Appendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-11 

### B.4.2 Eligibility and Non-response Adjustment
The base weights associated with the s hort survey facilities were adjusted for nonresponse. Because the 601 nonresponding fac ilities had an unknown elig ibility status, it was assumed that they were distributed among eligible and out-of-scope facilities in the same proportions as the respondents within each stratu m. It was assumed th at all nonrespondents did receive their surveys. The base weights of facilities were mu ltiplied 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, w hi 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 S 1 , S 3 , and S 4 represent counts for stratum h of eligible respondents, out-of-scope respondents who received their surveys, and facilities who did not re spond, respectively (see Table B-6). This non-response adjustment was pe rformed within strata in order to account for differential response rates in th e 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 theref ore 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 fi nal weight for the short survey

Stratum h Short surve y base wei g ht Non-res p onse adjustment SSS S S 134

1 3 + +
+     

 Short surve y final wei g ht (W h 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 5.5113Appendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-12 EPA plans to revise the short survey weighting and estimation to include the facilities whose responses were processed af ter the initial deadline. The sa me 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 methodol ogy and equations for calculating estimates from the short survey.



### B.5.1 National Estimates

National total estimates were obtained for each characteris tic 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 es timates. For example, the aver age cattle production by facilities doing first processoring was calculated by divi ding the weighted production of cattle by the weighted count of first processors.



### y w y

w k ki ki i

k i

i 

### = 

# ∑ ∑

where w hi is the non-response adjusted weight for facility i , y ki 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, eith er first processoring, processing, rendering, or
some combination was de termined by the relative concentr ation of their production in anyAppendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

4 Wolters, K. M. (1985) Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York.

B-13 activity. Similar classification issues arose wh en reporting production by animal type (red meat, poultry, or mixed). If at least 85 percent of to tal production was of a give n 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 a ll 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 estimate s with the reported da ta from the detailed questionnaires filled out for thos e 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 jackkni fe replicate weights
was constructed and attached to each facility. Under the jackknife replication method, a number of subsamples (called jackknife replicates) were generated fro m the full sample, and the entire weighting process as described in the previous s ections was repeated for each replicate. In this way, a series of replicate weights were genera ted for each facility, which together with the fullsample weight were used to cal culate sampling errors (see Wolte rs, 1985 for a description of the jackknife and other va riance 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 rep licate used the values from all facilities except those assigned to group 1. The ot her replicates were de rived 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) forAppendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation of National Estimates

B-14 the entire data set. If is the corre sponding 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 a ll 90 jackknife replicates that were formed for the short survey. This jackknife variance was often us ed 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 respons es. 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 simila r 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 su rvey 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 N h is the number of facilities in the sample that belong to first-phase stratum h (N h and n h are shown in Table B-3), n h is the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample that belong to first-phase stratum h , M l is the number of first-phase sample facilities that belong to second-phase stratum l , and m l is the number of facilities selected in the detailed survey sampleAppendix B. Survey Design and Calc ulation 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- p hase inclusion p robabilit y

( n n / N h ) Second- p hase inclusion p robabilities ( m l / M l ) Detailed surve y inclusion p robabilities

n N m M h

h l

l     

     

     

 Detailed surve y base wei g hts

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 fo r 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 fac ilities calculated from the short survey. This is because the much larger sample size in the short survey provides bette r 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

w i 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 Calc ulation 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 

## A PPENDIX 

## C

T ABLES TO 

## S ECTION 

## 9Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-2 Table C-1. Average Baseline Concentrations for Meat Fi rst Processing (R1) Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-8 Table C-7. Average Baseline Concentration for Meat First Processing (R1) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-10 Table C-9. Average Baseline Concentration for Red M eat First Processing and Rendering (R13) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-14 Table C-13. Average Baseline Concentrations for Poultry First Processing (P1) Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-15 Table C-14. Average Baseline Concentrations for P oultry First/Further Processing (P12) a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-16 Table C-15. Average Baseline Concentrations for Pou ltry First Processing and Rendering (P13) Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-18 Table C-17. Average Baseline Concentrations fo r Poultry Further Processing (P2) a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-20 Table C-19. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry First Processing (P1) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-21 Table C-20. Average Baseline Concentration for P oultry First/Further Processing (P12) a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-22 Table C-21. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultr y First Processing and Rendering (P13) a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-24 Table C-23. Average Baseline Concentration for Poultry Further Processing (P2) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-26 Table C-25. Average Baseline Concentrations for Rendering Only (REND) a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 surveyAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-27 Table C-26. Average Baseline Concentration for Rende ring (Rend) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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/A a 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 availableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-28 Table C-27. Average Baseline Concentrations for Mixe d Poultry/Meat Further Processing (M2) a Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern Small Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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/A b N/A
trans -Permethrin N/A N/A

a Baseline concentration of M2 was derived using average co ncentrations 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 availableAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Non-Small Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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/LAppendix 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 Facilit y Concentration Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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/A c 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 availableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-31Table C-30.Data to Derive Technology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, and RenderingEffluent WastewatersBAT-1 Technology Option for Meat FacilitiesFirst Processing (R1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (R2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (R3)Effluent ConcentrationsOption Average For All Pollutants ExceptAmmonia, Nitrate/Nitrite, TKNR1 of BAT-2 R2 of BAT-2 R3 of BAT-2Option Average For Ammonia,Nitrate/Nitrite, TKNSee methodology described inSection 9See methodology described inSection 9See methodology described inSection 9R1 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 pollutantconcentration of meat rendering wastewaterAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-32Table C-31.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-2 Technology Option for Meat FacilitiesFacilityFirst Processing (R1) FurtherProcessing (R2) Rendering (R3)TotalFlow(MGD)Effluent ConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(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) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.52 1.356441[(effluent@6441 • total flow of 6441) -(R3 concentration of 6441 • R3 flow of 6441)] /(R1flow of 6441)1.31 N/A N/A (a) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.48 1.796442[(effluent@6442 • total flow of 6442) -(R3 concentration of 6442 • R3 flow of 6442)] /(R1flow of 6442)1.53 N/A N/A (a) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.42 1.956447[(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) • (furtherprocessinginfluent@6335)0.07 (a) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.15 0.73OptionAverageAverage of R1 concentrations for facilities6440, 6441,6442, and 6447R2 concentration for 6447 Average of R3 concentrations for6440, 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-33Table C-32.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-3 Technology Option for Meat Facilities.FacilityFirst Processing (R1) FurtherProcessing (R2) Rendering (R3)TotalFlow(MGD)Effluent ConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(MGD)6335[(reuse water effluent@6335 • total flow) -(R2 concentration • R2 flow) -(R3 concentration • R3 flow)] / (R1 flow)0.17 (b) • (furtherprocessinginfluent@6335)0.45 (b) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.13 0.75OptionAverageR1 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 DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-4 Technology Option for Meat Facilities.First Processing (R1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (R2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (R3)Effluent ConcentrationsOption 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 pollutantaverages” is the removal fraction between the poultry BAT-3 option pollutant average concentration and corresponding poultry BAT-4 option averageconcentration. 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 pollutantconcentration of meat rendering wastewaterAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-34Table C-34.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-1 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent ConcentrationsOption Average For All PollutantsExcept Ammonia, Nitrate/Nitrite,TKNP1 of BAT-2 P2 of BAT-2 P3 of BAT-2Option Average For Ammonia,Nitrate/Nitrite, TKNSee methodology described inSection 9See methodology described inSection 9See methodology described inSection 9P1 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 pollutantconcentration of poultry rendering wastewaterTable C-35.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-2 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFacilityFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent Concentrations6445effluent@6445 N/A N/AOption AverageP1 for 6445 A1 B1A1 = 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-35Table C-36.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-3 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent ConcentrationsOption 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, orR3)]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 pollutantconcentration of poultry rendering wastewaterTable C-37.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-4 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFacilityFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent Concentrations6304effluent prior to filter@6304 N/A N/AOption AverageP1 for 6304 A2 B2A2 = average of [(influent@6443) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304prior to filter)] and [(influent@6444) • (1 - removal fractionof 6304 prior to filter)]B2 = (influent@6448) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 prior to filter)Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-36Table C-38.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersBAT-5 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFacilityFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent Concentrations6304effluent through filter@6304 N/A N/AOption AverageP1 for 6304 A3 B3A3 = average of [(further processing influent@6443) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 through filter)] and [(further processing influent@6444) • (1 - removalfraction of 6304 through filter)]B3 = (rendering influent@6448) • (1 - removal fraction of 6304 through filter)Table C-39.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-1 Technology Optionfor Meat FacilitiesFacilityFirst Processing (R1) FurtherProcessing (R2) Rendering (R3)TotalFlow(MGD)Effluent ConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(MGD)6335((effluent1@6335 • (total flow)) -([R2] • (R2 flow)) - ([R3] • (R3 flow)))/ (R1 flow)0.17 (e) • (further processinginfluent@6335)0.45 (e) • (renderinginfluent@6447)0.13 0.75OptionAverageR1 for 6335 R2 for 6335 R3 for 6335(e) = 1 - removal fraction @ 63351EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located after DAF and equalization of the treatment train to represent the performance of the PSES-1technology option.Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-37Table C-40.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-2 Technology Optionfor Meat FacilitiesFirst Processing (R1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (R2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (R3)Effluent ConcentrationsOption Average For AllPollutants Except MicrobialsR1 of BAT-2 R2 of BAT-2 R3 of BAT-2Option Average ForMicrobialsR1 of PSES-1 R2 of PSES-1 R3 of PSES-1R1 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 pollutantconcentration of meat rendering wastewaterR1 of PSES-1 = average PSES-1 treated pollutantconcentration of meat first processing wastewaterR2 of PSES-1 = average PSES-1 treated pollutantconcentration of meat further processing wastewaterR3 of PSES-1 = average PSES-1 treated pollutant concentration of meat rendering wastewaterTable C-41.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-3 Technology Optionfor Meat FacilitiesFirst Processing (R1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (R2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (R3)Effluent ConcentrationsOption Average For AllPollutants Except MicrobialsR1 of BAT-3 R2 of BAT-3 R3 of BAT-3Option Average ForMicrobialseffluent2@6335 effluent2@6335 effluent2@6335R1 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 pollutantconcentration of meat rendering wastewater2EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfection.Appendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-38Table C-42.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-4 Technology Optionfor Meat FacilitiesFirst Processing (R1)Effluent ConcentrationsFurther Processing (R2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (R3)Effluent ConcentrationsOption Average For AllPollutants Except MicrobialsR1 of BAT-4 R2 of BAT-4 R3 of BAT-4Option Average ForMicrobialseffluent2@6335 effluent2@6335 effluent2@6335R1 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 pollutantconcentration of meat rendering wastewater2EPA used effluent data from the sampling point located prior to disinfectionTable C-43.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-1 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFacilityFirst Processing (P1) First Processing (P2) Rendering (P3)TotalFlow(MGD)Effluent ConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(MGD)EffluentConcentrationsFlow(MGD)6443[(effluent@6443 • total flow of 6443) -(P2 concentration of 6443 • P2 flow of6443)]/ (P1 flow)0.91 (f) • (further processinginfluent@6443)0.84 N/A N/A 1.576444[(effluent@6444 • total flow of 6444) -(P2 concentration of 6444 • P2 flow of6444)]/ (P1 flow)0.53 (f) • (further procssinginfluent@6444)0.02 N/A N/A 0.55OptionAverageAverage 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-39Table C-44.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-2 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFirst Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent ConcentrationsOptions Average For AllPollutants Except MicrobialsP1 of BAT-2 P2 of BAT-2 P3 of BAT-2Options Average ForMicrobialseffluent after DAF@6304 effluent after DAF@6304 effluent after DAF@6304P1 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 pollutantconcentration of poultry rendering wastewaterTable C-45.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-3 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFirst Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent ConcentrationsOptions Average For AllPollutants Except MicrobialsP1 of BAT-3 P2 of BAT-3 P3 of BAT-3Options Average ForMicrobialseffluent@6443 effluent@6443 effluent@6443P1 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 pollutantconcentration of poultry rendering wastewaterAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-40Table C-46.Data and Equations to DeriveTechnology Option Pollutant Concentrations for First Processing, Further Processing, andRendering Effluent WastewatersPSES-4 Technology Optionfor Poultry FacilitiesFirst Processing (P1)Effluent ConcentrationsFirst Processing (P2)Effluent ConcentrationsRendering (P3)Effluent ConcentrationsOptions Average For AllPollutants Except MicrobialsP1 of BAT-4 P2 of BAT-4 P3 of BAT-4Options Average ForMicrobialseffluent@6443 effluent@6443 effluent@6443P1 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 pollutantconcentration of poultry rendering wastewaterAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-41 Table C-47. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons for Meat First Processing (R1) Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-42 Table C-48. Average Technology Option Concen trations 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-43 Table C-49. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-44 Table C-50. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-45 Table C-51. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons for Meat Further Processing (R2) Direct Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern BAT 1 BAT 2 BAT 3 BAT 4 Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-46 Table C-52. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-48 Table C-54. Average Technology Option Concentr ations 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-49 Table C-55. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-52 Table C-58. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-53 Table C-59. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 (T KN) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-54 Table C-60. Average Technology Option Concentr ations 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 (BOD 5 ) 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/A b 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 (T KN) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-55 Table C-61. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 (T KN) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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/A b 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 (T KN) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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/A a 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-59 Table C-65. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons for Poultry First Processing (P1) Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-60 Table C-66. Average Technology Option Concentr ations 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-61 Table C-67. Average Technology Option Concentrati ons 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 applicableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-65 Table C-71. Average Technology Option Concentra tions 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 availableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-66 Table C-72. Average Technology Option Concentra tions 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 availableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-67 Table C-73. Average Technology Option Concentra tions 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 (BOD 5 ) 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 availableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-68 Table C-74. Average Technology Option Concen trations 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 availableAppendix C. Tables to Section 9

C-69 Table C-75. Average Technology Option Concentr ations for Rendering Only (REND) a Indirect Dischargers

Pollutant of Concern PSES 1 PSES 2 PSES 3 PSES 4 Units 5-Day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) 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 availableD-1 

## A PPENDIX 

## D

I NPUT 

## V ALUES TO 

## E STIMATE 

## E NERGY 

## U SAGE AND 

## S LUDGE 

## G ENERATIONAppendix D. Input Values to Estimat e Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-2 

### ENERGY USAGE INPUT VALUES

Number of MPP Facilities

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s Facilit y 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 Usage a for Non Small Direct Dischargers per Treatment Option

40 CFR 432Subcate g or y Grou p in g s BAT2 BAT3 BAT4 BAT5 A, B, C, D 316,332,807 238,067,261 226,294,728 NA b 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 Usage a for Non Small Indirect Discharges per Treatment Option

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s 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 CAPDEAppendix D. Input Values to Estimat e Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-3 Total Baseline MPP Energy Usage a for Non Small Direct Dischargers

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s Total Baseline Ener gy (KWh/ y r) 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 Usage a for Non Small Indirect Dischargers

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s Total Baseline Ener gy (KWh/ y r) 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 CAPDETAppendix D. Input Values to Estimat e Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-4 Total MPI Facility Energy a Purchased

Subcate g or y Grou p in g s Purchased (KWH/ y r) 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: 5,253,749,000Appendix D. Input Values to Estimat e Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-5 Total MPI Facility Energy Purchased per Facility

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s Total Ener gy Purchased Per Small Facilit y

(KWH/ y r) Total Ener gy Purchased Per Non Small Facilit y (KWH/ y r) 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 requirementsAppendix D. Input Values to Estimat e Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-6 

### SLUDGE GENERATION INPUT VALUES

Number of MPP Facilities

40 CFR 432 Facilit y Size Subcate g or y Small M, L, VL Grou p in g s 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 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s 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 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s 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 56,593Appendix D. Input Values to Estimat e Energy Usage and Sludge Generation

D-7 Total Baseline MPP Sludge Generated for Non Small Direct Dischargers

40 CFR 432 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s Total Baseline Slud g e Generated (tons/ y r) 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 Subcate g or y Grou p in g s Total Baseline Slud g e Generated (tons/ y r) A, B, C, D 63,466 E, F, G, H, I 2,599 J 9,520 K 38,422E-1 

## A PPENDIX 

## E

A TTACHMENTS 

## F OR 

## C OST 

## E STIMATION 

## (C HAPTER 

## 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 cat egories: (1) unit pro cess construction costs; and (2) other direct and indirect costs. The summation of the a bove two costs provides the total capital costs. Often other dir ect 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 percen tage 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 Percenta g e Used in CWT Industr y Cost Item on which The Percenta g e is Based Percenta g e Selected for MPP Industr y 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 Cost a 15 Percent Contingency 15 Percent Construction Cost a 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 review ing the components that constitute unit process construction cost in CAPDET (see Section 11.5.1.1 in Chapter 11), EPA determined that the unitAppendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-3 process construction cost in CAPD ET is at least equal to the inst alled 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 proce ss construction cost.

The method of expressing the selected percen tages 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 co st 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*UAppendix 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*UAppendix 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 Survey s (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 factor s. 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 insu fficient 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-6Table E-1.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-SmallFacilitiesMeat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Meat 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 0.00Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-7Table E-1.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-SmallFacilities (continued)Meat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Meat 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 0.22Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-8Table E-1.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-SmallFacilities (continued)Meat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Poultry 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 0.00Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-9Table E-1.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Non-SmallFacilities (continued)Meat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Mixed 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/orPoultryRender Direct 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00Meat and/orPoultryRender 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat and/orPoultryRender 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 0.00Meat and/orPoultryRender Indirect 1 0.91 0.91 0.82 N/A N/A N/A 0.36Meat and/orPoultryRender 2 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.45 N/A N/A 0.45Meat and/orPoultryRender 3 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Meat and/orPoultryRender 4 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shownN/A: Not applicableNote 1: lagoon for direct dischargersand equalization for indrect dischargers.Note 2: N= nitrification; N+DN = nitrification and denitrification; N+DN+DP = nitrification and denitrification and phosphorusremoval.Note 3: Fraction of facilities that need performance cost.Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-10Table E-2.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for Small FacilitiesMeat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Meat 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 0.00Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-11Table E-2.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for SmallFacilities (continued)Meat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Meat 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 0.02Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-12Table E-2.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for SmallFacilities (continued)Meat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Poultry 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 0.08Appendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-13Table E-2.Frequency of Occurrence of Treatment Units and Performance Factors by Model Facility Category for SmallFacilities (continued)Meat TypeModel FacilityGrouping CodeDischargeTypeTechnologyOption Screen DAFLagoon orEqualization1N or N+DN orN+DN+DP2Filter DisinfectionPerformanceFactor3Mixed 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 0.00Note: Model facility grouping for which EPA Screener Survey did not identify any facilities are not shownNote 1: lagoon for direct dischargersand equalization for indrect dischargers.Note 2: N= nitrification; N+DN = nitrification and denitrification; N+DN+DP = nitrification and denitrification and phosphorusremoval.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, Retrof it, and Annual Costs by Mode l Facility Category for the Technology Options for Non-Sma ll 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 $157,341Appendix 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 $2,434,935Appendix 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 shownAppendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-17 Table E-4. Incremental Capital, Retrof it, and Annual Costs by Mode l 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 $3,453,399Appendix 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 $15,341,535Appendix 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 $239,983Appendix 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 shownAppendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-21 Table E-5. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs by Model F acility 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 shownAppendix E. Attachments For Cost Estimation (Chapter 11)

E-22 Table E-6. Incremental Capital and Annual Costs by Model F acility Category for the Technology Options of Small I ndirect 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 $40,837Appendix 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 shownF-1 

## A PPENDIX 

## F

A GGREGATED 

## D AILY 

## D ATA FOR 

## P ROPOSED 

## P OLLUTANTS AND 

## S UBCATEGORIESAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories1--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 1 14.300 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 2 6.490 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 3 6.680 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 1 93.300 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 2 15.100 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 3 30.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 1 11.300 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 2 8.430 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 3 9.900 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 4 9.370 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-1 5 8.150 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 0.375 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 0.280 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 0.160 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 0.190 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6445 350.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 0.230 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 1 115.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 2 95.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 3 191.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 4 208.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 5 161.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 0.965 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 1.390 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 0.960 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 1.540 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 1.510 MG/L0.20 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 1 2840.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 2 4250.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 3 2790.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 1 3760.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 2 18600.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 3 645.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 1 1840.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 2 1910.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 3 2060.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 4 1990.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-1 5 1480.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 1 2.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 2 2.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 3 2.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 4 2.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6445 405.1 SP-3+SP-2 5 2.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 1 1720.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 2 2050.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 3 2010.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 4 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories2--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 5 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 1 3.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 2 3.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 3 4.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 4 4.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-4+SP-3 5 5.000 MG/L2.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 1 3900.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 2 4770.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 3 2490.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 1 7810.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 2 20000.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 3 3220.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 1 4080.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 2 1720.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 3 2730.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 4 2420.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.1 SP-1 5 4530.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 40.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 25.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 37.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 19.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6445 410.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 17.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 1 18600.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 2 17500.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 3 9700.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 4 10200.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 5 36800.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 26.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 28.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 36.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 28.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 30.000 MG/L5.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 2 170000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 3 5000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 1 900000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 4 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-1 5 900000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 1 12.500 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 3 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 4 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6445 9221E SP-3+SP-2 5 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories3--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 4 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 5 900000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 1 41.500 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 2 80.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 3 170.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 4 500.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-4+SP-3 5 1300.000 /100M2.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 1 1656.083 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 2 331.733 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 3 390.633 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 1 238.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 2 801.083 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 3 230.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 1 489.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 2 543.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 3 418.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 4 503.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-1 5 478.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 1 5.917 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 2 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 3 93.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 4 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6445 1664 SP-3+SP-2 5 6.167 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 1 2768.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 2 1134.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 3 499.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 4 1986.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 5 24739.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 1 5.833 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 2 5.833 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 3 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 4 5.667 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-4+SP-3 5 6.333 MG/L5.00 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 1 3.230 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 2 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 3 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 1 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 2 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 3 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 1 1.660 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 2 2.970 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 3 3.640 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 4 3.930 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-1 5 0.570 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 1 16.800 MG/L0.05 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories4--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 2 22.100 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 3 31.500 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 4 31.400 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6445 353.1 SP-3+SP-2 5 33.400 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 1 34.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 2 25.500 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 3 19.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 4 21.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 5 30.600 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 1 64.800 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 2 63.100 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 3 62.600 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 4 62.800 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-4+SP-3 5 70.000 MG/L0.05 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 147.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 24.600 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 68.800 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.600 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 1 77.700 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 2 26.600 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 3 21.100 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 4 27.800 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 5 18.200 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 1 1.275 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 2 1.800 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 3 2.250 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 4 1.610 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 5 1.030 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 171.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 103.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 202.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 212.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 210.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 1 1.315 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 2 1.915 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 3 1.070 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 4 2.250 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 5 2.510 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 150.230 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 25.350 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 69.550 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.300 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.900 MG/L0.55 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories5--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.300 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 1 79.360 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 2 29.570 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 3 24.740 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 4 31.730 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-1 5 18.770 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 1 18.075 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 2 23.900 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 3 33.750 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 4 33.010 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6445 351.3 SP-3+SP-2 5 34.430 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 205.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 128.500 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 221.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 233.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 240.600 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 1 66.115 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 2 65.015 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 3 63.670 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 4 65.050 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-4+SP-3 5 72.510 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 1 94.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 2 52.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 3 69.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 1 53.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 2 77.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 3 808.000 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 1 11.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 2 10.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 3 11.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 4 10.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-1 5 12.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 0.620 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 1.890 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 0.170 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 0.210 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6445 365.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 0.610 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 1 37.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 2 31.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 3 35.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 4 31.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 5 51.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 15.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 15.150 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 14.600 MG/L0.01 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories6--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 14.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 15.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 1 10.600 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 2 9.300 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 3 1.180 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 1 1.120 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 3 0.780 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 4 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-1 5 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 4 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6445 330.5 SP-3+SP-2 5 0.300 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 4 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 5 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 4 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-4+SP-3 5 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 1 1650.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 2 1330.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 3 1990.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 1 4550.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 2 148000.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 3 7620.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 1 805.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 2 855.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 3 760.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 4 760.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-1 5 700.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 1 12.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 2 5.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 3 7.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 4 5.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6445 160.2 SP-3+SP-2 5 11.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 1 1960.000 MG/L4.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories7--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 2 2900.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 3 2260.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 4 1860.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 5 7260.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 1 5.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 2 8.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 3 12.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 4 10.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-4+SP-3 5 10.000 MG/L4.00 NC-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------------------------------Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 1 14.300 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 2 6.490 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-2 3 6.680 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-3 1 8.320 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-3 2 6.310 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-3 3 6.310 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 5.490 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 3.205 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6443 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 7.410 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 1 93.300 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 2 15.100 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-3 3 30.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 14.250 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 10.735 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6444 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 15.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 1 115.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 2 95.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 3 191.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 4 208.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6448 350.2 SP-2 5 161.000 MG/L0.20 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 1 2840.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 2 4250.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-2 3 2790.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-3 1 2580.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-3 2 640.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-3 3 3290.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 159.300 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 158.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6443 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 325.000 MG/L2.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories8-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 1 3760.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 2 18600.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-3 3 645.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 187.500 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 139.500 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6444 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 282.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 1 1720.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 2 2050.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 3 2010.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 4 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6448 405.1 SP-2 5 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 1 3900.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 2 4770.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-2 3 2490.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-3 1 4570.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-3 2 3570.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-3 3 3570.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 1 4131.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 2 431.500 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6443 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 3 349.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 1 7810.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 2 20000.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-3 3 3220.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 1 579.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 2 400.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6444 410.4 SP-5+SP-4 3 444.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 1 18600.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 2 17500.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 3 9700.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 4 10200.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6448 410.1 SP-2 5 36800.000 MG/L5.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 2 170000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-2 3 5000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6443 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 2300.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 4 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6448 9221E SP-2 5 900000.000 /100M2.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 1 1656.083 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 2 331.733 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-2 3 390.633 MG/L5.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories9-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-3 2 293.400 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-3 3 301.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 9.885 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6443 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 5.900 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 1 238.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 2 801.083 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-3 3 230.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 34.892 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 14.613 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6444 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 7.800 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 1 2768.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 2 1134.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 3 499.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 4 1986.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6448 1664 SP-2 5 24739.833 MG/L5.00 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 1 3.230 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 2 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-2 3 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-3 1 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-3 2 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-3 3 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.480 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6443 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.750 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 1 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 2 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-3 3 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6444 300.0 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 1 34.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 2 25.500 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 3 19.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 4 21.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6448 353.1 SP-2 5 30.600 MG/L0.05 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 147.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 24.600 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 68.800 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 1 41.300 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 2 94.300 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 3 80.900 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 19.850 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 26.400 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 19.300 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.000 MG/L0.50 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories10-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.600 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 42.900 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 43.800 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 53.500 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 171.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 103.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 202.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 212.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 210.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 1 150.230 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 2 25.350 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-2 3 69.550 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 1 42.050 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 2 95.050 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-3 3 81.650 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 21.330 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 27.150 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6443 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 20.050 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 1 271.300 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 2 63.900 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-3 3 271.300 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 43.200 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 44.100 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6444 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 53.800 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 1 205.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 2 128.500 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 3 221.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 4 233.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6448 351.3 SP-2 5 240.600 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 1 94.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 2 52.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-2 3 69.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-3 1 29.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-3 2 47.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-3 3 34.800 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 13.250 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 27.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6443 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 11.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 1 53.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 2 77.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-3 3 808.000 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.510 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 2.285 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6444 365.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 49.400 MG/L0.01 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories11-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 1 37.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 2 31.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 3 35.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 4 31.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6448 365.2 SP-2 5 51.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 1 10.600 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 2 9.300 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-2 3 1.180 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-3 1 0.210 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-3 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.790 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.640 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6443 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 1.010 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 1 1.120 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-3 3 0.780 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.295 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.240 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6444 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 4 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6448 330.5 SP-2 5 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 1 1650.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 2 1330.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-2 3 1990.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-3 1 1680.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-3 2 1610.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-3 3 1280.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 114.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 160.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6443 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 138.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 1 4550.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 2 148000.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-3 3 7620.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 59.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 51.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6444 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 56.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 1 1960.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 2 2900.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 3 2260.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 4 1860.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6448 160.2 SP-2 5 7260.000 MG/L4.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories12-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 1 6.810 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 2 10.700 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 3 13.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 4 10.800 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 5 34.100 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-3 1 0.220 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-3 2 0.120 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-3 3 0.100 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.170 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.130 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6440 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.080 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-1+SP-3 1 155.784 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-1+SP-3 2 139.464 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-1+SP-3 3 167.238 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-6+SP-5 1 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-6+SP-5 2 1.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6441 350.2 SP-6+SP-5 3 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 1 38.600 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 2 40.300 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 3 54.600 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 4 40.600 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-1 5 39.800 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.610 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.435 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 1.220 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 4 0.910 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6442 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 5 0.790 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 1 94.500 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 2 86.900 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 3 122.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-3 1 5.790 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-3 2 57.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-3 3 92.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.390 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.480 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.660 MG/L0.20 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 1 1410.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 2 1220.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 3 1600.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 4 1820.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 5 1410.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-3 1 600.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-3 2 2020.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-3 3 2130.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 8.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 7.000 MG/L2.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories13-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6440 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 6.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-1+SP-3 1 1656.408 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-1+SP-3 2 13297.699 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-1+SP-3 3 2945.149 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-6+SP-5 1 11.495 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-6+SP-5 2 5.020 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6441 405.1 SP-6+SP-5 3 2.390 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 1 4340.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 2 8400.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 3 7190.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 4 6320.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-1 5 5770.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 6.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 6.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 8.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 4 6.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6442 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 5 8.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 1 2740.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 2 3350.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 3 5520.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-3 1 3530.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-3 2 2910.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-3 3 4580.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 4.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 4.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 6.000 MG/L2.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 1 2570.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 2 2600.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 3 2630.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 4 2700.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 5 2650.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.1 SP-3 1 1780.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.1 SP-3 2 3670.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.1 SP-3 3 5920.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 34.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 31.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6440 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 34.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-1+SP-3 1 4392.891 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-1+SP-3 2 2694.342 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-1+SP-3 3 3291.873 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-6+SP-5 1 21.650 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-6+SP-5 2 25.350 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6441 410.4 SP-6+SP-5 3 20.000 MG/L5.00 NDCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 1 10100.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 2 21600.000 MG/L5.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories14-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 3 18200.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 4 47200.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-1 5 12300.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 117.500 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 135.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 112.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 4 109.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6442 410.1 SP-5+SP-4 5 112.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 1 5550.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 2 5090.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 3 7180.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-3 1 8540.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-3 2 6720.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-3 3 8260.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 41.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 45.500 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 55.000 MG/L5.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 1 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 4 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 5 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-5+SP-4 1 26.500 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 36.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6440 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-1+SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-1+SP-3 2 407518.610 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-1+SP-3 3 1180694.789 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-6+SP-5 1 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-6+SP-5 2 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6441 9221E SP-6+SP-5 3 2300.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 4 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-1 5 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 1 13.500 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 3.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 70.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 4 2300.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6442 9221E SP-5+SP-4 5 80.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories15-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 2 500000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-5+SP-4 1 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-5+SP-4 2 66.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-5+SP-4 3 30.000 /100M2.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 1 230.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 2 186.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 3 96.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 4 122.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 5 178.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-3 1 107.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-3 2 160.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-3 3 226.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 5.917 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6440 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 5.833 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-1+SP-3 1 183.447 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-1+SP-3 2 57.341 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-1+SP-3 3 99.377 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-6+SP-5 1 5.733 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-6+SP-5 2 5.858 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6441 1664 SP-6+SP-5 3 5.783 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 1 1926.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 2 4556.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 3 3318.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 4 3159.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-1 5 2026.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 6.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 4 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6442 1664 SP-5+SP-4 5 5.833 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 1 119.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 2 312.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 3 651.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-3 1 534.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-3 2 454.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-3 3 868.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-5+SP-4 1 5.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-5+SP-4 2 5.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-5+SP-4 3 24.833 MG/L5.00 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 1 2.300 MG/L0.05 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories16-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 2 2.160 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 3 1.890 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 4 2.160 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 5 2.120 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-3 1 0.100 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-3 2 0.190 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-3 3 0.190 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 73.750 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 76.450 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6440 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 70.800 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-1+SP-3 1 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-1+SP-3 2 0.300 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-1+SP-3 3 2.154 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-6+SP-5 1 177.500 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-6+SP-5 2 160.500 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6441 300.0 SP-6+SP-5 3 148.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 2 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 3 0.040 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 4 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-1 5 0.020 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 172.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 165.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 168.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 4 156.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6442 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 5 159.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 2 0.820 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 3 0.600 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-3 1 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-3 2 0.550 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-3 3 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 1 313.500 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 2 273.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-5+SP-4 3 282.000 MG/L0.05 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 36.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 11.500 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 1 153.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 2 15.400 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 3 163.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.985 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 1.645 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 1.840 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 1 399.757 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 2 501.210 MG/L0.50 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories17-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 3 420.923 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 1 1.430 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 2 2.400 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 3 1.000 MG/L0.50 NDTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 1 48.200 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 2 74.700 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 3 173.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 4 42.500 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 5 49.500 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 11.075 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 2.655 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 4.520 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 4 4.680 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 5 5.190 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.400 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 1 47.100 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 2 56.900 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 3 96.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 1.605 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 2.195 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 5.290 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 38.300 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 13.660 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 1 153.100 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 2 15.590 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-3 3 163.190 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 75.735 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 78.095 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6440 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 72.640 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 1 400.057 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 2 501.510 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-1+SP-3 3 423.077 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 1 178.930 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 2 162.900 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6441 351.3 SP-6+SP-5 3 149.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 1 48.210 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 2 74.710 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 3 173.040 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 4 42.510 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-1 5 49.520 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 183.075 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 167.655 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 172.520 MG/L0.55 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories18-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 4 160.680 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6442 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 5 164.190 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.410 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.820 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.600 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 1 47.110 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 2 57.450 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-3 3 96.010 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 1 315.105 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 2 275.195 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-5+SP-4 3 287.290 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 1 77.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 2 85.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 3 88.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 4 78.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 5 78.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-3 1 29.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-3 2 47.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-3 3 93.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 10.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 11.850 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6440 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 12.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-1+SP-3 1 28.157 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-1+SP-3 2 28.114 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-1+SP-3 3 122.484 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-6+SP-5 1 12.000 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-6+SP-5 2 11.470 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6441 365.3 SP-6+SP-5 3 11.000 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 1 27.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 2 34.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 3 32.800 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 4 32.800 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-1 5 23.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 31.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 32.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 30.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 4 32.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6442 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 5 29.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 1 34.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 2 27.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 3 34.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-3 1 34.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-3 2 27.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-3 3 42.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 16.850 MG/L0.01 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories19-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 14.250 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 13.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 1 0.370 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 2 0.100 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 3 0.370 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 4 0.160 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 5 0.240 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-3 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-3 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6440 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-1+SP-3 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-1+SP-3 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-1+SP-3 3 0.269 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-6+SP-5 1 0.205 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-6+SP-5 2 0.285 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6441 330.5 SP-6+SP-5 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 4 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-1 5 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 4 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6442 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 5 0.200 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 1 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 2 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 3 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-3 1 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-3 2 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-3 3 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 1 0.605 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 2 0.330 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-5+SP-4 3 0.910 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 1 360.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 2 420.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 3 463.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 4 337.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 5 233.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-3 1 840.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-3 2 3080.000 MG/L4.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories20-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-3 3 2900.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 12.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 16.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6440 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 8.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-1+SP-3 1 1359.677 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-1+SP-3 2 1213.914 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-1+SP-3 3 827.829 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-6+SP-5 1 18.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-6+SP-5 2 48.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6441 160.2 SP-6+SP-5 3 17.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 1 3340.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 2 2580.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 3 3580.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 4 3340.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-1 5 3820.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 27.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 22.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 19.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 4 20.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6442 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 5 23.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 1 850.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 2 640.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 3 1020.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-3 1 1350.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-3 2 1410.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-3 3 1770.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 1 16.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 2 21.500 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-5+SP-4 3 20.000 MG/L4.00 NC-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ---------------------------------------------------------Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 1 6.810 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 2 10.700 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 3 13.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 4 10.800 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 5 34.100 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 1 140.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 2 199.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 3 251.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 4 310.000 MG/L0.20 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories21-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 5 464.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 1 0.330 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 2 1.250 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 3 2.980 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-6 4 2.900 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 1 94.500 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 2 86.900 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 3 122.000 MG/L0.20 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 1 1410.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 2 1220.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 3 1600.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 4 1820.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 5 1410.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 1 2060.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 2 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 3 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 4 1740.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 5 3100.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 1 7.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 2 3.000 MG/L2.00 NDBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 3 3.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 4 4.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-6 5 6.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 1 2740.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 2 3350.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 3 5520.000 MG/L2.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 1 2570.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 2 2600.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 3 2630.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 4 2700.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 5 2650.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 1 2000.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 2 4310.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 3 3850.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 4 4880.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 5 4930.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 1 29.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 2 31.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 3 25.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 4 23.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.2 SP-6 5 24.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 1 5550.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 2 5090.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 3 7180.000 MG/L5.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 1 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories22-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 4 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 5 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 4 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 5 500000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 1 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 2 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 4 2.000 /100M2.00 NDFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-6 5 80.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 2 500000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 1 230.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 2 186.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 3 96.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 4 122.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 5 178.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 1 337.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 2 270.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 3 266.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 4 271.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 5 580.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 1 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 2 5.667 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 3 6.000 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 4 6.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-6 5 5.667 MG/L5.00 NDHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 1 119.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 2 312.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 3 651.500 MG/L5.00 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 1 2.300 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 2 2.160 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 3 1.890 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 4 2.160 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 5 2.120 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 1 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 2 42.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 3 0.110 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 4 0.080 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 5 0.080 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 1 4.710 MG/L0.05 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories23-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 2 5.840 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 3 5.460 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 4 7.140 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-6 5 6.970 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 2 0.820 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 3 0.600 MG/L0.05 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 36.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 11.500 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 269.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 1 1.420 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 2 1.330 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 3 3.260 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.400 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 38.300 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 13.660 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.010 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 311.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.110 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.080 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 1 6.130 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 2 7.170 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-6 3 8.720 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.410 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.820 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.600 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 1 77.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 2 85.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 3 88.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 4 78.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 5 78.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 1 53.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 2 66.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 3 83.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 4 65.000 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 5 68.800 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 1 3.260 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 2 6.160 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 3 8.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 4 7.950 MG/L0.01 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories24-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-6 5 7.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 1 34.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 2 27.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 3 34.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 1 0.370 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 2 0.100 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 3 0.370 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 4 0.160 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 5 0.240 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 1 0.100 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 2 0.320 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 3 1.800 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 4 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 5 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 1 13.400 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 2 12.400 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 3 18.300 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 4 19.900 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-6 5 2.150 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 1 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 2 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 3 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 1 360.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 2 420.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 3 463.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 4 337.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 5 233.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 1 1720.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 2 2000.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 3 1860.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 4 1520.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 5 1250.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 1 4.000 MG/L4.00 NDTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 2 5.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 3 4.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 4 4.000 MG/L4.00 NDTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-6 5 4.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 1 850.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 2 640.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 3 1020.000 MG/L4.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories25-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 --------------------------------------------------------Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 1 6.810 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 2 10.700 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 3 13.200 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 4 10.800 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-2 5 34.100 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 1 140.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 2 199.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 3 251.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 4 310.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-3 5 464.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 1 134.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 2 193.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 3 246.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 4 321.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6335 350.2 SP-4 5 441.000 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 1 94.500 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 2 86.900 MG/L0.20 NCAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 6447 350.2 SP-1 3 122.000 MG/L0.20 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 1 1410.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 2 1220.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 3 1600.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 4 1820.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-2 5 1410.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 1 2060.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 2 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 3 2070.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 4 1740.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-3 5 3100.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 1 945.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 2 969.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 3 1430.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 4 1830.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6335 405.1 SP-4 5 1150.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 1 2740.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 2 3350.000 MG/L2.00 NCBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 6447 405.1 SP-1 3 5520.000 MG/L2.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 1 2570.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 2 2600.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 3 2630.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 4 2700.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-2 5 2650.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 1 2000.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 2 4310.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 3 3850.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 4 4880.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-3 5 4930.000 MG/L5.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories26-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 --------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 1 1710.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 2 1590.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 3 1870.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 4 1850.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6335 410.1 SP-4 5 1820.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 1 5550.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 2 5090.000 MG/L5.00 NCCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 6447 410.1 SP-1 3 7180.000 MG/L5.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 1 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 4 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-2 5 300000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 4 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-3 5 500000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 1 13000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 2 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 4 900000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6335 9221E SP-4 5 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 1 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 2 500000.000 /100M2.00 NCFECAL COLIFORM C2106 6447 9221E SP-1 3 1600000.000 /100M2.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 1 230.167 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 2 186.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 3 96.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 4 122.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-2 5 178.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 1 337.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 2 270.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 3 266.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 4 271.500 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-3 5 580.333 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 1 15.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 2 13.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 3 15.000 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 4 15.833 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6335 1664 SP-4 5 21.800 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 1 119.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 2 312.667 MG/L5.00 NCHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 6447 1664 SP-1 3 651.500 MG/L5.00 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 1 2.300 MG/L0.05 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories27-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 --------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 2 2.160 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 3 1.890 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 4 2.160 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-2 5 2.120 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 1 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 2 42.000 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 3 0.110 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 4 0.080 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-3 5 0.080 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 1 0.070 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 2 0.080 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 3 0.090 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 4 0.090 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6335 353.1 SP-4 5 0.100 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 1 0.010 MG/L0.05 NDNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 2 0.820 MG/L0.05 NCNITRATE/NITRITE C005 6447 353.1 SP-1 3 0.600 MG/L0.05 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 36.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 11.500 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 269.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 1 138.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 2 158.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.400 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.000 MG/L0.50 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 1 38.300 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-2 2 13.660 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 1 237.010 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 2 311.000 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 3 255.110 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-3 4 285.080 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 1 138.070 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6335 351.3 SP-4 2 158.080 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 1 96.410 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 2 103.820 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 6447 351.3 SP-1 3 225.600 MG/L0.55 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 1 77.600 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 2 85.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 3 88.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 4 78.900 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-2 5 78.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 1 53.600 MG/L0.01 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories28-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 --------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 2 66.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 3 83.300 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 4 65.000 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-3 5 68.800 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 1 23.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 2 24.200 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 3 46.400 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 4 32.500 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6335 365.2 SP-4 5 32.800 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 1 34.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 2 27.700 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 6447 365.2 SP-1 3 34.100 MG/L0.01 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 1 0.370 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 2 0.100 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 3 0.370 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 4 0.160 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-2 5 0.240 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 1 0.100 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 2 0.320 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 3 1.800 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 4 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-3 5 1.000 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 1 0.100 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 2 0.100 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 3 0.110 MG/L0.20 NCTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 4 0.100 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6335 HACH 8167 SP-4 5 0.100 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 1 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 2 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 6447 330.5 SP-1 3 0.400 MG/L0.20 NDTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 1 360.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 2 420.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 3 463.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 4 337.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-2 5 233.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 1 1720.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 2 2000.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 3 1860.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 4 1520.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-3 5 1250.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 1 253.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 2 335.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 3 253.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 4 263.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6335 160.2 SP-4 5 272.000 MG/L4.00 NCAppendix F: Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories29-------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 --------------------------------------------------------(continued)Sample SampleBaseline MeasureAnalyte Name CAS_NO Episode Method Point Day Concentration UnitValue TypeTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 1 850.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 2 640.000 MG/L4.00 NCTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 6447 160.2 SP-1 3 1020.000 MG/L4.00 NCG-1 

## A PPENDIX 

## G

M ODIFIED 

## D ELTA 

## - LOGNORMAL 

## D ISTRIBUTIONAppendix 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 fact ors used to calculate the proposed
limitations and standards. 1 This appendix provides the statis tical 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 associ ated with these episodes) consists of a mixture of measured (detected) and non-de tected 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 po ssibility 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 re searchers have shown the appli cation 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 distribu tion. 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 a nd 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 detec tion limit associated with non-detect ed (ND) measurements in the
database. 4 A lognormal density is used to repr esent 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 por tions of the modified delta-lognormal distribu tion in further detail.



### G.2 CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS OF THE MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
The discrete portion of the modified delta-l ognormal 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-de tected values associated with each distinct detection limit value. By letting D i equal the value of the i th smallest distinct detection
limit in the data set and the random variable X D 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 dist ribution can be calculated using the following
formulas:

(G-2) 

### EX D D ii i k 

### ( ) =

= 

# ∑ 1

1 

### δ δ

(G-3) 

# ( ) Var X D E X D iD i k 

### () () = −

= 

# ∑ 1

1 2


### δ δ ι

The continuous, lognormal portion of the modi fied delta-lognormal distribution was used
to model the detected measurem ents from the meat products indus try database. The cumulative probability distribution of the continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution can be mathematically expressed as:

(G-4) 

# [ ] P r ln( ) X c c C 

### ≤ = −       Φ μ
σ

where the random variable X C 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( X

C ), and the variance, Var( X

C ), of the lognormal distribution can
be calculated as:

(G-5) 

# ( ) E X C 

### = + 2     

 2 

### ex p μ σ

(G-6) 

# ( ) 

# ( ) 

# [ ] 

# ( ) 

# ( ) Var X E X C C 

### = − 2 2 

### 1 ex p σ



### G.3 COMBINING THE CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS
The continuous portion of the modified delta-l ognormal distribution is combined with the discrete portion to mode l data sets that contain a mixtu re of non-detected and detected measurements. It is possible to fit a wide variety of observed effl uent data sets to the modified delta-lognormal distribution. Multiple detection limits for non- detect measurements are incorporated, as are measured ("detected") valu es. The same basic framework can be used even
if there are no non-detected values in the data se t (in this case, it is the same as the lognormal distribution). Thus, the modified delta-lognorma l 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,

(G-7) 

## ( ) U IX I X uD u C 

### = +− 1

where X D represents a random non-detect from th e discrete portion of the distribution, X C represents a random detected measurement from the continuous lognormal portion, and I u is an indicator variable signaling wh ether any particular random meas urement, u, is non-detected or non-censored (that is, I u =1 if u is non-detected; I u =0 if u is non-censored). Using a weighted sum, the cumulative distribution function from th e discrete portion of th e distribution (equation 1) can be combined with the function from th e continuous portion (equation 4) to obtain theAppendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-6 overall cumulative probability distribution of the modified delta-lognormal distribution as follows,

(G-8) 

## ( ) () P r ln( )

: 

### U c c i iD c i 

### ≤ = +− −      
≤ 

# ∑ δ δ μ
σ 1 Φ

where D i is the value of the i th 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

(G-9) 

## ( ) 

## ( ) 

## ( ) EU E X E X D C 

### = +−

δ δ ( )1

In a similar manner, the expected value of the random variable s quared 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

(G-10) 

# ( ) 

# ( ) ( ) 

# ( ) EU E X E X D C 22 2 

### 1 = +−

δ δ

Although written in terms of U, the following relationship holds fo r all random variables, U, X D , and X C .

(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

(G-12) 

## () ( ) ( ) 

# [ ] ( ) () () 

# [ ] ( ) 

# [ ] Var Var E Var E E U XX XX U DD CC 

### = +     

 +− +     



− δ δ 2 22 

### 1Appendix 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-lognorma l 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: 

###  δ

ι 

###  δ

(G-13) 

# ( ) 

 δ

δ

i ji j n

d 

### n Id D

n

n d



### = =

= = 

# ∑ 1

1

where n d is the number of non-de tected measurements, d j , j = 1 to n d , are the detection limits for the non-detected measurements, n is the number of measurem ents (both detected and nondetected) and I(...) is an indicat or function equal to one if the phrase with in 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 th e 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 δAppendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-8 The parameters of the con tinuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, and , are estimated by 

###  μ  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 x i is the i th detected measurement value and n c is the number of de tected measurements.
Note that n = n d + n c . The expected value and the variance of th e 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) 

## ( ) ( ) 

# [ ] 

# ( ) 

# ( )   exp  Var X E X C C 

### = − 2 2 

### 1 σ

Finally, the expected value and variance of the modified delta-log normal distribution can be estimated using the following formulas:

(G-19) 

# ( ) 

# ( ) 

# ( ) ( )      EU E X E X D C 

### = +− δ δ 1

(G-20) 

## ( ) 

# ( ) 

# ( ) 

# [ ] 

# ( ) ( ) 

# ( ) 

# [ ] ( ) 

# [ ]        Var U Var X E X Var X E X E U DD CC 

### = +     

 +− +     



− δ δ 2 22 

### 1Appendix 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 para meters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be
calculated with as few as two distinct detected va lues in a data set. (In order to calculate the
variance of the modified delta-l ognormal distribution, two distin ct 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 cont ained three or more observations with two or
more distinct detected concen tration 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 re quirements, EPA used an arithmetic average to calculate the episode-specific long-term average and excluded the dataset from the variability factor calculations (because the variab ility could not be calculated).

In statistical terms, each measurement was assumed to be independently and identically
distributed from the other meas urements of that pollutant in the episode data set.

The next two sections apply the modified delta-lognormal distribu tion 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 th e requirements described in the last section, then EPA calculated the long-t erm 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 vari ability 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 fre quency 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 di stribution 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 99 th 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 distribu tion 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 di stribution function. Next, the interval containing the 99 th percentile was identified. Finally, the 99 th percentile of the modified deltalognormal distribution was calculated. The following steps were completed to compute the
estimated 99 th percentile of each data subset:Appendix G. Modified Delta-lognormal Distribution

G-11 Step 1 Using equation 21, k values of p at c=D m , m=1,...,k were computed and labeled p m . Step 2 The smallest value of m (m=1,...,k), such that p m 

###  0.99, was determined and labeled as p j . If no such m existed, steps 3 a nd 4 were skipped and step 5 was computed instead.

Step 3 Computed p* = p j - . 

###  δ

j
Step 4 If p* < 0.99, then = D j 

###  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 p m > 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 av erages. 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 time s a month). As explained in Sec tion 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 base d upon 20 days. This section de scribes the calculations for monthly variability factors base d upon 30-day averages. To calculate the monthly variability factors based upon 20 days, the same basic procedure is used ex cept 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 c oncentration of HEM was relativel y high one day and was likely to remain at similar high values the next and po ssibly 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) m easurements. 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, measurem ents in final effluent are likely to be similar from one day to the next because of the consis tency 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 wastewat er treatment systems. To determine if autocorrelation exists in the data, a statistical eval uation is necessary. Howe ver, the data used for the proposal were insufficient for the purpos e of evaluating autocorrelation. To estimate autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for each pollutant would be required with valuesAppendix 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 statis tical evaluation of autocorrelati on 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 95 th U 3 0 percentile of a 30-day mean and the correspondi ng 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 95 th percentile of the inverse norma l 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 because E U E U 3 0 9 5

3 0 = = 

  

G.4.3.3 Evaluation of Episode-Specific Variability Factors
Estimates of the necessary para meters 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 di stribution 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 a nd monthly variability factors shoul d 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 99 th 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 Dist ributed Random Variables.” Journal of the Optical Society of America , 66: 211-216.

Cohen, A. Clifford. 1976. Prog ressively 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 Sta tistical 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 A pplications 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 

## A PPE ND I X 

## H

A TTACHMENTS 

## T O 

## S ECTION 

## 13Attachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories1---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------------------------------Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 9.16 3 0 4.46 6.68 9.16 4.46 6.4914.30 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 46.20 3 0 41.48 30.20 46.20 41.48 15.1093.30 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6445 SP-3+SP-2 0.25 5 0 0.08 0.23 0.25 0.08 0.160.38 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6445 SP-1 9.43 5 0 1.26 9.37 9.43 1.26 8.1511.30 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6448 SP-4+SP-3 1.27 5 0 0.29 1.39 1.27 0.29 0.961.54 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 154.00 5 0 48.31 161.00 154.00 48.31 95.00 208.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3293.33 3 0 828.87 2840.00 3293.33 828.87 2790.00 4250.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 7668.33 3 0 9594.36 3760.00 7668.33 9594.36 645.00 18600.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-3+SP-2 2.00 5 5 0.00 2.00 . . .. 2.00 2.00 MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-1 1856.00 5 0 225.90 1910.00 1856.00 225.90 1480.00 2060.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-4+SP-3 3.80 5 0 0.84 4.00 3.80 0.84 3.005.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 1984.00 5 0 149.60 2050.00 1984.00 149.60 1720.00 2070.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3720.00 3 0 1150.61 3900.00 3720.00 1150.61 2490.00 4770.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 10343.33 3 0 8672.11 7810.00 10343.33 8672.11 3220.00 20000.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-3+SP-2 27.60 5 0 10.43 25.00 27.60 10.43 17.0040.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6445 SP-1 3096.00 5 0 1173.55 2730.00 3096.00 1173.55 1720.00 4530.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-4+SP-3 29.60 5 0 3.85 28.00 29.60 3.85 26.0036.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 18560.00 5 0 10979.66 17500.00 18560.00 10979.66 9700.00 36800.00 . . MG/LFECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-2 87500.00 2 0 116672.62 87500.00 87500.00 116672.62 5000.00 170000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6445 SP-3+SP-2 4.63 4 3 5.25 2.00 12.50 . 12.5012.50 2.00 2.00 /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6445 SP-1 1250000.00 4 0 404145.19 1250000.00 1250000.00 404145.19 900000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6448 SP-4+SP-3 418.30 5 0 524.92 170.00 418.30 524.92 41.50 1300.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6448 SP-2 1460000.00 5 0 313049.52 1600000.00 1460000.00 313049.52 900000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-2 792.82 3 0 748.19 390.63 792.82 748.19 331.73 1656.08 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6444 SP-3 423.25 3 0 327.24 238.50 423.25 327.24 230.17 801.08 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6445 SP-3+SP-2 23.58 5 4 39.27 6.00 93.83 . 93.8393.83 5.92 6.17 MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6445 SP-1 486.80 5 0 45.56 489.67 486.80 45.56 418.33 543.83 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6448 SP-4+SP-3 5.93 5 4 0.25 5.83 6.33 . 6.336.33 5.67 6.00 MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6448 SP-2 6225.50 5 0 10385.30 1986.00 6225.50 10385.30 499.17 24739.83 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-2 1.58 3 2 1.43 0.75 3.23 . 3.233.23 0.75 0.75 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6444 SP-3 0.30 3 3 0.00 0.30 . . .. 0.30 0.30 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6445 SP-3+SP-2 27.04 5 0 7.22 31.40 27.04 7.22 16.8033.40 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6445 SP-1 2.55 5 0 1.41 2.97 2.55 1.41 0.573.93 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6448 SP-4+SP-3 64.66 5 0 3.11 63.10 64.66 3.11 62.6070.00 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6448 SP-2 26.02 5 0 6.31 25.50 26.02 6.31 19.0034.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 80.13 3 0 61.98 68.80 80.13 61.98 24.60 147.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 201.87 3 0 119.74 271.00 201.87 119.74 63.60 271.00 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories2---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6445 SP-3+SP-2 1.59 5 0 0.47 1.61 1.59 0.47 1.032.25 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6445 SP-1 34.28 5 0 24.59 26.60 34.28 24.59 18.2077.70 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6448 SP-4+SP-3 1.81 5 0 0.61 1.92 1.81 0.61 1.072.51 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 179.60 5 0 45.87 202.00 179.60 45.87 103.00 212.00 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 81.71 3 0 63.32 69.55 81.71 63.32 25.35 150.23 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 202.17 3 0 119.74 271.30 202.17 119.74 63.90 271.30 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6445 SP-3+SP-2 28.63 5 0 7.29 33.01 28.63 7.29 18.0834.43 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6445 SP-1 36.83 5 0 24.29 29.57 36.83 24.29 18.7779.36 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6448 SP-4+SP-3 66.47 5 0 3.49 65.05 66.47 3.49 63.6772.51 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 205.62 5 0 45.16 221.00 205.62 45.16 128.50 240.60 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-2 72.20 3 0 21.04 69.40 72.20 21.04 52.7094.50 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6444 SP-3 312.77 3 0 429.05 77.20 312.77 429.05 53.10 808.00 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6445 SP-3+SP-2 0.70 5 0 0.70 0.61 0.70 0.70 0.171.89 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6445 SP-1 11.36 5 0 0.88 11.70 11.36 0.88 10.1012.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6448 SP-4+SP-3 15.17 5 0 0.44 15.15 15.17 0.44 14.6015.60 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6448 SP-2 37.54 5 0 8.28 35.90 37.54 8.28 31.1051.50 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-2 7.03 3 0 5.10 9.30 7.03 5.10 1.1810.60 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6444 SP-3 0.70 3 1 0.47 0.78 0.95 0.24 0.781.12 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6445 SP-3+SP-2 0.22 5 4 0.04 0.20 0.30 . 0.300.30 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6445 SP-1 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6448 SP-4+SP-3 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6448 SP-2 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-2 1656.67 3 0 330.05 1650.00 1656.67 330.05 1330.00 1990.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6444 SP-3 53390.00 3 0 81949.04 7620.00 53390.00 81949.04 4550.00 148000.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6445 SP-3+SP-2 8.00 5 0 3.32 7.00 8.00 3.32 5.0012.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6445 SP-1 776.00 5 0 57.81 760.00 776.00 57.81 700.00 855.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6448 SP-4+SP-3 9.10 5 0 2.61 10.00 9.10 2.61 5.0012.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6448 SP-2 3248.00 5 0 2279.19 2260.00 3248.00 2279.19 1860.00 7260.00 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories3--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------------------------------------Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-5+SP-4 5.37 3 0 2.11 5.49 5.37 2.11 3.217.41 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 9.16 3 0 4.46 6.68 9.16 4.46 6.4914.30 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6443 SP-3 6.98 3 0 1.16 6.31 6.98 1.16 6.318.32 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6444 SP-5+SP-4 13.40 3 0 2.35 14.25 13.40 2.35 10.7415.20 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 46.20 3 0 41.48 30.20 46.20 41.48 15.1093.30 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 154.00 5 0 48.31 161.00 154.00 48.31 95.00 208.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-5+SP-4 214.10 3 0 96.04 159.30 214.10 96.04 158.00 325.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3293.33 3 0 828.87 2840.00 3293.33 828.87 2790.00 4250.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-3 2170.00 3 0 1371.75 2580.00 2170.00 1371.75 640.00 3290.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-5+SP-4 203.00 3 0 72.50 187.50 203.00 72.50 139.50 282.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 7668.33 3 0 9594.36 3760.00 7668.33 9594.36 645.00 18600.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 1984.00 5 0 149.60 2050.00 1984.00 149.60 1720.00 2070.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-5+SP-4 1637.17 3 0 2160.12 431.50 1637.17 2160.12 349.00 4131.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-2 3720.00 3 0 1150.61 3900.00 3720.00 1150.61 2490.00 4770.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6443 SP-3 3903.33 3 0 577.35 3570.00 3903.33 577.35 3570.00 4570.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-5+SP-4 474.33 3 0 93.28 444.00 474.33 93.28 400.00 579.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6444 SP-3 10343.33 3 0 8672.11 7810.00 10343.33 8672.11 3220.00 20000.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6448 SP-2 18560.00 5 0 10979.66 17500.00 18560.00 10979.66 9700.00 36800.00 . . MG/LFECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-5+SP-4 801150.00 2 0 1129744.50 801150.00 801150.00 1129744.50 2300.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-2 87500.00 2 0 116672.62 87500.00 87500.00 116672.62 5000.00 170000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6443 SP-3 1600000.00 2 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6448 SP-2 1460000.00 5 0 313049.52 1600000.00 1460000.00 313049.52 900000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-5+SP-4 7.89 2 1 2.82 7.89 9.89 . 9.899.89 5.90 5.90 MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-2 792.82 3 0 748.19 390.63 792.82 748.19 331.73 1656.08 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6443 SP-3 297.28 2 0 5.49 297.28 297.28 5.49 293.40 301.17 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6444 SP-5+SP-4 19.10 3 0 14.09 14.61 19.10 14.09 7.8034.89 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6444 SP-3 423.25 3 0 327.24 238.50 423.25 327.24 230.17 801.08 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6448 SP-2 6225.50 5 0 10385.30 1986.00 6225.50 10385.30 499.17 24739.83 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-5+SP-4 0.99 3 2 0.42 0.75 1.48 . 1.481.48 0.75 0.75 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-2 1.58 3 2 1.43 0.75 3.23 . 3.233.23 0.75 0.75 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6443 SP-3 0.75 3 3 0.00 0.75 . . .. 0.75 0.75 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6444 SP-5+SP-4 0.30 3 3 0.00 0.30 . . .. 0.30 0.30 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6444 SP-3 0.30 3 3 0.00 0.30 . . .. 0.30 0.30 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6448 SP-2 26.02 5 0 6.31 25.50 26.02 6.31 19.0034.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-5+SP-4 21.85 3 0 3.95 19.85 21.85 3.95 19.3026.40 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 80.13 3 0 61.98 68.80 80.13 61.98 24.60 147.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6443 SP-3 72.17 3 0 27.56 80.90 72.17 27.56 41.3094.30 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories4--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 ----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6444 SP-5+SP-4 46.73 3 0 5.88 43.80 46.73 5.88 42.9053.50 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 201.87 3 0 119.74 271.00 201.87 119.74 63.60 271.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 179.60 5 0 45.87 202.00 179.60 45.87 103.00 212.00 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-5+SP-4 22.84 3 0 3.78 21.33 22.84 3.78 20.0527.15 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-2 81.71 3 0 63.32 69.55 81.71 63.32 25.35 150.23 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6443 SP-3 72.92 3 0 27.56 81.65 72.92 27.56 42.0595.05 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6444 SP-5+SP-4 47.03 3 0 5.88 44.10 47.03 5.88 43.2053.80 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6444 SP-3 202.17 3 0 119.74 271.30 202.17 119.74 63.90 271.30 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6448 SP-2 205.62 5 0 45.16 221.00 205.62 45.16 128.50 240.60 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-5+SP-4 17.48 3 0 8.80 13.25 17.48 8.80 11.6027.60 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-2 72.20 3 0 21.04 69.40 72.20 21.04 52.7094.50 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6443 SP-3 37.53 3 0 9.31 34.80 37.53 9.31 29.9047.90 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6444 SP-5+SP-4 17.73 3 0 27.43 2.29 17.73 27.43 1.5149.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6444 SP-3 312.77 3 0 429.05 77.20 312.77 429.05 53.10 808.00 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6448 SP-2 37.54 5 0 8.28 35.90 37.54 8.28 31.1051.50 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-5+SP-4 0.81 3 0 0.19 0.79 0.81 0.19 0.641.01 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-2 7.03 3 0 5.10 9.30 7.03 5.10 1.1810.60 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6443 SP-3 0.20 3 2 0.01 0.20 0.21 . 0.210.21 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6444 SP-5+SP-4 0.25 3 1 0.05 0.24 0.27 0.04 0.240.30 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6444 SP-3 0.70 3 1 0.47 0.78 0.95 0.24 0.781.12 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6448 SP-2 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-5+SP-4 137.50 3 0 22.75 138.00 137.50 22.75 114.50 160.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-2 1656.67 3 0 330.05 1650.00 1656.67 330.05 1330.00 1990.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6443 SP-3 1523.33 3 0 213.62 1610.00 1523.33 213.62 1280.00 1680.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6444 SP-5+SP-4 55.50 3 0 4.27 56.00 55.50 4.27 51.0059.50 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6444 SP-3 53390.00 3 0 81949.04 7620.00 53390.00 81949.04 4550.00 148000.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6448 SP-2 3248.00 5 0 2279.19 2260.00 3248.00 2279.19 1860.00 7260.00 . . MG/L--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------------------------------Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 15.12 5 0 10.85 10.80 15.12 10.85 6.8134.10 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories5--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6440 SP-5+SP-4 0.13 3 0 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.080.17 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6440 SP-3 0.15 3 0 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.100.22 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6441 SP-6+SP-5 1.00 3 2 0.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6441 SP-1+SP-3 154.16 3 0 13.96 155.78 154.16 13.96 139.46 167.24 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6442 SP-5+SP-4 0.79 5 0 0.30 0.79 0.79 0.30 0.441.22 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6442 SP-1 42.78 5 0 6.65 40.30 42.78 6.65 38.6054.60 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-5+SP-4 0.51 3 0 0.14 0.48 0.51 0.14 0.390.66 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 101.13 3 0 18.47 94.50 101.13 18.47 86.90 122.00 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-3 51.73 3 0 43.46 57.20 51.73 43.46 5.7992.20 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 1492.00 5 0 227.31 1410.00 1492.00 227.31 1220.00 1820.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-5+SP-4 7.00 3 1 1.00 7.00 7.50 0.71 7.008.00 6.00 6.00 MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-3 1583.33 3 1 853.37 2020.00 2075.00 77.78 2020.00 2130.00 600.0 600.0 MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-6+SP-5 6.30 3 0 4.69 5.02 6.30 4.69 2.3911.50 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-1+SP-3 5966.42 3 0 6381.69 2945.15 5966.42 6381.69 1656.41 13297.70 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-5+SP-4 6.80 5 1 1.10 6.00 7.00 1.15 6.008.00 6.00 6.00 MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-1 6404.00 5 0 1522.41 6320.00 6404.00 1522.41 4340.00 8400.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-5+SP-4 4.67 3 1 1.15 4.00 5.00 1.41 4.006.00 4.00 4.00 MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 3870.00 3 0 1461.13 3350.00 3870.00 1461.13 2740.00 5520.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-3 3673.33 3 0 844.18 3530.00 3673.33 844.18 2910.00 4580.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 2630.00 5 0 49.50 2630.00 2630.00 49.50 2570.00 2700.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-5+SP-4 33.00 3 0 1.73 34.00 33.00 1.73 31.0034.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6440 SP-3 3790.00 3 0 2072.61 3670.00 3790.00 2072.61 1780.00 5920.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-6+SP-5 22.33 3 1 2.74 21.65 23.50 2.62 21.6525.35 20.00 20.00 MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6441 SP-1+SP-3 3459.70 3 0 861.62 3291.87 3459.70 861.62 2694.34 4392.89 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-5+SP-4 117.10 5 0 10.47 112.00 117.10 10.47 109.00 135.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6442 SP-1 21880.00 5 0 14876.73 18200.00 21880.00 14876.73 10100.00 47200.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-5+SP-4 47.17 3 0 7.15 45.50 47.17 7.15 41.0055.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 5940.00 3 0 1098.23 5550.00 5940.00 1098.23 5090.00 7180.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-3 7840.00 3 0 980.00 8260.00 7840.00 980.00 6720.00 8540.00 . . MG/LFECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-2 820000.00 5 0 712039.32 300000.00 820000.00 712039.32 300000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6440 SP-5+SP-4 21.50 3 1 17.54 26.50 31.25 6.72 26.5036.00 2.00 2.00 /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6440 SP-3 1600000.00 3 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6441 SP-6+SP-5 768.00 3 2 1326.75 2.00 2300.00 . 2300.00 2300.00 2.00 2.00 /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6441 SP-1+SP-3 1062737.80 3 0 604928.39 1180694.79 1062737.80 604928.39 407518.61 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6442 SP-5+SP-4 493.30 5 0 1010.54 70.00 493.30 1010.54 3.00 2300.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6442 SP-1 1600000.00 5 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000.00 . . /100MLSAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories6--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitFECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-5+SP-4 32.67 3 1 32.08 30.00 48.00 25.46 30.0066.00 2.00 2.00 /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-1 1233333.33 3 0 635085.30 1600000.00 1233333.33 635085.30 500000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-3 1600000.00 3 0 0.00 1600000.00 1600000.00 0.00 1600000.0 1600000.00 . . /100MLSHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-2 162.77 5 0 53.24 178.50 162.77 53.24 96.33 230.17 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6440 SP-5+SP-4 5.92 3 3 0.08 5.92 . . .. 5.83 6.00 MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6440 SP-3 164.83 3 0 59.86 160.67 164.83 59.86 107.17 226.67 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6441 SP-6+SP-5 5.79 3 3 0.06 5.78 . . .. 5.73 5.86 MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6441 SP-1+SP-3 113.39 3 0 64.21 99.38 113.39 64.21 57.34 183.45 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6442 SP-5+SP-4 6.07 5 4 0.25 6.00 6.50 . 6.506.50 5.83 6.00 MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6442 SP-1 2997.60 5 0 1078.08 3159.50 2997.60 1078.08 1926.83 4556.67 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-5+SP-4 11.89 3 0 11.21 5.50 11.89 11.21 5.3324.83 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-1 361.28 3 0 269.23 312.67 361.28 269.23 119.67 651.50 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-3 618.94 3 0 219.29 534.00 618.94 219.29 454.83 868.00 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-2 2.13 5 0 0.15 2.16 2.13 0.15 1.892.30 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6440 SP-5+SP-4 73.67 3 0 2.83 73.75 73.67 2.83 70.8076.45 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6440 SP-3 0.16 3 0 0.05 0.19 0.16 0.05 0.100.19 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6441 SP-6+SP-5 162.00 3 0 14.81 160.50 162.00 14.81 148.00 177.50 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6441 SP-1+SP-3 0.92 3 2 1.07 0.30 2.15 . 2.152.15 0.30 0.30 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6442 SP-5+SP-4 164.00 5 0 6.52 165.00 164.00 6.52 156.00 172.00 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6442 SP-1 0.02 5 2 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.010.04 0.01 0.01 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-5+SP-4 289.50 3 0 21.27 282.00 289.50 21.27 273.00 313.50 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-1 0.48 3 1 0.42 0.60 0.71 0.16 0.600.82 0.01 0.01 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-3 0.19 3 2 0.31 0.01 0.55 . 0.550.55 0.01 0.01 MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 23.75 2 0 17.32 23.75 23.75 17.32 11.5036.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6440 SP-5+SP-4 1.82 3 0 0.17 1.84 1.82 0.17 1.651.99 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6440 SP-3 110.47 3 0 82.48 153.00 110.47 82.48 15.40 163.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6441 SP-6+SP-5 1.61 3 1 0.72 1.43 1.92 0.69 1.432.40 1.00 1.00 MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6441 SP-1+SP-3 440.63 3 0 53.52 420.92 440.63 53.52 399.76 501.21 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6442 SP-5+SP-4 5.62 5 0 3.19 4.68 5.62 3.19 2.6611.08 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6442 SP-1 77.58 5 0 54.76 49.50 77.58 54.76 42.50 173.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-5+SP-4 3.03 3 0 1.98 2.20 3.03 1.98 1.615.29 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.47 3 0 72.42 103.00 141.47 72.42 96.40 225.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-3 66.67 3 0 25.87 56.90 66.67 25.87 47.1096.00 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 25.98 2 0 17.42 25.98 25.98 17.42 13.6638.30 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6440 SP-5+SP-4 75.49 3 0 2.74 75.74 75.49 2.74 72.6478.10 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6440 SP-3 110.63 3 0 82.46 153.10 110.63 82.46 15.59 163.19 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories7--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitTOTAL NITROGEN 6441 SP-6+SP-5 163.61 3 0 14.98 162.90 163.61 14.98 149.00 178.93 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6441 SP-1+SP-3 441.55 3 0 53.19 423.08 441.55 53.19 400.06 501.51 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6442 SP-5+SP-4 169.62 5 0 8.70 167.66 169.62 8.70 160.68 183.08 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6442 SP-1 77.60 5 0 54.77 49.52 77.60 54.77 42.51 173.04 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-5+SP-4 292.53 3 0 20.46 287.29 292.53 20.46 275.20 315.11 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.94 3 0 72.54 103.82 141.94 72.54 96.41 225.60 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-3 66.86 3 0 25.77 57.45 66.86 25.77 47.1196.01 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-2 81.68 5 0 4.83 78.90 81.68 4.83 77.6088.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6440 SP-5+SP-4 11.65 3 0 0.87 11.85 11.65 0.87 10.7012.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6440 SP-3 56.70 3 0 32.99 47.20 56.70 32.99 29.5093.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6441 SP-6+SP-5 11.49 3 0 0.50 11.47 11.49 0.50 11.0012.00 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6441 SP-1+SP-3 59.58 3 0 54.47 28.16 59.58 54.47 28.11 122.48 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6442 SP-5+SP-4 31.34 5 0 1.15 31.50 31.34 1.15 29.6032.50 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6442 SP-1 30.26 5 0 4.68 32.80 30.26 4.68 23.3034.70 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-5+SP-4 14.73 3 0 1.92 14.25 14.73 1.92 13.1016.85 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-1 32.17 3 0 3.88 34.10 32.17 3.88 27.7034.70 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-3 34.73 3 0 7.65 34.70 34.73 7.65 27.1042.40 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-2 0.25 5 1 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.160.37 0.10 0.10 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6440 SP-5+SP-4 0.20 3 3 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6440 SP-3 0.20 3 3 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6441 SP-6+SP-5 0.23 3 1 0.05 0.21 0.25 0.06 0.210.29 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6441 SP-1+SP-3 0.22 3 2 0.04 0.20 0.27 . 0.270.27 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6442 SP-5+SP-4 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6442 SP-1 0.20 5 5 0.00 0.20 . . .. 0.20 0.20 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-5+SP-4 0.62 3 0 0.29 0.61 0.62 0.29 0.330.91 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-1 0.40 3 3 0.00 0.40 . . .. 0.40 0.40 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-3 1.00 3 3 0.00 1.00 . . .. 1.00 1.00 MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-2 362.60 5 0 87.80 360.00 362.60 87.80 233.00 463.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6440 SP-5+SP-4 12.33 3 0 4.25 12.50 12.33 4.25 8.0016.50 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6440 SP-3 2273.33 3 0 1244.56 2900.00 2273.33 1244.56 840.00 3080.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6441 SP-6+SP-5 28.00 3 0 17.77 18.50 28.00 17.77 17.0048.50 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6441 SP-1+SP-3 1133.81 3 0 274.82 1213.91 1133.81 274.82 827.83 1359.68 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6442 SP-5+SP-4 22.20 5 0 3.11 22.00 22.20 3.11 19.0027.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6442 SP-1 3332.00 5 0 465.10 3340.00 3332.00 465.10 2580.00 3820.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-5+SP-4 19.17 3 0 2.84 20.00 19.17 2.84 16.0021.50 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-1 836.67 3 0 190.35 850.00 836.67 190.35 640.00 1020.00 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories8--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 ----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-3 1510.00 3 0 227.16 1410.00 1510.00 227.16 1350.00 1770.00 . . MG/L--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ----------------------------------------------------------Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-6 1.87 4 0 1.30 2.08 1.87 1.30 0.332.98 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 15.12 5 0 10.85 10.80 15.12 10.85 6.8134.10 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.80 5 0 123.99 251.00 272.80 123.99 140.00 464.00 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 101.13 3 0 18.47 94.50 101.13 18.47 86.90 122.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-6 4.60 5 1 1.82 4.00 5.00 1.83 3.007.00 3.00 3.00 MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 1492.00 5 0 227.31 1410.00 1492.00 227.31 1220.00 1820.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 2208.00 5 0 518.33 2070.00 2208.00 518.33 1740.00 3100.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 3870.00 3 0 1461.13 3350.00 3870.00 1461.13 2740.00 5520.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-6 26.40 5 0 3.44 25.00 26.40 3.44 23.0031.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 2630.00 5 0 49.50 2630.00 2630.00 49.50 2570.00 2700.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 3994.00 5 0 1199.76 4310.00 3994.00 1199.76 2000.00 4930.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 5940.00 3 0 1098.23 5550.00 5940.00 1098.23 5090.00 7180.00 . . MG/LFECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-6 21.50 4 3 39.00 2.00 80.00 . 80.0080.00 2.00 2.00 /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-2 820000.00 5 0 712039.32 300000.00 820000.00 712039.32 300000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-3 1380000.00 5 0 491934.96 1600000.00 1380000.00 491934.96 500000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-1 1233333.33 3 0 635085.30 1600000.00 1233333.33 635085.30 500000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-6 5.90 5 4 0.22 6.00 6.17 . 6.176.17 5.67 6.00 MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-2 162.77 5 0 53.24 178.50 162.77 53.24 96.33 230.17 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-3 345.30 5 0 134.63 271.50 345.30 134.63 266.50 580.33 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-1 361.28 3 0 269.23 312.67 361.28 269.23 119.67 651.50 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-6 6.02 5 0 1.03 5.84 6.02 1.03 4.717.14 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-2 2.13 5 0 0.15 2.16 2.13 0.15 1.892.30 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-3 8.46 5 1 18.75 0.08 10.57 20.96 0.0842.00 0.01 0.01 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-1 0.48 3 1 0.42 0.60 0.71 0.16 0.600.82 0.01 0.01 MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-6 2.00 3 0 1.09 1.42 2.00 1.09 1.333.26 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 23.75 2 0 17.32 23.75 23.75 17.32 11.5036.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 261.50 4 0 20.42 262.00 261.50 20.42 237.00 285.00 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories9--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 ----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.47 3 0 72.42 103.00 141.47 72.42 96.40 225.00 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-6 7.34 3 0 1.30 7.17 7.34 1.30 6.138.72 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 25.98 2 0 17.42 25.98 25.98 17.42 13.6638.30 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.05 4 0 32.67 270.10 272.05 32.67 237.01 311.00 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.94 3 0 72.54 103.82 141.94 72.54 96.41 225.60 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-6 6.79 5 0 2.21 7.70 6.79 2.21 3.268.90 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-2 81.68 5 0 4.83 78.90 81.68 4.83 77.6088.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-3 67.40 5 0 10.63 66.30 67.40 10.63 53.6083.30 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-1 32.17 3 0 3.88 34.10 32.17 3.88 27.7034.70 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-6 13.23 5 0 6.96 13.40 13.23 6.96 2.1519.90 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-2 0.25 5 1 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.160.37 0.10 0.10 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-3 0.84 5 2 0.67 1.00 0.74 0.92 0.101.80 1.00 1.00 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-1 0.40 3 3 0.00 0.40 . . .. 0.40 0.40 MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-6 4.20 5 2 0.45 4.00 4.33 0.58 4.005.00 4.00 4.00 MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-2 362.60 5 0 87.80 360.00 362.60 87.80 233.00 463.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-3 1670.00 5 0 294.28 1720.00 1670.00 294.28 1250.00 2000.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-1 836.67 3 0 190.35 850.00 836.67 190.35 640.00 1020.00 . . MG/L--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------------------------------Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-4 267.00 5 0 119.16 246.00 267.00 119.16 134.00 441.00 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 15.12 5 0 10.85 10.80 15.12 10.85 6.8134.10 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.80 5 0 123.99 251.00 272.80 123.99 140.00 464.00 . . MG/LAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 101.13 3 0 18.47 94.50 101.13 18.47 86.90 122.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-4 1264.80 5 0 370.71 1150.00 1264.80 370.71 945.00 1830.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 1492.00 5 0 227.31 1410.00 1492.00 227.31 1220.00 1820.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 2208.00 5 0 518.33 2070.00 2208.00 518.33 1740.00 3100.00 . . MG/LBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 3870.00 3 0 1461.13 3350.00 3870.00 1461.13 2740.00 5520.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-4 1768.00 5 0 117.13 1820.00 1768.00 117.13 1590.00 1870.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-2 2630.00 5 0 49.50 2630.00 2630.00 49.50 2570.00 2700.00 . . MG/LCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6335 SP-3 3994.00 5 0 1199.76 4310.00 3994.00 1199.76 2000.00 4930.00 . . MG/LAttachment 13-1. Summary Statistics for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories10--------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 ---------------------------------------------------------(continued)Total Obs Obs Mean Std MinMax Min MaxEpisode Number Num Std Median Value Dev ValueValue Value ValueAnalyte Episode Point Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NCNC ND ND UnitCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 6447 SP-1 5940.00 3 0 1098.23 5550.00 5940.00 1098.23 5090.00 7180.00 . . MG/LFECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-4 1142600.00 5 0 700445.43 1600000.00 1142600.00 700445.43 13000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-2 820000.00 5 0 712039.32 300000.00 820000.00 712039.32 300000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6335 SP-3 1380000.00 5 0 491934.96 1600000.00 1380000.00 491934.96 500000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSFECAL COLIFORM 6447 SP-1 1233333.33 3 0 635085.30 1600000.00 1233333.33 635085.30 500000.00 1600000.00 . . /100MLSHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-4 16.29 5 0 3.29 15.83 16.29 3.29 13.0021.80 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-2 162.77 5 0 53.24 178.50 162.77 53.24 96.33 230.17 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6335 SP-3 345.30 5 0 134.63 271.50 345.30 134.63 266.50 580.33 . . MG/LHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL 6447 SP-1 361.28 3 0 269.23 312.67 361.28 269.23 119.67 651.50 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-4 0.09 5 0 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.070.10 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-2 2.13 5 0 0.15 2.16 2.13 0.15 1.892.30 . . MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6335 SP-3 8.46 5 1 18.75 0.08 10.57 20.96 0.0842.00 0.01 0.01 MG/LNITRATE/NITRITE 6447 SP-1 0.48 3 1 0.42 0.60 0.71 0.16 0.600.82 0.01 0.01 MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-4 148.00 2 0 14.14 148.00 148.00 14.14 138.00 158.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 23.75 2 0 17.32 23.75 23.75 17.32 11.5036.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 261.50 4 0 20.42 262.00 261.50 20.42 237.00 285.00 . . MG/LTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.47 3 0 72.42 103.00 141.47 72.42 96.40 225.00 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-4 148.08 2 0 14.15 148.08 148.08 14.15 138.07 158.08 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-2 25.98 2 0 17.42 25.98 25.98 17.42 13.6638.30 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6335 SP-3 272.05 4 0 32.67 270.10 272.05 32.67 237.01 311.00 . . MG/LTOTAL NITROGEN 6447 SP-1 141.94 3 0 72.54 103.82 141.94 72.54 96.41 225.60 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-4 31.88 5 0 9.24 32.50 31.88 9.24 23.5046.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-2 81.68 5 0 4.83 78.90 81.68 4.83 77.6088.40 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6335 SP-3 67.40 5 0 10.63 66.30 67.40 10.63 53.6083.30 . . MG/LTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 6447 SP-1 32.17 3 0 3.88 34.10 32.17 3.88 27.7034.70 . . MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-4 0.10 5 4 0.00 0.10 0.11 . 0.110.11 0.10 0.10 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-2 0.25 5 1 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.160.37 0.10 0.10 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6335 SP-3 0.84 5 2 0.67 1.00 0.74 0.92 0.101.80 1.00 1.00 MG/LTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 6447 SP-1 0.40 3 3 0.00 0.40 . . .. 0.40 0.40 MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-4 275.20 5 0 34.35 263.00 275.20 34.35 253.00 335.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-2 362.60 5 0 87.80 360.00 362.60 87.80 233.00 463.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6335 SP-3 1670.00 5 0 294.28 1720.00 1670.00 294.28 1250.00 2000.00 . . MG/LTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 6447 SP-1 836.67 3 0 190.35 850.00 836.67 190.35 640.00 1020.00 . . MG/LAttachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors1----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First ------------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6445 350.2 0.250 2.051 1.1261.103BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6445 405.1 2.000 . ..CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6445 410.2 28.024 2.271 1.1471.120FECAL 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 1.1611.131---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further -----------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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 Factors2--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering ----------------------------------------(continued)Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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 1.3211.262---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ----------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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 1.3211.262--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ---------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6440 350.2 0.130 2.261 1.1461.119AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6441 350.2 1.000 . ..Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors3----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First -----------------------------------------(continued)Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6442 350.2 0.888 2.307 1.1501.123AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 0.516 1.788 1.0991.081BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6440 405.1 8.267 1.310 1.0481.039BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6441 405.1 9.480 4.568 1.3401.278BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6442 405.1 7.601 1.474 1.0611.050BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6447 405.1 5.188 1.927 1.1031.084CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6440 410.2 33.016 1.130 1.0201.016CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6441 410.4 22.382 1.333 1.0451.037CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6442 410.1 136.354 1.216 1.0321.026CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6447 410.2 52.041 1.398 1.0551.045FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6440 9221E 21.747 2.273 1.2551.208FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6441 9221E 1503.957 . ..FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6442 9221E 1524.496 14.796 8.9247.470FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6447 9221E 35.319 4.224 1.3621.296HEXANE 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 1.3971.324TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6440 330.5 0.200 . ..TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6441 330.5 0.232 1.726 1.0841.069TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6442 330.5 0.200 . ..TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6447 330.5 0.811 2.878 1.2011.164TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6440 160.2 13.365 2.188 1.1391.113TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6441 160.2 40.282 3.272 1.2341.191TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6442 160.2 24.104 1.361 1.0501.041TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6447 160.2 22.976 1.414 1.0571.047---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further ----------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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 Factors4---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further ----------------------------------------(continued)Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6440 350.2 1.286 2.261 1.1461.119AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6441 350.2 1.286 . ..AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6442 350.2 1.286 2.307 1.1501.123AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6447 350.2 1.286 1.788 1.0991.081BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6440 405.1 7.011 1.310 1.0481.039BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6441 405.1 7.035 4.568 1.3401.278BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6442 405.1 6.820 1.474 1.0611.050BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6447 405.1 5.333 1.927 1.1031.084CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6440 410.1 37.525 1.130 1.0201.016CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6441 410.1 37.094 1.333 1.0451.037CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6442 410.1 117.176 1.216 1.0321.026CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 MG/L 6447 410.1 47.337 1.398 1.0551.045FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6440 9221E 455.435 2.273 1.2551.208FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6441 9221E 768.000 . ..FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6442 9221E 1194.777 14.796 8.9247.470FECAL COLIFORM C2106 /100MLS 6447 9221E 455.435 4.224 1.3621.296HEXANE 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 1.3971.324TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6440 330.5 0.400 . ..TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6441 330.5 0.400 1.726 1.0841.069TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6442 330.5 0.400 . ..TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 MG/L 6447 330.5 0.645 2.878 1.2011.164TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6440 160.2 12.632 2.188 1.1391.113Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors5--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering ---------------------------------------(continued)Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6441 160.2 29.384 3.272 1.2341.191TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6442 160.2 22.238 1.361 1.0501.041TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6447 160.2 19.246 1.414 1.0571.047----------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First -----------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 3.754 6.485 1.5081.415BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6335 405.1 6.851 2.400 1.1581.129FECAL 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 1.0641.053TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 2.077 2.823 1.1961.160TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 7.378 1.485 1.0651.053TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 MG/L 6335 365.2 7.864 2.350 1.1541.126TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6335 160.2 4.925 1.347 1.0411.033---------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further ----------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 2.343 6.485 1.5081.415BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 MG/L 6335 405.1 4.683 2.400 1.1581.129FECAL 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 1.0641.053TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 2.077 2.823 1.1961.160TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 MG/L 6335 351.3 7.378 1.485 1.0651.053TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 MG/L 6335 365.2 8.422 2.350 1.1541.126TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 MG/L 6335 160.2 4.207 1.347 1.0411.033Attachment 13-2 Episode-Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors6--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering ---------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 1092.514 2.614 .1.145HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 37.409 1.525 .1.057--------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ----------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. V.F.V.F.AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 MG/L 6335 350.2 15.086 2.614 .1.145HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 MG/L 6335 1664 7.816 1.525 .1.057-------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ---------------------------------------Est. 1-Day 20-Day30-DayAnalyte CAS_NO Unit Episode Method LTA V.F. 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-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 3.2325 2.0850 1.12871.1051 6.7397 3.6487 3.5723BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 6.5146 2.3199 1.13801.1127 15.1132 7.4137 7.2487CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5.0 MG/L MG/L 36.0354 1.7700 1.09221.0753 63.7842 39.3595 38.7495FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 316.6088 7.0979 3.84723.3247 2,247.2448 1,218.0526 1,052.6346HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 15.5386 5.2542 1.39731.3244 81.6432 21.7119 20.5791TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.2 MG/L MG/L 0.4000 2.3018 1.14231.1162 0.9207 0.4569 0.4465TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 27.5626 2.2423 1.14051.1147 61.8038 31.4350 30.7244------------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.50791.4147 15.1866 3.5334 3.2994BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.15801.1290 11.2402 5.4224 5.2867FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . .. . . .HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 23.5833 5.2542 1.39731.3244 123.9116 32.9527 31.2334TOTAL 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 1.16101.1314 19.7548 9.4536 9.2131------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.50791.4147 15.1866 3.5334 3.2994BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 7.2518 2.4003 1.15801.1290 17.4068 8.3973 8.1871FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . .. . . .HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 37.2537 5.2542 1.39731.3244 195.7382 52.0540 49.3381TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 9.7600 2.4260 1.16101.1314 23.6780 11.3311 11.0428----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 4.1224 6.4850 1.50791.4147 26.7388 6.2212 5.8092BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.15801.1290 11.2402 5.4224 5.2867CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5.0 MG/L MG/L 29.6394 2.2705 1.14671.1198 67.2972 33.9874 33.1895FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . .. . . .HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 19.5000 5.2542 1.39731.3244 102.4569 27.2471 25.8255TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 34.3830 2.4260 1.16101.1314 83.4139 39.9176 38.9020------------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.50791.4147 15.1918 3.5323 3.3140Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations------------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------(continued)Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.15801.1290 11.2402 5.4224 5.2867FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . .. . . .HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 23.2225 5.2542 1.39731.3244 122.0159 32.4485 30.7555NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 1.06441.0525 8.9158 6.4320 6.3606TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 1.19591.1600 5.8623 2.4835 2.4088TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 1.19591.1600 20.8279 8.8235 8.5582TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 1.15401.1258 16.3664 8.0375 7.8406TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.20 MG/L MG/L 15.9610 5.4976 1.41821.3415 87.7476 22.6365 21.4115TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 1.04081.0333 5.6680 4.3786 4.3471------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.50791.4147 15.1918 3.5323 3.3140BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 7.1697 2.4003 1.15801.1290 17.2098 8.3022 8.0944FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . .. . . .HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 16.5952 5.2542 1.39731.3244 87.1946 23.1883 21.9784NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 1.06441.0525 8.9158 6.4320 6.3606TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 4.9440 2.8230 1.19591.1600 13.9567 5.9126 5.7348TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 1.19591.1600 20.8279 8.8235 8.5582TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 1.15401.1258 16.3664 8.0375 7.8406TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.20 MG/L MG/L 15.9610 5.4976 1.41821.3415 87.7476 22.6365 21.4115TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 1.04081.0333 5.6680 4.3786 4.3471----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 1.50791.4147 15.1918 3.5323 3.3140BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 1.15801.1290 11.2402 5.4224 5.2867FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.00 /100MLS /100MLS 21.5000 . .. . . .HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.00 MG/L MG/L 13.0906 5.2542 1.39731.3244 68.7808 18.2914 17.3370NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 1.06441.0525 8.9158 6.4320 6.3606TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 4.0956 2.8230 1.19591.1600 11.5619 4.8980 4.7508TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 1.19591.1600 20.8279 8.8235 8.5582TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 1.15401.1258 16.3664 8.0375 7.8406TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.20 MG/L MG/L 15.9610 5.4976 1.41821.3415 87.7476 22.6365 21.4115TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 6.9734 1.3473 1.04081.0333 9.3954 7.2581 7.2059------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5 MG/L MG/L 13.1953 4.3370 1.32091.2620 57.2276 17.4296 16.6526Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5 MG/L MG/L 17.7848 4.3370 1.32091.2620 77.1322 23.4919 22.4446---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5 MG/L MG/L 183.7416 4.3370 1.32091.2620 796.8813 242.7032 231.8835------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 3.7540 6.4850 .1.4147 24.3446 . 5.3106BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 6.8507 2.4003 .1.1290 16.4439 . 7.7342FECAL 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 . 7.8139NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 7.8935 1.4754 .1.0525 11.6458 . 8.3082TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 .1.1600 5.8623 . 2.4088TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 .1.1600 20.8279 . 8.5582TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 7.8639 2.3499 .1.1258 18.4795 . 8.8529TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.9254 1.3473 .1.0333 6.6361 . 5.0896----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 .1.4147 15.1918 . 3.3140BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 4.6827 2.4003 .1.1290 11.2402 . 5.2867FECAL 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 . 7.8139NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 .1.0525 8.9158 . 6.3606TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 .1.1600 5.8623 . 2.4088TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 .1.1600 20.8279 . 8.5582TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 8.4222 2.3499 .1.1258 19.7916 . 9.4815TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 .1.0333 5.6680 . 4.3471---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.20 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 6.4850 .1.4147 15.1918 . 3.3140BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.00 MG/L MG/L 8.3465 2.4003 .1.1290 20.0345 . 9.4230FECAL 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 . 10.2931NITRATE/NITRITE C005 0.05 MG/L MG/L 6.0431 1.4754 .1.0525 8.9158 . 6.3606Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------(continued)Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 0.50 MG/L MG/L 2.0766 2.8230 .1.1600 5.8623 . 2.4088TOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 0.55 MG/L MG/L 7.3779 2.8230 .1.1600 20.8279 . 8.5582TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 0.01 MG/L MG/L 6.9647 2.3499 .1.1258 16.3664 . 7.8406TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.00 MG/L MG/L 4.2069 1.3473 .1.0333 5.6680 . 4.3471------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5 MG/L MG/L 42.5286 1.2696 .1.0309 53.9924 . 43.8410----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5 MG/L MG/L 47.3372 1.2696 .1.0309 60.0973 . 48.7981---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 2.3426 2.1189 .1.1075 4.9637 . 2.5945BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 2.0 MG/L MG/L 8.3465 2.3199 .1.1127 19.3629 . 9.2870CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 5.0 MG/L MG/L 42.4314 1.2696 .1.0309 53.8690 . 43.7408FECAL COLIFORM C2106 2.0 /100MLS /100MLS 611.7175 7.0979 .3.3247 4,341.8856 . 2,033.7878HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 11.5773 5.2542 .1.3244 60.8294 . 15.3328TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 0.2 MG/L MG/L 0.4000 2.3018 .1.1162 0.9207 . 0.4465TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 4.0 MG/L MG/L 20.7423 2.0586 .1.0980 42.6997 . 22.7749------------------------------------------------------------ Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First ------------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 1,092.5140 2.6138 .1.1451 2,855.5686 . 1,251.0569HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 37.4089 1.5253 .1.0573 57.0581 . 39.5531----------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further -----------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 15.0862 2.6138 .1.1451 39.4316 . 17.2754HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 7.8163 1.5253 .1.0573 11.9218 . 8.2643Attachment 13-3. Concentration-Based Limitations---------------------------------------------------------- Subcategory=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ----------------------------------------------------------Baseline Baseline 1-Day 20-Day30-Day Daily 20-Day 30-DayAnalyte CAS Number Value Unit Unit LTA V.F. V.F.V.F. Limit Limit LimitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 0.2 MG/L MG/L 99.6971 2.6138 .1.1451 260.5842 . 114.1649HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 5.0 MG/L MG/L 19.5734 1.5253 .1.0573 29.8544 . 20.69531Live Weight Killed2Finished Product3Raw MaterialAttachment 13-4. Production ValuesMeat First Processing322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK1Further Processing555.4 gal/1000 lb FP2Meat Cutting130.4 gal/1000 lb FPRendering346.0 gal/1000 lb RM3Poultry First Processing1,289 gal/1000 lb LWKFurther Processing315.7 gal/1000 lb FPRendering346.0 gal/1000 lb RMIndependent Rendering346.0 gal/1000 lb RMAttachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations--------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Independent -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering ---------------------------------------------------------Production- Production- Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00933 0.01940.0105 0.0103 lb/1000 lb RMBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0188 0.04360.0214 0.0209 lb/1000 lb RMCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.104 0.1840.113 0.111 lb/1000 lb RMFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.914 6.483.51 3.03 lb/1000 lb RMHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0448 0.2350.0626 0.0594 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00115 0.002650.00131 0.00128 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0795 0.1780.0907 0.0887 lb/1000 lb RM------------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0252 0.1630.0380 0.0355 lb/1000 lb LWKBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0503 0.1200.0583 0.0568 lb/1000 lb LWKFECAL COLIFORM C2106 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.231 .. . lb/1000 lb LWKHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.253 1.330.354 0.335 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.171 .. . lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0875 0.2120.101 0.0991 lb/1000 lb LWK------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00617 0.04000.00931 0.00869 lb/1000 lb FPBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0191 0.04580.0221 0.0215 lb/1000 lb FPFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0566 .. . lb/1000 lb FPHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0981 0.5150.137 0.129 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0257 0.06230.0298 0.0290 lb/1000 lb FP----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT2 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Production- Production- Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0119 0.07720.0179 0.0168 lb/1000 lb RMBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0135 0.03240.0156 0.0152 lb/1000 lb RMCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0855 0.1940.0981 0.0958 lb/1000 lb RMFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0620 .. . lb/1000 lb RMHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0563 0.2950.0786 0.0745 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0992 0.2400.115 0.112 lb/1000 lb RMAttachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations------------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0252 0.1630.0379 0.0356 lb/1000 lb LWKBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0503 0.1200.0583 0.0568 lb/1000 lb LWKFECAL COLIFORM C2106 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.231 .. . lb/1000 lb LWKHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.249 1.310.349 0.330 lb/1000 lb LWKNITRATE/NITRITE C005 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0650 0.09590.0691 0.0684 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0223 0.06300.0267 0.0259 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0793 0.2240.0949 0.0920 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0749 0.1760.0864 0.0843 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.171 0.9430.243 0.230 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0452 0.06090.0471 0.0467 lb/1000 lb LWK------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00617 0.04000.00930 0.00873 lb/1000 lb FPBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0188 0.04530.0218 0.0213 lb/1000 lb FPFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0566 .. . lb/1000 lb FPHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0437 0.2290.0610 0.0579 lb/1000 lb FPNITRATE/NITRITE C005 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0159 0.02340.0169 0.0167 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0130 0.03670.0155 0.0151 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0194 0.05480.0232 0.0225 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0183 0.04310.0211 0.0206 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0420 0.2310.0596 0.0564 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0110 0.01490.0115 0.0114 lb/1000 lb FP----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Production- Production- Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00676 0.04380.0102 0.00956 lb/1000 lb RMBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0135 0.03240.0156 0.0152 lb/1000 lb RMFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0620 .. . lb/1000 lb RMHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0377 0.1980.0528 0.0500 lb/1000 lb RMNITRATE/NITRITE C005 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0174 0.02570.0185 0.0183 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0118 0.03330.0141 0.0137 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0213 0.06010.0254 0.0247 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0201 0.04720.0232 0.0226 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0460 0.2530.0653 0.0618 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0201 0.02710.0209 0.0208 lb/1000 lb RMAttachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 1289 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.141 0.6150.187 0.179 lb/1000 lb LWK----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 315.7 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0468 0.2030.0618 0.0591 lb/1000 lb FP---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Poultry -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Production- Production- Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.530 2.300.700 0.669 lb/1000 lb RM------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0101 0.0655. 0.0143 lb/1000 lb LWKBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0184 0.0442. 0.0208 lb/1000 lb LWKFECAL COLIFORM C2106 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.249 .. . lb/1000 lb LWKHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0158 0.0835. 0.0210 lb/1000 lb LWKNITRATE/NITRITE C005 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0212 0.0313. 0.0223 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.00559 0.0157. 0.00648 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0198 0.0561. 0.0230 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0211 0.0497. 0.0238 lb/1000 lb LWKTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.0132 0.0178. 0.0137 lb/1000 lb LWK----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0108 0.0704. 0.0153 lb/1000 lb FPBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0217 0.0520. 0.0245 lb/1000 lb FPFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.103 .. . lb/1000 lb FPHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0273 0.143. 0.0362 lb/1000 lb FPNITRATE/NITRITE C005 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0280 0.0413. 0.0294 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00962 0.0271. 0.0111 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0341 0.0965. 0.0396 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0390 0.0917. 0.0439 lb/1000 lb FPAttachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------(continued)Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0194 0.0262. 0.0201 lb/1000 lb FP---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Production- Production- Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00676 0.0438. 0.00956 lb/1000 lb RMBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0241 0.0578. 0.0272 lb/1000 lb RMFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0663 .. . lb/1000 lb RMHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0224 0.117. 0.0297 lb/1000 lb RMNITRATE/NITRITE C005 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0174 0.0257. 0.0183 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00599 0.0169. 0.00695 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0213 0.0601. 0.0247 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0201 0.0472. 0.0226 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0121 0.0163. 0.0125 lb/1000 lb RM--------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BAT3 -- Processing=Meat Cutters ---------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00254 0.0165. 0.00360 lb/1000 lb FPBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00509 0.0122. 0.00575 lb/1000 lb FPFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0243 .. . lb/1000 lb FPHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00642 0.0337. 0.00850 lb/1000 lb FPNITRATE/NITRITE C005 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00657 0.00970. 0.00692 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00225 0.00637. 0.00262 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL NITROGEN C005+C021 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00802 0.0226. 0.00931 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00916 0.0215. 0.0103 lb/1000 lb FPTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00457 0.00616. 0.00473 lb/1000 lb FP------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=First -------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.114 0.145. 0.118 lb/1000 lb LWKAttachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Further ------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.219 0.278. 0.226 lb/1000 lb FP---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Rendering -----------------------------------------------------------Production- Production- Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00676 0.0143. 0.00749 lb/1000 lb RMBIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C003 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0241 0.0559. 0.0268 lb/1000 lb RMCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.122 0.155. 0.126 lb/1000 lb RMFECAL COLIFORM C2106 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 1.76 12.5. 5.87 lb/1000 lb RMHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0334 0.175. 0.0442 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 7782505 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.00115 0.00265. 0.00128 lb/1000 lb RMTOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0598 0.123. 0.0657 lb/1000 lb RM--------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=BPT2 -- Processing=Meat Cutters ---------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND C004 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0515 0.0654. 0.0531 lb/1000 lb FP------------------------------------------------------------ Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=First ------------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 2.94 7.69. 3.37 lb/1000 lb LWKHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 First Processors 322.8 gal/1000 lb LWK 0.100 0.153. 0.106 lb/1000 lb LWK----------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Further -----------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number General Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0699 0.182. 0.0800 lb/1000 lb FPHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Further Processors 555.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0362 0.0552. 0.0383 lb/1000 lb FPAttachment 13-5. Production-Normalized Limitations---------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Rendering ----------------------------------------------------------Production- Production- Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit 20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.287 0.752. 0.329 lb/1000 lb RMHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Renderers 346.0 gal/1000 lb RM 0.0565 0.0862. 0.0597 lb/1000 lb RM-------------------------------------------------------- Meat Type=Red Meat -- Option=PSES1 -- Processing=Meat Cutters ---------------------------------------------------------Production- Production-Production- Production- Production-General Production normalized normalizednormalized normalized normalizedAnalyte CAS Number Process Production Unit LTA Daily Limit20-day Limit 30-day Limit UnitAMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.0164 0.0429. 0.0188 lb/1000 lb FPHEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL C036 Meat Cutters 130.4 gal/1000 lb FP 0.00850 0.0129. 0.00899 lb/1000 lb FPI-1 

## A PPENDIX 

## I

40 CFR P ART 

## 4321 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 thedegree 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 thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology. Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouse Subcategory432.20 Applicability; description of the complex slaughterhouse subcategory. 432.21 Specialized definitions. 432.22 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology. Subpart F—Meat Cutter Subcategory432.60 Applicability; description of the meat cutter subcategory. 432.61 Specialized definitions. 432.62 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available. 432.63 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available. 432.73 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available. 432.83 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree 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 thedegree 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 thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available. 432.93 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree 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 thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology.

Subpart J—Renderer Subcategory432.100 Applicability; description of the renderer subcategory. 432.101 Specialized definitions. 432.102 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available. 432.103 Effluent limitations guidelines representing thedegree 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 thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollution control technology.
A UTHORITY : 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.

S OURCE : 39 FR 7897, Feb. 28, 1974, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouse Subcategory § 432.10 Applicability; description ofthe 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 setforth 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 mainproduct 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) shallmean 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 tomeasurement 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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 apoint 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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. 2 Within 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) ofhides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may bedischarged 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.04 0.02 TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 theprocessing 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.04 0.02 TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 thewet 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.06 0.03 TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 animalsslaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a point sourcesubject 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.02 0.01 TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 )
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.02 0.01 TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 )

1 Within 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 orquality 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. BOD 5 .............................................. 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 maybe 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 propertiescontrolled 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 anew 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 renderingof material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than slaughterhouse, which may bedischarged 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 anew 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventionalpollutant 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 ofthe 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 set6 § 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 mainproduct 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) shallmean 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 tomeasurement 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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 apoint 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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. 2 Within 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) ofhides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may bedischarged 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.04 0.02 TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 theprocessing 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 addition7 § 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.04 0.02 TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 thewet 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.06 0.03 TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 animalsslaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which may be discharged by a point sourcesubject 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.02 0.01 TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 orquality 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. BOD 5 .............................................. 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 maybe 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 propertiescontrolled 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 anew 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 renderingof material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the slaughterhouse, which maybe 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 anew 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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 setforth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘packinghouse’’ shall mean aplant 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) shallmean 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 tomeasurement 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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 apoint 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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. 2 Within 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) ofhides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may bedischarged 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 the10 § 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.04 0.02 TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 thewet 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.06 0.03 TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 animalsslaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a point sourcesubject 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.02 0.01 TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 orquality 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. BOD 5 .............................................. 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 maybe 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 propertiescontrolled 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 renderingof material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may bedischarged 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 anew 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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 redmeat 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 setforth in 40 CFR part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term ‘‘packinghouse’’ shall mean aplant 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 bothanimals slaughtered at the site and additional carcasses from outside sources.

(d) The term ‘‘LWK’’ (live weight killed) shallmean 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 tomeasurement 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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 apoint 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)

BOD 5 + ................................. 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)

BOD 5 + ................................. 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. 2 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. +The values for BOD 5 and suspended solids are for average plants, i.e., plants with a ratio of average weightof 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 BOD 5 /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) ofhides derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may bedischarged 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.04 0.02 TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 theprocessing 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.04 0.02 TSS ...................................... 0.08 0.04
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 thewet 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.06 0.03 TSS ...................................... 0.12 0.06
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 animalsslaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may be discharged by a point sourcesubject 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.02 0.01 TSS ...................................... 0.04 0.02
English units (pounds per 1,000 lb ELWK)

BOD 5 .................................... 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 orquality 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. BOD 5 .............................................. 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 carcassesof animals slaughtered onsite which may be discharged by a new source subject to the provisionsof 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 renderingof material derived from animals slaughtered at locations other than the packinghouse, which may bedischarged 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 anew 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventionalpollutant 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

S OURCE : 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 todischarges 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 setforth 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 2.0 1.0 TSS ...................................... 2.4 1.2 Oil and grease ...................... 1.0 0.5 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms ..................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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, which16 § 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 1.0 0.5 TSS ...................................... 1.2 0.6 Oil and grease ...................... 0.5 0.25 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms ..................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 orquality 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

BOD 5 .............................................. 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 effluentreduction 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 orquality 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 valuesfor 30 consecutive days shall

not exceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of

finished product)

BOD 5 ......................................... 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)

BOD 5 ......................................... 1.0 0.5 TSS ............................................ 1.2 0.6 Oil and grease ........................... 0.5 0.25 pH .............................................. ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms .......................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
2 No limitation. [51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986] Subpart F—Meat Cutter Subcategory

S OURCE : 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 todischarges 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 setforth 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 thefinal 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.036 0.018 TSS ...................................... 10.044 0.022 Oil and grease ...................... 0.012 0.006 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms ..................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 effluentreduction 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 provisionsof 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.030 0.015 TSS ...................................... 0.036 0.018 Oil and grease ...................... 0.012 0.006 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms ..................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 orquality 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

BOD 5 .............................................. 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventionalpollutant 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

S OURCE : 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 setforth 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 otherwiseproduces 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 thefinal 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.56 0.28 TSS ...................................... 0.68 0.34 Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms ..................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 effluentreduction 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 provisionsof 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, which19 § 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.48 0.24 TSS ...................................... 0.58 0.29 Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms ..................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 orquality 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
BOD 5 .............................................. 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 effluentreduction 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 conventionalpollutant 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

S OURCE : 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 hamsalone 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 setforth 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.62 0.31 TSS ...................................... 0.74 0.37 Oil and grease ...................... 0.22 0.11 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliform ....................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 effluentreduction 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 provisionsof 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.62 0.31 TSS ...................................... 0.74 0.37 Oil and grease ...................... 0.22 0.11 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliform ....................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 orquality 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

BOD 5 .............................................. 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventionalpollutant 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 best21 § 432.95
practicable control technology currently available (BPT). [51 FR 25001, July 9, 1986] Subpart I—Canned Meats

Processor Subcategory

S OURCE : 40 FR 909, Jan. 3, 1975, unless otherwise noted. § 432.90 Applicability; description ofthe 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 anyother 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 setforth 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.74 0.37 TSS ...................................... 0.90 0.45 Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.13 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliform ....................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 effluentreduction 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 provisionsof 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.74 0.37 TSS ...................................... 0.90 0.45 Oil and grease ...................... 0.26 0.13 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliform ....................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 orquality 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

BOD 5 .............................................. 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 effluentreduction 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 limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventionalpollutant 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

S OURCE : 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 setforth 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 orpoultry 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 productmade from beef cattle or sheep fat that has a melting point of 40 ° C or greater.

(e) The term ‘‘raw material’’ or as abbreviatedherein, ‘‘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 practicablecontrol 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 thebest 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.34 0.17 TSS ...................................... 0.42 0.21 Oil and grease ...................... 0.20 0.10 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliform ....................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 BOD 5 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 BOD 5 and TSS.
BOD 5 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 availabletechnology 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 provisionsof 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) ofthis 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 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)

BOD 5 .................................... 0.18 0.09 TSS ...................................... .22 .11 Oil and grease ...................... .10 .05 Ammonia .............................. .14 .07 pH ......................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Fecal coliforms ..................... ( 2 ) ( 2 )

1 Within 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 BOD 5 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 beused to derive an additive adjustment to the standards for BOD 5 and TSS.24 § 432.106

BOD 5 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 orquality 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
BOD 5 .............................................. 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 valuesfor 30 consecutive days shall

not exceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of raw material)

BOD 5 ......................................... 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)

BOD 5 ......................................... 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.
2 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. (b) The limitations given in paragraph (a) of this section for BOD 5 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 BOD 5 and TSS.

BOD 5 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 

## A PPENDIX 

## J

E XAMPLES OF 

## C ALCULATING 

## MPP L IMITATIONS AND 

## S TANDARDSAppendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-2 Example 1: Determine the maximum monthly BPT BOD 5 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 liv e weight killed (LWK) on-site.

On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 lb/h ead) + (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 (S ubpart 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 BOD 5 , 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 BOD 5 limit [0.21 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD 5 /1,000 lbLWK)]. This monthly BPT BOD 5 limit is taken from 432.22(b)(1), which is equivalent to 432.22(a)(1) for BOD 5 , TSS, O&G and fecal coliform bacteria.Appendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions 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 Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-4 Example 3: What are the maximum monthly average BOD 5 and TSS BPT mass-based limits for a High-Processing Packinghous e which slaughters 100 million LWK pounds per year and that has an average proce ssed meat products (lb) to average LWK (lb) ratio (v) of 0.65.

Solution 3: This facility is a high-processing p ackinghouse (Subpart D) and is subject to 432.42(b)(1) (i.e., facility slaughters mo re than 50 million lb-LWK per year) which is set equivalent to 432.42(a)(1) for BOD 5 , TSS, O&G, and fecal coliform. Therefore, use the 432.42(a)(1) ad justment equation as follows:

v = 0.65

lb-BOD 5 / 1,000 lb-LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v - 0.4) = 0.21 + 0.23 (0.65 - 0.4) = 0.2675
~ 0.27 lb-BOD 5 / 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 BOD 5 and TSS BPT limits are twice the maximum monthly average BOD 5 and TSS BPT limits.Appendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-5 Example 4: What are the maximum monthly average BOD 5 and TSS BPT limits for an independent rendering fac ility which handles 206,000 lb of raw material (RM) per day, operates 280 days per y ear, and also cures 100 hides.

Solution 4: This facility is a independe nt 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 BOD 5 Max. Monthly Limit = 0.17 1b-BOD 5 /1,000 lb-RM

432.102(a) BPT TSS Max. Monthly Limit = 0.21 1b-TSS/1,000 lb-RM

BOD 5 Incremental Hide Curing Adjus tment = [17.6 x (No. of Hides)]/lb-RM = [17.6 x 100]/206,000
= 0.0085 1b-BOD 5 ./1,000 lb-RM

TSS Incremental Hide Curing Adjus tment = [24.2 x (No. of Hides)]/lb-RM = [24.2 x 100]/206,000 = 0.012 1b-TSS/1,000 lb-RM

Adjusted BOD 5 BPT Max. Monthly Limit = (0.17 1b-BOD 5 /1,000 lb-RM) + (0.0085 1bBOD 5 /1,000 lb-RM)
= 0.1785 1b-BOD 5 /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 BOD 5 and TSS BPT limits are twice the maximum monthly average BOD 5 and TSS BPT limits.Appendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-6 Example 5: Determine the maximum monthly average BPT BOD 5 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 gall ons 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 slaughte rhouse (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 equiva lent to 432.22(a)(1) for BOD 5 , TSS, O&G, and fecal
coliform bacteria.

Because this facility also cures hides and dry renders blood and o ffal 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 BOD 5 and TSS adjustments for Subparts A, B, C, and D are calcu lated using the following table.

Table EX-5. MPP BOD 5 and TSS Adjustment Factors for BPT Limits

Processin g Dail y Max BPT, k g /kk g -ELWK b Monthl y Max BPT, k g /kk g -ELWK b
Notes BOD 5 TSS BOD 5 TSS
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 BOD 5 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 theAppendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions 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 renderi ng materials) x (0.003)

For Cattle Hides: Equivalent live weight killed (ELW K) in kkg = (No. of hides) x (0.45)

Use the given values and the adjustment factor s and relationships to calculate the required
BPT limits.

On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 lb/h ead) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 lb/head) = 925,000 lb-LWK/day = 419,573 kg-LWK/day = 419.6 kkg-LWK/day

ELWK blood = (10,000 gal) x (0.108) = 1,080 kkg-ELWK

ELWKrendering = (200,000 lb) x (0.003) = 600 kkg-ELWK

ELWK hides = (300 hides) x (0.45) = 135 kkg-ELWK

BOD 5 Incremental Adjustment = (0.02 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-ELWK) x (1,080 kkg-ELWK/419.6 kkg-LWK) for Blood Processing (BOD 5 IA blood ) = 0.051 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-LWK

BOD 5 IA hides = (0.02 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-ELWK) x (135 kkg-ELWK/419.6 kkg-LWK) = 0.006 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-LWKAppendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-8 BOD 5 IA rendering = (0.01 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-ELWK) x (600 kkg-ELWK/419.6 kkg-LWK) = 0.014 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-LWK 

###  BOD 5 IA = BOD 5 IA blood + BOD 5 IA hides + BOD 5 IA rendering = 0.051 + 0.006 + 0.014 = 0.071 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD 5 /1,000 lb-LWK)

On-site Kill Effluent Limit for BOD 5 = 0.21 [Taken from 432.22(b)(1) which is equivalent to 432.22(a)(1) for BOD 5 , TSS, O&G and fecal coliform bateria.]

Adjusted BOD 5 Effluent Limit = 0.21 + 0.071 = 0.281 kg-BOD 5 /kkg-LWK (or lb-BOD 5 /1,000 lb-LWK)Appendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-9 Example 6: Determine the maximum monthly average BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a high-processing packinghouse that operate s 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 car casses, and renders (on average per day) 370,000 pounds of raw material.

Solution 6: First calculate the amount of liv e weight killed (LWK) on-site.

On-site LWK = (700 cattle/day) x (1,000 lb/h ead) + (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 packing house (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. Th e 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

Re g ulated Parameter Dail y Max BAT Monthl y Max BAT

Notes Further Processin g k g /kk g -FP Renderin g k g /kk g -RM Further Processin g k g /kk g -FP Renderin g k g /kk g -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/h ead) + (1,000 hogs/day) x (225 lb/head) = 925,000 lb-LWK/day = 419,573 kg-LWK/day = 419.6 kkg-LWK/dayAppendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-10 Further Processing Products = 200,000 lb-FP/day = 90.7 kkg-FP/day

Rendering Raw Mate rial = 370,000 lb-RM/day = 167.8 kkg-RM/day

Ammonia-N Incremental Adjustment for Further = (0.0153 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-FP) x (90.7 kkg-FP/419.6 kkg-LWK) Processing (NH 3 -N IA FP ) = 0.003 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK

NH 3 -N IA RM = (0.0096 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-RM) x (167.8 kkg-RM/419.6 kkg-LWK) = 0.004 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK 

###  NH 3 -N IA = NH 3 -N IA FP + NH 3 -N IA RM = 0.003 + 0.004 = 0.007 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH 3 -N/1000 lb-LWK)

On-site Kill Effluent Limit = 0.0143 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK [Taken from 432.43, which is equivalent to 432.13.]

Adjusted NH 3 -N Effluent Limit = 0.0143 + 0.007 = 0.0213 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH 3 -N/1000 lb-LWK)Appendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-11 Example 7: Determine the maximum monthly average BAT ammonia (as N) limit for a poultry first processor that operates 280 da ys 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 resu lting 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 Li ve Weight Kille d (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 processo r (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-s ite 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

Re g ulated Parameter Dail y Max BAT Monthl y Max BAT

Notes Further Processin g k g /kk g -FP Renderin g k g /kk g -RM Further Processin g k g /kk g -FP Renderin g k g /kk g -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/dayAppendix J. Examples of Calcul ating MPP Limita tions and Standards

J-12 Further Processing Products = 300,000 lb-FP/day = 136.1 kkg-FP/day

Rendering Raw Mate rial = 220,000 lb-RM/day = 99.8 kkg-RM/day

Ammonia-N Incremental Adjustment for Further = (0.0087 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-FP) x (136.1 kkg-FP/249.5 kkg-LWK) Processing (NH 3 -N IA FP ) = 0.005 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK

NH 3 -N IA RM = (0.0168 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-RM) x (99.8 kkg-RM/249.5 kkg-LWK) = 0.007 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK 

###  NH 3 -N IA = NH 3 -N IA FP + NH 3 -N IA RM = 0.005 + 0.007 = 0.012 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH 3 -N/1000 lb-LWK)
On-site Kill Effluent Limit = 0.0356 kg-NH 3 -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 NH 3 -N Effluent Limit = 0.0356 + 0.012 = 0.0476 kg-NH 3 -N/kkg-LWK (or lb-NH 3 -N/1000 lb-LWK)