Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1699
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-12-21T05:00Z

Page
1
of
11
Memorandum
From:
Carey
A.
Johnston
USEPA/
OW/
OST
ph:
(
202)
260
7186
johnston.
carey@
epa.
gov
To:
File
Date:
June
14,
2001
Re:
Comparison
of
Meat
Processing
and
Domestic
Wastewaters
This
memorandum
compares
the
wastewaters
of
domestic
sewage
and
industrial
meat
processing
operations.
The
wastewaters
are
compared
in
terms
of
various
chemical
parameters.

I.
Domestic
Wastewaters
Nitrogen
in
untreated
wastewater
is
principally
in
the
form
of
ammonia
or
organic
nitrogen
and
rarely
in
the
form
of
nitrite
or
nitrate
(
Tchobanoglous
and
Burton,
1991).
Randall
and
Mitta
(
1998)
report
a
typical
municipal
wastewater
BOD
to
TKN
ratio
of
10
to
1.
Phosphorus
in
domestic
wastewater
is
almost
entirely
in
a
soluble
form
after
primary
settling.
The
usual
forms
of
soluble
phosphorus
include
the
orthophosphate,
polyphosphate,
and
organic
phosphate.
Page
2
of
11
Table
1:
Typical
Composition
of
Untreated
Domestic
Wastewater
Parameter
Wastewater
Strength
(
mg/
L)

Weak
Medium
Strong
Total
Suspended
Solids
(
TSS)
100
220
350
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
BOD
5
)
110
220
400
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
80
160
290
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
250
500
1000
Total
Nitrogen
(
TN)
20
40
85
Organic
Nitrogen
8
15
35
Free
Ammonia
12
25
50
Total
Phosphorus
(
TP)
4
8
15
Alkalinity
(
as
CaCO
3
)
50
100
200
Grease
50
100
150
Total
Coliform
(
no./
100mL)
106­
107
107­
108
108­
109
Source:
Tchobanoglous
and
Burton,
1991.

II.
Meat
Processing
Wastewater
Industrial
practices
within
the
meat
processing
industry
are
diverse
and
produce
variable
waste
loads.
Meat
processing
wastewaters
are
organic
and
biodegradable.
EPA
identified
the
5­
day
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD
5
)
as
the
basis
for
categorizing
poultry,
red
meat,
and
rending
segments
of
the
industry.
Gorgun
et
al.
(
1995)
identified
typical
raw
wastewater
COD
strengths
for
the
meat
packing
industry
above
1,500
mg/
L.
Eckenfelder
(
1999)
identified
raw
wastewater
BOD
5
strengths
for
the
meat
packing
industry
ranging
from
1,110
mg/
L
to
2,000
mg/
L
and
also
observed
the
following
variations
in
slaughterhouse
wastes.
Page
3
of
11
Table
2:
Variation
in
Flow
and
Waste
Characteristics
for
Slaughterhouse
Wastes
Percentile
Flow
(
L/
kkg
LWK)
BOD5
(
kg/
kkg
LWK)
TSS
(
kg/
kkg
LWK)

10
1,265
3.8
3.0
50
6,676
13.0
9.8
90
35,885
44
31.0
Source:
Modified
from
Eckenfelder,
1989.

Randall
et
al.
(
1999)
surveyed
51
wastewater
treatment
plants
(
WWTPs)
including
one
poultry
processor.
The
poultry
processor,
Rocco
Farm
Foods,
is
located
in
Edinburg,
VA,
and
treats
approximately
1.2
MGD
of
wastewater.
Currently
the
wastewater
contains
34.6
mg/
L
ammonia,
140
mg/
L
TKN,
and
35
mg/
L
phosphorus.
The
authors
identified
that
the
BOD
to
TKN
ratio
in
the
influent
to
the
activated
sludge
basin
is
approximately
1.5
to
1,
which
is
not
adequate
to
accomplish
denitrification
to
meet
the
TN
effluent
limit
of
8
mg/
L.
To
improved
nitrification/
denitrification,
the
authors
recommend
modifying
the
activated
sludge
treatment
system
to
include
an
upstream
anoxic
tank
with
a
methanol
feed
system
to
address
the
BOD
deficiency.

EPA
conducted
numerous
surveys
in
the
1970s
to
characterize
raw
wastewaters
from
the
meat
processing
industry
(
EPA,
1974;
EPA,
1975a;
EPA,
1975b).
The
summary
results
of
these
surveys
are
presented
below.
Page
4
of
11
Table
3:
Variation
in
Flow
and
Waste
Characteristics
for
Red
Meat
Processing
Wastewaters
Meat
Processing
Subcategory
Raw
Waste
Characteristics
Flow
L/
kkg
LWK
Kill
kkg
LWK/
day
BOD5
kg/
kkg
LWK
Suspended
Solids
kg/
kkg
LWK
Grease
kg/
kkg
LWK
TKN
kg/
kkg
LWK
TP
kg/
kkg
LWK
Red
Meat
Simple
Slaughterhouse
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
24)
5,328
1,334­
14,641
(
24)

220
18.5­
552
(
24)

6.0
1.5­
14.3
(
22)

5.6
0.6­
12.9
(
12)

2.1
0.24­
7.0
(
5)
0.68
0.23­
1.36
(
5)
0.05
0.014­
0.086
Red
Meat
Complex
Slaughterhouse
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
19)
7,379
3,627­
12,507
(
19)

595
154­
1,498
(
19)
10.9
5.4­
18.8
(
16)

9.6
2.8­
20.5
(
11)

5.9
0.7­
16.8
(
12)
0.84
0.13­
2.1
(
5)
0.33
0.05­
1.2
Red
Meat
Complex
Low­
Processing
Packinghouse
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
23)
7,842
2,018­
17,000
(
23)

435
59­
1,394
(
20)

8.1
2.3­
18.4
(
22)

5.9
0.6­
13.9
(
15)

3.0
0.8­
7.7
(
6)
0.53
0.04­
1.3
(
4)
0.13
0.03­
0.43
Page
5
of
11
Red
Meat
Complex
High­
Processing
Packinghouse
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
19)
12,514
5,444­
20,261
(
19)

350
8.8­
1,233
(
19)
16.1
6.2­
30.5
(
14)
10.5
1.7­
22.5
(
10)

9.0
2.8­
27.0
(
3)
1.3
0.65­
2.7
(
3)
0.38
0.2­
0.63
Source:
EPA,
1974.

Table
4:
Variation
in
Flow
and
Waste
Characteristics
for
Poultry
Meat
Processing
Wastewaters
Meat
Processing
Subcategory
Raw
Waste
Characteristics
Production
birds/
day
Ave.
Live
Weight
kg/
bird
Flow
L/
bird
BOD5
kg/
kkg
LWK
Suspended
Solids
kg/
kkg
LWK
Grease
kg/
kkg
LWK
TKN
kg/
kkg
LWK
TP
kg/
kkg
LWK
Chicken
Processors
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
90)
73,000
15,000­
220,000
(
90)
1.74
1.45­
1.97
(
88)
34.4
15.9­
87.0
(
60)
9.89
3.26­
19.86
(
53)
6.91
0.13­
22.09
(
39)
4.21
0.12­
14.03
(
15)
1.84
0.15­
12.16
(
22)
0.39
0.054­
2.46
Turkey
Processors
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
34)
12,100
2,000­
20,000
(
34)

8.3
4.1­
11.4
(
34)
118.2
36.3­
270.2
(
15)
4.94
09.6­
9.1
(
13)
3.17
0.57­
10.89
(
10)
0.89
0.34­
1.81
(
5)
0.94
0.38­
1.89
(
4)
0.098
0.034­
0.18
Fowl
Processors
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
8)
34,100
11,900­
70,000
(
8)
2.3
1.6­
4.1
(
8)
48.9
11.0­
159.0
(
4)
15.20
11.78­
23.14
(
4)
10.09
6.11­
14.94
(
3)
2.32
0.72­
3.32
(
1)
0.28
­­
(
2)
0.29
0.27­
0.31
Page
6
of
11
Duck
Processors
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
5)
6,600
1,900­
15,000
(
5)
2.9
2.0­
3.2
(
2)
74.9
71.5­
78.3
(
2)
7.06
6.59­
7.52
(
2)
4.36
3.47­
5.24
(
2)
1.86
0.66­
3.05
(
2)
1.40
0.80­
2.00
(
2)
0.084
0.073­
0.096
Further
Processing
Only
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
kg/
day
FP
(
4)
36,700
11,400­
77,600
­­
­­
­­
L/
kg
FP
(
4)
12.5
2.92­
21.34
kg/
kkg
FP
(
3)
19.03
16.71­
22.11
kg/
kkg
FP
(
3)
9.06
2.92­
14.64
kg/
kkg
FP
(
3)
6.36
4.83­
7.89
kg/
kkg
FP
(
1)
2.04
­­
kg/
kkg
FP
(
1)
0.12
­­

Source:
EPA,
1975a.
Page
7
of
11
Table
5:
Variation
in
Flow
and
Waste
Characteristics
for
Rendering
Processing
Wastewaters
Meat
Processing
Subcategory
Raw
Waste
Characteristics
Flow
L/
kkg
RM
Production
Raw
Material
kkg
RM/
day
BOD5
kg/
kkg
RM
Suspended
Solids
kg/
kkg
RM
Grease
kg/
kkg
RM
TKN
kg/
kkg
RM
TP
kg/
kkg
RM
Rendering
(
No.
of
Observations)

Average
Range,
low­
high
(
47)
3,261
467­
20,000
(
48)

94
3.6­
390
(
29)
2.15
0.10­
5.83
(
26)
1.13
0.03­
5.18
(
18)
0.72
0.00­
4.18
(
17)
0.476
0.12­
1.20
(
17)
0.044
0.003­
0.280
Source:
EPA,
1974b.
Page
8
of
11
III.
Comparisons
of
Domestic
and
Meat
Processing
Wastewaters
A.
Wastewater
Strength
Meat
processing
facilities
often
utilize
municipal
wastewater
treatment
due
to
the
general
compatibility
of
meat
processing
and
domestic
wastewaters
(
Rossi
et
al.,
1980).
However,
meat
processing
wastewaters
have
significantly
stronger
COD
and
BOD
5
loadings
than
typical
domestic
wastewaters
(
3­
20
times).
The
acceptable
concentration
of
pollutants
from
a
meat
processing
facility
to
a
POTW
is
dependent
on
the
relative
sizes
of
the
POTW
and
the
effluent
volume
from
the
meat
processing
facility.

It
is
possible
that
high
organic
loadings
and
grease
remaining
in
the
plant
effluent
may
cause
difficulty
in
the
POTW
treatment
system;
trickling
filters
appear
to
be
particularly
sensitive
(
Rossi
et
al.,
1980).
A
concentration
of
100
mg/
L
is
often
cited
as
a
limit,
and
this
may
require
an
effective
dissolve
air
floatation
device
in
addition
to
a
catch
basin
and
other
primary
treatment
system
(
EPA,
1975a;
1975b).

B.
Biological
Nutrient
Removal
Despite
the
higher
BOD
5
loadings,
meat
processing
wastewaters
may
have
insufficient
organic
carbon
sources
for
efficient
biological
nutrient
removal
(
especially
denitrification).
Meat
processing
wastewater
can
have
BOD:
TKN
ratios
7
to
10
times
less
than
typical
municipal
wastewaters
(
Randall
and
Mitta,
1998).

It
is
important
to
note
the
mechanics
of
biological
nutrient
removal
(
BNR)
for
wastewater
treatment.
BNR
wastewater
treatment
systems
primarily
focus
on
the
removal
of
phosphorus
(
P)
and
nitrogen
(
N).
A
number
of
biological
processes
have
been
developed
for
the
combined
removal
of
nitrogren
and
phosphorus
(
e.
g.,
Modified
Ludzack­
Ettinger
Process,
Bardenpho
Process,
A2O).
Many
of
these
use
a
form
of
activated­
sludge
process
and
employ
combinations
of
anaerobic,
anoxic,
and
aerobic
zones
or
compartments
to
accomplish
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
removal
(
Tchobanoglous
and
Burton,
1991).
Abufayed
and
Shroeder
(
1986a)
report
that
biological
denitrification
is
the
most
reliable
and
cost­
effective
process
for
nitrate
removal
from
wastewater.

Nitrogen
removal
(
denitrification)
will
generally
occur
any
time
the
oxygen
concentration
is
low,
the
nitrate
concentration
is
high,
and
the
organic
matter
is
present
as
an
electron
donor.
The
anoxic
growth
of
heterotrophic
bacteria
is
simply
an
alternative
mode
of
growth
in
response
to
the
absence
of
oxygen
and
the
presence
of
nitrate
as
the
terminal
electron
acceptor.
It
is
common
practice
to
add
an
organic
substrate
(
e.
g.,
methanol)
in
slight
excess
of
the
amount
required
to
remove
the
nitrate,
and
then
to
pass
the
effluent
from
the
anoxic
reactor
through
a
small
aerobic
reactor
in
which
any
residual
electron
donor
can
be
removed
with
oxygen
as
the
electron
acceptor.
Alternatively,
small
amounts
of
raw
waste
water
can
be
directed
to
the
denitrification
system
to
supply
needed
carbon
(
Randall
and
Mitta,
1998).
Abufayed
and
Schroeder
(
1986b)
report
that
primary
sludge
is
an
excellent
internal
organic
carbon
source
for
the
removal
of
nitrates
and
nitrites
from
wastewater.
Obayashi
(
1985)
reports
the
minimum
P:
N:
C
Page
9
of
11
ratio
for
growth
in
anaerobic
digestion
treatment,
which
is
necessary
for
denitrifiation,
is
approximately
1:
6:
100.
Grady
and
Daigger
(
1992)
suggest
a
N:
C
ratio
of
1:
3
for
removal
of
carbon
and
nitrogen
in
a
continuously
stirred
tank
reactor
(
CSTR)
under
anoxic
conditions.
Abufayed
and
Schroeder
(
1986b)
report
excellent
nitrite
removals
at
nitrite
to
COD
ratios
(
NO
2
­
N:
COD)
as
low
as
1:
2.5
and
total
oxidized
nitrogen
removals
occurred
with
an
applied
NO
3
­
N:
COD
greater
than
1:
7.
Additionally,
increasing
the
solids
retention
time
for
a
denitrification
system
will
decrease
the
amount
of
carbon
(
electron
donor)
required
for
proper
nitrogen
removal
due
to
the
increased
cycling
of
carbon
in
the
system
(
due
to
lysis
and
regrowth).

C.
Wastewater
Treatment
Finally,
it
is
important
to
note
that
many
of
the
same
treatment
processes
for
meat
processing
wastewaters
are
used
for
domestic
sewage
(
e.
g.,
oxidation
ditches,
activated
sludge,
dissolved
air
flotation).
Many
of
the
same
modification
to
existing
domestic
sewage
plants
for
enhancing
BNR
can
be
used
for
meat
processing
wastewater
treatment
operations
(
see
Randall
and
Mitta,
1998;
Randall
et
al.,
1999).
In
part
this
is
likely
due
to
the
fact
that
meat
processing
wastewaters
exhibit
characteristics
quite
compatible
with
domestic
sewage,
as
far
as
coefficients
(
e.
g.,
yield
coefficient,
maximum
specific
growth
rate,
half­
saturation
constant)
related
to
microbial
growth
(
Eremektar
et
al.,
1999;
Gorgun
et
al.,
1995).
Gorgun
et
al.
(
1995)
did
report
a
hydrolysis
constant
(
K
h
)
of
1.5
d­
1
for
a
meat
processing
wastewater
sample,
a
value
significantly
lower
than
the
wide
range
of
5­
50
d­
1
commonly
associated
with
domestic
sewage.
The
lower
hydrolysis
constant
dictates
a
higher
solids
retention
time
for
adequate
effluent
quality
due
to
the
rate
limiting
hydrolysis
of
the
slowly
biodegradable
COD
fraction
in
the
meat
processing
wastewater.
A
meat
processing
treatment
system
may
likely
require
a
higher
solids
retention
time
than
a
domestic
wastewater
treatment
system
to
compensate
for
the
different
P:
N:
C
ratio
and
hydrolysis
constant.
Page
10
of
11
References
Abufayed,
A.
A.,
E.
D.
Schroeder,
1986a.
Kinetics
and
stoichiometry
of
SBF/
denitrification
with
a
primary
sludge
carbon
source,
J.
Water
Pollut.
Control
Fed.,
58:
398­
405.

Abufayed,
A.
A.,
E.
D.
Schroeder,
1986b.
Performance
of
SBR/
denitrification
with
a
primary
sludge
carbon
source,
J.
Water
Pollut.
Control
Fed.,
58:
387­
397.

Eckenfelder,
W.
Wesley,
1989.
Industrial
Water
Pollution
Control,
2nd
Edition,
McGraw­
Hill
Inc.

Eremektar,
G.,
E.
Ubay
Cokgor,
S.
Ovez,
F.
Germirli
Babuna,
and
D.
Orhon,
1999.
Biological
Treatability
of
Poultry
Processing
Plant
Effluent
­
A
Case
Study,
Water
Science
and
Technology,
Volume
40,
Number
1.

Gorgun,
E.
E.
Ubay
Cokgor,
D.
Orhon,
F.
Germirli,
and
N.
Artan,
1995.
Modeling
biological
treatability
for
meat
processing
effluent,
Wat.
Sci.
Tech.
32
(
12),
43­
52.

Grady
Jr.,
C.
P.
Leslie,
and
Glen
T.
Daigger,
1992.
Biological
Wastewater
Treatment:
Theory
and
Application,
2nd
Edition,
Virginia
Tech.

Obayashi,
Alan
W.,
1985.
Management
of
Industrial
Pollutants
by
Anaerobic
Processes,
Lewis
Publishers,
Inc.

Randall,
Clifford
W.,
Zeynep
Kisoglu,
Dipankar
Sen,
Pramod
Mitta,
Ufuk
Erdal,
1999.
Evaluation
of
Wastewater
Treatment
Plants
for
BNR
Retrofits
Using
Advances
in
Technology,
Submission
to
the
Point
Source
Workgroup,
Chesapeake
Bay
Program,
Virginia
Tech,
Blacksburg,
VA.

Randall,
Clifford
W.,
Pramod
Mitta,
1998.
Preliminary
Assessment
of
the
Rocco
Farm
Foods
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant,
Edinburg,
VA,
for
Biological
Nutrient
Removal,
Submission
to
the
U.
S.
EPA
Chesapeake
Bay
Office
and
the
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental,
Virginia
Tech,
Blacksburg,
VA.

Rossi,
Daniel,
C.
Edwin
Young,
Donald
J.
Epp,
1980.
Joint
Municipal
and
Industrial
Wastewater
Treatment
in
Rural
Communities:
Simulation
Analysis
with
Poultry
Processing
Plants,
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Technical
Bulletin
No.
1615.

Tchobanoglous,
George,
Franklin
L.
Burton,
1991.
Wastewater
Engineering:
Treatment,
Disposal,
and
Reuse,
3rd
Edition,
Metcalf
and
Eddy
Inc.,
McGraw­
Hill
Inc.

U.
S.
EPA,
1974.
Development
Document
for
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the
Red
Meat
Processing
Segment
of
the
Meat
Product
and
Rendering
Processing
Point
Source
Category,
EPA­
440/
1­
74­
012a.

U.
S.
EPA,
1975a.
Development
Document
for
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Page
11
of
11
Performance
Standards
for
the
Renderer
Segment
of
the
Meat
Products
and
Rendering
Processing
Point
Source
Category,
EPA­
440/
1­
74­
031d.

U.
S.
EPA,
1975b.
Development
Document
for
Proposed
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the
Poultry
Segment
of
the
Meat
Product
and
Rendering
Process
Point
Source
Category,
EPA­
440/
1­
75­
031b.